United States Department of Agriculture

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Land Management Plan

Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region 2018
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived 

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

or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing 

deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center 

at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, 

found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter 

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of 

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Accessibility: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; however, 

limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from being readable by 

computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with any part of this document, please contact the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest at (541) 523-1264.
Land Management Plan

for the

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Baker, Grant, Union, and Wallowa, and Counties, Oregon

and

Adams, Idaho, and Nez Perce and Counties, Idaho

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: Grant County, Oregon

Union County, Oregon

Wallowa County, Oregon

Other Governments Involved: Nez Perce Tribe

Confederated Tribes of the State of Oregon

Umatilla Indian Reservation State of Washington

Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation

Responsible Official: Jim Peña, Regional Forester 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

1220 SW 3rd Avenue 

Portland, OR 97208 

For Information Contact: Forest Planner

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

1550 Dewey Ave., Suite A 

Baker City, OR 97814 

(541) 523-1264 

Websites: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision

https://www.fs.usda.gov/wallowa-whitman/landmanagement/planning
 
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

i 

Contents 

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

Purpose of the Land Management Plan .............................................................................................. 1

Legal Framework................................................................................................................................ 2

Best Available Science ....................................................................................................................... 3

Organization of the Forest Plan .......................................................................................................... 4

Forest Plan Components ..................................................................................................................... 4

Part 1 – Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Geographical Location ....................................................................................................................... 9

Roles and Contributions of the National Forests in the Blue Mountains ......................................... 12

Unique Physical and Biological Characteristics ........................................................................... 12

Social and Economic Characteristics ............................................................................................ 13

Management Challenges .................................................................................................................. 15

Social and Economic Expectations ............................................................................................... 16

Diverse Experiences ..................................................................................................................... 16

Transportation System .................................................................................................................. 17

Grazing ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Fire-adapted Ecosystems .............................................................................................................. 17

Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................... 17

Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................................ 18

Old Forest ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Watersheds and Aquatic Habitats ................................................................................................. 18

Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 19

Goals and Desired Conditions .......................................................................................................... 24

Goal 1: Promote Ecological Integrity ........................................................................................... 25

1.1 Watershed Function ........................................................................................................... 25

1.2 Species Diversity ............................................................................................................... 36

1.3 Federally Listed Species .................................................................................................... 39

1.4 Disturbance Processes ....................................................................................................... 41

1.5 Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 46

1.6 Structural Stages ................................................................................................................ 47

1.7 Plant Species Composition ................................................................................................ 50

1.8 Stand Density .................................................................................................................... 53

1.9 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 55

1.10 Soil Quality...................................................................................................................... 56

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

1.12 Landscape Patterns .......................................................................................................... 59

1.13 Special Plant Habitats ...................................................................................................... 61

1.14 Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees ..................................................................... 64

1.15 Snags and Down Wood ................................................................................................... 66

Goal 2: Promote Social Well-being .............................................................................................. 70

2.1 Scenery .............................................................................................................................. 70

2.2 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 73

2.3 Hunting and Fishing .......................................................................................................... 77

2.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 81

2.5 Roads and Trails Access .................................................................................................... 82

2.6 Wildland-urban Interface................................................................................................... 85

2.7 Tribal Rights and Interest .................................................................................................. 86

2.8 Culturally Significant Foods.............................................................................................. 86

2.9 Community Resilience ...................................................................................................... 88

Goal 3: Promote Economic Well-being ........................................................................................ 89

3.1 Facilities and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 90
Contents 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

ii

3.2 Land Ownership ................................................................................................................ 90

3.3 Goods and Services ........................................................................................................... 91

Part 2 – Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 99

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 99

Management Focus ........................................................................................................................... 99

Restoring and Maintaining Terrestrial Vegetation Conditions ................................................... 100

Restoring and Maintaining Watershed Conditions ..................................................................... 101

Restoring and Maintaining Social and Economic Conditions .................................................... 105

Federal Trust Responsibilities and Tribal Rights and Interests .................................................. 106

Integration of the Management Focus ........................................................................................ 107

Management Areas ......................................................................................................................... 107

Special Areas .............................................................................................................................. 108

Congressionally Designated Areas ............................................................................................. 108

Administratively Designated Areas ............................................................................................ 109

Management Area Descriptions and Desired Conditions ........................................................... 109

MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas ........................................................ 109

MA 1B Preliminary Administratively Recommended Wilderness Areas ............................. 110

MA 1C Wilderness Study Area ............................................................................................. 110

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers (Includes Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Rivers) ........ 111

MA 2B Research Natural Areas ............................................................................................ 113

MA 2C Botanical Areas ........................................................................................................ 114

MA 2D Geological Areas ...................................................................................................... 115

MA 2E Historical Areas ........................................................................................................ 115

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All-American Roads ................................................................. 115

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails .................................................................................... 116

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range .................................................................... 118

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds ............................................................................................... 119

MA 3A Backcountry (Nonmotorized Use) ........................................................................... 120

MA 3B Backcountry (Motorized Use) .................................................................................. 120

MA 4A General Forest .......................................................................................................... 121

MA 4B Riparian Management Areas .................................................................................... 121

MA 5 Developed Sites and Administrative Areas ................................................................. 124

Suitability of Areas ................................................................................................................ 126

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 128

Annual Anticipated Accomplishments for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ................... 131

Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity and Allowable Sale Quantity ........................................... 131

Part 3 – Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 133

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 133

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines ............................................................................................. 133

GOAL 1: Promote Ecological Integrity ..................................................................................... 134

1.1 Watershed Function ......................................................................................................... 134

1.2 Species Diversity ............................................................................................................. 135

1.3 Federally Listed Species .................................................................................................. 137

1.5 Invasive Species .............................................................................................................. 138

1.9 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 139

1.10 Soil Quality.................................................................................................................... 139

1.14 Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees ................................................................... 140

GOAL 2: Promote Social Well-Being ....................................................................................... 140

2.1 Scenery ............................................................................................................................ 140

2.2 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 141

2.3.1 Rocky Mountain Elk .................................................................................................... 141

2.3.2 Bighorn Sheep .............................................................................................................. 141

2.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 142
Contents 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

iii

2.7 Tribal Rights and Interest ................................................................................................ 142

GOAL 3: Promote Economic Well-Being ................................................................................. 142

3.2 Land Ownership .............................................................................................................. 142

3.3.1 Forest Products ............................................................................................................. 143

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................................ 144

3.3.3 Special Uses ................................................................................................................. 144

3.3.4 Mineral, Energy, and Geological Resources ................................................................ 145

Management Area Standards and Guidelines ................................................................................. 145

MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas ............................................................. 145

MA 1A Wildland Fire Management Activities in Wilderness .............................................. 146

MA 1B Recommended Wilderness Areas .................................................................................. 146

MA 1C Wilderness Study Area .................................................................................................. 147

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers (Includes Designated, Eligible, and Suitable) ......................... 147

MA 2B Research Natural Areas ................................................................................................. 147

MA 2C Botanical Areas .............................................................................................................. 147

MA 2D Geological Areas ........................................................................................................... 148

MA 2E Historical Areas ............................................................................................................. 148

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All American Roads ....................................................................... 148

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails ......................................................................................... 148

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range ......................................................................... 148

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds .................................................................................................... 149

MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use)................................................................................... 149

MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use) ......................................................................................... 149

MA 4A General Forest ............................................................................................................... 149

MA 4B Riparian Management Areas ......................................................................................... 150

MA 4B Fuels Management and Wildland (Unplanned) Fire Activities ................................ 151

MA 4B Silviculture and Timber Management ...................................................................... 152

MA 4B Livestock Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation .................................................... 153

MA 4B Roads and Trails Management ................................................................................. 155

MA 4B Recreation Management ........................................................................................... 156

MA 4B Minerals Management .............................................................................................. 157

MA 4B Uses and Hydropower .............................................................................................. 158

MA 5 Developed Sites and Administrative Areas ...................................................................... 158

Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................ 159

Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation ..................................................................... 169

Glossary and Acronyms ...................................................................................................................... 180

References ........................................................................................................................................... 226

Appendices .......................................................................................................................................... 243

Appendix A: Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 

Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance for Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Appendix D: Maps

Tables

Table 1. Climate change tactics and strategies as identified in Climate Change Vulnerability and 

Adaptation in the Blue Mountains (and responsive plan approaches) .......................................... 22

Table 2. Terrestrial surrogate and focal species .................................................................................... 37

Table 3. Federally listed species present in or within downstream influence of the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest ............................................................................................................................. 40

Table 4. Forestwide vegetation departure scores .................................................................................. 44

Table 5. Desired conditions for wildland fire regimes .......................................................................... 45

Table 6. Desired conditions for forest structural stages, described as a percent of each upland forest 

potential vegetation group ............................................................................................................ 49
Contents 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

iv

Table 7. Desired conditions for species composition, described as a proportion of each potential 

vegetation group with the following dominant species. ............................................................... 51

Table 8. Summary of current vegetation survey plot phases for the existing condition for the WallowaWhitman National Forest .............................................................................................................. 52

Table 9. Desired conditions for forest stand density, described as a percent of each upland forest 

potential vegetation group. ........................................................................................................... 55

Table 10. Desired conditions for age and structural composition of aspen ........................................... 63

Table 11. Existing old forest structure stages compared to historical range of variability ................... 66

Table 12. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated ranges of 

down wood ................................................................................................................................... 68

Table 13. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated range of 

snags per acre that are between 10 inches diameter and 20 inches diameter.1

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

Table 14. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated range of 

snags per acre that are 20 inches diameter or greater1 .................................................................. 69

Table 15. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing post-fire habitat created by 

recent (<10 yrs. ago) high severity fire1

. ...................................................................................... 69

Table 16. Percent distribution of scenic classes .................................................................................... 71

Table 17. Desired scenic integrity levels and scenic stability levels ..................................................... 72

Table 18. A summary of existing conditions of elk security (areas greater than one half mile from open 

motorized routes and at least 250 acres in size) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ........ 79

Table 19. Management area designation, name, and acreage for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest (2F and 2G show miles) ................................................................................................... 108

Table 20. Designated wilderness areas on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest1 .......................... 109

Table 21. Miles of designated wild and scenic rivers1 on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest2 ... 112

Table 22. Miles of suitable wild and scenic rivers on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest1 ......... 113

Table 23. Research natural areas for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest .................................... 114

Table 24. Historical areas for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ............................................... 115

Table 25. Scenic byways within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest........................................... 116

Table 26. Nationally designated trails within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest....................... 116

Table 27. Designated municipal watersheds in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest .................... 119

Table 28. Riparian management area widths ...................................................................................... 122

Table 29. Suitability matrix for management areas ............................................................................ 127

Table 30. Objectives (probable activities) for the Wallowa-Whitman Forest1 ................................... 128

Table 31. Planned timber sale program annual average volume outputs for 1st decade ..................... 131

Table 32. Average annual anticipated accomplishments related to objectives ................................... 131

Table 33. Required minimum percent of effective ground cover (EGC) in the first and second years 

after an activity for each erosion hazard class ............................................................................ 139

Table 34. Appropriate silvicultural system ......................................................................................... 143

Table 35. Upland Forage Utilization Guideline: Maximum percent forage utilization by management 

system* ....................................................................................................................................... 144

Table 36. Monitoring plan framework: 1. Status of select watershed conditions. Key ecosystem 

characteristics related to water resources and watershed conditions, such as water quality, 

quantity, timing and distribution provide the basis for monitoring watershed conditions. ......... 161

Table 37. Monitoring plan framework: 2. Status of select ecological conditions including key 

characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. ................................................................. 163

Table 38. Monitoring plan framework: 3. Status of select set of the ecological conditions required 

under 36 CFR 219.9 to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered 

species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each 

surrogate species. ........................................................................................................................ 164

Table 39. Monitoring plan framework: 4. Status of focal species to assess the ecological conditions 

required under36 CFR 219.9. ..................................................................................................... 165

Table 40. Monitoring plan framework: 5. Status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction, and progress toward 

meeting recreation objectives. .................................................................................................... 166
Contents 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

v 

Table 41. Monitoring plan framework: 6. Measurable changes on other Plan Area related to climate 

change and other stressors that may be affecting the Plan Area. ................................................ 166

Table 42. Monitoring plan framework: 7. Progress toward meeting the desired conditions and 

objectives in the plan, including for providing multiple use opportunities. ............................... 167

Table 43. Monitoring plan framework: 8. The effects of each management system to determine that 

they do not substantially and permanently impact the productivity of the lands (16 U.S.C. 

1604(g)(3)(C). Focus on key ecosystem characteristics in the Plan Area related to soils and soil 

productivity identified in the assessment and planning process. ................................................ 168

Table 44 Projected benchmark timber outputs (MMBF) .................................................................... 170

Table 45. Maximum yearly benchmark outputs from 1990 forest plan summary of AMS ................ 170

Table 46 Timber sale program quantity sold (excluding firewood or permit sales) ........................... 171

Table 47. Animal unit months (AUMs) per year (2013) ..................................................................... 171

Table 48. Acres of National Forest System lands in each recreation opportunity spectrum class ...... 172

Table 49. Designated wilderness areas by national forest................................................................... 175

Table 50 Potential wilderness areas by national forest in the Blue Mountains ................................... 175

Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the national forests in the Blue Mountains .................................................. 10

Figure 2.The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest ................................................................................. 11

Figure 3. Concepts of weak sustainability compared to strong sustainability, where the environmental 

realm is the foundation of the strong sustainability scenario because it provides natural goods and 

services that cannot be obtained through any other means (USDA Forest Service 2010a) .......... 16

Figure 4. Description of forest structural stages used to classify vegetation for the Blue Mountains 

national forests plan revision (Justice and Countryman 2006). .................................................... 48

Figure 5. Priorities for the national forests in the Blue Mountains: Strong sustainability through 

restoration of vegetation and watersheds helps improve socio-economic conditions .................. 99

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

1 

Introduction

The mission of the United States Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity 

of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The 

Forest Service motto, “Caring for the Land and Serving People,” reflects the agency mission to 

achieve quality land management for natural resources on the land, and to meet the diverse needs 

of people under the sustainable, multiple-use management concept. The Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest Land Management Plan was developed in conjunction with two other national 

forests (the Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests), also located in the Blue 

Mountains; thus, readers will see references made to the Blue Mountains region. This Land 

Management Plan focuses on two areas: a larger analysis area (that of the three national forests), 

and the Plan Area (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest).

Purpose of the Land Management Plan 

This Land Management Plan (also referred to as the “Forest Plan” or “Plan”) is a guide for the 

future management of resources on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for the plan period of 

approximately 10 to 15 years. This Forest Plan:

• Is strategic in nature. It does not include project-level or activity decisions. Those 

decisions are made later, when site-specific proposed actions are made and detailed 

analysis with further public involvement is completed, in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (1969); 

• Is adaptive, in that new knowledge and information can be analyzed and the Forest Plan 

can be amended, if appropriate, at any time; 

• Honors the continuing validity of private, statutory, or preexisting rights. 

The accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement to this Forest Plan analyzes potential 

impacts from stated goals and desired ecological, social, and economic conditions of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and direction that focuses management activities toward 

maintaining or achieving those conditions. The goals and desired conditions in this Forest Plan

are designed to contribute to the sustainable stewardship of the nation’s National Forest System, 

to contribute to local communities, and to meet the Forest Service’s responsibility to American 

Indian Tribes in relation to trust responsibilities and treaty resources.

Forest Plan guidance for the management of natural resources is intended to maintain and restore 

ecosystems while providing a predictable flow of forest products and uses to the public during the 

life of the Forest Plan. The goal of the Forest Service in planning is to contribute to meeting the 

needs of present generations without compromising the ability to meet the needs of future 

generations. 

The multiple-use desired conditions and objectives, design criteria (standards and guidelines), and 

monitoring all work together to define management direction for national forests. Successful 

implementation of management direction and the rate of accomplishment for desired conditions 

are dependent upon the congressional budget process and other factors. 

This Forest Plan and the attached appendices: 

• Provide programmatic guidance; 

• Provide a foundation such that decisions can be made on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

for subsequent proposed project-level actions, following public involvement and detailed 

analyses; 
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

2 

• Provide a context for future, project-level planning; 

• Identify strategies for maintaining or achieving desired conditions and objectives; 

• Identify land areas as generally suitable or unsuitable for various uses; 

• Identify standards and guidelines to guide project and activity planning and implementation; 

• Identify areas with special or unique characteristics; 

• Provide monitoring and evaluation requirements; and

• Emphasize the use of best available scientific information and adaptive management. 

Legal Framework 

Over time, a framework of laws, regulation, and guiding legislation has been enacted that works 

to guide the management of National Forest System lands. Legal mandates governing national 

forest management date back to the Organic Act of 1897, which provided that national forests 

would be managed for the dual purpose of protecting water flows and providing a continuous 

supply of timber for the American public. The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act (1960) provides:

For sustainability of multiple uses of natural resources in ways that best meet the needs of the 

public 

While maintaining long-term productivity of the land for multiple uses

In such a manner that the lands are available to future generations.

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its accompanying regulations guide the 

creation, revision, and amendment of national forest land management plans, and the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 directs that the suitability of lands for 

resource management be identified and a process for the revision of land and resource 

management plans1 established. This revision process was conducted under the legal framework 

of the National Forest Management Act and the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule, as 

provided by the 2012 Planning Rule language (36 CFR 219.17(b)(3)). The National Forest 

Management Act requires forest plans to be revised at least every 10 to 15 years or sooner if 

warranted by changed conditions. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) requires that all major Federal actions

significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed by government agencies in an 

appropriate environmental analysis document (such as environmental impact statements, 

environmental assessments, or categorical exclusions, as appropriate). The regulations further 

require that analyses should include both beneficial and adverse consequences affecting the 

quality of the human environment from proposed management actions and that supporting 

surveys or published studies, if needed, be referenced in the document analyses. Laws to be 

considered during the development of the environmental analysis documents include, but are not 

limited to: the Wilderness Act (1964), the National Historic Preservation Act (1966), the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act (1968), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (1979), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), 

as well as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) which is now known as the Clean Water 

Act, and the Clean Air Act (1977). 

 

1 Note the term “land and resource management plan” comes from the 1982 Planning Rule. The term has been revised

to “land management plan” in the 2012 Planning Rule (see the transition provisions at 36 CFR 219.17 (b)(3)
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

3 

The Forest Service will, through this Forest Plan, continue to honor American Indian reserved 

treaty rights through consultation and coordination, and will maintain the government-togovernment relationship with federally recognized tribal governments.

Other direction for managing National Forest System lands comes from a variety of sources, 

including Executive Orders, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Forest Service directive 

system which includes the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service Handbook. Management 

direction from the Code of Federal Regulations, the Forest Service Manual, and the Forest 

Service Handbook is generally not repeated in the Forest Plan. Some previous decisions have 

been carried forward into this Forest Plan. For example, the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area Comprehensive Management Plan is incorporated without modification in this Forest Plan 

(Appendix E). 

Best Available Science

What constitutes best available science can vary over time and across scientific disciplines. The 

Forest Service demonstrates consideration for the best available science when acknowledging the 

use of a method, study findings, or other scientific results through discussions and analyses 

included in a project environmental analysis document. Specifically, the environmental analysis

document should identify methods used, reference scientific sources relied on, discuss 

responsible opposing views, and disclose incomplete or unavailable information, scientific 

uncertainty, and risk.2

The Forest Service has a long history of science-based decisionmaking. Using scientific 

information in planning provides the responsible official with the knowledge, methods, and 

expert review needed to make an informed decision. To ensure that land management planning 

decisions help contribute to sustainable stewardship and ecological integrity of the national forest, 

the Forest Service also considers the best available scientific information pertaining to the 

economic and social conditions and composition, structure, and function of the ecosystems in the 

Forest Plan. In addition to other research, the scientific studies conducted by the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (Quigley et al. 1996, Quigley and Arbelbide 

1997) were incorporated in the development of this Forest Plan following the direction provided 

in an interagency memorandum signed April 18, 2014 by Deputy Regional Foresters in Forest 

Service Regions 1, 4, and 6; Bureau of Land Management State Directors in Oregon, Washington 

and Idaho; Environmental Protection Agency Region 10; Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific 

Region; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries West Coast Region. The 

memorandum is formally titled “The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy.” 

The Citizen’s Guide to National Forest Planning (2016) states the best available science is... 

“...high-quality information that results from well-developed and appropriate methods, 

draws logical conclusions based on reasonable assumptions, explains information gaps 

and inconsistencies, has been appropriately peer-reviewed, is placed in the proper context 

within the body of knowledge, and cites references. However, not all information needs 

to meet all of these characteristics to be considered best available scientific information. 

At a minimum, scientific information needs to be available, accurate, reliable, and 

relevant. “Available” means that the Forest Service does not need to create new scientific 

information and conduct new research, but simply should use information that currently 

exists.”

 

2 See 40 CFR 1502.9 (b), 1502.22, and 1502.24.
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

4 

Organization of the Forest Plan 

This Plan is organized into four parts: Part 1—Vision; Part 2—Strategy; Part 3—Design Criteria 

and Part 4—Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. In addition, each part includes both “plan 

components” and “other content.” The parts of the Plan and their associated plan components are 

described below.

Part 1—Vision

This part of the document provides the context for managing the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. The vision section describes: 

• National forest roles and contributions: This section describes the roles, contributions, 

and setting that National Forest System lands provide to Tribes, local communities, the 

States, and the Nation. 

• Management challenges: This section describes the challenges Forest Service managers 

face while striving to achieve or maintain the goals and desired conditions. 

The plan components for Part 1—Vision include goals and desired conditions.

Part 2—Strategy

The strategy section describes how management activities will be conducted within the WallowaWhitman National Forest to make progress toward achieving or maintaining the goals and desired 

conditions. It includes management areas and special areas, suitable uses and activities, and 

objectives. The other element included in Part 2 is:

• Management focus: This section describes how the goals, desired conditions and 

objectives may be applied to guide development of projects and activities on the 

Wallowa-Whitman. These priorities do not limit activities to those types of areas

identified, but guide decisionmakers to focus activities primarily in those areas with the 

greatest need for maintenance and restoration.

The plan components for Part 2—Strategy include objectives, management areas and special 

areas, and suitable uses and activities.

Part 3—Design Criteria

The design criteria provide the parameters for how future, site-specific activities can occur within 

the context of the Forest Plan. This includes the standards and guidelines. Design criteria may 

also include references to other applicable guidance, such as laws and regulations already in place 

that are not necessarily repeated in this plan.

The plan components for Part 3—Design Criteria include standards and guidelines. 

Part 4—Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Monitoring is part of an adaptive management process that measures Forest Plan implementation 

performance against Forest Plan goals, desired conditions, and objectives. Monitoring also 

evaluates whether standard and guideline implementation is producing the desired results.

Forest Plan Components 

Plan components include goals, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, objectives, special 

areas, management areas, and suitable uses and activities. The Forest Service uses plan 
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

5 

components to guide future project and activity decisionmaking. In contrast, other plan content 

provides information, background, and context for plan components. 

For reference, the following lists of plan components and other content of the Forest Plan 

identifies where in the Forest Plan this content is located: 

Plan Components 

• Goals and Desired Conditions (Part 1)

• Objectives (Part 2)

• Management Areas (Part 2)

• Special Areas (Part 2)

• Suitable Uses and Activities (Part 2)

• Standards and Guidelines (Part 3)

Other Plan Content

• Roles and Contributions of the National Forests in the Blue Mountains (Part 1)

• Management Challenges (Part 1)

• Management Focus (Part 2)

• Monitoring and Evaluation (Part 4) 

• Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

• References and Appendices

Plan components are defined as follows: 

Goals set forth a broad framework and theme for the Plan and form the basis for desired 

conditions. For each goal, there are several desired condition statements that more specifically 

describe what conditions are needed to attain the goals.

Desired conditions describe the conditions of what the Plan Area (or portions thereof) should 

look like in the future, and what goods and services are desired. The Plan Area for this Forest 

Plan is the area included in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Desired conditions essentially set forth the desired landscape of the future. Desired conditions 

also provide the foundation and drive the development of most other plan components. For 

example, the Forest Plan includes objectives, standards, and guidelines that are designed to 

achieve or maintain desired conditions. 

Achieving desired conditions will vary in both time and scale. Some desired conditions may be 

achievable over a long timeframe (over 20 years, and in some cases, over 100 years); whereas, in 

other cases, the desired condition already matches the current condition, and the desire is to 

maintain it. In addition, each desired condition has a scale. Some desired conditions apply at the 

forestwide scale, while others apply at a subbasin, watershed, subwatershed, or management area 

scale. Desired conditions are timeless in that there is no specific date by which they are to be 

completed. The expectation is that the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest staff will make 

progress toward achieving desired conditions but some desired conditions may not be achieved 

during the life of the Plan. 
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

6 

Desired conditions are organized under ecological, social, and economic conditions. In addition, 

each management area includes a desired condition statement related to the purpose for that 

management area. 

Desired conditions may apply at a forestwide, subbasin, watershed or subwatershed scale. A 

subbasin refers to a 4th-level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC08), which averages about 900,000 

acres in size in northeast Oregon. Subbasins are divided into watersheds (HUC10) that average 

about 110,000 acres in size. Subwatersheds (HUC12) are subdivisions of watersheds that range in 

size from 10,000 to 20,000 acres. 

Desired conditions were developed based on interdisciplinary team analysis informed by 

estimates of the historical range of variability as well as public input. In addition, other sources 

were used to develop desired conditions, including National Fire Regime Condition Class 

information, modeling outputs from the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (ESSA 

Technologies Ltd. 2007), and National Landfire Modeling. 

Objectives are a concise, measurable, and time-specific statement of a desired rate of progress 

toward a desired condition or conditions. An objective forms the basis for further planning to 

define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving desired conditions. 

Objectives represent some of the expected outcomes for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest to 

make progress towards desired conditions. 

Variation in achieving objectives may occur during the life of the Plan because of changes in 

environmental conditions, available budgets, and other factors. Influences on objectives include 

recent trends, past experiences, anticipated staffing levels, and budget projections.

Standards are mandatory constraints upon project and activity decisionmaking. They are 

established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Guidelines are a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for departure 

from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help 

achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or 

to meet applicable legal requirements. Guidelines serve the same purpose as standards but they 

differ in that they provide flexibility in defining compliance, while standards are absolute 

constraints.

Management areas are spatially distinct areas with a unique set of plan components. The 

management areas range along a continuum from little development in MA 1A to extensive 

development in MA 5. The types of uses and desired conditions in a management area define the 

land use that would occur in them under the Forest Plan. Management areas occur across districts, 

mountain ranges, and ecosystems but have commonalities that make their overarching land uses 

similar. Management areas are described in detail in Part 2—Strategy.

Special areas are lands that have designations by Congress or another delegated authority. 

Special areas are designated because of their unique or special characteristics. Special area 

establishment may occur at the national level through legislation (congressional designation) or at 

the regional or local level through administrative action (administrative designation). The Forest 

Plan may recommend the establishment of new special areas. This Forest Plan provides direction 

for the following special areas: scenic byways and All-American roads, national designated trails, 

eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers, scenic areas, botanical areas, geological areas, 

historical areas, experimental forests and rangelands, research natural areas, as well as
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

7 

recommended and designated wilderness and wilderness study areas. Special areas are described 

in detail in Part 2—Strategy.

Suitability describes the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices or 

uses to a particular area of land. A unit of land may or may not be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined uses. Identifying suitability helps determine if future projects and 

activities on that unit of land are consistent with desired conditions. Not all anticipated projects 

and activities have suitability designations in the Forest Plan. For some resources, identifying the 

suitability of use or activity in a particular area may be more appropriately made at the project or 

activity level with site-specific analysis, stakeholder participation, and proposed design criteria.

Monitoring and evaluation forms the basis for continuous improvement of the Forest Plan 

and provides information for adaptive management in the Plan Area. The Plan’s monitoring 

program consists of a set of monitoring questions and associated indicators to evaluate whether 

plan components are effective and appropriate. Monitoring and evaluation also help to determine 

whether management is effective in maintaining or achieving progress towards desired conditions 

and objectives for the Plan Area. Biennial evaluations use the Plan Area monitoring to help the 

Wallowa-Whitman staff determine if and where changes are needed in plan components, other 

plan content, and projects and activities. For monitoring, the staff may develop a variety of

partnerships to collect data and conduct evaluations. Monitoring plans are constrained by fiscal 

and technical capabilities.

Consistency with Plan Components

Project or Activity

Consistency with Applicable Forest Plan Components

As required by National Forest Management Act, all projects and activities authorized by the 

Forest Service must be consistent with the Forest Plan (16 USC 1604 (i)). Projects and activities 

authorized after the record of decision for this Forest Plan must be consistent with the applicable 

plan components. A project or activity approval document must describe consistency with the 

Forest Plan based on the following criteria: 

1. Goals, desired conditions, and objectives: The project or activity contributes to the 

maintenance or attainment of one or more goals, desired conditions, or objectives, or does 

not foreclose the opportunity to maintain or achieve goals, desired conditions, or 

objectives, over the long term. 

2. Standards: The project or activity complies with applicable standards. 

3. Guidelines: The project or activity (a) complies with applicable guidelines as set out in 

the Forest Plan; or (b) is designed in a way that is as effective in achieving the purpose of 

the applicable guidelines. 

4. Suitability: A project or activity may occur in a management area: (a) that the Plan 

identifies as generally suitable for that type of project or activity (see Table 29: Suitability 

matrix for management areas); or (b) for which the Plan is silent with respect to its 

suitability for that type of project or activity. In the second case, the responsible official 

would need to determine and document that the use is appropriate for the location. 

The effect of identifying lands as suitable for a use is notably different from identifying 

lands as not suitable for a use. The difference is as follows:

• Lands identified as suitable for certain uses or activities: The Forest Plan’s 

identification of certain lands as suitable for a use is not a commitment to allow such 
Introduction

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

8 

use but only an indication that the use might be appropriate. A specific use or activity 

may be approved or may be disapproved in an area identified as suitable for such 

types of use.

• Lands specified as not suitable for certain uses or activities: If the Forest Plan 

identifies certain lands as not suitable for a use, then that use or activity may not be 

authorized, except by amending the Plan. Public uses for which a special use 

authorization is not required, such as biking, boating, camping, hiking, or hunting, 

will not be affected by such a designation in the Plan; such uses can be restricted only 

by an action such as a closure order.

A project with the purpose of timber production is unique in that it may occur only in a 

management area identified as suitable for timber production [16 U.S.C. 1604(k)]. 

Timber harvest for purposes other than timber production may be used in management 

areas where identified as a suitable tool to assist in achieving or maintaining one or more 

applicable desired conditions or objectives of the Plan, to protect other multiple-use 

values, and for salvage, sanitation, or public health or safety. Examples of using timber 

harvest to protect other multiple-use values may include improving wildlife or fish 

habitat, thinning to reduce fire risk, or restoring meadow or savanna ecosystems 

overgrown by trees. 

The project or activity documentation should explain how the project or activity is consistent with 

applicable desired conditions and describe any short term or negligible long term adverse effects 

the project or activity may have concerning the maintenance or attainment of any desired 

condition. 

It is not expected that all projects or activities will contribute to all desired conditions and 

objectives, but rather to a limited subset. It should also be recognized that some projects designed 

to contribute to some goals, desired conditions and objectives may have consequences considered 

adverse to the achievement of other desired conditions and objectives. In this situation, the 

responsible official needs to identify and disclose those effects and determine whether those 

effects will foreclose the opportunity to maintain or achieve any goals, desired conditions, or 

objectives, over the long term. If the project or activity is found to foreclose opportunities to 

maintain or achieve any goals, desired conditions, or objectives over the long term, it is not 

considered consistent with the Forest Plan.

Project or Activity Inconsistency with Applicable Plan Components

Where a proposed project or activity would not be consistent with applicable plan components, 

the responsible official has the following options:

1. Modify the project proposal to make the project or activity consistent with applicable 

plan components;

2. Reject the proposal or terminate the project or activity;

3. Amend the Plan so that the project or activity will be consistent with the Plan as 

amended; or 

4. Amend the Plan simultaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the 

project or activity will be consistent with the Forest Plan as amended. The amendment 

may be limited to apply only to the project or activity. 

Refer to the procedures for amending a Forest Plan at 36 CFR 219.13 (2012 Planning Rule), 

as amended.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

9 

Part 1 – Vision

This section describes background information, existing conditions, desired conditions, scale, and 

the roles and contributions made by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest at the local, regional,

and national levels. The plan revision team engaged in a collaborative effort that included 

participation from Tribal, State, county, and local governments, plus a diverse array of public 

interest groups and nonprofit organizations. Many concepts, research studies, issues, goals, 

objectives, and strategies were reviewed.

National forests provide clean air and water, productive soils, diverse habitats, recreational 

opportunities, cultural benefits, quality jobs, and products that support traditional uses, 

communities, and economies at local, regional, and national levels.

The vision for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is to maintain and restore healthy forests, 

landscapes and watersheds. The vision was developed by integrating that information with the 

Forest Service mission, the need for change, the current management situation, and the best 

available scientific information that was considered relevant for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. 

The Forest Service vision recognizes the historic role that the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

has played in shaping the local and regional environment of the Blue Mountains cultures, 

customs, and economies. It also recognizes that the management of the national forest has 

changed in the last several decades and will continue to change due to a variety of factors. These 

factors include, but are not limited to natural disturbance (wildfire, insects, and disease), climate 

change, and changing public demands. 

People are a part of the ecology and sustainability of the Blue Mountains and the WallowaWhitman National Forest, as producers, distributers, users and stewards. People add complexity 

and are essential to the vitality and sustainability of the system.

The vision acknowledges that the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest may have areas of 

unsustainable stand structures, densities, and species composition that compromise habitats for all 

living organisms. Forest conditions are such that human intervention is needed to reduce fuels, 

decrease stand densities, and restore streams (among other activities), which when completed will 

move the ecological, social, and economic systems toward the desired vision and sustainability.

Geographical Location 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest lies within the Blue Mountains region, which also 

consists of the Malheur (and a portion of the Ochoco administered by the Malheur) and the

Umatilla National Forests. These three national forests include approximately 5.5 million acres in 

northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and western Idaho (Figure 1). The majority of the 

acreage (5.1 million acres) is in Oregon, with about 310,000 acres in Washington, and the 

remaining 160,000 acres in western Idaho.

Located on the east side of the Blue Mountains, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest consists 

of more than 2.4 million acres, including the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (Figure 2). 

This Forest Plan, in combination with the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive 

Management Plan (Appendix E), constitutes an integrated resource management plan for the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The headquarters of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is 

in Baker City, Oregon. District offices are in Baker City, La Grande, and Joseph, Oregon. See the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/wallowawhitman/home.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

10

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the national forests in the Blue Mountains
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

11

Figure 2.The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

12

Roles and Contributions 

of the National Forests in the Blue Mountains 

Looking at national forest management at the scale of the Blue Mountains region provides an 

opportunity to coordinate strategic management direction that is common to each of the national 

forests of the Blue Mountains; and to define management direction that is distinct for each 

national forest. Forest plan components including desired conditions, goals, standards, guidelines, 

and objectives are generally the same for each of the national forests, and therefore are often 

described at the scale of the Blue Mountains region. Similarly, management areas were designed 

to provide a common means of displaying management intent, improving consistency across the 

three national forests along shared boundaries. 

References to the Blue Mountains region can be found throughout this Forest Plan, supporting the 

concept of integrated forest management across national forest boundaries and promoting 

improved service for those who use and visit the national forests of the Blue Mountains. The 

individual forest plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

integrate similar plan components where practical and appropriate to improve management, 

administration, and implementation consistency across the Blue Mountains region. There are also 

important differences in the three forest plans in response to differences in resource conditions 

and local communities. 

The highly diverse natural resources of the national forests in the Blue Mountains serve many 

important ecological, social, and economic functions. This section highlights some of the unique 

roles and characteristics that the national forests contribute to the local area, State, region, and 

nation; describes emerging challenges that national forest managers face; and outlines the vision 

of the national forests. The descriptions are not intended to be comprehensive. Additional 

information is available in the project record and the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Unique Physical and Biological Characteristics

The complex geological history of the Blue Mountains region, including floods, volcanic 

eruptions, landslides, and erosion, has shaped the landscape into a unique combination of 

landforms and vegetative patterns. The Blue Mountains region contains deep river canyons 

layered with gently sloping upland benches that are vertically cut by steep, V-shaped drainages. 

The area is known for extreme variations in elevations that range from less than 2,000 feet at the 

bottom of Hells Canyon, the deepest gorge in North America, to nearly 10,000 feet at the top of 

the Wallowa Mountains in Oregon and the Seven Devils Mountains in Idaho. Rocky outcrops and 

high peaks of about 9,000 feet protrude along the backbone of the Strawberry, Aldrich, Elkhorn, 

Wallowa, and Wenaha Mountain ranges. 

This combination of geology and topography produces a distinctive, mosaic pattern of dense, 

heavily forested slopes interspersed with open, rugged shrublands and grasslands. Deep volcanic 

ash soils contribute to productive forest stands, shrublands, and grasslands that provide forage 

and browse. Sparse, scattered stands of ponderosa pine and junipers dot areas of shallow, rocky 

soils. Additionally, the region has been an important producer of gold, silver, copper and has been 

a source of lesser amounts of lead, zinc, platinum, chromium, and other metals. It is also a 

potential source for geothermal energy.

The Blue Mountains region is situated at the extreme eastern edge of the Cascade Range’s rain 

shadow. This produces a combination of high-desert climate with hot, dry summers (less than 10 

inches of precipitation per year) in the lower valleys with moist maritime conditions influenced 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

13

by the Columbia River at the higher elevations (more than 80 inches of precipitation per year). 

This variety of landform, elevation, and climate results in a diversity of plants within the 

watersheds that range from lower to higher elevations: juniper, sage, shrublands, ponderosa pine 

plant communities, mixed conifer, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce stands, and alpine plants. 

Unique plant communities within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest include the montane 

sphagnum wetland at Duck Lake as well as numerous endemic plant species, such as the 

Greenman’s and red-fruited desert parsleys that grow nowhere else. Several new plant species 

have been discovered in recent years on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest including the 

basalt-loving desert parsley.

The Blue Mountains provide habitat for more than 250 native wildlife species, including larger 

species, such as cougar, black bear, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, deer, pronghorn antelope, gray 

wolf, and elk, along with a host of smaller birds and animals, such as marten, mink, beaver, 

badger, bobcat, coyote, river otter, Clark’s nutcracker, and ruffed and blue grouse. The Blue 

Mountains area provides an important corridor for many of these species between the Rocky 

Mountains and central Oregon.

The Blue Mountains are inhabited by one of the nation’s largest herds of Rocky Mountain elk. 

Cooperative efforts to restore and protect Rocky Mountain elk, as well as bighorn sheep 

populations, are recognized regionally and nationally. 

Streams, rivers, and lakes on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provide habitat for a variety 

of native anadromous and resident fish species. For example, the Imnaha and Grande Ronde 

River drainages provide the highest upstream spawning areas for Chinook salmon and steelhead 

trout on the Snake River in Oregon. Bull trout are federally listed as threatened across their range. 

Summer steelhead in the Middle Columbia River Basin and in the Lower Snake River Basin are 

also federally listed as threatened. Chinook salmon are federally listed in the Lower Snake River 

Basin (portions of the Umatilla National Forest and all of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

downstream of Hells Canyon dam complex). Chinook salmon are also present in the Middle 

Columbia River Basin portion of the Planning Area but are not federally listed in those subbasins 

(portions of all three national forests). Westslope cutthroat and inland redband are also important 

fish species within the Blue Mountains.

Social and Economic Characteristics

The Blue Mountains region has a rich and diverse cultural history of human habitation that spans 

more than 10,000 years. The three national forests are within the areas aboriginally occupied by 

several American Indian Tribes, and these Tribes maintain strong ties to each of the national 

forests, as the area plays a significant role in the life and culture of local and other Tribes. 

Numerous archaeological and historical resources existing within the national forests are 

important to American Indian Tribes. Other areas and activities of importance central to Tribes

include gathering herbs and plants from traditional locations, traditional hunting and fishing sites, 

and other areas used for traditional uses. Habitat for fish and wildlife is also important to the 

American Indian Tribes.

Tribal members also continue to practice religious activities within the national forests. They find 

spiritual renewal in sacred areas. Activities depend on maintenance of healthy forests, shrublands, 

and grasslands across the Blue Mountains.

The national forests in the Blue Mountains have a long history of providing timber and other 

forest products to address local community and national needs. Until recently, communities 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

14

throughout the socio-economic impact zones had strong economic components related to the 

wood products industry. Increased environmental protection, a focus on sustaining and restoring a 

broader range of resources resulting in PACFISH, INFISH, and Eastside Screens protections, and 

changing mill technology have contributed to significant declines in the wood products industry 

and associated businesses. Annual timber volume harvested from the national forests in the Blue 

Mountains, excluding fuelwood, has declined dramatically since the last forest plans were 

prepared, from a high of over 600 million board feet in 1989-90 to about 80 million board feet in 

recent years. Harvest on other ownerships also declined over the same period. 

A viable wood products industry helps maintain the local infrastructure, including roads, mills, 

and equipment, as well as retaining a skilled labor force, needed to carry out forest restoration 

activities. Wood processing capacity is important for several reasons. It generates value added 

jobs and income in addition to jobs associated with logging activities. Local processing capacity 

increases the net value of stumpage because it costs more to ship logs to distant mills. A higher 

stumpage value means forest restoration projects are more likely to be economically viable. 

Restoration activities create jobs and improve socio-economic well-being as they improve forest 

health. 

The contributions associated with the timber harvested from the three national forests and their 

socio-economic impact zones from 2014-2016 averaged 415 jobs and $24,424,000 in labor 

income. For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the annual average was 115 jobs and 

$6,508,000. 

Many historical uses of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest resonate today in the rural western 

culture of the area and continue to contribute to the economies of local communities. Historical 

sites visited today include remnants of the 1860s-gold rush in the Powder River country where 

remnants and remains of railroad logging and old company towns exist. 

Ranchers are permitted to graze cattle on specified allotments within the national forest during 

late spring, summer, and early fall. Fees collected from grazing contribute toward county receipts 

and are reinvested into range improvements. 

The Blue Mountains encompass one of the most extensively mineralized areas in Oregon. Gold 

and other valuable minerals still exist beneath the land’s surface and are still available for 

prospecting in accordance with mining laws.

Residents and visitors alike seek out the national forests year-round for recreational opportunities. 

Activities range from seeking solitude in the backcountry to staying in developed campgrounds 

along travel corridors and more, including hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, rock climbing, 

hiking, off-highway vehicle use, whitewater rafting, and horseback riding. Hunters travel the 

national forests in search of elk, deer, and antelope during the appropriate season in the late 

summer and fall and in doing so contribute to local economies. The national forests also provide 

winter sports opportunities such as snowmobiling, cross-country, and downhill skiing. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provides areas with an undeveloped character and 

backcountry setting. With four designated wilderness areas, one national recreation area, and 

eight wild and scenic rivers, there is a variety of diverse experiences. The Eagle Cap Wilderness, 

the largest wilderness area in Oregon, is especially popular and is often referred to as Oregon’s 

“Little Switzerland.” 

Exceptional scenic qualities are important features of the Blue Mountains. The beautifully rugged 

and remote Hells Canyon National Recreation Area comprises an exceptional richness and 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

15

diversity of unique geology and vegetation that support a variety of fish and wildlife species. The 

wild and scenic Snake River corridor provides outstanding scenic qualities, as well as important 

recreational boating and hiking opportunities. Other wild and scenic rivers, including the Grande 

Ronde, Malheur, and North Fork John Day Rivers and Eagle Creek, have outstanding features, 

such as unique history, critical fish habitat, and unusual geology. 

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provides the backdrop to communities that value views 

and scenery. Several of the roads that provide access to the national forests are part of national, 

regional, and state scenic byways. Along the Hells Canyon, Blue Mountains, Elkhorn, or Journey 

through Time Scenic Byways, visitors and residents enjoy scenic panoramas of pastoral valleys, 

mountain vistas, and rolling uplands interspersed with steep river canyons. An abundance and 

variety of wildlife species may be seen, including bald eagles in the winter and bighorn sheep in 

the summer and fall. 

Management Challenges

Providing for the socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable management of the national 

forests is affected by a complex set of factors outlined in the Blue Mountains Forest Plan 

Revision Need for Change (2005, 2010). Sustaining the values and contributions provided by the 

national forests depends on the ability to reconcile challenges to national forest and community 

sustainability. By achieving a set of integrated ecological, social, and economic goals and desired 

conditions, the three national forests are more likely to contribute to a broader range of 

sustainable and resilient ecosystems now and in the future. 

The National Report on Sustainable Forests (USDA Forest Service 2010a) states that the Federal 

Government adopted an evolved understanding for the term sustainable after the extensive 

dialogue process followed the release of the 2003 National Report on Sustainable Forests (USDA 

Forest Service 2004). Prior thinking about sustainability (left side of Figure 3) envisioned the

environmental, social, and economic realms as interconnected, yet separate, parts of a system. 

This is now considered a weak basis for sustainability. The recent understanding is that the 

environmental realm is the foundation of strong sustainability where social values and economic 

needs are interdependent with the environment (right side of Figure 3). 

The National Report on Sustainable Forests (USDA Forest Service 2010a) also states: “Human 

society cannot exist without the environment, which provides the basic necessities of life: air, 

water, food, energy, and raw materials. The human economy depends on people and social 

interaction. The core concept of strong sustainability is that the benefits of nature are 

irreplaceable and that the entire economy can be realized if the influences and interactions 

between economy, society, and ecology are properly accounted for.” 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

16

Figure 3. Concepts of weak sustainability compared to strong sustainability, where the environmental 

realm is the foundation of the strong sustainability scenario because it provides natural goods and 

services that cannot be obtained through any other means (USDA Forest Service 2010a) 

Social and Economic Expectations

Management of public land involves conflicting desires, values, and preferences, depending upon 

which user or user-group is offering their input and which resource is being discussed. The public 

expects a diversity of uses from National Forest System lands. People frequently disagree about 

how national forests should be managed and many have interests and opinions that are often held 

strongly. It is important for the public to understand that the Forest Service is bound by many 

laws and regulations. There are many public participation processes where people can have their 

voices heard and where they can see their desires realized in the decision-making process. More 

about opportunities to partner with the Forest Service and on how to better understand the public 

law process, can be found at the following Forest Service website: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/prc/home

Diverse Experiences

An increasing number of visitors (local, regional, and national) rely on the national forests for 

recreational opportunities and resource uses in ways that are not always compatible.

Technological advances have changed the day-to-day activities of visitors and the way people 

recreate within the national forests. The increased popularity of motorized recreation has 

generated user conflicts between those seeking motorized experiences and those seeking solitude 

in their recreation experiences. New capabilities in other recreational equipment, such as 

mountain bikes, global positioning systems (GPS), recreational use of unmanned aircraft systems 

or “drones,” over-snow vehicles, and off-highway vehicles allow people to experience the 

national forests in new and different ways. 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

17

Transportation System

Expanding road networks have created many opportunities for uses and activities within the 

national forests, including a wide range of recreational motorized use, firewood collection, 

hunting and fishing access, and berry picking. Vegetation and fire management are primarily 

accomplished using the road network. Conversely, road networks have dramatically altered the 

character of the landscape by increasing erosion and introducing sediment to stream systems, 

which can alter the stream channel, reduce aquatic productivity with subsequent impacts resulting 

in limiting the survival and growth of fish in the streams. Road networks also fragment habitat. 

Road use can displace animal populations and increase the spread of invasive species and noxious 

weeds. The cost of maintaining road networks and maintenance backlog also presents 

management challenges. The Forest Service must find an appropriate balance between the 

benefits and needs of access to the national forests and the costs of road-associated effects to 

social and ecosystem values.

Grazing 

Livestock grazing (cattle and sheep) within the national forests supports traditional lifestyles and 

local economies. Grazing has the potential to impact National Forest System resource conditions, 

including, but not limited to, grasslands, shrublands, and riparian areas which may affect habitat 

necessary for terrestrial and aquatic animal species. Contact between permitted domestic sheep 

and bighorn sheep can lead to disease transmission, and may result in substantial impacts to 

bighorn sheep populations in the area. 

Fire-adapted Ecosystems

Fire is a natural part and regular occurring disturbance of the ecosystem across the Blue 

Mountains region. A wide diversity of natural fire behavior has been exhibited historically 

throughout each of the three national forests. The cumulative effects of episodic, periodic and 

sometimes extended drought, increasing vegetative density, shifts in forested species 

composition, and otherwise modified landscape patterns have resulted in conditions at many 

locations that are outside the range of what is sustainable, given the regular fire occurrence across 

the national forests. These conditions may put the ecosystem at high risk of uncharacteristically 

large and severe fires and disturbances from insects and diseases. The potential for fires with 

uncharacteristically severe effects exists on approximately 60 percent of the national forests due 

to these changes in forest structure and composition. In addition, recent weather trends and longrange climate study predictions suggest there may be longer fire seasons and more severe fires. 

These conditions increase both the challenge and the motivation for restoring the landscape to 

reduce the severity of fires.

Approximately 20 percent of the Blue Mountains is considered wildland urban interface: area 

where wildfire can pose a substantial threat to life and property. Firefighter safety and increasing 

large fire suppression costs are additional consequences and challenges for fire(s) that occur in an 

urban interface.

Invasive Species

Collaboration between the Forest Service, partners, and the public is important to manage the 

current challenge in ecosystem management of arresting the spread of invasive, undesirable, 

nonnative species (i.e., aquatic and terrestrial species), including insects and diseases. 

Increasingly, invasive species are displacing some native species and altering some ecosystem 

structures, composition, and function. 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

18

Natural vectors include, but are not limited to: wind, water, animals, and humans. Human induced 

sources from various forms of multiple use include public recreation both on water and land (i.e., 

boating, fishing, and on and off-highway vehicle use). Other sources include vehicular travel 

from an area infected with invasive species to another that is not, traveling with uncleaned 

equipment used in areas infected with invasive species, illegal dumping of yard wastes, or 

collecting, relocating, and discarding infected firewood. 

Rapid response is important to address the prevention of new infestations of high priority invasive 

species, as well as to make progress in areas where control efforts and restoration and reclamation 

is possible. Invasive species have become well established in some areas and are difficult to 

eliminate, and some infestations could become more extensive.

Wildlife Habitat

The increase in dense, multi-story forest stands provides habitat conditions that sustain a variety 

of wildlife species at higher densities and in larger areas than possibly occurred when the 

national forests were dominated by more open forest conditions. The challenge is to balance the 

need to shift forest conditions toward more open and sustainable conditions with the need to 

continue to provide habitat for species that prefer the dense, multi-story conditions. An

additional challenge is managing human (including management) activities around select road

systems at a level that will not render the surrounding habitat unusable to wildlife due to human 

disturbance and the loss of snags resulting from firewood collection and hazard tree removal. 

Old Forest

Open canopy old forest within the dry vegetation type has declined substantially from historical 

levels, and species that rely on this structural stage are declining (Wisdom et al. 2000). Although 

the status of some species associated with dense old forest multi-story may be increasing, the 

ecological processes are not sustainable. It will be a challenge to restore old forest while 

balancing the needs of species that rely on dense forests, especially when considering the 

moisture stress that has already occurred at some sites and climate change predictions for the 

future such as an increase in the severity of wildfires.

Watersheds and Aquatic Habitats

Watershed conditions in most areas of the Blue Mountains have been degraded to varying degrees 

by a long history of land use activities, including placer and lode mining, timber harvesting, 

livestock grazing, road construction, irrigated agriculture, water diversions, and other human 

uses. The impacts of these activities are still reflected in the condition of many watersheds today 

(McIntosh et al. 1994a, 1994b; Wissmar 2004; Lee et al. 1997). The extent and quality of aquatic 

habitats, as well as watershed and soil conditions, have been greatly reduced from historical 

conditions. As a result, populations of anadromous and resident fishes have declined (Gregory 

and Bisson 1997). Large declines in pool habitat, large wood, and aquatic habitat diversity have 

been noted in streams in the Blue Mountains (McIntosh et al. 1994a, 1994b). In addition, high 

road densities contribute sediment, alter riparian habitats, and increase the rate of watershed 

runoff. Access to more than 3,700 stream miles on the three national forests is blocked or partially 

blocked by culverts that were not originally designed for fish passage. 

Many native fish populations are now limited to small portions of, or fragmented within, what 

were originally much larger, more continuous distributions for their species that span not only 

National Forest System lands but other ownerships as well (Young 1995, Lee et al. 1997). Other 

influences that have contributed to current habitat and population conditions include main stem 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

19

hydropower dam construction and operation, hatchery management, fishing regulation and 

harvest, and competition or hybridization with nonnative species. Population and habitat 

conditions, threats and trends throughout the range of each species at the time of listing were 

discussed in the Federal Register for several species of fish listed under the Endangered Species 

Act (57 FR 23458, June 3, 1992; 62 FR 43937, August 18, 1997; 63 FR 31647, June 10, 1998; 64 

FR 14517, March 25, 1999). Current population statuses and trends for the listed species are 

periodically updated in agency status reviews or recovery plans for listed evolutionarily 

significant units and distinct population segments. 

Many of the remaining strongest local populations, remnants of high-quality habitat and residual 

population networks for native aquatic species are often found on public lands, primarily in 

roadless areas, and are now key to the conservation of these species (Lee et al. 1997). Restoration 

of watershed and aquatic habitat conditions has been underway for decades but will require an 

increasingly more integrated approach to improve effectiveness. Restoration needs to address 

terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats with multiple spatial scales and multiple ownerships. In 

some cases, improvements may not be seen for decades or centuries (Reeves et al. 1995). Habitat 

restoration by itself, is not a substitute for appropriate environmental protection. Management that 

relies solely on rehabilitation of altered habitats cannot sustainably provide for ecosystem health 

(Gregory and Bisson 1997; Wissmar et al. 1994a, 1994b). 

Degraded habitat conditions and several other factors have contributed to the Federal listing of 

bull trout across their range; Chinook salmon (both fall and spring/summer) and steelhead in the 

Lower Snake River Basin; and summer steelhead in the Middle Columbia River Basin as 

threatened under the Endangered Species Act, and have resulted in listings of designated critical 

habitats for these species. Designated critical habitats for listed steelhead and salmon under the 

Endangered Species Act encompass all essential fish habitat for Pacific salmon species present in 

the Plan Area. The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1996 

requires consultations with National Marine Fisheries Service when federal land management 

may adversely impact essential fish habitat for commercial fish species, including Chinook 

salmon in the Plan Area, both federally listed and non-listed populations.

Water quality does not meet Oregon and Washington standards in more than 1,200 miles of 

stream on national forests in the Blue Mountains for a variety of reasons, and not all are related to 

management activities on National Forest System lands. Water quality limited stream segments 

occur in every major drainage in the Blue Mountains and are located on both private and public 

lands. 

Water that flows from National Forest System lands is used downstream for drinking water, 

irrigation, and hydroelectric power generation, among other uses. Watershed restoration may have 

varying societal benefits, depending on geographic location, by improving water quality for 

downstream users, moderating flood flows, maintaining the quantity of water that flows from 

streams and rivers on National Forest System lands, reducing the amount of sediment that enters 

the streams, and adapting to expected climate change.

Climate Change

Average temperatures in the Pacific Northwest have increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 

degrees Fahrenheit) since 1900. The rate of warming during the last 50 years is nearly twice the 

rate of the previous 100 years (ISAB 2007). The rate of warming is expected to increase in the 

21st century. Mean annual temperatures are expected to rise by 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit) per decade through 2050 in response to continued increases in atmospheric 

greenhouse gases (Mote et al. 2008). After 2050, projected temperature increases rely largely on 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

20

changes in greenhouse gas emissions from the present levels. Total temperature increases could 

exceed 3 degrees Celsius (5.3 degrees Fahrenheit), relative to the 1970-1999 average, by 2080-89 

(Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Little change in precipitation is predicted, although model results 

vary from minus 10 percent to plus 20 percent change by 2080. 

Other expected changes in the Pacific Northwest include:

• Higher temperatures will result in more winter precipitation falling as rain instead of snow. 

• Low elevation snowpack may disappear completely; average snowpack is expected to decline 

by 53 to 65 percent by 2080-89. 

• Winter precipitation is expected to increase slightly and summer precipitation is expected to 

decrease slightly.

• Increased winter and spring temperatures combined with decreased winter snowfall will 

exacerbate the current trend toward earlier spring runoff and lower late-season streamflow.

• Winter streamflow will be more variable with an increased likelihood of rain-on-snow floods. 

• Increased risk of higher flood peaks as well as increased risk of extended droughts is 

expected. 

• Lower summer streamflow and higher summer water temperatures will likely reduce 

available habitat for cold-water fish species (ISAB 2007) and alter disturbance regimes, 

including, but not limited to, increased frequency and patch-size of high severity fires and 

more frequent and widespread occurrences of forest insect and disease outbreaks.

Reductions in winter snowpack are already beginning to be reflected in earlier spring streamflow 

throughout the western United States (Dettinger 2005, and Hamlet et al. 2005), and this decline is 

expected to accelerate during this century. Continued warming in the Pacific Northwest is likely 

to result in increased water use by vegetation (Hamlet et al. 2007) that may result in stress to 

wildlife and humans induced by increased drought and reduced water availability. Changes in the 

timing of watershed runoff are expected to place increased stress on water supplies and water 

storage facilities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Redistribution of forested and non-forested 

habitats is expected, resulting in altered habitat conditions for most terrestrial wildlife species.

Predicted impacts from climate change are expected to affect species range and species 

composition and alter competitive relationships between plant species. Changes in the 

composition and structure of plant communities will, in turn, alter the character and distribution 

of wildlife habitats. Future conditions may be more favorable to some undesired nonnative plant 

and animal species. A recent climate change vulnerability assessment (Halofsky and Peterson 

2017) provides important insights on natural resource response to the effects of climate change in 

the Blue Mountains region, including responses by water resources, fisheries, upland vegetation, 

and special habitats. Climate change adaptation strategies are also provided in the vulnerability 

report. Therefore, to maintain or increase the resilience of the national forests in the face of these 

changes, the findings and recommendations of the vulnerability assessment were incorporated 

into this Forest Plan as appropriate. Many of the implications of expected climate change are 

discussed in the individual resource sections in Part 1. 

Considering Climate Change in Designing Plan Components

The development of plan components includes consideration of future effects from climate

change. The following analysis should be considered for this entire Forest Plan, but to eliminate 

repetition, will not be repeated in each plan component description. 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

21

Some plan components have been modified or added to address information provided by an 

assessment of climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Blue Mountains (Halofsky and 

Peterson 2017). The key climate change effects to natural resources that are predicted in Halofsky 

and Peterson (2017) include: 

• Hydrology, Water Resources, and Infrastructure: 

♦ Decreased snowpack and earlier snowmelt will shift the timing and magnitude of 

streamflow; 

♦ Peak flows will be higher and summer low flows will be lower; 

♦ Decreasing snowpack and declining summer flows will alter timing and availability 

of water supplies affecting municipal and public uses downstream from and in 

national forests, and other forest uses including: livestock, wildlife, recreation, 

firefighting, road maintenance, and instream fishery flows; and

♦ Increased magnitude of peak stream flows will damage roads near streams, ranging 

from minor erosion to complete loss of road. 

• Fisheries:

♦ Decreased snowpack will shift the timing of peak flows, decrease summer low flows, 

and in combination with higher air temperature, increase stream temperatures, all of 

which will reduce the vigor of cold water fish species; and 

♦ Abundance and distribution of spring Chinook salmon, redband trout, steelhead, and 

bull trout will be reduced. 

• Upland Vegetation: 

♦ Increasing air temperature, through its influence on soil moisture, is expected to 

cause gradual changes in the abundance and distribution of tree, shrub, and grass 

species; 

♦ Drought-tolerant species will become more competitive; 

♦ Ecological disturbance, including wildfire and insect outbreaks, will be the primary 

facilitator of vegetation change; 

♦ Future forest landscapes may be dominated by younger age classes and smaller trees; 

♦ High-elevation forest types will be especially vulnerable to disturbance; and 

♦ Increased abundance and distribution of nonnative plant species will create additional 

competition for regeneration of native plant species.

• Special Habitats:

♦ Riparian areas and wetlands will be especially vulnerable to higher air temperature, 

reduced snowpack, and altered hydrology; 

♦ Riparian areas and wetlands will experience decreased establishment, growth, and 

cover of species such as cottonwood, willow, and aspen; and 

♦ Reduced groundwater discharge to groundwater-dependent ecosystems will reduce 

areas of saturated soil, convert perennial springs to ephemeral springs, eliminate 

some ephemeral springs, and alter local aquatic flora and fauna communities. 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

22

Halofsky and Peterson (2017) identified adaptation strategies and tactics to slow the rate of 

deleterious climate-related change to resource conditions in the Blue Mountains. The Forest 

Plan incorporates these strategies and tactics as follows (Table 1).

Table 1. Climate change tactics and strategies as identified in Climate Change Vulnerability and 

Adaptation in the Blue Mountains (and responsive plan approaches)

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy or Tactic Examples of Plan Approaches that Address 

Climate Change Strategies and Tactics

Hydrology, Water Resources, and Infrastructure

Restoring the function of watersheds, connecting 

floodplains, reducing drainage efficiency, maximizing 

valley storage. 

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy (ARCS) has multiple Plan 

components (see Appendix A). The Blue 

Mountains ARCS has been integrated throughout 

the Plan. 

Reducing fuels, fire hazards, and stand densities. The primary focus of the Vegetation Management 

portion of the Plan addresses these strategies or 

tactics. 

Increasing the resilience of stream crossings, 

culverts, and bridges to higher peak flows. 

Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines). 

Facilitating response to higher peak flows by 

reducing the road system and disconnecting roads 

from streams. 

General plan approach as well as specific 

objectives. 

Reduce adverse effect to watersheds by converting 

roads to alternative uses or decommissioning them. 

General plan approach as well as specific 

objectives. 

Adding wood to streams, restoring beaver 

populations, modifying livestock management, and 

reducing surface fuels and forest stand densities.

The Blue Mountains ARCS has multiple Plan 

components (see Appendix A). The Blue 

Mountains ARCS has been integrated throughout 

the Plan.

Revising grazing practices. The Blue Mountains ARCS grazing standards and

guidelines are designed to improve riparian 

conditions.

Fisheries

Maintaining or restoring natural flow regimes and 

decreasing fragmentation of stream networks.

Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines), as do 

considerations for Key and Priority watersheds.

Developing unplanned use plans (for wildfire) that 

address sediment inputs and road failures.

Will be addressed during reviews or updates of Fire 

Management Plans. 

Revegetating burned areas to store sediment and 

maintain channel geomorphology.

Desired condition plan component should guide 

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation plan.

Using watershed analysis to develop integrated 

actions for vegetation and hydrology.

Specific guideline from Blue Mountains ARCS.

Protecting groundwater and springs, restoring 

riparian areas and beaver populations, reconnecting 

and increasing off-channel habitat and refugia, and 

identifying and improving stream crossings that 

impede fish movement.

Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines, and 

objectives).

Upland Vegetation 

Increasing resilience to drought and ecological 

disturbance.

The primary focus of the Vegetation Management 

portion of the Plan addresses these strategies or 

tactics.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

23

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy or Tactic Examples of Plan Approaches that Address 

Climate Change Strategies and Tactics

Managing landscapes (Stand density/fuel 

treatment/fuel continuity/reduce populations of 

nonnative species to reduce severity and patch size 

of fire/encouraging fires) to play a more natural role in

the ecosystem.

Plan components address these (Desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines, and 

objectives).

Revising grazing policies and practices. Use of State and Transition Models identification of 

upland condition when prescribing allowable forage 

utilization levels.

Address special needs of rare and disjunct vegetative 

species communities.

Addressed with Botanical Area and Research 

Natural Area management area plan components 

and plan components for threatened, endangered, 

candidate, and sensitive plants.

Special Habitats

Maintaining appropriate densities of native species. Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines, and 

objectives).

Restore natural flow regimes. Consistent with Blue Mountains ARCS restorationrelated plan components.

Reduce stresses of conifer encroachment, livestock 

grazing, and ungulate browsing.

Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines). 

Control nonnative species. Plan components address these (desired 

conditions, standards and guidelines). 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

24

Goals and Desired Conditions

The goals and desired conditions are a set of interrelated and interdependent ecological, social, 

and economic conditions. The land and resources of the Plan Area are to be managed to achieve 

or maintain goals and desired conditions to allow the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest to 

contribute to a range of outcomes now and in the future. This emphasis on integration of the goals 

and desired conditions promotes an adaptive and active management philosophy, as the Forest 

Service collaborates with the public and works with partners to accomplish the vision for the Blue 

Mountains region. Goals and desired conditions are a plan component as discussed earlier in the 

Forest Plan.

The following goals and desired conditions explain the conditions, processes, and relationships

that the Forest Service will seek to achieve. Some conditions may already exist and some are 

achievable during the life of the Forest Plan. Others may only be achievable during a longer

period, for example, decades. Making progress toward achieving the goals and desired conditions 

will depend on funding and program direction provided by higher levels in the agency and 

Congress, and will also be affected by natural events.

A brief background and existing condition description of each indicator are provided, followed by 

the desired condition and statement of scale. The background and existing condition descriptions 

are provided for information and context; however, they are not plan components.

Management actions that cause movement away from achieving goals and desired conditions in

the short term are acceptable so long as the goal is achieved or maintained in the long-term.

Goal 1: Promote Ecological Integrity

1.1 Watershed Function

1.1.1 Hydrologic Function

1.1.2 Riparian Function

1.1.3 Wetland Function and Groundwaterdependent Ecosystem Function

1.1.4 Stream Channel Function

1.1.5 Aquatic Habitat Function

1.2 Species Diversity

1.3 Federally Listed Species

1.4 Disturbance Processes

1.4.1 Wildland Fire

1.4.2 Insects and Diseases

1.5 Invasive Species

1.6 Structural Stages

1.7 Plant Species Composition

1.8 Stand Density

1.9 Air Quality

1.10 Soil Quality

1.11 Water Quality

1.12 Landscape Patterns

1.13 Special Plant Habitats

1.13.1 Whitebark Pine

1.13.2 Aspen

1.13.3 Sagebrush Steppe

1.14 Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees

1.15 Snags and Down Wood

Goal 2: Promote Social Well-Being

2.1 Scenery

2.1.1 Scenic Integrity and Scenic Stability

2.2 Recreation

2.2.1 Developed Recreation

2.2.2 Dispersed Recreation

2.2.3 Backcountry Recreation

2.3 Hunting and Fishing

2.3.1 Rocky Mountain Elk

2.3.2 Bighorn Sheep

2.4 Cultural Resources

2.5 Roads and Trails Access

2.6 Wildland Urban Interface

2.7 Tribal Rights and Interest

2.8 Culturally Significant Foods

2.9 Community Resilience

Goal 3: Promote Economic Well-Being

3.1 Facilities and Infrastructure

3.2 Land Ownership

3.3 Goods and Services

3.3.1 Forest Products

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing

3.3.3 Special Uses

3.3.4 Mineral, Energy, and Geological 

Resources

3.3.5 Water Use
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

25

Goal 1: Promote Ecological Integrity

Ecological integrity is the quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological 

characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species 

composition and diversity) occur within the historical range of variability and can withstand and 

recover from most disturbances imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence.

Ecological integrity overlaps significantly with components of the other two goals in the Plan 

(social and economic well-being). The Wallowa-Whitman’s contribution to ecological function is

described by watershed function, native and desired nonnative species diversity, disturbance 

processes, and invasive species. Ecological structure and composition are described by structural 

stages; plant species composition; stand density; and air, soil, and water quality. Landscape 

patterns, special habitats, and snags and down wood are also key components of healthy 

ecosystems in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Although the primary focus of this section 

is ecological integrity, this goal and the desired conditions are interrelated with the social and 

economic components of sustainability. Resources that contribute to ecological integrity are 

interrelated with tribal interests and treaty-reserved resources. Culturally significant foods, such 

as water, salmon, deer, cous,3 and huckleberry, must be perpetually available for the cultural, 

economic and sovereign benefit of American Indian Tribes. These resources will be managed 

using traditional ecological and cultural knowledge and best available science.

1.1 Watershed Function

The existing and desired conditions for 1.1 Watershed Function are described by key watersheds 

and all watersheds and in 1.1.1 Hydrologic Function, 1.1.2 Riparian Function, 1.1.3 Wetland 

Function and Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem Function, 1.1.4 Stream Channel Function, and 

1.1.5 Aquatic Habitat Function. The desired conditions for watershed function flow heavily from 

the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy and the 2011 Watershed 

Condition Framework.

Background: Watershed function includes all the surface and subsurface processes acting on or 

beneath hillslopes and within stream channels that control the movement of water, wood, 

sediment, and nutrients. The rate at which these processes occur is affected by local geology, 

topography, and climate, and is moderated by local soil and vegetation. The movement of water 

and sediments modifies the physical structure of watersheds and determines the spatial 

distribution and composition of riparian and aquatic habitats.

Several elements combine to control the multiple processes that are fundamental to the 

development and long-term vitality of watersheds. These include characteristics of flow regime, 

composition of riparian areas and wetlands, stream channel characteristics, and habitat 

characteristics, each of which is described in this section.

Properly functioning watersheds will provide a range of benefits both on and off the WallowaWhitman National Forest, including, but not limited to: providing habitat for terrestrial, aquatic, 

and riparian-dependent species; maintaining water quality; providing channel stability; reducing 

erosion; moderating floods; and maintaining reliable stream flows for downstream users.

Existing Condition: Since the beginning of European settlement in the mid-1800s, watershed 

conditions in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest have been altered by agriculture, livestock 

 3 Cous was an important root crop for Native Americans. Source: 

http://science.halleyhosting.com/nature/basin/5petal/pars/lom/cous/cous.htm
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

26

grazing, mining, timber harvest, fire suppression, the development of an extensive road network, 

dams, stream channelization, and water diversions (Wissmar et al. 1994a) that have resulted in 

widespread degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats (McIntosh et al. 1994a). The near

extirpation of beaver in the Pacific Northwest prior to 1840 is a likely factor in the decline of 

riparian and aquatic habitats in the Blue Mountains region, especially in basins where beaver was

formerly abundant (Knopf and Scott 1990). Much of the remaining few high quality aquatic 

habitats are located on National Forest System lands and may no longer represent the historical 

condition, extent, or range of habitats available to aquatic species (Gregory and Bisson 1997, 

Sedell et al. 1997).

Challenges to maintaining existing high quality habitats and restoring degraded habitats over the 

upcoming decades include climate change predictions such as: higher than average temperatures; 

more winter precipitation falling as rain versus snow; diminishing winter snowpack resulting in 

earlier snowmelt; changes in runoff volume and lower summer base flows; higher surface water 

temperatures; and possibly greater year-to-year variability in precipitation that could include 

extended drought periods as well as greater magnitude floods such as those that have occurred in 

recent history. Flow regimes that change in response to climate change will have implications for 

terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial wildlife, riparian and aquatic species, and water availability for 

human and permitted livestock use.

The need to preserve remaining high-quality aquatic habitats to preserve existing at-risk fish 

species in the Pacific Northwest is well documented (McIntosh et al. 1994a, Lee et al. 1998,

Reeves et al. 1995, Rieman et al. 2006). Current research indicates that maintaining the best

remaining habitat and watersheds that currently support strong populations of anadromous and 

resident fish species is crucial to the continued existence and eventual recovery of these species.

The key watersheds are identified in the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategy (Appendix A). Key watersheds contain strong populations of select threatened, 

endangered and Forest Service sensitive aquatic species and the habitat needed to support them,

or are areas that are expected to provide high quality habitat at some time in the future (Sedell et 

al. 1997). The selection of key watersheds is based on present knowledge of watershed and 

habitat conditions, recognition of restoration priorities within the Pacific Northwest Region of the 

Forest Service, and other information. The process used to select key watersheds is described by 

Reiss et al. (2008).

Key watersheds consist of individual subwatersheds or groups of subwatersheds within individual 

subbasins and are ultimately intended to form the centers of broadly connected networks of highquality aquatic habitats, as well as to reduce fragmentation in existing habitats and core fish

populations.

Ninety-five of 166 (all) subwatersheds (57 percent) on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are 

identified in the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy in the Planning 

Area as key watersheds in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest based on the presence of strong 

populations of one or more aquatic species, and/or high-quality habitat characteristics and 

watershed conditions. Appendix A contains a map of key watersheds and a table that identifies the 

full list. Of these, 26 subwatersheds are identified as priorities for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. As watershed restoration work is achieved under the Forest Plan, priority watersheds will 

be updated on an approximate 5-year interval. These updates will incorporate consideration of the 

Blue Mountains climate change vulnerability assessment (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

The role of key watersheds is to serve as habitat refugia for existing fish populations and to 

provide sources of individuals that can colonize new habitats as conditions improve. The
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

27

management emphasis in all key watersheds is to protect existing populations and their habitats

while incurring the lowest level of risk to those populations.

Key Watersheds and Subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat for 

Aquatic Species

Desired Condition: Connected networks of watersheds with ecological form, 

function and processes, and functionally intact ecosystems contribute to and 

enhance conservation and recovery of specific threatened or endangered fish species 

and provide high water quality and quantity. The networks contribute to short-term

conservation and long-term recovery at the major population group, core area, or 

other appropriate population scale.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin

Desired Condition: Roads in key watersheds present minimal risk to aquatic resources.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin

Desired Condition: Key watersheds have high watershed integrity and provide 

resilient aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Scale: Subwatershed.

All Watersheds

Desired Condition: The watershed-scale processes that control the routing of water, 

sediment, wood, and organic material operate at levels that support native aquatic species 

and the proper function of their habitat and do not require human intervention or 

restoration.

Scale: Watershed or subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed features 

(i.e., submerged and overhanging large wood, log jams, and beaver dams, side channels, 

pools, undercut banks, and embedded substrates) and natural processes, provide aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems to which species, populations, and communities are uniquely 

adapted.

Scale: Subbasin.

Desired Condition: Connectivity exists within and between watersheds. Lateral, 

longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope 

areas, headwater tributaries, and intact habitat refugia. These network connections 

provide unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling all life history requirements 

of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and upland species of plants and animals.

Scale: Connectivity is within and between watersheds at the subbasin scale for 

forestwide planning; between subwatersheds at the watershed scale for project 

planning.

Desired Condition: Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are resilient to the effects of 

climate change and other major disturbances.

Scale: Subbasin for forestwide planning and watershed scale for project planning.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

28

1.1.1 Hydrologic Function

Background: Hydrologic function includes all processes involved in the conversion of 

precipitation to streamflow and groundwater, as well as properties of the flow regime, including 

the magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and variability of streamflow within a watershed. 

Each of the important physical and biological processes within watersheds, including the 

movement of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients, as well as the creation of aquatic habitats, are 

driven by variability of the flow regime (Angermeier 1997). Recurring flows of moderate to high 

magnitude are responsible for most sediment transport and maintain stream channel size and 

shape (Wolman and Miller 1960). High flows rearrange and create riparian habitats by dispersing 

seeds and creating sites for establishment of riparian species. In summer months, low flows 

sustain riparian vegetation that provides channel and bank stability, especially on low-gradient 

streams in wide, unconfined valleys. Differences in topography within riparian zones, combined 

with the differing water requirements and tolerances of riparian plant species result in diversity of 

habitat types.

On hillslopes, the primary controls of hydrologic function are topography, the type and density of 

vegetation, and the physical properties of soils. The alteration or removal of vegetation or ground

cover by activities such as fire, timber harvest, the use of mechanized equipment, livestock

grazing, and the construction of roads changes hydrologic pathways in ways that can result in 

increased hillslope and stream channel erosion rates.

Groundwater inflows and hyporheic exchange in streams and floodplains are important

contributors to streamflow, especially in summer, and have the additional benefit of being a 

source of cool water that helps moderate stream temperatures.

Existing Condition: Runoff from watersheds in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is largely 

dominated by snowmelt between March and June, along with the earlier runoff from lowelevation watersheds and later runoff from high-elevation watersheds. However, in lower 

elevation watersheds, a substantial part of annual streamflow, and most peak flow events, occur

during winter rains between December and February. There is some indication of increasing 

summer streamflow in parts of the Wallowa-Whitman since the early 1900s (Wissmar et al. 

1994a) that some authors attribute to land use effects, but that could also be driven by changes in 

the seasonal distribution of precipitation, changes in the amount or method of downstream water 

use, changes in floodplain connectivity, or some combination of these. There is also evidence that 

the amount of precipitation that becomes streamflow is declining (Mote 2003; Knowles et al. 

2006), which is consistent with observed climate warming since about 1950 and may be 

attributed to increased rates of evaporation and transpiration by terrestrial vegetation in response 

to increasing temperature (Huntington 2004). Changes in the timing of runoff, combined with 

changes in stream temperature due to climate change, could affect, for example, the timing of 

migration and spawning success of salmonid species, as well as alter the availability of water for 

downstream users.

Desired Condition: Flow regimes, including water yield, timing, frequency, magnitude, 

and duration of runoff, are sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

habitats and to retain patterns of movement of sediment, nutrients, and wood. The timing, 

magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows are within the 

natural range of variability in which the system developed.

Scale: Subwatershed to watershed.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

29

Desired Condition: The timing, duration, and variability of floodplain inundation and

water table elevation in wetlands, seeps, springs, and subsurface water connectivity are 

within the natural range of variability.

Scale: Subwatershed to watershed.

1.1.2 Riparian Function

Background: Riparian areas are loosely defined as the zones adjacent to stream channels, ponds,

and lakes that are transitional between the channel and upland habitats (NRC 2002). Riparian 

vegetation includes species that require free or unbound water or soil conditions moister than

normally found (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) in the surrounding uplands.

Riparian areas are important for their critical role in nutrient cycling, stream channel and bank

stability, water quality, filtering of sediment from upslope areas, and the supply of particulate and

woody organic material to stream systems. Riparian vegetation provides stream shade that

contributes to thermal regulation in both winter and summer. Particulate organic material derived

from riparian vegetation forms the base of aquatic food webs, while large organic material creates

channel structure and habitat complexity. Some aquatic insects require certain types of riparian

vegetation (e.g., willows) to complete their life cycles. An estimated 75 percent of terrestrial 

wildlife species in the Blue Mountains either depend on riparian zones directly or use them more 

than other habitats (Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979). Riparian areas are considered the most critical 

of wildlife habitats in the Blue Mountains (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). This is due not only to the 

unique habitat features found in riparian zones, but also because they serve as natural corridors or 

migration routes and as connecting corridors between patches of suitable habitat in an otherwise 

fragmented landscape.

More than 180 riparian plant association types that can be broadly classed into tree, shrub, and 

herbaceous potential vegetation groups have been identified on National Forest System lands in

the Blue Mountains region (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997, Wells 2006).

Existing Condition: Based on surveys of perennial, fish-bearing streams, about 48 percent of 

riparian habitats in the Blue Mountains are forested, 29 percent are shrub-dominated, and 23

percent are currently classified as herbaceous. In forested sites, 97 percent are conifer dominated 

and 3 percent are hardwood dominated (primarily black cottonwood or aspen).

Hardwood tree and shrub-dominated riparian zones are known to have declined across the Blue 

Mountains since about 1850 (Lee et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 2000), although the extent of loss on 

National Forest System lands is difficult to quantify. In streams that presently pass through dry

coniferous forests that have been converted to young, dense stands of Douglas-fir, white fir, or 

both, shade-intolerant shrubs may be absent or in decline (Liquori and Jackson 2001). Direct

impacts that result in lost or degraded riparian habitats and loss of channel stability or habitat 

complexity can occur from natural disturbances such as strong storm action (i.e., gullying, 

erosion from heavy precipitation events and debris flows), and from human-induced activities 

that include, but are not limited to grazing; motorized use in riparian habitat, along banks, or in 

water areas; conversion of floodplains to agricultural lands; road construction; mining; timber 

harvest; splash damming; and channelization.

Desired Condition: The species composition and structural diversity of native plant 

communities in riparian management areas, including wetlands, provides adequate side 

channels, pools, undercut banks, and unembedded substrates. These conditions result in a 

variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structures for seasonal thermal regulation, 

nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of erosion, and channel migration, as well as supplies
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

30

amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris and fine particulate organic matter 

sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Scale: Watershed scale for forestwide planning; subwatershed scale for project planning.

Desired Condition: Riparian management areas within any given watershed reflect a 

natural composition of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, 

and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting the area.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Key riparian processes and conditions (including slope stability and 

associated vegetative root strength, bank stability, wood delivery to streams, and within 

the riparian management areas, input of leafy and organic matter to aquatic and terrestrial 

systems, solar shading, microclimate, and water quality) are operating consistent with 

local disturbance regimes.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation has the species composition, structural 

diversity, age class diversity and extent that is characteristic of the setting in which it 

occurs and the hydrologic and disturbance regimes in which it developed. The condition 

and composition of small habitat patches may change over small temporal and spatial 

scales but the distribution of habitat patches remains relatively constant at larger scales.

Plant communities are similar in species composition, age class structure, canopy density, 

and ground cover to plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are 

representative of a particular setting.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: Riparian shrub communities occupy their historical range and 

extent. Individual plants are capable of growing to their full potential typical for a 

particular species, as defined by plant height, width, and growth form. Individual plants 

are able to propagate, or reproduce, vegetatively or sexually. Plant communities are 

similar in species composition, age class structure, canopy density, and ground cover to 

plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a particular 

setting.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Riparian areas consist of native assemblages of riparian-dependent 

plants and animals free of persistent nonnative species and provide for dispersal and 

travel corridors, as well as connectivity, between geographically important areas for both 

terrestrial and aquatic animals and plant species within the Plan Area.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The potential for large wood recruitment to streams from within 

forested riparian areas, and from low-order to higher order streams is similar to the 

potential in reference watersheds with similar forest vegetation types.

Scale: Watershed.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

31

1.1.3 Wetland Function and Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem Function

Background: Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seeps, fens, springs, peatlands, and marshes

occur in areas where the soil is either inundated by water or saturated for at least part of the

growing season. Wetlands may be hydrologically supported by precipitation, surface water, or 

groundwater. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems are a unique class of wetlands that are 

supported primarily or wholly by groundwater (i.e., fens). Wetland vegetation includes species 

that are adapted to saturated soil conditions. Some, but not all, streamside riparian areas that meet 

the above criteria may be classified as riverine wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979), but wetlands 

occur in a variety of settings where there is a source of either surface or groundwater. Wetlands, 

in general, have disproportionately higher plant species diversity relative to surrounding upland 

habitats.

Small wetlands may be isolated from other surface waters and often represent unique habitats that 

are highly important to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Some wetlands are also important habitat 

for many sensitive, rare, or uncommon plant and lichen species, many of which occur only in 

these habitats.

Wetlands play an important role in protecting water quality, processing excess nutrients, and 

contributing to groundwater recharge, among other functions, but not all wetland types provide

the same functions, nor do they provide them equally (Euliss et al. 2004). Many wetlands are sites

of natural water storage that, depending on where they occur, contribute to groundwater recharge 

and can reduce the magnitude of floods. Because of the contribution to biological diversity, 

wetlands are regulated under Federal law by the Clean Water Act and through Executive Order 

11990, which requires Federal agencies to limit or avoid activities that result in impacts to 

wetlands.

In addition, some wetlands are essential breeding, rearing, and feeding grounds for many species

of fish and wildlife, including breeding bird populations, migratory bird, fish, and shellfish

species. Approximately 75 percent of the terrestrial wildlife species in the Blue Mountains are

known to use riparian or wetland habitats during their lifetimes (Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979).

Headwater springs and their associated wetlands are important sources of stream flow in many 

drainages. More than 1,190 springs, representing an unknown fraction of groundwater resources, 

are present within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Many springs have been developed for 

watering livestock and wildlife and are also used for recreation consumption and for 

administrative use.

Existing Condition: As with riparian areas, the extent of wetland habitats in the Blue Mountains

region has likely declined from historical conditions. In Oregon, wetlands have declined 38 

percent since 1800 (Swift 1984). Isolated wetlands that represent unique habitat types are often 

used for human needs, including livestock watering. In streamside areas, the combined effects of 

water diversions, livestock grazing, beaver removal, channel degradation, and other impacts have 

resulted in widespread loss or conversion of wet meadow wetland types to dry meadows or 

upland shrublands.

Desired Condition: The extent and diversity of wetland types is maintained or increased.

Scale: Subbasin.

Desired Condition: The surface and subsurface flow paths that support wetland habitats 

are functional. The timing and duration of inundation of wetlands are within natural 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

32

ranges. Plant species composition in wetlands is characteristic of the biophysical setting 

in which they occur.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The ecological structure and function of springs, peatlands, and 

groundwater fed wetlands are maintained or restored.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The aquifer supplying water to groundwater-dependent ecosystems 

is not affected by groundwater withdrawal or loss of recharge. Soils of groundwater 

dependent ecosystems are intact and functional; erosion and deposition are within the

natural range. Runout channels, if present, are functioning naturally and are not 

entrenched, eroded, or substantially altered.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Vegetation is composed of the anticipated cover of plant species 

associated with the site environment; hydric species are present and are not replaced by 

upland species. Livestock herbivory and trampling are not adversely affecting sites.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Water quality and quantity of groundwater resources, including 

seeps, springs, fens, and other groundwater-dependent ecosystems, is sufficient to 

provide for the extent and diversity of species associated with these habitats.

Scale: Watershed to subbasin.

1.1.4 Stream Channel Function

Background: Streams and rivers convey water, as well as sediment, nutrients, organic material, 

and dissolved substances. The physical attributes of stream channels are determined largely by

local geology, topography, climate, and characteristics of the flow and sediment transport 

regimes. Small headwater (ephemeral) streams may comprise up to 70 to 80 percent of the

channel length in any given watershed and are typically important sources of water, sediment,

wood, and nutrients to larger streams (Benda 1990, May and Gresswell 2004, Reneau and 

Dietrich 1987).

Channel morphology represents the adjustment to channel slope, width, depth, flow, velocity, and 

sediment load (Leopold and Maddock 1953), bank composition (Schumm 1960), and the nature 

of riparian vegetation (Millar 2000). Leopold and Wolman (1957) recognized that channel 

properties vary continuously and, as a result, channel types should intergrade with each other. 

Suggested from this is the understanding that a wide range of channel types should exist in 

nature.

Existing Condition: Timber harvest, mining, water diversion, livestock grazing, channelization, 

and road construction adjacent to streams have all affected stream channels in the WallowaWhitman National Forest. Most managed watersheds have high road densities (greater than 2.4 

miles per square mile) that result in increased sediment delivery from road surfaces, drainage 

features, and road-stream crossings. Roads constructed within riparian areas are likely to directly 

affect stream channels or limit lateral migration of the channel.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

33

Early timber harvest in the Wallowa-Whitman focused on riparian areas because the areas were 

easily accessed and local rivers provided a method for conveniently transporting trees to sawmills 

(Sedell et al. 1991). Stream cleaning, combined with riparian timber harvest, has reduced inchannel structure and channel stability and has removed potential sources of large wood to

streams. Removal of beavers from most of the Blue Mountains region prior to about 1840 

(Johnson and Chance 1974) was an early impact to low gradient streams in unconfined river 

valleys from which many of the streams still have not recovered.

Desired Condition: The physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations, are properly functioning and in dynamic equilibrium 

with the flow and sediment regimes under which aquatic systems have evolved.

Scale: Subwatershed to watershed.

Desired Condition: Channel morphology, structure, complexity, and diversity are in 

ranges that are characteristic of the local geology, climate, and geologic processes.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: Measures of channel stability and morphology, including width-todepth ratio, bank stability and bank angle, are within reference ranges and match the 

frequency distribution of reference sites for a given channel type and channel size.

Scale: Subwatershed to Subbasin.

Desired Condition: The sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved is 

maintained, including the timing, volume, rate, and character of input, storage, and 

transport.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: Large wood frequency and volume are within the natural range of 

variability and potential for streams in individual watersheds. The spatial and temporal 

distribution of wood in individual streams varies depending on valley, riparian, and 

channel characteristics and the disturbance processes (i.e., fire, flood, debris flow) 

responsible for transferring material from hillslopes to streams. The frequency 

distribution of large wood among individual streams is similar to the frequency 

distribution of reference sites.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: In forested watersheds, the distribution and frequency of woodforced channel morphology (forced step pool and forced pool riffle streams), in which the 

majority of pools are formed by individual pieces or accumulations of large wood, and 

wood-rich pool riffle streams (Montgomery et al. 1995) is comparable to the distribution 

in reference watersheds.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: Pool frequency, size, depth, and volume are within ranges expected 

of given channel and valley types.

Scale: Subwatershed to watershed.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

34

Desired Condition: Channel-floodplain connections are intact. Channel bed and bank 

erosion rates are within natural ranges and do not result in degraded aquatic, riparian 

habitats, or channel alteration.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: Bank erosion is within a range that does not degrade aquatic or 

riparian habitats or that leads to channel alteration.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: The frequency distribution of stream channel and habitat conditions 

for any given attribute approaches the frequency distribution of reference conditions for 

the same attribute in similar channel types.

Scale: Watershed to subbasin.

1.1.5 Aquatic Habitat Function

Background: Aquatic habitats are an important source of biodiversity because of the variety of 

physical and hydrologic settings in which they occur. Aquatic habitats can be divided into running 

water (streams and rivers) and open water (lakes, ponds, and wetlands) habitats. Open water 

habitats occur on river floodplains and in topographic depressions and may be hydrologically

supported by either ground water or surface water. Backwater or off-channel areas that have 

physical connections to streams and rivers can be biologically important as rearing habitat for

many aquatic species, including trout and salmon.

Aquatic habitats are shaped by a combination of physical and biological factors (including

streamflow variability, sediment transport, stream channel characteristics, riparian habitat

characteristics, water quality, accumulation, and the processing of wood and other organic 

material) and the connectivity and spatial distribution of habitat types within and adjacent to

channel networks.

Existing Condition: Habitat degradation is one of the most commonly cited factors in the decline 

of resident and anadromous fish species in the Pacific Northwest (Gregory and Bisson 1997).

Habitat quality may still be in decline in some parts of the Blue Mountains. McIntosh et al.

(1994a) noted significant declines in large pool habitats in managed watersheds between 1930 

and 1990, while increases in large pool habitat were noted in unmanaged watersheds during the 

same period. Some habitat types may have been under-represented historically on the WallowaWhitman National Forest, underscoring the importance of the remaining high quality habitats, 

regardless of type or ownership. High road densities continue to contribute to poor aquatic and 

riparian habitat conditions. In addition, more than 1,285 culverts block or impair access by 

aquatic species to more than 3,700 miles of streams within the three national forests in the Blue 

Mountains.

Desired Condition: Aquatic habitats contribute to ecological conditions capable of 

supporting self-sustaining populations of native species, and diverse plant, invertebrate, 

vertebrate aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Aquatic habitats are key for the 

recovery of threatened and endangered fish species and provide important habitat 

components for all native aquatic species.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

35

Desired Condition: The transfer of wood, sediment, nutrients, and other material that 

occurs following fires, wind storms, floods, and other natural disturbances is capable of 

creating and maintaining the range and diversity of riparian and aquatic habitat conditions 

that occurs in reference watersheds.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: National Forest System lands contribute to the protection of 

population strongholds for State-classified sensitive species, narrow endemics, federally 

listed or proposed threatened and endangered aquatic species, and designated critical 

habitats. These strongholds provide high quality habitat (e.g., spawning, rearing, overwintering areas, and critical habitats, including migratory corridors), support expansion 

and recolonization of species to adjacent watersheds, and function in a manner that is 

resilient to natural disturbance regimes. These areas conserve key demographic processes 

likely to influence the persistence of populations or metapopulations. Areas adjacent to 

these high-quality habitats are restored (as appropriate) and protected to help ensure 

adequate connectivity, species distribution, and the maintenance or restoration of fully 

functioning habitats for all life histories of aquatic species.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: Aquatic habitat elements (e.g., substrate, pools, cover, food, and 

water quantity and quality) are properly functioning and are sufficiently distributed to

ensure egg and embryo survival, fry emergence, and juvenile survival of aquatic species 

to support self-sustaining populations of native resident and anadromous fish. Spawning 

and rearing areas contain a minimal amount of fine sediment, ranging in size from silt to 

coarse sand.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: Native fish species have access to historically occupied aquatic 

habitats and connectivity between habitats allows for the interaction of local populations.

Migratory habitats support juvenile and adult mobility and survival between spawning, 

rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats containing areas that:

• are free of obstruction and excessive levels of predators of federally listed aquatic 

species;

• have minimal physical, biological, or water quality and quantity impediments 

(including permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers); and

• contain natural cover such as large wood, aquatic vegetation, rocks and boulders, 

side channels, and undercut banks.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: The potential for large wood recruitment to streams from within 

forested riparian areas, and from low-order streams to higher-order streams, is similar to 

the potential in reference watersheds containing the same (riparian) forest vegetation 

types.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: Aquatic habitats in which the distribution of conditions (e.g., bank 

stability, substrate size, pool depths, size and frequencies, channel morphology, large 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

36

woody debris size and frequency) in the population of watersheds on the WallowaWhitman are similar to the distribution of conditions in the population of similar, 

reference watersheds. The distribution of conditions in individual streams varies

depending on valley, riparian, and channel characteristics.

Scale: Reference conditions can be drawn from forest-level or Provincial scales. 

Conditions assessed at the subbasin scale for forestwide planning and watershed scale for 

project planning.

Desired Condition: Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are resilient to the effects of climate 

change and other major disturbances.

Scale: Subbasin scale for forest planning and watershed scale for project planning.

1.2 Species Diversity

Background: Providing the appropriate amount, distribution, and quality of habitat for native and 

desired nonnative aquatic and terrestrial species (plants, animals, vertebrates, and invertebrates) 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is an integral component of ecological function. 

The ability to sustain this habitat, as well as the connectivity of habitat patches, is also important 

to the maintenance of ecological function.

The National Forest Management Act requires land and resource management plans to contribute 

to the diversity of plant and animal communities, based on the suitability and capability of the 

land area, while meeting overall multiple use objectives. The goal for this approach is to provide 

the ecological conditions that support a diversity of native plant and animal species within a Plan 

Area. Natural ecosystems are sustainable only when the native biodiversity (the variety of life and 

its processes) and the functional basis of productivity are maintained (Johnson and O’Neil 2001).

Comparing the existing vegetation communities to a set of reference conditions (pre-settlement

time period or historical range of variability) allows for changes in disturbance regimes to be 

evaluated and serves as a check on the adequate representation of ecological communities 

(Samson 2002), which in turn should support species diversity. There are instances where 

maintaining ecosystem diversity might not provide the ecological conditions necessary to sustain 

populations of certain species, in which case a species-specific approach is warranted. This is 

often the case for species listed by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National 

Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act (see Section 1.3).

The Forest Plan focuses on four groups of species: (1) threatened, endangered, and proposed, (2) 

surrogate species, (3) focal species, and (4) other species of management interest, such as bighorn 

sheep and greater sage-grouse. In addition, some plan components address general habitat issues 

and enhance viability of all species. Threatened and endangered species are those formally listed 

and proposed species are those proposed for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 

1973.

Surrogate species represent other species that share similar habitat and risk factors and include 

Pacific Northwest (Region 6) sensitive species, State-listed species, or other species for which the 

published literature has identified a concern for their viability. The key characteristic of a 

surrogate species is that its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger 

ecological system to which it belongs. Surrogate species serve an umbrella function in terms of 

encompassing habitats needed for other species, are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the 

area, or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

37

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, focal species have replaced management indicator species for 

monitoring in Forest Plans. Focal species are a small subset of species that have specific 

objectives and monitoring requirements. Their status permits inference to the integrity of the 

larger ecological system to which they belong and provides meaningful information regarding the 

effectiveness of the Plan in maintaining or restoring the ecological conditions to maintain the 

diversity of plant and animal communities in the Plan Area.

Existing Condition: Habitats have been impacted by interrelated changes in ecological process 

due to logging, roads, grazing, fire suppression, and rural development. Although management 

issues exist for most vegetation communities, the primary impacts from human induced activities 

over the last 100 years have resulted in extensive changes in the distribution, structure, and 

species composition of the ponderosa pine forest.

The Wallowa- Whitman is home to hundreds of wildlife species. Common large mammals 

include Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, and black bear. Several furbearers are present, such as 

beaver, marten, and raccoon. Many species of small mammals, birds, bats, reptiles, and 

amphibians reside within the vegetative communities, and the aquatic environments are home to 

several anadromous fish species.

A total of 175 species were identified as being of local or regional concern for the Plan Area. The 

Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service adopted processes to guide identifying these 

terrestrial (USDA Forest Service 2010b) and aquatic species (Reiss et al. 2008), as well as for 

assessing plant species (Holmes et al. 2009). Terrestrial species were grouped by potential 

vegetation group; risks and threats were identified for the group and a representative species 

(surrogate species) was selected for the group. Many of the surrogate species were determined to 

have well distributed source habitats that were reasonably connected and similar to what would 

have been on the landscape historically. However, there were some species (e.g., white-headed 

woodpecker) where source habitats were far diminished from what probably occurred historically 

and those existing habitats had poor connectivity.

Table 2 lists terrestrial and aquatic surrogate and focal species for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. Additional information about surrogate species and their conservation strategies is 

available in the project record.

Table 2. Terrestrial surrogate and focal species

Family Group Common Name Surrogate 

Species

Focal 

Species

Alpine/Boreal Boreal Forest Boreal Owl yes no

Alpine/Boreal Boreal Forest Water Vole yes no

Forest Mosaic All Forest Communities Northern Goshawk yes no

Medium/Large Trees All Forest Communities Cassin's Finch yes no

Medium/Large Trees Cool/Moist Forest Pileated 

Woodpecker

yes yes

Medium/Large Trees Cool/Moist Forest American Marten yes no

Medium/Large Trees Dry Forest White-Headed 

Woodpecker

yes yes

Open Forest All Forest Communities Western Bluebird yes no

Open Forest All Forest Communities Fringed Myotis yes no

Open Forest Early Successional Fox Sparrow yes no
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

38

Family Group Common Name Surrogate 

Species

Focal 

Species

Open Forest Post-Fire Habitat Lewis's Woodpecker yes no

Open Forest Post-Fire Habitat Black-Backed 

Woodpecker

yes no

Human Disturbance Habitat Generalist Peregrine Falcon yes no

Human Disturbance Habitat Generalist Wolverine yes no

Human Disturbance Habitat Generalist Rocky Mountain Elk no yes

Human Disturbance Habitat Generalist Mule Deer no yes

Woodland/Grass/Shrub Woodland/Grass/Shrub Lark Sparrow yes no

Woodland/Grass/Shrub Woodland/Grass/Shrub Pallid Bat yes no

Woodland/Grass/Shrub Shrub Sage Thrasher yes no

Woodland/Grass/Shrub Grassland Northern Harrier yes no

Chambers/Caves Chambers/Caves Townsend's BigEared Batyes no

Riparian Conifer Riparian Rocky Mountain

Tailed Frog

yes no

Riparian Riparian/large tree or 

snag/open water

Bald Eagle yes no

Riparian Shrubby/Deciduous Riparian Macgillivray's 

Warbler

yes no

Riparian Pond/Small Lake/Backwater Columbia Spotted 

Frog

yes no

Wetland Marsh Marsh Wren yes no

Wetland Marsh/Wet Meadow Wilson's Snipe yes no

Streams and Rivers High-elevation, cold water, 

fall-spawning, associated 

with streambed, nonanadromous species

Bull Trout yes yes

Streams and Rivers Mid and low elevation, cool 

water habitat, medium and 

large rivers, below Hells 

Canyon dam complex, fallspawning, anadromous 

species

Chinook Salmon yes yes

Streams and Rivers Mid-elevation, small to 

medium rivers and streams, 

cool water, below Hells 

Canyon dam, springspawning, anadromous 

species

Steelhead yes yes

Streams and Rivers Mid-elevation, small to 

medium rivers and streams, 

cool water; mid-water 

column, interior Great Basin, 

upstream of Hells Canyon 

dam, spring-spawning, nonanadromous species

Redband Trout yes yes
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

39

Although most fish habitat in the Planning Area is in fair condition based on aquatic species 

sustainability modeling, there are few strong populations remaining for any of the surrogate fish 

species. Current habitat conditions are reflective of past and current management and are slowly 

recovering in some areas, though they remain static in others, based on 15 years of monitoring 

data. Local populations are still affected by many factors outside and downstream of the Planning

Area, including habitat conditions and connectivity in the migration corridors, as well as, in the 

case of anadromous populations, up and downstream passage through the mainstem Columbia 

and Snake River hydropower dams and reservoirs, commercial and recreational fishing 

regulations, hatcheries, estuary and ocean conditions.

Desired Condition: The desired conditions for Watershed Function (Section 1.1), 

Disturbance Processes (Section 1.4), Invasive Species (Section 1.5), Structural Stages 

(Section 1.6), Plant Species Composition (Section 1.7), Stand Density (Section 1.8), Soil 

Quality (Section 1.10), Water Quality (Section 1.11), Landscape Patterns (Section 1.12), 

Special Plant Habitats (Section 1.13), Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees (Section 

1.14), and Snags and Down Wood (Section 1.15) approximate historical habitat 

conditions, providing a greater likelihood of supporting species diversity.

The range of habitats for native and desired nonnative fish, wildlife, and plant species, 

including threatened and endangered species, species identified on the Regional 

Forester’s Sensitive Species List, and surrogate species, is of adequate quality, 

distribution, and abundance to provide for viable populations of native and desired 

nonnative species. This includes the ability of species and individuals to interact, 

disperse, and find security within habitats in the Plan Area. Habitat conditions are 

resilient and sustainable considering the range of possible climate change scenarios. Risk 

factors (e.g., roads, uncharacteristic wildfires, livestock use, invasive species, etc.) do not 

threaten their population viability.

Specialized habitat components, such as caves, standing dead trees, seeps, and springs are 

found across the landscape in amounts and types commensurate with the natural 

communities in which they occur and their setting facilitates their use by associated 

species.

Population strongholds for surrogate fish species provide high quality habitat and support 

expansion and recolonization of species to adjacent unoccupied habitats. These areas 

conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the sustainability of aquatic 

species.

An abundant food base for fish, including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, and forage fish exist. Low levels of occurrence of nonnative 

predatory, interbreeding, or competing species exist, and if present, they are temporally 

and spatially isolated from federally listed species.

Scale: Applied at a variety of scales (national forest, subbasin, watershed and 

subwatershed).

1.3 Federally Listed Species

Background: Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act requires all Federal agencies to use 

their authorities to conserve listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Federal 

agencies should promote the conservation and recovery of listed species, as well as implement 

and fund conservation agreements, management plans, and recovery plans developed for those 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

40

listed species. Portions of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are discussed in one or more 

recovery plans for federally listed species. Those recovery plans identify “Limiting Factors and 

Threats,” most of which include human-induced activities (i.e., management-related actions such 

as grazing, mining, railroad or splash-dam logging). Areas currently supporting habitats across 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that overlap with federally listed species or those located 

within critical habitat require a focused protection and restoration strategy designed to recover 

listed species while pursuing land management activities.

Existing Condition: Protection and management of listed species and their habitats continue to 

be important issues within the Plan Area. Because of the extent of decline in populations, the 

contraction of the range of listed species, and the degradation of their habitats, protection of 

remaining strong populations or strongholds and their habitats is crucial to their recovery.

Within the national forests of the Blue Mountains, eight (one mammal, two plants, and five fish) 

species are listed by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries 

Service under the Endangered Species Act.

Plant species within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act include Spalding’s catchfly and MacFarlane’s four-o’clock. Addressing threats to 

Spalding’s catchfly on National Forest System lands, such as invasions by aggressive nonnative 

plants, poor to degraded land health conditions, and changing fire frequency and seasonality are 

important for long-term viability of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for 

Spalding’s catchfly within the Wallowa-Whitman. MacFarlane’s four O’clock is a threatened 

species that exists in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

The wolverine is a proposed species for listing under the Endangered Species Act and gray 

wolves are listed endangered west of Highway 395 in the Blue Mountains and managed under the 

Wolf Management Plan for Oregon (ODFW 2005, updated in 2010). Gray wolves are not 

federally listed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. No critical habitat has been designated 

for gray wolves within the Blue Mountains.

Existing threats include physical barriers, such as road culverts, barriers created by high water 

temperatures or low seasonal flow, and competitive or predatory interaction with nonnative 

species. The extent to which a passage barrier impacts a specific aquatic species may be at a 

reach, subwatershed or subbasin scale. Long-term viability of federally listed aquatic species is 

dependent, in part, upon availability of sufficient high quality spawning and rearing habitats 

within subbasins through time, as well as population and habitat connectivity within and between 

subbasins (e.g., migration habitat). Remaining spawning and rearing habitats (i.e., submerged and 

overhanging large wood, log jams and beaver dams, side channels, pools, undercut banks or 

unembedded substrates) for aquatic listed species range from poor (i.e., features are absent) to 

good condition (i.e., features are present), depending on the subbasin. Remaining migratory 

habitats for aquatic listed species range from poor to good condition, depending on the subbasin, 

with respect to the absence or presence, respectively, of water quality and quantity, migratory 

habitat, and thermal refugia.

Desired Condition: Federally listed species (aquatic and terrestrial) trend towards 

recovery or are delisted. Management activities improve the conservation status of listed 

species and designated critical habitat. Habitats are managed in accordance with 

conservation planning documents, recovery plans, best available scientific information, 

and local knowledge. Critical habitat components (i.e., primary constituent elements and 

primary biological features) are protected and restored to achieve species recovery.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

41

Desired Condition – Aquatic: For listed aquatic species on National Forest System

lands (Table 3), spawning, rearing, and migratory habitat is widely available and 

inhabited. Listed aquatic species have access to historical habitat and appropriate life 

history strategies (i.e., resident, fluvial, adfluvial and anadromous) are supported. 

Recovery is promoted through cooperation and coordination with Tribes, State agencies, 

Federal agencies, and other interested groups.

Table 3. Federally listed species present in or within downstream influence of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Species, Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU)/

Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Critical Habitat

Steelhead, Snake River Basin Yes

Bull trout, Columbia River Basin Yes

Spring-Summer Chinook salmon, Snake River Basin Yes

Fall Chinook salmon, Snake River Basin Yes (Hells Canyon); downstream 

influence elsewhere

Spalding’s catchfly No

MacFarlane’s four o’clock No

Desired Condition – Terrestrial Wildlife: For listed terrestrial species, habitat that 

adequately provides ample resources for all life stages is available and inhabited. 

Recovery is promoted through cooperation and coordination with Tribes, State agencies, 

Federal agencies, and other interested groups.

Desired Condition – Plants: For listed plant species, threats such as invasions by 

aggressive nonnative plants, adverse livestock grazing management, and changes in fire 

frequency and seasonality are addressed. Populations achieve recovery through 

cooperation and coordination with Tribes, State agencies, Federal agencies, and other 

interested groups.

Scale: A variety of spatial scales and hydrologic boundaries (ranging from individual 

projects to subwatersheds to areas as large as populations) apply to all of the categories 

above. Species recovery plans identify activities necessary for recovery at the project 

(reach), subwatershed and population scales. Species recovery plans further describe 

high-priority restoration actions at these scales that address identified limiting factors and 

threats to listed species and designated critical habitats.

1.4 Disturbance Processes

Background: Pickett and White (1985) provide a broadly quoted definition of disturbance:

“Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystems, community, or 

population structure and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical 

environment.”

Natural disturbances include wildfire, insects and diseases, flooding, drought, landslides, 

windstorms, and disturbance by large herbivores. Disturbances, whether natural or humaninduced, affect all aspects of ecosystems at a landscape level. Human-induced disturbances in the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest include, but are not limited to those from: timber harvesting, 

road construction, mining, livestock grazing, recreation, and fire/fuels management. Disturbance 

from the above activities can impact habitat stages, successional stages and pathways, and 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

42

structural differentiation; nutrient cycles, forage availability, and water quality and quantity 

yields; wildlife variety and quantity; the availability and economic value of forest products; 

carbon balances; and scenic variability. Disturbances have a particularly profound effect on forest 

and other plant communities since they often kill vegetation and thus make space and resources 

available for surviving or new plants to utilize (Oliver and Larson 1996).

Disturbances can be either internal or external in relation to the ecosystem they affect. They can 

be biotic (i.e., insects, disease, animal damage) or abiotic (i.e., wind, flood, fire) and they can be 

large (measured in thousands of acres) or small (measured in square feet). They can be intense 

(such as crown fires) or considered minimal (such as creeping ground fires). They can occur very 

frequently at relatively regular intervals, or infrequently at irregular intervals. One thing most 

disturbance agents have in common, however, is that they rarely act alone. Most disturbance 

events are a complex interaction of many disturbance agents (Rogers 1996). Agents such as 

drought and fire or disease and insects most often act in concert across the time and space 

continuum in shaping the landscape. While it is true that a discrete large and final event, for 

instance a landslide, drastically alters a successional course; a recent heavy rain-on-snow event 

likely contributed to the total amount of the effects that occurred.

In many ecosystems, biotic communities have developed adaptations to specific disturbances. 

Many plant species, for example, may rely on either fire or floods for reproduction and are thus

disturbance-dependent. The effect of any disturbance is a property of the disturbance as well as 

the system it affects.

The existing and desired conditions for 1.4 Disturbance Processes are described in 1.4.1 Wildland

Fire, 1.4.2 Insects and Diseases, and 1.1.5 Aquatic Habitat Function.

1.4.1 Wildland Fire

Background: Fire is a natural part of the ecosystem process, and ecosystems within the WallowaWhitman National Forest exhibit a wide diversity of natural fire behavior. In terms of fire 

management, wildland fires are generally categorized as either prescribed fires (planned 

ignitions) or wildfires (unplanned ignitions). Prescribed fires are ignited by a management action 

and are designed to meet specific land management objectives. Wildfires are those not ignited by

management actions. Some wildfires are managed with methods other than full suppression to 

meet specific land management objectives.

A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in the natural ecosystem. Fire 

regimes depicted in this Forest Plan are based on a national classification of the historical natural 

combined conditions for fire severity and frequency that are usually associated with a particular 

vegetation environment.

“Fire severity” describes the effects (actual or potential) of fire on vegetation. Fire severity as 

characterized by the LANDFIRE Project (see www.landfire.gov) can be summarized by these 

three broad categories (Rollins 2009):

• Low-severity fire, meaning less than 25 percent average vegetation top-kill

• Mixed-severity fire, meaning greater than 25 and less than 75 percent average vegetation 

top-kill 

• High-severity fire, meaning greater than 75 percent average vegetation top-kill 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

43

Fire Regime Fire Frequency/Severity Common Forest Type

I Frequent (Usually Surface)

/Low-to-Mixed Dry Upland

II Frequent/High Dry Grasslands

III

Moderate-to-Relatively Long 

Intervals (35-100 Years) Between 

Fires/Mixed

Moist Upland

IV Moderate-to-Long 

Intervals/Mixed-to-High Cold Upland

Fire regime condition class is a way of classifying the current degree of change from the natural 

historical fire regimes and their characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions. There are three 

condition classes for each fire regime and each classification is based on a departure score that 

indicates the relative amount of departure from the historical regime. The departure score can be 

thought of as being a product of two major elements: the condition of the vegetation and the fire 

frequency or severity. As characterized in this Forest Plan, fire regime condition class vegetation 

departure scores focus on vegetation and do not include fire severity or frequency as a 

quantitative part of the score. This allows the effects of proposed management on vegetation 

attributes such as structure, density, and species composition to be more clearly defined. The 

three fire regime condition classes resulting from this vegetation departure scoring are:

Class 1 – a low degree of departure,

Class 2 – moderate departure, and

Class 3 – high departure from the natural (historical) fire regime.

Existing Condition: A number of local fire history studies show that frequent, low severity fire 

such as that described by fire regime I was characteristic of the Blue Mountains region (Johnston 

2016, Heyerdahl and Agee 1996, Agee 1993). A large amount of scientific evidence shows that 

the current level of fuels in the Blue Mountains forests, as well as throughout many of those in

North America, greatly exceeds what would have been expected in more “natural” or preEuropean settlement conditions. The accumulation of fuel is largely a result of human activities, 

including fire suppression and historical logging practices (Dodge 1972). Thousands of acres of 

dry upland and mixed conifer forests within the Blue Mountains now contain unusually high 

levels of forest fuels. These conditions, along with predicted impacts from climate change for 

longer fire seasons and more severe fires (Halofsky and Peterson 2017) are setting the stage for 

the creation of fires with uncharacteristically intense conditions (Franklin and Agee 2003; 

Hessburg et al. 2005; Stine et al. 2014). The potential for the scenarios mentioned above increases

both the challenge and the motivation for restoring the landscape to reduce effects from any 

impacts of wildfires.

Modeling based on current vegetation data indicate that under relatively severe fire weather 

conditions (90th percentile), much of the area in the national forests of the Blue Mountains has 

the potential to experience high severity fire effects. For example, the vegetation and fuel 

attributes indicate that the potential for high severity fire behavior in the moist upland forest 

exists in about 30 to 40 percent of the area and within around 50 to 60 percent of the cold upland 

forest environments. These proportions for the moist and cold upland forests are close to what is 

estimated for natural levels (Countryman and Justice 2010). In some ecosystems within the

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (like the subalpine and higher elevation moist upland forests

composed of spruce, subalpine fir and lodgepole pine), this is considered normal.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

44

For other areas, such as those in dry upland forests, the current potential for high severity fire is 

not within the historical range of variability. For example, the LANDFIRE Project estimates that 

under natural historical conditions, at any given point in time, only about 5 to 15 percent of the 

dry upland forest would contain fuel and vegetation conditions likely to support high severity fire. 

Currently on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, roughly 50 percent of the dry forest has the 

potential structure and species composition to support high severity fire behavior. This is largely 

the result of the cumulative effects of increasing vegetation density, shifts in forested species 

composition, modified landscape patterns, as well as the cumulative effects of periodic and 

sometimes extended drought. These conditions put the ecosystem at high risk of 

uncharacteristically large and severe fires and may degrade or eliminate the dry upland forests 

natural resilience to wildfire. (See related sections for forest vegetation desired conditions; 

Sections 1.6-1.8, 1.12, and 2.6). Table 4 displays forestwide vegetation departure scores of the 

existing succession classes for each broad potential vegetation group. The higher the number, the 

greater the forest vegetation and fuel condition has departed from the naturally expected 

condition. Scores less than 33 are considered low; 33 to 66 is considered moderate and over 66 is 

high degree of departure. The dry upland forest has a vegetation departure score at the high end of 

moderate, which indicates the dry upland forest is nearing a highly departed state in terms of 

vegetation. Within the moist upland forest, the score is in the low range. Within the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group, the vegetation departure score indicates a moderate level of 

vegetation departure.

Table 4. Forestwide vegetation departure scores 

Potential Vegetation Group Score

Dry upland 57

Moist upland 23

Cold upland 38

The Blue Mountains are dominated by ecosystems that evolved with the relatively frequent low to 

mixed severity fires typical of natural fire regimes I, II, and III. Approximately 83 percent of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is classified as either fire regime I, II or III and 53 percent is 

classified as fire regime I. Much of this landscape is currently moderately departed from 

reference conditions or approaching a highly departed condition in terms of forest vegetation 

fuels.

The gradual accumulation of wildland fuels is a difficult and challenging issue to address. An 

analogy can be made to “walking up the down escalator.” One must be moving just to stay in 

place; the only way for forward progression is to move faster than the escalator is moving down. 

Despite current investments in priority areas being treated through fuels management or burned in 

wildfires, some landscapes are accumulating fuels at a rate faster than can be managed. Broadscale efforts to reduce fuels across the landscape can be expensive and time-consuming and 

require strategic coordination regardless of which type of fuels management activity is 

implemented (Wildland Fire Executive Council 2014).

Desired Condition: Fire adapted and fire resilient landscapes are restored and 

maintained. Wildland fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) plays a characteristic 

ecological role in creating forest and rangeland conditions that are resilient to 

disturbances and climate changes. Table 5 displays the natural historical fire regimes and 

their associated desired condition ranges for fire severity and frequency by potential
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

45

vegetation group. Wildland fire may be suitable on all acres, depending on expected fire 

effects and resource objectives.

In priority, important, and general habitat management areas and sagebrush surrogate

areas, sagebrush habitat is protected from loss due to unwanted wildfires or damage 

resulting from management-related activities while agency risk management protocols

are used to manage for firefighter and public safety and other high priority values. Under

all fire response categories, first priority is the management of risk to firefighters and the 

public. Greater sage-grouse habitat is prioritized as a high value resource along with other 

high value resources and assets.

Landscapes that are in fire regime condition class 1 or exhibit a low vegetation departure 

score and conditions are maintained over time. Wildland fire disturbances and their 

associated effects occur within natural fire historical regimes similar to those that 

occurred prior to the modern fire exclusion (suppression) era.

Table 5. Desired conditions for wildland fire regimes 

Potential Vegetation Group Fire Regime Fire Severity Fire Frequency (years)

Cold upland forest IV mixed-high 100-200

Moist upland forest III mixed 30-150

Dry upland forest I low-mixed 5-25

Dry upland woodland III mixed 80-160

Cold upland shrubland III-IV mixed-high 30-60

Moist upland shrubland II-III mixed-high 10-40

Dry upland shrubland II high 20-40

Cold upland herbland IV high 30-80

Moist upland herbland II high 20-40

Dry upland herbland II high 5-20

Cool/Cold riparian forest III-IV mixed-high 100-200

Vegetation composition and structure, and fuels characteristics are similar to those that 

existed under the historical fire regime (see Desired Conditions 1.6 – Structural Stages

1.7 – Plant Species Composition, 1.8 - Stand Density, and 1.12 – Landscape Patterns). 

Risk of loss for key ecosystem components is low.

Safety of fire personnel and the public is the highest priority and can best be achieved by 

proactive management of the landscape. Implement responses in a cost efficient manner

and consistent with land and resource management objectives. Specific strategies for 

managing wildland fires will depend upon the fire location, expected fire behavior, and 

values at risk. Fire is managed to restore the ecosystem process essential to maintaining 

resilient landscapes; by utilizing current science, modern decision tools, and collaborative 

decisionmaking. Prescribed fires are considered the most effective fuels management tool 

for restoring and maintaining fire-adapted systems; therefore, planned (prescribed) fire 

will be used in all management areas covered in this plan. Partnerships with other 

counties, agencies, states, Tribes, local governments, and landowners maximize wildfire 

response capabilities and meet multiple land management objectives across ownership 

boundaries.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

46

Scale: Minimum scale of subwatershed for each of the conditions described above. Scale 

may be changed to watershed or subbasin level if justified as more appropriate through 

project analysis.

1.4.2 Insects and Diseases

Background: Forestland susceptibility to major insects and disease disturbances is heavily 

influenced by stand and landscape-level tree species composition, stand density, and stand

structure, which can be affected by timber harvest, grazing, climate change, and fire suppression 

(Hessburg et al. 1999). Some past management activities have led to unanticipated large, 

landscape-level changes and have increased the potential for uncharacteristic disturbances from 

insects and diseases across the landscape.

Existing Condition: At the subbasin level, there have been increases in vulnerability to bark 

beetles, defoliators, mistletoes, and root diseases due to increased cover, connectivity, stand 

densities, and multi-storied canopies of Douglas-fir and grand fir dominated stands (Hessburg et 

al. 1999). There is also a continued loss of whitebark pine and western white pine due to white 

pine blister rust.

Shade-tolerant tree species now dominate the forests to a much greater extent today than they did 

in the past. Forests are more dense and contiguous than they were historically. Changes like these

have created landscapes more susceptible to uncharacteristically severe insect and disease 

disturbances. These changes have the potential to impact wildlife habitat, recreational use, 

fisheries resources, and the flow of products from National Forest System lands.

Desired Condition: Characteristic levels of mortality caused by insect and disease 

activity contribute to diverse landscape conditions and provide important wildlife habitat 

components, such as hollow trees, dead wood, and mistletoe brooms. The desired 

conditions for vegetation structure, stand density, and species composition (displayed in 

Sections 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8) create stand conditions with largely low to moderate 

vulnerability to insects and diseases across the majority of the upland forest potential 

vegetation groups. These stand conditions result in ecologically resilient forests with 

composition, structure, and density characteristics that are fully compatible with periodic 

disturbance occurring at characteristic levels of severity, intensity, size, and spatial 

distribution.

Scale: Minimum scale of subwatershed. Scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin 

level if justified as more appropriate through project analysis.

1.5 Invasive Species

Background: Invasive species (aquatic, terrestrial, invertebrate, and vertebrate plants and 

animals) are recognized as a major threat to native plant and animal communities, as well as to 

social and economic conditions. The effects of invasive species can cause reductions in long-term 

productivity of the land, be detrimental to aquatic systems, cause economic loss, disrupt 

recreational use, and reduce resource production. A wide range of species can be invasive, 

including plants, fish, animals, insects, fungi, mussels, and pathogens such as white pine blister 

rust. Some species are commonly transported between water bodies by recreational boating and 

fishing activities.

Existing Condition: The area affected by invasive plant species has increased throughout the 

Interior Columbia Basin during the last 100 years (Quigley et al. 1996). The same trend has also 

occurred in the Blue Mountains region during the last 10 to 15 years. A large portion of the Blue 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

47

Mountains is characterized as being susceptible to invasive plants (Quigley et al. 1996). The 

susceptibility is most prevalent in areas dominated by dry forest, dry grass, dry shrub, and cool 

shrub types, which are the types of sites that many invasive species evolved in and are adapted to. 

The current level of invasive plant species in the Blue Mountains is about 55,000 acres (this 

amount includes some overlap between species).

Other examples include the invasive insect balsam woolly adelgid, which infested 40,000 to 

60,000 acres per year from 2005 to 2006 in the Blue Mountains and caused substantial mortality 

in high-elevation true firs. The nonnative invasive pathogen white pine blister rust is also found 

throughout the range of western white pine, whitebark pine and the isolated limber pine stands in 

the Blue Mountains.

Invasive aquatic pathogens, plants, and animals are not currently widespread in the headwater 

streams and lakes of the Blue Mountains. However, many highly invasive aquatic species are well 

established in neighboring states, in the Columbia River, and in the lower reaches of major 

tributaries adjacent to the Wallowa-Whitman. Streams and springs within the national forest are at 

risk of invasion by detrimental invasive organisms, such as New Zealand mudsnails and Asian 

clams. Lakes and reservoirs are at risk of invasion by zebra mussels, hydrilla, and other highly 

undesirable introduced plant and animal species.

Desired Condition: Healthy, native and desired nonnative animal communities and 

native and desired nonnative plant communities dominate the landscape and are resilient 

given current and projected climate conditions. Invasive species and other undesirable 

species (terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals) are absent or occur in small areas and 

have limited or no impacts on viability of native and desired nonnative species. Existing 

invasive and undesirable species do not expand their current distributions over the life of 

the Plan, and their current distributions will be reduced to the extent possible over that 

period of time. Invasive and undesirable species do not significantly diminish the ability 

of the national forest to provide the goods and services that communities expect or the 

habitat that plant and animal community diversity depends upon. New invasive species 

resulting from changes in plant and animal habitats due to changes in climate occur only 

at low levels.

Scale: Watershed scale.

1.6 Structural Stages

Background: The structural arrangement of vegetation, both vertical and horizontal, and the size 

and arrangement of trees, grasses, and shrubs is an important component related to wildlife 

habitat, insects and diseases, wildfire hazard, scenic integrity, and potential social and economic 

products, such as timber and culturally significant foods. The structural classes in Table 6

represent the full spectrum of structure from young to old stands.

For forested environments, this includes stand initiation (bare ground to young stands less than 

5 inches diameter at breast height, stem exclusion (single layer stands from 5 to 20 inches 

diameter.), understory reinitiation (multi-storied stands from 5 to 20 inches diameter) old forest 

multi-story (multi-storied stands with an overstory generally greater than 20 inches diameter), and 

old forest single-story (single-storied stands with an overstory generally greater than 20 inches 

diameter) (Oliver and Larson 1996). Figure 4 (next page) describes the various structural stages 

as does the glossary. These definitions include both size and trees per acre and sometimes include 

age.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

48

Figure 4. Description of forest structural stages used to classify vegetation for the Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest plan revision (Justice and Countryman 2006).
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

49

Existing Condition: Many changes to forest stand structure have occurred in the Blue Mountains 

over the last century due to disturbances, such as wildfire, insect or disease outbreaks, timber 

harvest, fire suppression, and grazing. In many areas, there has been a net loss of larger and older 

structural stages. The old forest single-story stage, especially within the dry upland forest has 

been greatly reduced from pre-1900 levels. The amount of old forest within the moist and cold 

upland forest potential vegetation groups is much closer to being within the range of what 

occurred historically on the landscape, although there have been shifts from single-storied to 

multi-storied conditions in many areas.

Some of the most significant changes in forest structural stages have occurred in the dry upland 

forest environment, which dominates the Wallowa-Whitman. Within the dry upland forest, the 

percent of the potential vegetation group existing in the understory reinitiation stage is now about 

54 percent. In contrast, within the same dry upland forest potential vegetation group, the percent 

currently in the old forest single-story structural stage is 3 percent, compared to a historical 

condition estimated to range between 40 to 65 percent. Most of the reduction in old forest 

structure occurred prior to 1993, due to harvesting and wildfire. Since then, the primary loss of 

old forest on National Forest System lands in eastern Oregon and Washington has been due to 

insects, diseases, or wildfire. Structural classes in the shrubland environment have shifted toward 

one that has higher levels of older plants primarily due to fire exclusion and grazing.

These changes have led to reductions in habitat for some wildlife species, increases for others, 

reductions in the output of forest products, and decreases in scenic quality due to the increased 

occurrences of uncharacteristically severe disturbances (insects, disease and wildfire). Having 

fewer large diameter old trees has led to decreases in suitable habitat for certain species and fewer 

stands that are resistant to wildfire. Having more multi-storied stands is also contributing to the 

increased susceptibility to more severe wildfire.

Desired Condition: The distribution and abundance of forest structural stages creates 

conditions that are ecologically resilient, sustainable, and compatible with natural levels 

of disturbance. Table 6 displays the range of conditions representing the desired 

proportion of each upland forest potential vegetation group existing in each of the forest 

structural stages. The range of desired conditions reflects the natural variations in the mix 

of structural stage combinations that would be expected to occur across the landscape 

over time and which allows for flexibility with regards to addressing other desired 

conditions.

Table 6. Desired conditions for forest structural stages, described as a percent of each 

upland forest potential vegetation group

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Current 

Total 

Acres:

Stand 

Initiation

Stem 

Exclusion

Understory 

Reinitiation

Old Forest 

SingleStory

Old Forest 

Multi-story

Cold upland ≈ 365,000 20-45 15-30 10-25 5-20 10-25

Moist 

upland ≈ 370,000 20-30 20-30 15-25 10-20 15-20

Dry upland ≈ 640,000 15-30 10-20 0-5 40-65 1-15

Scale: Minimum scale of subwatershed. Scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin 

level if justified as more appropriate through project analysis.

Desired Condition: The distribution and abundance of grassland and shrubland 

structural stages create conditions that are ecologically resilient, sustainable, and 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

50

compatible with maintaining disturbance processes within the desired conditions. The 

structural diversity of grasslands and shrublands are characteristic of the settings in which 

they occur and the disturbance regimes in which they developed. These conditions 

support the capacity of plants to reproduce and persist on the landscape. Variations in the 

mix of structural stage combinations across the landscape allow grasslands and 

shrublands to respond to potential changes in climate. The desired conditions for 

structural stages include shrubland and grassland potential vegetation groups, as well as 

grass and shrub layers in forested environments.

Scale: Grassland and shrubland desired conditions should apply at the project scale 

(minimum of 1,000 acres).

1.7 Plant Species Composition

Forested Vegetation Background: The vegetative species composition within different potential 

vegetation groups can significantly influence the wildfire, and insects and disease hazards in an 

area. The shade tolerance of tree species is a measure of a species ability to grow successfully and 

regenerate in shaded conditions. Common tree species of the Blue Mountains region that are 

more intolerant to shaded conditions include ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western larch, and 

western white pine. Tree species that are relatively tolerant of shade include Engelmann spruce, 

subalpine fir and grand fir. The variety of Douglas-fir found in the Blue Mountains is generally 

considered intermediate along the shade tolerance continuum, more tolerant of shade than 

ponderosa pine, but much less tolerant of shade than its common associate, grand fir. Common 

shade intolerant tree species like ponderosa pine and western larch, as well as the intermediate 

Douglas-fir, tend to be better adapted to low severity surface fires and they exhibit greater 

tolerance to drought conditions. Conversely, shade tolerant species like grand fir or subalpine fir 

are generally associated with a high susceptibility to defoliators, root diseases, fir engraver beetle, 

stem decay, and other insects or disease agents. Drought and excessive stocking often exacerbate 

mortality caused by these agents. Much of the perceived increase in insect and disease activity 

and increasing vulnerability to stand replacing wildfire within the dry upland forest is related to 

the increased proportion of grand fir across the landscape.

Shade tolerant species like grand fir can regenerate and grow underneath overstories of more 

mature trees. In the absence of the natural thinning and weeding effect of low severity surface 

fires, the dense multi-layered structure that often results can greatly increase the potential fire 

behavior. Species composition can also influence landscape diversity, scenic diversity, and the 

availability of socially desired products. Desired ranges of species composition were developed 

using a model that simulated the development of historical tree species compositions that would 

likely develop under more natural disturbance regimes. The desired species compositions should 

represent forest conditions that are more sustainable into the future.

Existing Condition: In the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, many landscape and forest standlevel species compositions have been modified by past harvests, which removed large ponderosa 

pine, western larch, Douglas-fir and western white pine. The exclusion of wildfire and past 

grazing practices have also contributed to a significant shift away from fire and drought tolerant 

tree species, as well as the introduction of invasive plant species (Stine et al. 2014). There have 

been significant increases in the distribution of grand fir (Hessburg et al. 1999). The abundance of 

juniper has increased on many sites that were historically dominated by sagebrush. The 

distribution of aspen has decreased and the recruitment of younger aspen trees is declining due to 

conifer encroachment, browsing, and the exclusion of wildfire. Whitebark pine has decreased due 

to white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetle mortality, and possibly competition with subalpine 

fir. Western white pine, although common in small localized areas, has a limited abundance at the 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

51

larger landscape level. This level of white pine at the landscape level is largely consistent with 

estimated historical levels.

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, the proportion of the group dominated by 

shade-tolerant species ranges from 24 to 55 percent, compared to a desired condition of 5 to 20 

percent. Changes such as this in the existing species composition have created a landscape that is 

more susceptible to larger scale uncharacteristic disturbances and less resilient to natural 

disturbances and climate change than what is desired.

Desired Condition: The mix of tree species composition across the landscape creates 

conditions that are ecologically resilient to natural disturbance regimes and are

sustainable over the long-term. Early seral species such as ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir 

and western larch are the primary tree species in locations characterized by frequent fires

and drought stress. Shade tolerant species (e.g., grand fir, Engelmann spruce, subalpine 

fir) are more dominant in areas characterized by lower fire frequency and less moisture 

stress. A site appropriate mixture of species is promoted and maintained to mitigate the 

risk that any single type of insect or disease agent can cause severe damage across 

extensive areas. Sites that historically have had the potential to support forested

vegetation and are likely to maintain that capability in the future, given regional climate 

projections, are occupied by tree stands within the ranges displayed in Table 7. The table

displays the desired proportion of each upland forest potential vegetation group in each of 

the dominant species composition classes. The range of desired proportions allows for 

variations in the species composition across the landscape to respond to potential changes 

in climate or other management goals.

Table 7. Desired conditions for species composition, described as a proportion of each 

potential vegetation group with the following dominant species.

Potential Vegetation 

Group

Shade-intolerant 

Dominant Species 

Composition

Intermediate-tolerant 

Dominant Species 

Composition

Shade-tolerant 

Dominant Species 

Composition

Cold upland forest

Current Total Acres

≈ 365,000

40 to 60%

(preferred dominant 

species include 

western larch, western 

white pine, whitebark 

pine, lodgepole pine)

5 to 20%

(preferred intermediate 

tolerant species 

include Douglas-fir)

25 to 50%

(preferred tolerant 

species include 

Engelmann spruce, 

subalpine fir, grand fir)

Moist upland forest

Current Total Acres

≈ 370,000

30 to 60%

(preferred intolerant 

species include 

western larch, western 

white pine, ponderosa 

pine, lodgepole pine)

20 to 40%

(preferred intermediate 

tolerant species 

include Douglas-fir)

10 to 30%

(preferred tolerant 

species include grand 

fir, Engelmann spruce, 

subalpine fir)

Dry upland forest

Current Total Acres

≈ 640,000

75 to 90%

(preferred intolerant 

species include 

ponderosa pine, 

western larch)

Not applicable

5 to20%

(preferred tolerant 

species include grand 

fir; preferred 

intermediate tolerant 

species include 

Douglas-fir)
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

52

The mix of species in the grass and shrub layer of forests, as well as shrubland and 

grassland vegetation, contain a diverse array of native species distributed across the 

landscape reflecting historical conditions. Perennial native bunchgrasses dominate 

grasslands and shrublands. Native grasses, grass-like plants (sedges and rushes), forbs 

and various shrubs characterize the forest understory. Riparian zones consist of meadows 

with obligate wetland species including native grasses, sedges and rushes, hardwoods, 

and structurally diverse riparian shrublands.

Scale: Minimum scale of subwatershed. Scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin 

level if justified as more appropriate though project analysis.

Grazing Land Vegetation Background: Grazing lands provide forage for wildlife, permitted 

livestock, and wild horses, as well as habitat for a wide variety of other animals and plant species, 

including rare or unique plant species and communities. Grazing lands and associated plant 

communities also provide important watershed values, including soil protection, high quality 

water storage and slow release, and biodiversity. Other intrinsic values associated with rangelands 

include maintenance of open space, visual beauty, and areas for recreational activities.

Johnson and Swanson (2005) classify vegetation along a gradient of increasing departure from 

pristine, native vegetation (reference conditions). Phases A to C are used to describe the 

distinctive plant communities in a state close to reference, which represents the historical range of 

vegetation dynamics of a site. Phase A is the most resilient plant community within that state and 

depicts reference conditions. Phase B shows moderate departure from reference conditions. Phase 

C is strongly departed from reference conditions. This is the at-risk phase, which is the least 

resilient and most vulnerable to transition to an alternate state. Sites with vegetation conditions 

completely departed from reference are classified as Phase D. This phase represents various 

alternate states possible for a site. Transitions to alternate states can be caused by grazing, 

alteration of water tables through mining or irrigation, cultivation, fire suppression and other 

large disturbances. It is important to note that sites in Phase D may still fulfill many ecosystem 

functions such as forage production and erosion control and may, with additional disturbance, 

transition to a different and possibly less desirable alternate state (FEIS Vol. 1, Issue 3: Livestock 

Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation, Analysis Assumptions).

Existing Condition: A variety of past activities, such as livestock grazing, mining, and logging, 

have significantly altered rangelands and forestlands. Many of these activities predate the 

establishment of national forests and have lasting effects on the structure and composition of 

vegetation cover.

In the Blue Mountains, the majority of the forage is produced in forestland sites. Within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, distribution among forest grazing lands phase groupings are 

91 percent in Phases A and B (see Table 8).

The general condition of rangelands appears more departed from reference conditions than 

forestlands. Within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Phases A and B rangelands account 

for 42 percent of rangeland (see Table 8). As with the forest grazing lands, most of the Phases C 

and D rangelands may be the result of activities that pre-date the establishment of the WallowaWhitman National Forest. Whether these sites have crossed a threshold and transitioned to an 

alternate state or not has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

53

Table 8. Summary of current vegetation survey plot phases for the 

existing condition for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Phases Acres

A or B forest grazing land 718,900 (91%)

C or D forest grazing land 71,100 (9%)

Total forest grazing land 790,000

A or B rangeland 118,000 (42%)

C or D rangeland 177,000 (58%)

Total rangeland 295,000

Desired Condition: Rangelands reflect native or desired nonnative plant composition 

and cover at near-natural levels as defined by the site potential.

The diversity of vegetation in grass and shrub layers contains an array of native species 

distributed across the landscape reflecting historical conditions. Perennial native 

bunchgrasses dominate many grasslands and shrublands. Native grasses, grass-like plants 

(sedges and rushes), forbs and various shrubs characterize the forest understory. Riparian 

zones consist of meadows with obligate wetland species including native grasses, sedges 

and rushes, riparian hardwoods and structurally diverse shrublands.

Scale: Minimum scale of subwatershed. Scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin 

level if justified though project analysis as more appropriate.

Desired Condition: The distribution and abundance of vegetation density within 

grasslands and shrublands create conditions that are ecologically resilient, sustainable, 

and compatible with maintaining disturbance processes. These conditions support the 

capacity of the grassland and shrubland plants to reproduce and persist on the landscape. 

Variations in the mix of vegetation density combinations across the landscape allow 

grasslands and shrublands to respond to potential changes in climate. The desired 

conditions for vegetation density include shrubland and grassland potential vegetation 

groups, as well as grass and shrub layers in forested environments.

Scale: Grassland and shrubland desired conditions are applied at the project scale 

(minimum of 1,000 acres).

1.8 Stand Density

Background: Stand density refers to the degree to which an area is occupied by trees and the 

intensity by which trees are competing for site resources (Tappeiner 2007). Stand density is 

important as it directly relates to the availability of limited resources that are critical in terms of 

both stand-level productivity and individual tree vigor. It is also important in terms of wildfire

behavior, wildlife habitat, and insect and disease disturbances. For example, very high stand 

density tends to spread the available growing space among too many individual trees. The result 

is that many trees become stressed and decline in vigor. Stress also reduces the ability of a tree to 

resist insects and diseases and increases the likelihood of mortality. However, some wildlife 

species depend on the relative security of either dense stems and foliage or interlocking overstory 

canopies to rear young and escape predators. Stand density relationships to potential fire behavior 

can be complex. Higher density (e.g., more fuels) forest stands typically correlate to greater 

potential for severe fire behavior.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

54

Stand density can be described or quantified in many ways; strictly speaking, it is an absolute 

measure of tree occupancy per unit area, commonly expressed as trees per acre. Relative density 

is a concept that is important to forest managers, as it is used to gauge the degree of competition 

between trees relative to some implied biological limit or “carrying capacity” (Kimmins 2004). 

The broad-scale analysis and modeling done in support of this Forest Plan used canopy cover to 

characterize stand density. Canopy cover is somewhat different from stand density, as it is the 

proportion of the ground covered by a vertical projection of the tree canopy (Jennings et al.

1999). Tree size and numbers are not a direct part of this measure, but canopy cover correlates 

with the idea of relative site occupancy. It has the added advantage of being readily estimated by 

remote sensing techniques used in large-scale forest inventories. Canopy cover can also be 

indirectly estimated using attributes commonly collected during detailed ground examinations. 

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, high stand-density conditions were 

defined as those stands having 40 percent canopy cover or greater. Within the moist and cold 

upland forest potential vegetation groups, high stand density conditions were defined as those 

stands having 60 percent canopy cover or greater. Stands with canopy covers less than these 

thresholds were categorized as having low density.

Prior to Euro-American settlement, dry upland forests of the Northwest like the ones found in the 

Blue Mountains region were burned by frequent low- or mixed-severity fires (Johnston 2016, 

Heyerdahl and Agee 1996, Agee 1993). The result was that these fires, which burned mostly on 

the surface, maintained low and variable tree density stand conditions throughout most of the dry 

upland forest (Hessburg et al. 2005). The historical range of variability analysis completed to 

support this Forest Plan estimated that 80 to 90 percent of the dry upland forest would be 

expected to exist in open stand density conditions if natural disturbance regimes and ecological 

processes were functioning. The moist and cold upland landscapes were likely predominantly 

closed density stands, but a portion of those vegetation groups may have existed in a low-density

condition.

Existing Condition: Decades of wildfire suppression and exclusion, domestic livestock grazing, 

and timber harvesting have interacted to alter the structure, composition, and disturbance regimes 

of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The dry upland forest has become much denser. 

Approximately 67 percent of the dry upland forest is characterized as being closed-density 

compared to an estimated 10 to 20 percent historically. A study compiled by Stine et al. (2014) 

indicates that current density of the dry forest in northeast Oregon is on average about 2.5 times 

higher than historical conditions. The same study shows that within the moist mixed-conifer 

forest trees per acre are about 2 times as high. Large landscapes of dry forest are now much more 

uniform in their composition and dense structure, and these density changes have contributed 

significantly in shifting disturbance regimes toward less frequent, but larger and more severe 

disturbance events. The existing dry upland forests no longer appear or function as they once did.

Desired Condition: Vegetation densities across the landscape create conditions that are 

ecologically resilient, sustainable, and compatible with desired levels of disturbance 

processes.

For each forested potential vegetation group, the proportions of stands existing in low or 

high-density conditions on the landscape occur within the ranges indicated in Table 9

below. The range of desired conditions reflects the natural variations in the mix of stand 

density conditions that would be expected to occur across the landscape over time, and

allows for flexibility with regards to addressing other desired conditions. Stands 

representing the full range of density conditions possible within each of the broad 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

55

categories defined as low or high occur and are well distributed across the landscape. 

Appropriate levels of fine scale variability in density exist within stand-level units.

Scale: Fine scale variability in density is analyzed at the stand-level. Overall, potential 

vegetation group desired conditions are relevant at the minimum scale of subwatershed; 

the scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin level if justified through project 

analysis.

Table 9. Desired conditions for forest stand density, described as a percent of 

each upland forest potential vegetation group.

Potential Vegetation Group Low Stand Density High Stand Density

Cold upland forest 20-30 65-80

Moist upland forest 30-40 60-80

Dry upland forest 80-90 5-20

Dry upland forest high stand density is 40 percent canopy cover or greater.

Cold and moist upland forest high stand density is 60 percent canopy cover or greater.

1.9 Air Quality

Background: Air quality describes the state of the surrounding air at any given time and is 

measured by the concentration of pollutants that are known to be harmful to the health and 

welfare of people and the environment. Air quality is regulated by the States under the authority 

of the Clean Air Act (1970). Amendments to the Act in 1977 established goals for preventing 

impairment of visibility in larger wilderness areas and national parks in existence at the time, 

placed controls on particulate emissions, and established monitoring requirements. Human 

sources of air pollution include industrial emissions, energy production and generation, 

automobile exhaust, and smoke from agricultural field burning, wildfires, and prescribed fires. 

Regulated pollutants include smoke, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, carbon 

monoxide, numerous volatile organic chemical compounds, and metals, including lead and 

mercury. Air pollutants can be further portioned into global sources that circulate with prevailing 

winds in the northern hemisphere and local or regional sources that may impact the WallowaWhitman National Forest from some distance, depending on prevailing wind and weather 

patterns.

Smoke, including fine particulate emissions from wildland fire (planned and unplanned 

ignitions), results in reduced visibility and haze at lower concentrations and can be hazardous to 

human health at moderate concentrations. Federal and State standards include protection of air 

quality-related values in Class I areas (wilderness areas greater than 5,000 acres that existed on or 

before August 1977; on the Wallowa-Whitman, this includes Eagle Cap, Monument Rock, and 

North Fork John Day Wilderness Areas).

The primary national forest activity in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest influencing air 

quality is smoke production from wildfires and prescribed fires. Wildfires are recognized as a 

natural part and a recurring process in fire-dependent ecosystems. Some of the primary objectives 

of managed fuel reduction activities are to reduce the total amount of annual smoke emissions

otherwise brought about by wildfires, to reduce the risk of high-severity and high intensity

wildfires, and to lower the potential of smoke impacts to local communities and other smokesensitive areas. In compliance with the Clean Air Act, smoke emissions from prescribed burning 

and fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands are regulated through State 

Implementation Plans and Smoke Management Plans in Oregon.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

56

Air quality monitoring is accomplished through national, regional, and local monitoring, and 

includes measurement of visibility, particulates, acid deposition, and water chemistry (in lakes), 

biomonitoring of lichens, and deposition of nitrogen, sulfur compounds, and heavy metals, 

including mercury.

Existing Condition: Smoke emissions from wildfires can vary greatly from year to year, while 

annual smoke emissions from prescribed fires are less variable. Both have the potential to affect 

local community and regional air quality.

Desired Condition: National forest air quality complies with national and State (Oregon

and Idaho) ambient air quality standards and State air quality and smoke management 

plans (ODF 2012). Air quality within the national forest is sufficient to protect the 

environment, human health, and safety.

Air quality in Class I wilderness areas is consistent with Clean Air Act regulations and 

meets applicable State and Federal air quality standards.

Scale: Smoke emissions are relevant at the scale of the Blue Mountains as well as at local 

air sheds surrounding local communities and the broader areas that encompass designated

wilderness.

1.10 Soil Quality

Background: Soils develop over long time periods (from decades to centuries), depending on 

local site characteristics. Five variables are involved in the development of soil: (1) climate, (2) 

the nature of geological parent material (rock type), (3) the actions of living organisms (including 

vegetation, soil organisms, and microbes), (4) topography, and (5) weathering and decomposition 

processes (Brady 1990, Harvey et al. 1994). The biological, physical, and chemical properties of 

soils contribute to both the biological productivity of plant communities and the hydrologic 

functioning of watersheds. In addition, soils likely store as much carbon as is contained in above 

ground vegetation and are therefore important when considering the effects of climate change.

The five soil forming factors help us understand the soils developmental process. The system of 

soil classification used by the National Cooperative Soil Survey, has identified 12 soil orders that 

are the highest level used to classify all soil types. The Blue Mountains possess 5 of the 12 soil 

orders. They are, in the order of those that are typically the most stable to the most erosive: 

Mollisols, Alfisols, Andisols, Inceptisols, and Entisols.

• Mollisols (from the Latin mollis – soft) are most often prairie or grassland soils with a 

dark-colored surface horizon. They are highly fertile and rich in chemical “bases” such as 

calcium and magnesium. The dark surface horizon comes from the yearly addition of 

organic matter to the soil from the deep roots of prairie plants. Mollisols are often found 

in climates with pronounced dry seasons.

• Alfisols (from the soil science term Pedalfer – aluminum (Al) and iron (Fe)) typically 

form beneath hardwood forest cover; have a clay-enriched subsoil and have relatively 

high native fertility (Al and Fe); and are found in temperate humid or subhumid regions.

• Andisols (from the Japanese ando – black soil) typically form from the weathering of 

volcanic materials such as ash, resulting in minerals in the soil with poor crystal structure. 

These minerals have an unusually high capacity to hold both nutrients and water, making 

these soils very productive and fertile. Andisols include weakly weathered soils with 

much volcanic glass, as well as more strongly weathered soils. They typically occur in 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

57

areas with moderate to high rainfall and cool temperatures and they also tend to be highly 

erodible when on slopes.

• Inceptisols (from the Latin inceptum – beginning) exhibit a moderate degree of soil 

development and lack significant clay accumulation in the subsoil. They occur over a 

wide range of parent materials and climatic conditions, and thus have a wide range of 

characteristics.

• Entisols (from recent – new) are the last order in soil taxonomy and exhibit little to no 

soil development other than the presence of an identifiable topsoil horizon. These soils 

occur in areas of recently deposited sediments, often in places where deposition is faster 

than the rate of soil development. Some typical landforms where Entisols are located 

include active flood plains, dunes, landslide areas, and behind retreating glaciers.

These soil orders are referenced to the soil series mentioned in the land type associations mapped 

in the Blue Mountains Ecoregions (USDA Forest Service 2006, Table 8). This mapping is a broad 

generalization of the soil mapping available. Mapping with greater detail (Terrestrial Ecological 

Unit Inventory) has been published for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. For the sake of 

consistency, the land type associations are used to delineate the soils within the Blue Mountains. 

The generalized mapping in the land type associations identifies four soil orders, while most of 

the Entic, Inceptic and Alfic soils are common to forested ecosystems; Mollic soils typically 

developed under an ecosystem dominated by grasses.

Defined as having a high base saturation and high organic content (USDA 2010), Mollisols can 

develop under a forested environment but only if topographic features allow organic matter 

accumulations (i.e., wetlands or stands on a concave surface) and the forest species, like 

deciduous trees, can help build organic accumulations. Given this limitation, we can infer that 

Mollisols in the Blue Mountains present on convex surfaces (ridge and shoulder slope positions) 

or linear (flat or mid-slope) landforms developed under a grass-dominated condition. Despite 

their grassland development, some of these Mollisols currently support forested conditions, so it 

is probable these stands have encroached on the previously sparsely timbered open savannah.

Surface soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams are common contributors to reduced water 

quality (Coats and Miller 1981). Sediment in streams can increase water treatment costs where 

water is used for human consumption (Forster et al. 1987) but is more commonly known for 

effects on aquatic habitats (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Bjornn and Reiser 1991, Cordone and Kelley 

1961, Waters 1995).

High-intensity wildfires may result in elevated post-fire water temperatures (Dunham et al. 2007), 

channel incision (Moody and Kinner 2006), greatly elevated erosion rates (MacDonald and 

Robichaud 2008, Shakesby and Doerr 2006) and loss of soil carbon and nitrogen (Bormann et al. 

2008).

Existing Condition: The quality of soils across the Blue Mountains has been affected to varying 

degrees by past land uses, such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting, road construction, mining, 

wildfire suppression, off-highway vehicle use, and the subsequent introduction of nonnative plant 

species from any one or more of the activities mentioned above. The effect of these activities can 

be reduced ground cover, altered vegetative conditions, increased soil erosion rates, and reduced

soil productivity and hydrologic function.

Some forest stands are growing on soils developed under non-forest conditions and are currently 

managed at densities that may be unsustainable under projected climate variations (i.e., those 

developing on Mollisols). The concept of forested unsustainability within Mollisol development 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

58

is closely associated with soils that range from shallow to very shallow in depth or have some 

other root limiting factors. Moderately deep soils, which are not uncommon in Mollisols, may 

allow for some buffering capacity against the effects which make them otherwise unsuitable or 

unsustainable for forests (i.e., in drought conditions). Deep and very deep Mollisols have both the 

nutrient capacity and may have the needed moisture capacity to support timber and grasslands 

sustainably. Shallow Mollisols may have the nutrient capacity to support timber stands; however, 

these soils, when considering predicted and extended drying trends, may not be suited for densely 

forested conditions.

Desired Condition: The productive potential of forest and range soils is maintained at 

levels that contribute to long-term sustainability of ecosystems considering the range of 

possible climate change scenarios. Soil physical and chemical properties (texture, porosity, 

strength, coarse fragment content, and fertility) and organic matter (surface woody debris, 

humus) are at levels that maintain potential soil productivity and hydrologic function 

(infiltration, percolation, and runoff).

Surface erosion rates and sediment deposition are within the natural range of variability 

for each biophysical setting, with an appropriate amount of effective ground cover as 

specified in best management practices in the form of live and dead vegetation.

Scale: Subwatershed to watershed depending on the severity of the disturbance regime

1.11 Water Quality

Background: Water quality is regulated nationally by authority of the Clean Water Act. Water 

quality criteria are established by the individual States and some Tribes for the protection of 

aquatic species and humans. Water quality criteria vary depending on the beneficial use of water. 

For example, the criteria for irrigation use, domestic use, and cold water fisheries are all different.

For aquatic species, water quality concerns include elevated stream temperature, elevated fine 

sediment levels, and the availability of nutrients on which aquatic food webs are based. Rivers

that originate from within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are used for irrigation of 

agricultural crops, recreation, and for human consumption.

Existing Condition: Surface water on National Forest System lands in the Wallowa-Whitman is 

designated for a variety of beneficial uses including, but not limited to recreation, irrigation, 

domestic and municipal water supplies, livestock watering, salmonid spawning and rearing 

habitat, and core cold water habitat. As specified in the Clean Water Act, both Oregon and 

Washington require protection of the most sensitive use. Within the Wallowa-Whitman, the most 

sensitive use is often one or more aquatic species that may vary seasonally depending on the use 

and the species affected. In the Blue Mountains, more than 1,200 national forest stream miles are 

listed as not meeting water quality criteria for this use due to elevated stream temperatures. Fewer 

than 100 stream miles are listed due to excess stream sedimentation. The flow regimes of many 

streams are affected by dams and water diversions. Removal of instream wood, changes in 

channel morphology, loss of floodplain connectivity, and alteration and loss of riparian vegetation 

all contribute to declines in water quality.

Desired Condition: Water quality (e.g., temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen) of 

surface and groundwater is sufficient to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

ecosystems. It is within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical 

integrity of the system and benefits the survival, growth, reproduction, and mobility of 

individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

59

The quality of water emanating from the national forest is sufficient to provide for statedesignated beneficial uses, including human uses.

Water quality in streams within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is sufficient to 

meet applicable State, local, and tribal water quality criteria.

Scale: Forestwide.

1.12 Landscape Patterns

Background: Landscape pattern, also referred to as landscape heterogeneity, is the emergent 

patchiness of landscapes and the variability occurring among the types of patches that results 

from characteristic disturbance processes, their variability, and succession. Landscape patterns 

can vary as a function of species composition, tree age, density, and layering structure. Landscape 

heterogeneity can occur at multiple spatial scales (Benton et al. 2003), from tree clumping

patterns within patches to broad patterns of patches that correspond with major topographic and 

elevation features. Landscape heterogeneity that resembles natural patterns resulting from 

characteristic fire regimes has been shown to provide for a richer more resilient biodiversity 

(Fischer et al. 2006), and it tends to more strongly support the characteristic fire regime.

Landscapes are ecological land units having variable structure, composition, and function. They 

are composed primarily of patches of vegetation that differ in size, shape, dynamics, origin, and 

ecosystem processes (Farina 2013). Landscape patterns can influence disturbance processes, 

nutrient cycling, and plant and animal distribution (Gosz et al. 1999 in Szaro et al. 1999). 

Landscape patterns determine how, where, and when vertebrate and invertebrate species utilize a 

given area. Landscape patterns influence the movement of species across the landscape.

Landscape patterns are initiated by vegetation interactions with soil, landform, and their relations 

with temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation gradients across landscapes. Within these 

basic elements: plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria inhabit the region and shape and modify their 

environment, creating even more complex patterns. Onto those patterns, different types and 

intensities of disturbance, discussed in Section 1.4, continually reshape the landscape. Landscape 

patterns are heavily influenced by the timing and characteristics of recurring disturbances, which 

are classified according to their “disturbance regimes.” Disturbance regimes differ in their 

frequency, intensity, seasonality, distribution, and extent. Landscape patterns and the associated 

disturbance processes determine the degree of dead wood structure that may occupy a site, 

nutrient cycling dynamics, and plant and animal distribution.

The essential dynamic of a landscape is a constantly shifting mosaic of vegetation patches. Some 

changes are sudden, such as after fires. Other changes are slow, taking place over decades (i.e., 

resulting from succession processes). Some of the most durable are those that take place over 

thousands of years (i.e., soil formation) or the way species evolve to fit distinct habitat or climatic 

niches.

A key concept is that although landscapes are made up of shifting patterns, in many ways their 

biotic content can be relatively stable in the absence of large disturbances, especially when the 

climate is relatively constant, or when climate variation is limited. When climatic variation is 

large, so is the variability of landscape patterns. Within the patterns of landscapes, there is 

normally a predictable range of variation in: (a) stand structure and stand densities, as described 

in the desired conditions for Section 1.6 and 1.8; (b) the number and types of species and their 

abundance (desired conditions for Section 1.7); (c) the ways natural communities form and the 

ways they cycle energy and nutrients through air (desired conditions for Section 1.9), soil (desired 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

60

conditions for Section 1.10), and water (desired conditions for Section 1.11). What remains the 

same in the shifting mosaic of landscape patterns is how natural communities both influence and 

respond to disturbance regimes (desired conditions for Section 1.4) and the way these dynamics 

create recognizable patterns that repeat across the landscape over time. Terrestrial and aquatic 

species diversity (desired conditions for Section 1.2) are highly correlated with diversity of 

landscape patterns.

Existing Condition: Issues of landscape patterns are well studied and described within the 

science of landscape ecology (Turner and Gardner 2015). Hann et al. (1997) found that when land 

use, ecosystem health, and species diversity are disconnected from the disturbance regimes, the 

landscape ecosystem develops characteristics that are atypical. Subsequent results are that

biodiversity and productivity may decline and disturbance regimes change, often from regular 

low intensity disturbances to irregular high intensity disturbances. In the Blue Mountains, 

Hemstrom et al. (2001) show that in the recent past human uses caused extensive changes to 

landscape patterns. These changes resulted in substantially atypical patterns from those that 

existed historically. This includes altered patch size distributions, patch shape and connectivity, 

stand structure, density, and composition, which have resulted in altered fire and insect 

disturbance regimes (Hessburg et al. 2000).

Fire-prone forests are historically dry, mesic, or cold interior forest types that depend on wildfires 

for regeneration and succession (Hessburg et al. 2015). For example, patch size and structure for 

dry forests has become more uniform and often more continuous and larger than was present 

historically. Conversely, for moist forests, patches have become smaller and more fragmented, but 

are also less diverse than they were historically (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). Past timber 

harvest practices may have played a role in creating these changes. For instance, the percentage 

of forest patches less than 40 acres in size has likely increased significantly as a result of the 

National Forest Management Act requirement, which limits the size of regeneration harvests to 

less than 40 acres. Since 1986, larger and more severe wildfires have contributed to an 

uncharacteristic landscape pattern, one that is outside of the natural range of variation (Haugo et 

al. 2015). This condition occurs mostly in landscapes that are actively managed, as compared to 

areas that are not actively managed, such as in wilderness areas. For example, Hann et al. (2003) 

found that the extent of fragmentation and homogenization of patches are substantial within the 

Columbia River Basin. Here, the highest departure of fragmented landscapes from natural 

conditions occurs in lower elevation watersheds. Watersheds that are the least departed from 

natural conditions occur at higher elevations, primarily in wilderness.

Desired Condition: Regional landscapes function as multi-level, cross-connected,

patchwork hierarchies with patterns and processes that interact across spatial scales; the 

historical, multi-level landscape patterns, processes and dynamics (Hessburg et al. 2015)

exist across the national forest. Forest vegetation is within the range of variability of 

disturbance and successional patterns as caused by fire, insects and diseases, and weather 

without a decline in soil or vegetation productivity, biodiversity, or in water quantity and 

quality.

Landscape-scale patterns of forest types include areas of different stages of succession, 

from recently disturbed to early regeneration, mid-stage regeneration, mature, old and 

decadent. Cross-connected landscape patches provide quality forage, cover, and security 

as viable species move through porous landscapes. Landscape patterns provide 

connectivity, facilitating the movement of wildlife across landscapes.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

61

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest contributes basic landscape patterns that vary 

from high elevation cold forest types to middle elevation moist forests, and low elevation 

dry forests and dry woodlands across the Blue Mountains. Cold forests generally occur in 

large patches mixed with small to medium sized openings of shrublands, wet meadows, 

and rocky outcrops. Moist forests tend to occur across large contiguous extents with few 

non-forest breaks or openings. Importantly, moist and dry forest types tend to overlap 

along a moisture gradient. The landscape patterns formed in the transition zone between 

moist and dry forests is often fine grained and complex, resulting in large amounts of 

edge between these forest types. Dry forests are made up of highly diverse landscape 

patterns. Dry forests consist of a wide range of forest patch sizes and shapes, from areas 

populated by many small clumps of trees and larger areas of more continuous dry forest 

with scattered small grassland openings intermingling with large swaths of grasslands 

and shrublands. Dry woodlands tend to be a sparser expression of the dry forest types.

Scale: Desired conditions for landscape patterns apply at multiple scales ranging from 

subwatershed (HUC-6) to forestwide extents.

1.13 Special Plant Habitats

Background: Special habitats are unique groups of living organisms or inanimate features that 

are limited in geographic extent, such as legacy trees, caves, cliffs, talus slopes, specific plant 

communities (i.e., aspen, whitebark pine, sagebrush steppe, etc.) and soil types. Oregon and 

Washington have completed conservation strategies (ODFW 2006a, WDFW 2005). Both State 

strategies identify rare habitats and specialized areas that occur within the Blue Mountains, as 

well as conservation actions.

A wide variety of special habitats occurs across the Blue Mountains, and these habitats are 

important for sustaining ecosystem function. Some special habitats result from or are affected by 

disturbances. Other special habitats, such as rock outcrops, may be indirectly affected by

disturbance. Depending on the extent and intensity of the disturbance, many special habitats may 

be created or are transitioned to a different ecological state.

On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, special habitats include, but are not limited to

mountain mahogany, aspen, cottonwood, sagebrush steppe, and whitebark pine. Some of the 

special habitats are associated with water and riparian areas (i.e., wetlands, waterbodies, springs, 

fens, seeps, and bogs). These types of special habitats are discussed in Section 1.1 Watershed 

Function. Special habitats tend to be small in area and localized in distribution.

Desired Condition: Special plant habitats include mountain mahogany, aspen, 

cottonwood, sagebrush steppe, and whitebark pine. They provide high quality habitat for 

associated species. The distribution and abundance of structural stages and vegetation 

density classes within these special plant habitats are consistent with their natural range 

of variability and create conditions that are ecologically resilient, sustainable, and 

compatible with maintaining disturbance processes within the desired conditions. 

Variations in the mix of structural stages and vegetation density combinations across the 

landscape allow special plant habitats to respond to potential changes in climate.

Scale: The desired condition for special plant habitats can be applied at a variety of scales

identified by species (i.e., national forest, watershed, subwatershed, or fine-scale standlevel).

The identification and protection of special aspen plant habitats are primarily 

accomplished at project-level planning. The sustainability of special plant habitats is best 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

62

addressed at the forestwide scale using consideration of the best available climate 

projections.

1.13.1 Whitebark Pine

Background: Whitebark pine has been widely described as a “keystone” species in highelevation forests (Tomback et al. 2001, Schwandt 2006). As an important ecosystem component 

that influences the success of other organisms, it plays a vital role in first colonizing areas 

disturbed by fire or landslides, stabilizing the soil, moderating snowmelt, and providing the cover 

that allows regeneration of other tree species. Seed dissemination by whitebark pine is unique 

among American pines. The species’ large, wingless seeds are rarely if ever spread by wind or 

gravity. Instead, whitebark pine seeds are mostly released from cones and disseminated by a bird 

species, the Clark’s nutcracker. Many other wildlife species of high-elevation ecosystems depend 

to varying degrees on whitebark pine seeds as food resources (Lanner 1996). Two species of 

squirrels, the red squirrel and the Douglas squirrel, harvest large numbers of whitebark pine cones 

in good seed years and store them in midden piles for winter food (Lanner 1996; Mattson et al. 

2001).

Existing Condition: On July 18, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the 

whitebark pine warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that adding the species 

to the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants is precluded by the need to 

address other listing actions of a higher priority, thus making it a Federal candidate species. The 

four major threats to whitebark pine identified in the Whitebark Pine Restoration Strategy for the 

Pacific Northwest (Aubry et al. 2008) include habitat loss and mortality from the nonnative 

fungus (white pine blister rust), mountain pine beetle, uncharacteristic fire associated with past 

fire exclusion, and environmental effects associated with climate change. The inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms also plays a role. Since its introduction in the U.S., white pine 

blister rust has caused unprecedented decline and mortality of whitebark pine in the Inland 

Northwest. Between 2005 and 2007, an estimated 600,000 whitebark pines were killed by 

mountain pine beetles in Washington and Oregon (Aubry et al. 2008). In some cases, the 

alteration of natural fire regimes due to active suppression has led to replacement by more shadetolerant tree species. These encroaching tree species tend to promote uncharacteristic large highseverity fires with the potential to severely reduce or eliminate cone-bearing whitebark pines

across extensive landscapes.

Desired Condition: The distribution and abundance of whitebark pine structural stages, 

age classes and density classes are consistent with their natural range of variability. 

Whitebark pine habitats are ecologically resilient, sustainable, and compatible with 

natural disturbance processes. Whitebark populations and the threats to those populations 

exist at levels that do not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

Whitebark pine is unaffected by invasive pests or diseases.

Scale: The desired conditions for whitebark pine special plant habitats can be applied at a 

variety of scales identified by species (i.e., national forest, watershed, subwatershed, or 

fine-scale stand-level).

1.13.2 Aspen

Background: Although quaking aspen occurs in a wide variety of habitats (including soil type 

and moisture conditions) and at a great range of elevation throughout northern and western North 

America, stands of quaking aspen are an uncommon and unique habitat type in the Blue 

Mountains. Wildfires normally revitalized aspen clones, with some patches sprouting 10,000 to 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

63

20,000 stems per hectare (24,710 to 49,421 stems per acre) in early life stages after fires. 

Ungulate browsing, both wild and domestic, and a host of stem cankers, foliar diseases, and 

insect defoliators would naturally thin aspen clones to one or two hundred stems per acre after 

several decades (Stine et al. 2014). As one of the few broadleaf deciduous trees in a region 

dominated by conifers and semi-desert grassland and scrub, aspen brings important diversity to 

the landscape. Aspen’s palatable twigs and foliage, and tendency to develop cavities, make it 

valuable habitat for wildlife such as deer, elk, woodpeckers, beaver, songbirds, and small 

mammals. Aspen grow in moist sites such as topographic depressions, seeps, springs, lake 

margins, and often in riparian areas, providing shade, streambank stability, and nutrients from 

leaf-fall to streams. Aspen are also appreciated for their scenic value, especially their golden 

colors in the fall (Swanson et al. 2010).

Existing Condition: In the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon, quaking aspen exists as small, 

scattered, remnant stands of rapidly declining trees. Although little is known about the historical

distribution of aspen in Oregon, it is believed that stands were once larger and more widely 

distributed. The two main reasons for the decline are believed to be browsing pressure and 

shading or replacement by conifers in the absence of fire or some other natural disturbance 

(Shirley and Erickson 2001). Small clonal aspen patches, often imbedded within mixed-conifer 

forests, have been heavily affected by fire exclusion owing to their relatively short life expectancy 

(stands begin to deteriorate at 55 to 60 years of age and are pathologically old and decadent at 90 

to 110 years (Stine et al. 2014). While aspen root systems may persist for thousands of years, 

aspen trees have an average lifespan of between 100 and 150 years in the Rocky Mountains, 

although stands occasionally survive beyond 200 years (Burns and Honkala 1990; Jones and 

Schier 1985). Assuming the same holds true for aspen in the Blue Mountains, then most of the 

aspen overstories are approaching the end of their natural life cycles. While several stands still 

appear to be vigorous, most are rapidly declining. A genetic survey conducted in the 1990s 

throughout the Blue Mountains indicated that the genetic diversity of aspen stands is strongly tied 

to the number of stands: the average number of clones per stand is only 2.5 and half the stands 

sampled were monoclonal (Swanson et al. 2010).

Desired Condition: The distribution and abundance of aspen across the landscape is 

consistent with their natural range of variability. Aspen habitats are ecologically resilient, 

sustainable, and compatible with natural disturbance processes. A diversity of aspen age 

and structure classes exists among clones and stands in a distribution similar to the ranges 

displayed in Table 10. Younger encroaching conifer species are minimal or absent within 

aspen stands.

Table 10. Desired conditions for age and structural composition of aspen

Age (Years) Structural Class Percentage of

Aspen Forest Area

0-40 Stand Initiation 45–50

40-80 Stem Exclusion and Understory Reinitiation 45–50

80+ Old Forest Multi-Storied and Single-Storied 5–10

Source: Swanson et al. 2010

Scale: The desired conditions for aspen special plant habitats can be applied at a variety 

of scales identified by species (i.e., national forest, watershed, subwatershed, or fine-scale 

stand-level).
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

64

1.13.3 Sagebrush Steppe

Background: Sagebrush habitats in eastern Oregon are extensive and diverse, ranging from low 

elevation valleys to high mountain areas and from grassland-like shrub-steppe to relatively dense 

shrublands. In addition, there are many species of sagebrush. For example, in the Blue 

Mountains, sagebrush shrubland species vary by elevation and soils but include low sagebrush, 

silver sagebrush, rigid sagebrush, basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, mountain big 

sagebrush, threetip sagebrush, bitterbrush, and rabbitbrush. Altered fire regimes, invasive plants

(such as invasive annual grasses or juniper), human development, and climate change are the 

primary stressors to sagebrush.

Sagebrush habitats have been reduced by more than 21 percent in Oregon from the late 1850s 

(Hagen 2011). Much of the loss has been due to conversion by agriculture and the conversion of 

lands to other exotic forbs and annual grasses (Wisdom et al. 2000). More than 90 percent of the 

sagebrush steppe community currently occurs within Bureau of Land Management and private 

lands, while only 8 percent occurs within National Forest System lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service administered lands, and Oregon Department of State Lands.

Existing Condition: As indicated previously, there are several sagebrush communities in the 

Blue Mountains, not all of which would be part of the sagebrush steppe special habitat. For 

example, the mountain big sagebrush/elk sedge plant community is a high elevation community 

found on gentle to steep mountain slopes above 5,000 feet (Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992).

Sagebrush steppe habitat occurs on less than 1 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Desired Condition: Sagebrush steppe habitat exists on National Forest System lands and 

70 percent of the existing sagebrush rangelands are in later structural stages (sagebrush 

classes 3, 4, and 5). The understory is comprised of native species, resulting in conditions 

that are sustainable and resilient to disturbance (i.e., they can recover to their potential

community without intervention after a disturbance).

Scale: The identification and protection of sagebrush steppe special habitat is primarily 

accomplished at project level planning. The sustainability of special plant habitats is best 

addressed at the forestwide scale using consideration of the best available climate 

projections.

1.14 Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees

Background: The Blue Mountains were historically dominated by and well known for vast 

expanses of old forest, particularly within the dry upland potential vegetation group. Old forest is 

a late stage of stand development mainly distinguished from younger forest by having an 

abundance of trees that are biologically old and large. Old forest has been defined many times 

and in several different ways. It is difficult to write a definition of old forest that will be 

applicable to all forest types (Kaufmann et al. 2007). Although simple impressions of old-growth 

forests as large trees in an undisturbed forest may exist in many people’s minds, answering the 

basic question, “What is old forest?” is complex (Egan 2007). Interim definitions introduced in 

the 1990s by the Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, incorporated minimum ages ranging 

from 150 to 200 years with minimum tree sizes of 21 to 31 inches diameter for several forest 

types common to the Blue Mountains. Because the typical life span, growth rates, and biological

size limits of individual tree species vary greatly, the age at which old forest characteristics 

develop within the Blue Mountains region also varies. It is also important to note that much of old

forest is characterized by low and mixed severity fire regimes. Old forest structures that develop 

under these conditions have evolved more in response to frequent disturbance than in response to 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

65

successional processes and the absence of disturbance. Old forest types in the Blue Mountains 

will look and function very differently than the old forest of the Pacific Northwest’s moist coastal 

model (Kaufmann et al. 2007; Stine et al. 2014).

A wide spectrum of social and ecological values are associated with old forests as well as 

individual large old trees. Old forests are some of the most ecologically and socially valuable 

successional stages in the Pacific Northwest (Spies and Duncan 2009). Old forests of the Blue 

Mountains are expected to provide a myriad of ecosystem services. Various groups find old 

forests aesthetically pleasing, ecologically important, economically valuable as a sustainable 

timber resource, and necessary for a landscape that is healthy and resilient to natural disturbances. 

Old forests and large old trees are also an important component of cultural identity for many 

groups of people. Many wildlife species require structural complexity typical of mature and old 

forests and the presence of large old trees within a stand can make a big difference for wildlife 

habitat values in both old and young forests (Stine et al. 2014). Widely distributed large, old trees 

provide a critical backbone particularly to dry and moist upland forests (Hessburg et al. 2015). 

Old trees, especially large old trees, found both within old forest stands and as scattered 

individuals are acknowledged to have great importance as ecological keystones. These trees are 

distinct from their younger versions in terms of ecological function. They have often developed 

physiological and structural features, which make them extremely valuable in terms of wildlife 

habitat, fire and drought resistance, and genetic resources (Franklin and Johnson 2012). Other 

perspectives include viewing the potential economic value of harvesting older and larger trees to

foster much needed restoration work. Larger and older trees and forests may also, in some cases,

be more susceptible to certain insects or diseases.

Additionally, a subset of old trees called “legacy” trees by Mazurek and Zielinski (2004) are old 

trees that have been spared during past harvest or have survived stand-replacing natural 

disturbances and are thus significantly older than those considered average trees in a general area. 

These “biological legacies” (Franklin 1990; Franklin et al. 2000) are of value to wildlife when 

they contain unique features such as large, rough-boles with dead horizontal limbs; witch’s broom 

deformities; are hollow, have heart rot, pockets of decay, or dead and broken tops, cavities or 

substantial wounds that will allow for burrowing into by wildlife. Species attracted to and 

dependent on such structural features include bats, owls, woodpeckers, migratory songbirds, and 

small mammals (Bull et al. 1997).

Much of the public debate regarding old forest management over the last two decades has been 

driven by social values such as aesthetic and spiritual qualities as well as ecological and 

economic concerns. Much of the management direction relevant to old forests and large trees has 

come from the Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife 

Standards for Timber Sales (a.k.a. Eastside Screens) which was incorporated into the previous 

Forest Plan by an amendment in 1995. The Eastside Screens direction has required the WallowaWhitman National Forest to maintain levels of old forest within the historical range of variability

and has also prohibited the harvest of any live trees greater than 21-inch diameter when the 

amount of old forest in the landscape is below the historical range of variability.

Existing Condition: The decline of larger older trees in the last century is an issue of concern 

across the globe (Lindemeyer 2014). Within the inland northwest, regional landscape assessments 

over the past 20 years have documented profound declines in the amount of old forests and large 

old trees (Hessburg and Agee 2003; Hessburg et al. 2005). As has been described previously in 

Section 1.6, within many areas of the Blue Mountains, when compared to historical conditions, 

there has been a net loss of larger and older structural stages and individual trees across the 

landscape.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

66

On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, old forest single-story stage within the dry upland 

forest potential vegetation group has been greatly reduced from historical levels. This is the most 

striking area of departure from natural conditions with the current extent of the dry forest in the 

old forest single-story structural stage being only 1 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman compared 

to a historical condition that ranged between 40 to 65 percent (Table 11). The total amount of old 

forest within the moist and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups is less departed from

the range of what occurred historically on the landscape, although there have been pronounced 

shifts from single-storied to multi-storied conditions in many areas.

Table 11. Existing old forest structure stages compared to historical range 

of variability

Potential Vegetation 

Group/Old Forest Stage

Historical Range of 

Variability Existing Condition

Cold PVG-OFSS 5 to 20% 1%

Cold PVG-OFMS 10 to 25% 34%

Moist PVG-OFSS 10 to 20% 1%

Moist PVG-OFMS 15 to 20% 25%

Dry PVG-OFSS 40 to 65% 1%

Dry PVG-OFMS 1 to 15% 14%

OFMS = Old Forest Multi-Story, OFSS = Old Forest Single-Story, PVG = potential 

vegetation group

Desired Conditions: Old forest stands typically exhibit an abundance of physiologically 

old and large trees (for a given species and site condition) that are dominant in the 

overstory. For each forested potential vegetation group, levels of old forest on the 

landscape exist within the ranges of historical variability indicated in Table 11. The range 

of desired conditions reflects the natural variations in the mix of structural stage 

combinations that would be expected to occur across the landscape over time and allows 

for flexibility with regards to addressing other desired conditions. Stands representing old 

forest structural stage are well distributed and occur within most management area 

allocations, but also shift across the landscape over time as a result of primary 

disturbances (e.g., fire, insects, and diseases).

An appropriate representation of younger and mid-aged trees exists within old forest 

stands to foster animal abundance and species diversity as well as mitigate the risk of loss 

from insect/disease agents and increase potential resilience (Stine et al. 2014; O’Hara and

Ramage 2013). Old forests and trees provide a variety of ecosystem services and social 

values, and old forest conservation is integrated and balanced with other ecological and 

economic desired conditions to the extent practicable.

Scale: Stand to Forestwide level for individual trees. For the old forest structure stage, 

minimum scale of subwatershed. Scale may be changed to watershed or subbasin level if 

justified as more appropriate through project analysis.

1.15 Snags and Down Wood

Background: The specific ecological conditions created by high severity fire events, as well as 

the general level of snags (standing dead trees) and down wood are all critical elements of 

healthy, productive, and biologically diverse forests (Bull et al. 1997). Thomas (1979) found that 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

67

179 wildlife species use snags and down wood within the Blue Mountains. These species depend 

on snags and down wood for foraging, denning, roosting, and nesting habitat. Down wood also 

stores nutrients and moisture and aids in soil development. The general levels of snags and down 

wood as well as the amount of forest that has recently experienced severe fire can all affect the 

sustainability of particular animal or plant species. Some species are nearly restricted in their 

habitat distribution to standing dead forests created by stand replacement fires (Hutto 1995).

Snags are the major source of down wood in both upland and riparian areas. Different amounts, 

ages, and sizes of snags typically exist throughout the forest landscape as a result of various 

disturbance agents and competition related mortality. At any given point in time, the quantity and 

extent of snag habitat conditions will vary, but will be greatest following disturbance events, such 

as wildfire, wind events, and insect and disease outbreaks. Snags and down wood density tend to 

be higher in riparian areas.

Conditions that exist in the years immediately following high severity, stand-replacing wildfires 

are unique because they create distinctive elements of forest structure that provide short-term 

pulses of high quality habitat for some dependent wildlife species. For example, bird 

communities in recently burned forests are different in composition from those in other habitat 

types (Hutto 1995).

Severe fire events occurred naturally throughout history. Many areas of the Wallowa-Whitman

now contain more trees than were present in past centuries, particularly in dry forest types, due to 

wildfire suppression over the last 100 years. The subsequent high fuel loads that remain in some 

areas could result in stand replacing, high severity fires that occur on a more frequent basis than 

they did historically (Hessburg et al. 2015). It is for these reasons that desired conditions for posthigh-severity fire habitat was developed to describe the level of post-fire habitat that is 

ecologically appropriate based on an analysis of the historical range of variability. Due to the 

special conditions that exist after a high-severity fire, these post-fire desired conditions, are 

presented in addition to the general desired levels of snags within the forest.

Existing Condition: Analysis conducted as part of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project revealed the following trends regarding the historical distribution of snags

across the broad area analyzed by that project (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997):

• Small snags have increased on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

administered lands (7 percent).

• Small snags have decreased across the basin (14 percent).

• Large snags have decreased on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management

administered lands (8 percent).

• Large snags have decreased across the basin (31 percent).

Most of the increase in small snags occurred within dry forests. The analysis indicated that within 

the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit, small snags decreased in the north and increased 

in the south. The abundance of small-diameter snags and small-diameter down wood in the dry 

forest has likely increased because of the reduction in the amount and frequency of low intensity 

wildfire.

The largest decreases in large snags occurred within dry and moist forests. Large snag declines on 

National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management administered lands were compounded 

along roads, where fuelwood harvest occurs. The decline in large snags was particularly noted 

within the northern portion of the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

68

Past management activities have reduced snag levels and created a higher percentage of the 

landscape that contains lower numbers of snags than is desired. Past management practices like 

fire suppression also reduced the percentage of landscape that experiences high-severity fires that 

create pulses of large numbers (trees per acre) of snags greater than 20 inches diameter.

Desired Condition: The portion of the potential vegetation groups containing the various 

levels and sizes of snags and down wood, as well as the appropriate level of forest that 

has recently experienced high severity fire, exist within all of the ranges indicated in 

Table 12 through Table 15. Table 12 displays the desired condition for down dead wood 

across the landscape. The desired condition varies based upon the potential vegetation 

group, size of the dead down wood, and amount of the dead down wood to be found 

across the landscape. Table 12 illustrates that the desired condition for the majority of the 

landscape is to have less than 20 tons of down wood per acre with the majority of coarse 

woody debris being less than 10 inches in diameter.

Table 12. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated 

ranges of down wood

Potential 

Vegetation Group

(PVG)/Forest

< 10

Tons

Per

Acre

10-20

Tons

Per

Acre

20-45

Tons

Per

Acre

45-65

Tons

Per 

Acre

65-90

Tons

Per

Acre

90 +

Tons

Per

Acre

Desired Residual 

Tons Composed of 

Material Greater 

than 12 Inches 

Diameter1

Cold upland 0-5% 70-80% 5-20% 2-4% 1-2% 1-2% 40-50%

Moist upland 0-5% 70-80% 5-20% 1-2% 1-2% 1-2% 50-60%

Dry upland 60-80% 5-15% 2-4% 1-2% 1-2% 1-2% 60-80%

Lodgepole pine2 0-5% 80-95% 1-10% 1-10% 1-2% 1-2% 10-20%

1. The intent of the 12-inch down wood portion of the desired condition is not that 12 inches exactly is needed, 

but that retention of the largest potential size class based on the size of the existing overstory trees is 

emphasized.

2. In the Blue Mountains classification system, lodgepole pine is not recognized as a potential vegetation group. 

However, the desired characteristics for the lodgepole cover type are different enough from either cold or 

moist forest that it is necessary to separate it.

Table 13 and Table 14 display the desired proportions of the potential vegetation groups 

that would contain the indicated ranges of snags per acre.

Table 13. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated 

range of snags per acre that are between 10 inches diameter and 20 inches diameter1

Potential 

Vegetation Group

Within Forest

< 1

Snag

1-2

Snags

2-6

Snags

6-10

Snags

10-14

Snags

14-18

Snags

More Than 

18 Snags

Cold upland 15-25% 1-5% 5-10% 10-15% 5-10% 5-10% 30-35%

Moist upland 20-30% 5-10% 15-20% 10-15% 10-15% 5-10% 15-25%

Dry upland 55-65% 10-20% 10-15% 2-4% 2-4% 1-2% 2-4%

Lodgepole pine 25-35% 5-10% 10-15% 5-10% 10-15% 1-5% 20-30%

1. Based on DecAID analysis. Mellen-McLean et al. 2009.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

69

Table 14. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing the indicated 

range of snags per acre that are 20 inches diameter or greater1

Potential 

Vegetation Group

within Forest

< 1

Snag

1-2

Snags

2-6

Snags

6-10

Snags

10-14

Snags

14-18

Snags

More Than 

18 Snags

Cold upland 30-40% 15-25% 30-40% 5-10% 2-4%

Less than 

or equal to 

1%

Less than 

or equal to 

1%

Moist upland 25-35% 15-20% 30-35% 5-10% 2-6% 1-3% 2-4%

Dry upland 70-80% 15-20% 5-10% 1-2%

Less than 

or equal to 

1%

1-2%

Less than 

or equal to 

1%

Lodgepole pine 65-75% 5-10% 10-20% 4-8% 1-3% 1-2% 0%2

1. Based on DecAID analysis. Mellen-McClean et al. 2009.

2. Because lodgepole pine rarely exceed 20 inches, it is not likely the lodgepole pine cover type will have more 

than 18 snags exceeding this diameter.

Table 15 shows the desired proportion of each potential vegetation group containing postfire habitat created by recent (less than 10 years ago) high severity wildfire. High-severity 

fire means average vegetation top-kill is estimated to be at least 75 percent.

Table 15. Desired proportion of the potential vegetation groups containing post-fire 

habitat created by recent (<10 yrs. ago) high severity fire1

Potential Vegetation Group

Medium and Large Size 

Forest

(Diameter 10” to 20”)

Old Forest

(Diameter > 20”)

Cold upland forest Not Less Than 2.0% Not Less Than 0.4%

Moist upland forest Not Less Than 2.0% Not Less Than 0.3%

Dry upland forest Not Less Than 1.3% Not Less Than 0.6%

1 High severity fire means average vegetation top-kill estimated to be at least 75 percent.

Large expanses of forest area containing less than 1 snag per acre typically exist only in 

areas decades after disturbance when all snags have fallen and the regenerating stand has 

not begun to produce snags. A mix of clumps, as well as areas of more widely distributed 

snags, occur within and among stands. In fire-prone areas, areas of higher amounts of 

snags and down wood occur mostly on parts of the landscape where fire is less likely to 

frequently consume dead wood and where it is less likely to produce fuels problems. 

Areas of flat to moderate slope (or the lower third on slopes), concave or straight 

topography, and north and east aspects are examples of areas that tend to burn less 

frequently and/or less severely. At the landscape scale, higher amounts of snags and down 

wood occur in moister plant associations and at higher elevations.

The specific attributes in areas recently affected by high severity fire, and the general 

level of snags and down wood provide adequate habitat for the following surrogate 

species: boreal owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten, white-headed woodpecker, 

western bluebird, fringed myotis, Lewis’s and black-backed woodpecker, wood duck, 

bald eagle, and red-naped sapsucker.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

70

Scale: The desired conditions presented within Tables 14 through 16 can be applied at 

scales such as forestwide or subbasin, although the distribution of snags and down wood 

can be very clumpy at a fine scale.

Goal 2: Promote Social Well-being

Social well-being contributes to resilience in national forests by fostering public use patterns and 

restoration strategies that help support human communities, livelihoods, cultures, and social 

values. National forests offer goods and services that can contribute to community resilience 

through various job markets and ecosystem services designed to benefit from forest products, as 

well as scenic and recreational opportunities for those electing to visit the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest.

Culturally significant foods, such as but not limited to water, salmon, deer, cous, and huckleberry 

are perpetually available for the cultural, economic and sovereign benefit of American Indian 

Tribes and contribute to tribal members’ social well-being. These resources are central to tribal 

identity and cultures and provide continued opportunities to apply traditional ecological and 

cultural knowledge and best available science to manage these resources and to preserve cultural 

continuity. Each individual using a national forest for its benefits strengthens ties to the land, 

traditional cultures, and communities, further characterizing social well-being (Pierce-Colfer and 

Byron 2001).

Attachments to places in and adjacent to the national forest reflect core values that shape and 

define social, economic, and ecological sustainability within the Blue Mountains and elsewhere 

(Endter-Wada et al. 1998). Examples include the values different people place on biodiversity, 

scenery, species’ recovery, economic opportunities, self-reliance, tradition, and ecological 

integrity (Brown and Reed 2000). These and a suite of other values form the basis for 

collaborative discussions about national forest management and, ultimately, how it affects social 

well-being.

A diverse and complex set of values that contributes to one’s social well-being can be tied to 

natural resources-related work, including restoration, ranching, and recreation. This work allows 

people to live in communities that are adjacent to the national forest. These values may include 

viewing or hunting wildlife, doing natural resource-related work, knowing that restoration efforts 

are supporting fish populations, and being part of an environment where human traditions and 

cultures can be maintained.

2.1 Scenery

Background: Scenic attributes, including identifiable patterns, distinct color, texture, form, and 

elements, such as aspen stands and rock formations, are derived from specific geological features 

and functioning ecosystems. These features provide a scenic identity and image that is valued as a 

backdrop for activities and experiences that create memories and meet expectations of Forest 

visitors (Bacon 1974 and Ryan 2005). People value the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for its

natural beauty, undeveloped and undisturbed scenes, and rural western setting when visiting, 

recreating, or traveling locally. There are opportunities to view historical operations, ditches, and 

structures (i.e., erected by Civilian Conservation Corp) and observe traditional uses in current 

times (i.e., ranching facilities and pole fences). Mountainous environments and canyons create 

dynamic settings that contribute to the scenery of the Wallowa-Whitman. Strong landscape 

images often appreciated include the diverse plant communities present in the forefront at 

different elevations along with a multitude of geological features (i.e., rock outcrops and peaks in 

the background) being integrated with varying types of water features.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

71

Scenery is inventoried and placed into one of seven scenic classes with Scenic Class 1 being 

highly valued and distinctive and Scenic Class 7 being non-distinctive and valued the least. Each 

classification is determined by the combination of scenic attractiveness, viewpoint, viewing 

distance, and duration along with the frequency or number of viewers (USDA Forest Service

1995b). Determining this range of scenic classes allows managers to understand the social 

acceptability of any change in scenery. Table 16 shows the distribution of scenic classes as 

inventoried for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Table 16. Percent distribution of scenic classes 

Scenic Class Percent Distribution

1 46

2 36

3 14

4 N/A

5 4

6 N/A

7 N/A

Scenic integrity and scenic stability are two indicators used to evaluate the condition of scenery 

resources. Scenic integrity addresses human caused disturbances and development that may 

detract from desired scenic character. Scenic stability addresses the relative stability of the valued 

scenic character and its scenic attributes. Further in-depth scenic character descriptions can be 

found in the Scenery Management System Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1995b).

2.1.1 Scenic Integrity and Scenic Stability

Existing Condition: Risks to scenic stability have been primarily received from management 

related activities of the past, such as wildfire suppression over the past century and timber harvest 

practices (i.e., clear cuts) before the 1980s. These activities resulted in conditions such as 

homogenous, overly dense forests with non-fire resistant species and forests heavily laden with 

fuels. Harvest activities since the 1980s have been designed to blend with natural settings and 

subsequent impacts have been less severe.

Scenic stability can be at risk from uncharacteristically large stand-replacing wildfire.

Scenic Integrity Level within the Blue Mountains:

• 10 to 15 percent of the landscape has a low or very low scenic integrity level, where 

visual disturbances detract from the valued scenic character. (An example is a vegetation 

harvest unit that appears distinctly geometric and unnatural.)

• 20 percent of the area has a moderate scenic integrity level, where openings in the 

vegetation are largely out of scale, but the edges are blended or are shaped in a manner 

that appears somewhat natural.

• 50 percent of the area has a high scenic integrity level.

• 15 percent is very high, where the valued scenic character appears intact with no 

detracting visual disturbances.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

72

Scenic Stability within the Blue Mountains:

• 45 percent of Scenic Class 1 has moderate scenic stability, meaning that most dominant 

scenery attributes of the valued landscape are present, but there are conditions that may 

change the stability of the attributes, such as a large-scale wildfire or disturbance from 

insects and diseases.

• Less than 5 percent of Scenic Class 1 has high scenic stability, meaning that the dominant 

scenery attributes are present and are likely to be sustained.

Desired Condition: Scenic Class includes desired conditions specific to the class. Table 

17 describes the forestwide desired conditions for scenic integrity and scenic stability.

Table 17. Desired scenic integrity levels and scenic stability levels 

Scenic Class Scenic Integrity Levels Scenic Stability Levels

1 Very high, high Very high, high

2 Very high, high, moderate Very high, high, moderate, low

3 Very high, high, moderate Very high, high, moderate, low

4 High, moderate, low Very high, high, moderate, low

5 High, moderate, low Very high, high, moderate, low

6 High, moderate, low Very high, high, moderate, low

7 High, moderate, low Very high, high, moderate, low

Scenic Class 1

Desired Condition: Scenery is highly valued, distinctive, and viewed frequently for a 

continuous duration. The view is highly intact where human alteration is not noticeable 

and high to very high scenic integrity is present. All naturally occurring or historically 

valued dominant attributes of the scenic character are present. The ecological condition 

maintains a high to very high scenic stability condition.

Scale: Forestwide.

Scenic Classes 2 and 3

Desired Condition: Scenery is valued, typical, and viewed frequently, but not 

continuously. Views are predominantly intact, with alterations compatible with valued 

scenic attributes. Human alteration may be present but does not dominate the view-shed 

and moderate to very high scenic integrity conditions prevails. Most dominant scenery 

attributes are present and are likely to be sustained. Ecological conditions may pose a 

threat to the valued scenic attributes where low to very high scenic stability is 

maintained.

Scale: Forestwide.

Scenic Classes 4, 5, 6, and 7

Desired Condition: Scenery is not distinct in form, line, texture and color, viewing 

frequency is low, and durations are short. Scenery is usually visually intact and 

disturbances do not dominate the view. Disturbances blend with the natural terrain. 

Visible utility corridors are linear features with feathered and undulating edges. Corridor 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

73

floors blend into natural contours and have groupings of low growing shrubs and 

boulders that break up the unnatural appearance of a cleared forest floor.

Energy developments are blended into the natural surroundings and low to high scenic 

integrity is maintained. The dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character 

are present and likely to be sustained. Low to very high scenic stability is maintained.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.2 Recreation

Background: National forests provide opportunities for a wide variety of outdoor recreation 

activities and settings. The Forest Service manages three types of recreational settings: developed 

recreation, dispersed recreation, and backcountry recreation. Different recreation activities can 

occur in any or all of these settings, depending on the nature of the activity. Most recreation users 

on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest participate in dispersed recreation (individually or in 

small groups), with a small component of activities created for large, organized groups. This 

creates a diverse range of visitor needs and expectations that the Forest Service is responsible for 

managing.

Recreation visitation to the Wallowa-Whitman includes two distinct demographics: regional and 

local. Regional recreation trends indicate an increasing average age of national forest visitors, an 

increasing proportion of multicultural and urban visitors, and a decreasing use by younger 

generations. These regional visitors are looking for developed recreation facilities that are 

accessible, allow larger recreational vehicles, accommodate larger group sizes, have a high level 

of staff presence for security, and provide more urban amenities, such as dump stations, cell 

phone coverage, and potable water. Many regional visitors generally prefer developed sites with 

amenities, and some of the developed sites do not meet the level of development generally 

desired by the urban visitors.

Some regional visitors can arrive by airplane, accessing the national forest’s backcountry 

airstrips. Recreational aviation enthusiasts generally have outdoor skills, require less 

infrastructure, seek less amenity, and desire more primitive settings.

Local recreationists comprise eighty percent or more of the visitation to the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2014). Local visitors tend to seek more remote and 

traditional recreation activities that require a high level of outdoor skill. In addition, local visitors

frequently use motor vehicles to access the national forest, which increases the demand for trailer 

parking at trailheads, pull-through campsites at campgrounds, and routes that accommodate offhighway vehicle use.

There currently is a high level of deferred maintenance for recreation facilities. Facilities 

maintenance issues may create health and safety concerns. To keep recreation facilities safe and 

operable, the Wallowa-Whitman staff develops partnerships or seeks alternative funding beyond 

appropriated funding. If alternative resources are not acquired, facilities such as campgrounds, 

trails, trailheads, roads, airstrips, and dispersed sites face closure. Deferred maintenance inhibits 

the ability to upgrade facilities with newer, more durable materials and designs or to develop 

them for improved accessibility.

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest also fulfills the Forest Service mission by permitting 

many commercial, volunteer, and organizational partners to operate recreational activities. These 

partners in turn contribute their unique talents, financial resources, and technical capabilities to 

provide services; otherwise, visitors may not be able to participate. Some of the permitted 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

74

activities include outfitter and guide services, ski areas and trams, lodges, and recreation events. 

Long-term permits are used to manage structures and facilities while short-term permits authorize 

events and services.

Existing Condition: Generally, recreation user satisfaction across the Wallowa-Whitman is good 

or very good regarding developed day use and overnight sites. Visitor satisfaction regarding 

dispersed recreation is of a wider range with more recreation visitors expressing an average, 

good, or very good level of satisfaction with the general forest condition. Wilderness visitors 

rated their satisfaction as good or very good, with notable dissatisfaction about interpretive 

displays and signs (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Across the Blue Mountains, the national forests received 730,000 visits as identified by the 2014

National Visitor Use Monitoring survey. The top five activities categories for all three national 

forests were relaxing, viewing natural features, hiking or walking, viewing wildlife, and hunting.

These were activities that recreation visitors participated in, regardless of the primary purpose of 

the visit (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Hunting was the most popular activity with 29 percent reporting it as their primary activity. 

Viewing natural features ranked second, with 10 percent of all visitors indicating it was the 

primary purpose of their visit. Relaxing, hiking or walking, fishing, gathering forest products, and 

downhill skiing were indicated as primary visit purposes by 5 to 10 percent of visitors (USDA 

Forest Service 2014).

Desired Condition: Outdoor recreation and relaxation in natural environments enrich the 

lifestyle, mental, and physical condition of national forest visitors. Recreation user 

satisfaction is maintained or improved. Valued recreation activities continue to be 

provided as traditional uses. Providers include the Forest Service, other agencies, and 

private operators. National forest visitors learn and practice environmental ethics, 

develop and refine outdoor recreation skills, and take on appropriate challenges and risk 

while respecting other outdoors users.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.2.1 Developed Recreation

Existing Condition: The developed recreation setting is primarily found in areas accessible to 

motor vehicles and adjacent to primary roads and highways. This recreational experience is 

generally accommodated by facilities that provide comfort and convenience for the visitor in the 

outdoor environment. Developed recreation sites in this setting include developed campgrounds; 

ski areas; snow parks; interpretive trails; designed, developed, large, and popular trailheads; and 

motor boat launch sites. The facilities generally have more constructed amenities than elsewhere 

within the national forests, which enhance the visitor’s experience. Examples of enhanced 

amenities include interpretive sites and overlooks along scenic byways, downhill ski areas, and 

lodges and resorts that are managed by commercial operators. The environmental surroundings 

are usually scenic in nature, such as scenic ridgetops, river corridors, or lakes. The social setting 

generally involves frequent contact with other recreation users who expect to share the facilities. 

The primary activities available within these settings are camping, boating and fishing, 

snowmobiling, downhill skiing, biking, driving for pleasure, and viewing wildlife and scenery.

Developed recreation settings are typically the most well-known and heavily used sites within the 

national forests. This type of concentrated use requires ongoing maintenance to meet user 

expectations. For example, few of the facilities offered currently accommodate the size and length 

of modern recreation vehicles and most are not yet fully accessible for visitors with disabilities.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

75

Some crowding is experienced and expected and the cleanliness of the sites may be impacted for 

short periods during peak use. Resource impacts are also more frequent due to heavy use near 

lakes and streams that can cause impacts to stream banks, riparian vegetation, beaches, fish 

spawning areas, and overall water quality.

About 4 percent of visitors elect to camp in developed sites as their primary recreation activity, 

with 10 to 20 percent camping at developed sites while participating in other activities.

Desired Condition: Developed facilities, such as campgrounds, restrooms, picnic areas, 

trailheads, snow parks, and boating and fishing sites, are well maintained, fully 

functional, provide for visitor safety, and are accessible to people with disabilities. 

Potable water and sanitary systems provided at the sites meet required health standards. 

Areas of highly concentrated use provide a full suite of amenities that provide for people 

of all ages and for those with varying abilities. The facilities are fully utilized with 

occupancy rates approaching full capacity during peak use periods and moderate 

occupancy rates during nonpeak summer and fall periods. Facilities provide some 

comfort for the user as well as site protection. New construction and reconstruction 

projects utilize, to the extent practicable, a contemporary/rustic design based on the use 

of native or durable materials (e.g., naturally found materials or materials that appear 

natural). Facility structures are of consistent design and character. Facilities complement 

the natural environment by using materials that fit with the surrounding landscape. 

Impacts to natural resources from visitor use are minimal. Partnerships with private 

providers are maintained with high-end developed areas, such as ski areas, trams, lodges, 

and concessionaire-operated campgrounds. Some special use permits, such as recreation 

residences, provide for recreation opportunities available to permit holders. Scenic 

integrity is commensurate with the inventoried scenic class.

Scale: Recreational setting.

2.2.2 Dispersed Recreation

Existing Condition: Dispersed recreation settings offer a broad array of opportunities to users 

who require few developed site amenities. National forest camps, rental cabins, and lookouts, offhighway vehicle trailheads, and wayside interpretive sites are examples of minimally developed 

facilities that are rustic in nature yet appeal to those wanting to be more self-sufficient. The sites 

lack plumbing, paved surfaces, or potable water sources found in the developed recreation setting. 

These areas are accessed via secondary or primitive roads and trails. Scenic and recreation river 

corridors also occur within this setting. Many activities occur here that people associate with a 

primitive or self-reliant dispersed activity. Peak periods can occur during fall hunting seasons 

when larger groups tend to congregate for hunting in traditional locations. During the rest of the 

year, campsites and activities are more dispersed, and social encounters tend to be infrequent.

Visitors seek these settings to participate in a wide variety of activities, such as hiking, hunting, 

backpacking, stock packing, gathering forest products, biking, off-highway vehicle riding, 

fishing, and viewing scenery and wildlife. Outfitter and guide services also provide commercial 

service for hunting, fishing, day rides, and river boating and rafting.

The site amenities and road access in these settings are infrequently maintained, which can result 

in resource damage due to heavy use of dispersed sites and off-highway vehicle use off roads and 

trails.

National forest roads and trails comprise between 50 and 70 percent of facilities used by 

dispersed recreation users on the national forests throughout the Blue Mountains. Common 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

76

facility use includes visitors using scenic byways, picnic areas, snowmobile areas and trails, and 

frequenting developed fishing sites.

Desired Condition: Dispersed recreation allows national forest visitors opportunities to 

recreate independent of developed recreation facilities. Encounters with other visitors are 

common along travel routes; however, activities away from developed facilities provide 

for fewer encounters.

Recreation activities and access are readily available in this setting. Areas and facilities 

accommodate a variety of motorized and nonmotorized uses and are primarily used by 

visitors to begin and end recreational experiences with most of the time spent away from 

developed facilities. The rustic amenities provided are well maintained and fully 

functional. Rustic facilities are provided for site protection and sanitary purposes and fit 

in with the surrounding area.

Partnerships with private providers sustain specialty services, such as big game outfitting 

and guiding, horseback riding, shuttle services, and bicycle touring. Special use permits

provide for recreation opportunities limited to the use holders (i.e., outfitter and guides). 

Scenic integrity is commensurate with the inventoried scenic class.

Scale: Recreational setting.

2.2.3 Backcountry Recreation

Existing Condition: Backcountry recreation includes use of roaded and unroaded backcountry, 

designated wilderness areas, and wild rivers. While the National Visitor Use Monitoring does not 

distinguish between backcountry roaded and unroaded visits, there is a distinction for designated 

wilderness area use. There were 36,000 wilderness area site visits in 2014 to the national forests 

in the Blue Mountains (USDA Forest Service 2014).

Backcountry recreation occurs in the least developed setting and provides the greatest opportunity 

for solitude, risk, and challenge in environments of rugged, undeveloped landscapes. These 

landscapes are often deep, isolated canyons, heavily forested plateaus, subalpine high lake 

regions, and rocky ridgelines. There are minimal facilities, creating more self-reliance and 

challenge for visitors. Facilities, which are considered rustic or primitive in nature, such as 

information or direction signs, rustic toilets, and trails, may be found. In roaded backcountry, 

secondary roads provide access to small trailheads with only minimal directional signage. Trails 

for motor vehicle use and trails where motor vehicle use is prohibited are available in some areas 

but are not always open or maintained. Activities available in these areas, such as hunting and 

fishing, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle riding, trail riding and stock packing, and river 

boating and rafting, often require self-reliance and higher levels of outdoor skills.

Although less frequent than at dispersed and developed recreation sites, there are instances of 

resource damage due to heavy use of popular dispersed campsites, cross-country off-highway 

vehicle use, frequent use near beaches and high alpine lakes, and heavily traveled destination 

trails. The degree of solitude can be less than expected in popular areas, as well. Some conflicts 

between different types of multiple use groups, such as horseback riders, hikers, off-highway 

vehicle users, backcountry skiers, mountain bikers, and snowmobile users, occur on trails and in 

multiple use areas.

Desired Condition: Backcountry recreation allows national forest visitors opportunities 

to recreate independent of developed recreation sites except for trailheads, staging areas,

and other developed sites that facilitate backcountry access. Encounters with other people 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

77

are infrequent, and motorized uses are uncommon except near main portals. Recreation 

activities that require minimal amenities are available. The setting presents visitors with 

opportunities to experience solitude where backcountry skills and abilities are required. 

Amenities are functional and are provided primarily for site protection, information, 

vehicle parking, and sanitary purposes. Materials used are rustic and minimal. 

Partnerships with private providers sustain specialty services, such as backcountry skiing, 

jet boat and raft trips, aircraft, and big game outfitting and guiding services.

Scale: Recreational setting.

2.3 Hunting and Fishing

Background: Hunting and fishing are traditional recreational, subsistence and treaty uses within 

the national forests in the Blue Mountains. They are important aspects of local lifestyles and 

cultures, attract broad regional participation, and provide recreational and economic opportunities 

to surrounding communities including Tribes, family groups, and individuals to socialize and 

harvest food for their own use. Hunting was identified by the 2014 National Visitor Use 

Monitoring as the number one primary activity on the national forests in the Blue Mountains.

Existing Condition: Hunting and fishing remain important to Tribes, national forest visitors, and 

people who live throughout the region. The activities contribute to and diversify local economies. 

Activity levels have changed in recent years, with trends now indicating decreasing numbers of 

hunters and increasing numbers of people fishing on the national forest.

Desired Condition: Opportunities for hunting and fishing are available in a variety of 

settings. The national forest provides a mix of opportunities that foster hunting, fishing, 

and visitor activities such that they contribute to local, tribal, and regional economies and 

lifestyles, and support Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife management objectives

wherever feasible.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.3.1 Rocky Mountain Elk

Background: Elk have been identified as a hunted species that is of interest throughout the Plan 

Area. Oregon (ODFW 2003) has a developed management plan for elk in the Blue Mountains. Elk 

are important economically, ecologically, socially, and culturally within the Plan Area. Bolon 

(1994) reported that the value of elk hunting within the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington 

ranges between 17 and 20 million dollars per year.

The science around elk and elk habitat use has steadily evolved over the past few decades. In the 

past, management emphasis was placed on sustaining cover and reducing disturbance during 

hunting seasons to retain elk on National Forest System lands. Research at that time recommended 

national forest managers identify explicit canopy cover amounts and road density goals within

important elk habitat, such as winter ranges and select summer ranges. Traditionally, open road 

density (miles of road open to motorized use per square mile) was the metric used to describe 

human disturbance impacts on wildlife species such as elk. However, a road density metric alone, 

although important, does not address complexities in patterns of open routes or the frequency of 

use by motorized vehicles (Rowland et al. 2000 and Rowland et al. 2005).

Effective security for elk includes non-linear areas that are greater than one-half mile from open 

motorized routes and at least 250 acres in size (Hillis et al. 1991). This definition of security stems 

from the “Hillis Paradigm” that was developed in Montana and focused on reducing bull elk 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

78

vulnerability during hunting season. The metric of one-half mile from open motorized routes is 

validated by research from Starkey Experimental Forest and Range in Oregon that identified 0.5 

mile as the average minimum distance elk were found away from open motorized routes during 

hunting seasons (Johnson et al. 2005) and during non-hunting seasons where elk selected areas that 

were between 0.4 and 0.6 miles away from an open road (Ager et al. 2003). Elk show increased 

selection of areas away from open motorized routes up to at least 1.25 miles during summer 

(Rowland et al. 2000). The use of the open motorized route is the cause of disturbance, not the 

road itself. Although originally designed to inform management of bull elk during hunting season, 

if applicable, the Hillis Paradigm may be applied more broadly to encompass other seasons of use 

by elk. Geographical, topographical, or vegetative characteristics, or a combination of these 

features also enhance the function of elk security.

Hiding cover is typically capable of hiding 90 percent of standing adult elk from the view of a 

human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet during all seasons of the year that elk use for 

bedding, foraging, wallowing, and other functions. Hiding cover may include, but is not limited to 

trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow animals to conceal themselves partially 

or fully (Thomas 1979). Because hiding cover is a fine-scale habitat component that is difficult to 

quantify at the landscape scale, it is not included in our definition of effective elk security. 

However, hiding cover can help to mitigate the effects of disturbance.

Elk use of forage areas often depends not only on the quality and quantity of forage but also on the

proximity of forage to hiding cover and distance to routes open to motorized vehicles, the seasonal 

use of the route, and the frequency of use (Wisdom et al. 1986, Coe et al. 2011, Ciuti et al. 2012). 

Lands that provide elk forage typically display less than 40 percent canopy cover and may 

include grasslands, meadows, and riparian areas where grasses, sedges, forbs, and shrubs grow 

(Thomas et al. 1988, Cook et al. 2016). Lichen, leaves, and bark from trees provide forage during 

winter.

Recent research conducted at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and other sites provides

new insights into the importance of maintaining adequate nutritional resources for elk during 

summer and minimizing human disturbance effects year round through effective management of

motorized and nonmotorized uses and vegetative cover (Rowland et al. 2000, Long et al. 2008, 

Cook et al. 2016, Proffitt et al. 2016). The value of elk forage and hiding cover for a given season 

and landscape varies based on the biophysical potential of each landscape to sustain forest cover, 

topography, and nutritional resources. In addition, elk forage and hiding cover adjacent to open 

and frequently used roads and trails diminishes the value of these areas to elk depending on the 

distance from routes open to and used by motorized vehicles (Rowland et al. 2005). For example, 

on landscapes dominated by flat, open terrain and nutritious forage, elk security is often 

compromised by motorized disturbance and the forage is used less than it would be with no open 

motorized routes. Areas with steep topography help ameliorate effects of human disturbance 

because steep slopes help limit human access and also increase visual obstruction between humans 

and elk.

Existing Condition: Elk and the management of elk habitat continue to be important within the

Planning Area. Habitat abundance and quality in general, and conifer vegetation types, specifically, 

have not proven to be limiting factors for population expansion. The number of elk hunters

remains relatively constant as the elk population in the Blue Mountains has increased since 2010 

(ODFW 2015).

Analysis of elk habitat and historical range of variability of vegetation suggests there has been an 

increase in hiding cover and a potential decrease of quality forage. Forest stand density and 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

79

structure correspond to hiding cover and forage requirements for elk. Stand density has increased 

from historic levels (pre-1900) and large (20 inch diameter and larger) and medium (15 to 20 

inches diameter) trees across the landscape have decreased from historic levels. There has been an 

increase in multi-storied structure mostly in the dry upland forest Potential Vegetation Group but 

also in some moist and cold upland potential vegetation groups as well. Proximity of forage to elk 

security (including hiding cover) has been identified as being important to maintain a socially 

acceptable distribution of elk (Thomas et al. 1988, Wisdom et al. 1986, and Rowland et al. 2005).

The distribution of forage and hiding cover (patch size and spacing) varies by potential vegetation 

group across the Plan Area. The presence of cattle may also be a predictor of elk distribution in 

some conditions. Studies have demonstrated elk avoidance of cattle during summer (Coe et al. 

2001 and Coe et al. 2005).

Typically, elk summer in the higher elevations of the Blue Mountains and, historically, moved to 

the adjacent valleys during the winter. A large portion of the historic elk winter habitat in the Plan 

Area is on privately owned land that has been converted to agricultural and rural residential uses. 

As a result, elk no longer have access to or are unwanted on many of their traditional winter ranges 

in the Blue Mountains. Damage to fences, crops, and pastures on private land by elk has increased 

markedly during the past 40 years, leading to the development by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife of several elk winter-feeding areas on State, private, and Federal lands to minimize this 

damage (ODFW 2006b and ODFW 2007).

Motorized use on National Forest System lands, during all seasons, is one of the most consistent 

variables in determining distributions of elk, and has increased over the past two decades.

Wilderness and roadless areas are providing the majority of security for elk on the WallowaWhitman National Forest (Table 18). Sites with high nutritional resources are often selected by 

elk, but may not be used as often as expected if located near any open routes used by motorized 

vehicles. In addition, shed antler hunting in late winter and early spring has gained popularity and 

is a common cause of disturbance to wintering big game animals during a vulnerable time of year 

when there is limited available forage and inclement weather. As a result, elk may leave their 

winter range on National Forest System lands earlier, potentially moving onto private agricultural 

lands, and may experience stress and decreased body condition (ODFW 2015).

During hunting seasons, disturbances to elk from hunting pressure, especially the use of motorized 

vehicles, have pushed some elk to seek refuge on adjacent private lands where hunting is often not 

permitted or hunter densities and motorized uses are lower. In addition, private land practices of 

growing crops that offer high-quality forage to elk have influenced the redistribution of elk from 

public to private lands during nontraditional times, such as late summer. This situation reduces 

opportunities for hunter harvest on public lands and has led to damage to crops and pastures on 

private lands. Table 18 also displays acres and percent of the national forest that currently provides

security for elk using a distance band approach (Rowland et al. 2005). The size and shape of lands 

that provide security for elk are influenced largely by distance from open motorized routes;

vegetative cover and topography have mitigating effects.

Table 18. A summary of existing conditions of elk security (areas greater than one half mile from 

open motorized routes and at least 250 acres in size) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Acres of Elk 

Security

Acres of Elk Security

excluding Wilderness % of National Forest

% of National Forest 

excluding Wilderness

557,808 202,475 31% 11%

Analysis was completed at the HUC10 and HUC12 scale using National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD). The analysis 

excluded the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

80

Desired Condition: The desired conditions for Watershed Function (Section 1.1), Species 

Diversity (Section 1.2), Disturbance Processes (Section 1.4), Structural Stages (Section 

1.6), Plant Species Composition (Section 1.7), Stand Density (Section 1.8), and Landscape 

Patterns (Section 1.12) provide sustainable and resilient habitat for elk throughout their 

seasonal ranges. Elk habitat is spatially and temporally diverse and provides a mosaic of 

forage, hiding cover, and security across the landscape. The landscape pattern of these 

attributes provide elk habitat that contributes to improved distribution, abundance, and 

social acceptability of elk on National Forest System lands.

Hiding cover is available and enhances elk security. Hiding cover and forage patches are 

distributed to provide adequate biomass and quality forage such that elk remain on 

National Forest System lands to provide year-round recreational and cultural opportunities 

and minimize damage to crops and pastures on private lands. Browse and herbaceous 

plants are available to elk as forage to maintain body condition or animal performance, 

per the animal’s seasonal requirements (e.g. lactation or overwinter survival). The pattern 

and amount of forage and cover may vary depending on site potential and potential 

vegetation group desired conditions (1.4, 1.6, 1.8, and 1.12).

Consistent with other desired conditions and management area direction, 30 to 100

percent of a subwatershed provides effective security for elk as defined by Hillis et al.

(1991). Lands that provide elk security are distributed across all seasonal ranges 

providing safety when disturbance in their usual range is intensified by motorized use and

other human activities. Larger landscapes that provide elk security exist in appropriate 

spatial distribution and are connected or are nearby other smaller areas of elk security to 

allow for seasonal movement of elk across their range and to retain elk on National 

Forest System lands at all times of the year.

Elk are broadly distributed on spring/summer/fall habitat generally from April through 

November. Elk habitat provides a balanced juxtaposition of adequate nutritional 

resources for elk during summer and winter, minimizing human disturbance effects year 

round, and providing sufficient vegetative cover (Rowland et al. 2000, Long et al. 2008, 

Toweill and Thomas 2002). Effective elk security (minimal or no motorized use) within 

flat, high visibility landscapes encourages elk to remain on public lands. In steeper lands 

with increased topographic relief and/or vegetative cover, effective elk security 

encourages elk to remain on public lands. Effective security allows elk to utilize available 

forage and cover during calving season in the spring.

Winter ranges typically exist at lower elevations on smaller portions of the landscape. Elk 

use winter habitat generally from December through March and often into mid-April.

Effective elk security within winter ranges helps maintain body condition and encourages 

elk to remain on public lands.

Damage to crops and fences on neighboring private lands decrease with improved 

seasonal distribution of elk on Forest Service lands. Elk populations are distributed across 

seasonal habitats to fulfil their ecological roles and contribute to societal goals for 

recreation and available to tribal hunters exercising their tribal hunting rights.

Scale: A variety of spatial extents is applicable in evaluating elk habitat. Scales are 

described by many of the ecological desired conditions that relate to elk habitat (from 

Goal 1: Promote Ecological Integrity). Subwatershed and/or ecological ranges (winter or

summer) are typical scales to assess habitat effectiveness of forage, hiding cover, 

security, and distribution of elk. Different scales may be used as appropriate during 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

81

project analysis for certain elk habitat attributes (hiding cover or nutrition/forage) or to 

address areas of particular importance to elk (such as calving or habitat connectivity).

2.4 Cultural Resources

Background: Understanding the role of humans in past and present ecosystems provides a 

context for understanding landscapes and natural resource issues. Cultural resources have local, 

regional, and national scientific interest and significance and are elements of worldwide patterns 

and processes. The Heritage Program ensures that significant archaeological and historical 

resources are identified, protected, and preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of the public and 

future generations.

Cultural resource sites are categorized into three broad types: prehistoric site, historic site, or 

traditional cultural property. A prehistoric site is one that was established before the advent of a 

continuous written record, or approximately the year 1800. A historic site postdates 1800 and 

extends to 50 years before present. A traditional cultural property is associated with cultural 

practices or beliefs of a living community, is rooted in that community’s history, and is important 

in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community.

Prehistoric and historic sites and traditional cultural properties that are eligible for listing with the 

National Register of Historic Places are considered historic properties under the National Historic 

Preservation Act and are managed and protected under that law. Historic properties may also 

include historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes. Cultural 

resource sites for which National Register of Historic Places eligibility has not yet been 

determined are managed as historic properties until that determination is completed. Significant 

or endangered historic properties are categorized as priority heritage assets and are proactively 

monitored and managed. Additionally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires 

the Forest Service to consider other types of cultural resources in addition to historic properties 

such as salmon runs, wildlife herds, or botanical resources.

Existing Condition: More than one-third of all identified cultural resource sites on National 

Forest System lands within Oregon are within the national forests of the Blue Mountains.

Prehistoric sites common to the Blue Mountains include quarries, tool manufacturing sites, 

hunting camps, fishing stations, plant gathering and processing sites, rock art sites, and villages. 

Historic sites in the area include homesteads, mines, railroads, cabins, corrals, lookouts, and 

Forest Service administrative sites. Traditional cultural properties and historic properties of 

religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes, few of which have been identified, include but 

are not limited to plant gathering sites, hunting and fishing stations, rock art sites, archaeological 

sites, and legendary sites.

Cultural resources are threatened by development of infrastructure, inappropriate public use, 

looting and vandalism, management activities, timber harvest, cattle grazing, and mining, along 

with natural processes such as erosion by wind and water, weathering, and wildfire. Cultural 

resource surveys conducted during the planning phase for site-specific projects and prior to 

ground disturbance can identify previously unknown cultural resources and require changes to the 

operating plans that mitigate potential damage. Potential effects to cultural resources from project 

activities are addressed through project-specific mitigation measures during the project planning 

process. Though the potential to effect cultural resources exists, they have been carefully 

managed to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

82

The Heritage Program ensures that significant archaeological and historic resources are identified

and protected. Interpretive, educational, and volunteer projects, such as the Forest Service’s

Passport in Time program, promote and foster public participation in identifying and 

understanding cultural resources.

Desired Condition: Significant prehistoric and historic sites, traditional cultural 

properties, and historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Indian Tribes 

are identified and protected. Traditional cultural properties are available for appropriate 

use. Appropriate use and maintenance of historic facilities is encouraged and provides the 

necessary resources to protect facilities. Knowledge of cultural resources is enhanced by 

scientific study, and public understanding of cultural history is enhanced through 

interpretation and education. Traditional cultural properties, cultural landscapes, sacred 

sites, and other culturally significant areas and resources identified by Tribes and local 

communities provide tangible links to historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.

Significant and endangered historic properties identified by the Forest Service, State 

Historic Preservation Office, and Tribes are proactively monitored and managed.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.5 Roads and Trails Access

Background: Access via roads and trails to and across the national forests has a long history in 

the Blue Mountains. Trails and migration routes date back to prehistoric times. American Indian 

migration routes are well documented through the stories of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla, Nez Perce, Warm Springs, and others. Many ancient routes are the basis for roads, 

portions of roads, or trails that are in use today. Trails within the national forests also contributed 

to 1800s western migration as expeditions passed through the Blue Mountains. One of the most 

notable routes is the original Oregon Trail.

The history of development for the road system on national forests in the Blue Mountains is 

primarily related to extractive resource management activities such as mining and logging. Many 

roads were located directly adjacent to streams and rivers for ease of construction and to provide 

access for land use activities associated with water such as placer mining, cattle watering, water 

diversion, and log floating to sawmills. Lode mining necessitated the construction of roads and 

railroads to haul ores. Logging operations provided the necessary building materials for mining 

activities and often required additional roads.

Prior to the development of an extensive state highway road system, railroads provided primary 

access into the Plan Area. Railroad logging can be traced as far back as 1901, and signs of this 

activity remain today, as evidenced by the numerous railroad grades throughout the area. Some 

railroad grades were later converted to vehicle roads. Additional roads were constructed to 

connect communities and for fire management and administrative access to the national forests. 

Once constructed, roads provided access for other uses, including viewing scenery, camping, 

hunting, grazing, and gathering forest products, such as berries and firewood.

Many trails within the national forests evolved from game trails, early American Indian hunting 

trails, and livestock herding trails, or those that were constructed by early recreation users. These 

trails were constructed to access and connect remote features and destinations, such as remote 

lakes, hunting and fishing areas, and scenic viewpoints. The majority of national forest trails are 

in dispersed and backcountry recreation areas.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

83

In the 1990s, widespread adoption of off-highway vehicle use by the public significantly altered 

forest recreational access. Recreationists began to use off-highway vehicles to access areas that

had previously been accessible only by foot or horseback and to access low maintenance level 

forest roads that had been inaccessible to most conventional vehicles. This expanded type of 

access resulted in increased resource impacts, conflicts between user groups, safety concerns, and 

competing public pressure regarding off road travel.

Existing Condition: As logging has decreased since the 1990s on the national forests in the Blue 

Mountains (Andrews and Kutara 2005), road construction and maintenance associated with 

timber haul has also decreased. New, permanent road construction has markedly declined, and 

road system condition has deteriorated. Full maintenance of the transportation system has not 

been sustainable at the current funding level of the Forest Service. Consequently, the road 

maintenance budget has been prioritized for double-lane passenger vehicle roads, which are 

typically the most expensive and most highly traveled portions of the road system. With the focus 

shifting to maintaining higher-level roads for passenger car use, the deferred maintenance backlog 

for the remainder of the road system continues to grow. As the condition of the road system has 

deteriorated, concerns for public safety and resource damage have increased.

Funding for national forest road maintenance comes from annual appropriated funds and from 

competitive national programs funded by Federal Highway Administration. Funding from the 

Federal Highway Administration programs is typically used to address expensive road 

maintenance issues such as asphalt resurfacing or bridge replacement that exceed the normal 

budget capability of the national forest. These large intermittent investments are necessary to 

keep higher service level roads serviceable, but are not a substitute for annual operations and 

maintenance funding.

The allocated annual road maintenance budget for national forests in the Blue Mountains only 

provides approximately 20 percent of the required annual maintenance funds needed to 

adequately maintain the current open road system. The annual shortfall adds to an already 

substantially deferred maintenance backlog. Given the priority of maintaining passenger vehicle 

access roads, much of the deferred maintenance falls on level 1 (maintenance) and 2 (high 

clearance vehicles) roads, which represent 93 percent of the road network in the national forests 

of the Blue Mountains. Many of these roads are decades old with aging infrastructure that may 

require complete reconstruction to meet established standards, especially when considering they 

have not had maintenance for years due to the increasing maintenance intervals and growing 

backlog issues. The continued maintenance of an extensive road system creates many challenges. 

Roads in disrepair create safety issues and conflicts with protection for natural resources, 

especially for those such as water quality, aquatic species, and functioning wetland processes.

Erosion from roads is known to be one of the largest contributors for degradation to water quality 

as well as a source of degradation to fish habitat and spawning areas.

A travel analysis report has been completed for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. This

report assesses the current national forest transportation system and identifies the minimum road 

system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of 

National Forest System lands. The report also identifies opportunities for the national forest 

transportation system to meet current and future management objectives, and provides

information that allows integration of ecological, social, and economic concerns into future 

decisionmaking.

Areas where decommissioned roads and road closures have been implemented in the past have 

only been moderately successful, with many of the decommissioned and closed roads breached

illegally by some public members using trucks to remove rocks, plows to remove berms, or 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

84

creating paths by driving around the decommissioned road source (such as rocks or berms). The 

illegal paths add to soil and vegetation disturbance, degradation, and displacement, with some 

occurrences resulting in rutting and eventually bare soils.

Off-road access varies across the Wallowa-Whitman. While having a unique opportunity for

hunting, viewing wildlife and scenery, and gathering forest products is valuable to public, it is 

important to note that motorized cross-country travel has:

• adversely impacted some natural resources,

• contributed to the spread of invasive species across the landscape,

• assisted in the fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and

• changed wildlife and visitor use patterns.

Combining motor vehicle users and nonmotorized users at trailheads and along travel routes, as 

mentioned above, has and will continue to result in occasional conflicts. The majority of trails 

and trailheads have numerous maintenance needs due to aging infrastructure. There are limited 

opportunities for motorized vehicle use on system trails throughout the national forest; however,

this type of use is increasing both locally and regionally.

Trails used primarily for foot, pack or riding stock, and mechanized transportation also have 

occasional conflicts between users. Trails for snowmobiles, Nordic skiers, snowshoes, and dog 

sleds are on existing National Forest System roads and trails and contribute to winter recreational 

opportunities on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Trails, like roads, are maintained each

year as funding and personnel are available, and for some locations there are backlogs of 

maintenance items that are needed.

Desired Condition: Road systems are safe and responsive to public needs and desires, 

are affordable and effectively managed, have minimal effect on aquatic and terrestrial 

systems, and are in balance with available funding. Administrative use supports Forest 

Service management objectives.

Roads needed for the long term are identified and investments are made to minimize 

negative impacts on the ecosystem. Roads identified for long-term use, but not currently 

funded for adequate maintenance are put in a stored condition, where they remain on the

system but are not actively used. Access requirements anticipated in the future are met by 

using travel analysis reports to inform travel management decisions.

A system of roads, trails, and areas for nonmotorized and motor vehicle use is identified 

and is available for public use. Motor vehicle use occurs on roads, trails, and areas open 

to motor vehicle use in compliance with Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212). Trails 

for motor vehicle use provide a variety of recreational experiences, including various 

difficulty levels and trail lengths, access to scenic areas, and routes through assorted 

ecosystems while minimizing impacts to natural resources and user conflicts. Loop trails 

and trailhead developments meet the needs of increased recreation use. Snowmobile use 

is managed to provide varying challenges and distances while respecting ecological 

systems and other users.

Opportunities for trails where motor vehicle use is prohibited are emphasized in 

backcountry nonmotorized, recommended wilderness, and wilderness areas and provide a 

range of difficulty for a variety of recreational experiences, including mechanized 

transportation (bicycles – except in wilderness areas), foot travel, and pack or riding 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

85

stock. Trails are located to provide experiences in different ecosystem types and scenic 

settings and do not contribute to natural resource damage.

Rights-of-way and easements provide adequate and legal access to National Forest 

System lands. Cooperative road agreements with States and counties are used to provide 

a seamless public road system to access private, state, and public lands. Jurisdiction of 

county, state, and local access roads is appropriate to ensure management objectives are 

met for both private and state lands.

Where feasible, Forest Service recreation sites are connected to each other and to 

adjacent communities through pathways, trails, bike lanes, and waterways providing 

opportunities for both motorized and/or nonmotorized modes of travel and providing for 

loop-riding opportunities.

The need for tribal access to exercise treaty-reserved rights is acknowledged and 

supported.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.6 Wildland-urban Interface

Background: The wildland-urban interface areas have been defined and mapped using 

Geographic Information Systems through a collaborative process that included developing 

community wildfire protection plans. In the absence of a community wildfire protection plan, the 

Healthy Forests Restorations Act of 2003 provides a default definition of wildland-urban interface 

as a 0.5 to 1.5-mile buffer surrounding a community-at-risk, depending on slope, fuels, location 

of logical fuel breaks, and other factors. Communities may also adjust the boundary to a more 

logical and defensible location to include critical features, such as municipal watersheds, safety 

corridors, and infrastructure.

These areas are managed to meet a variety of ecological and human needs, with the main intent 

being to aid in the protection of communities from wildfire. These lands often display high levels 

of management activity and associated roads. The landscape area treated within the wildlandurban interface often exceeds 30 percent. The interval between treatments will often be more 

frequent than is typical for areas outside the wildland-urban interface. These areas are among the 

highest priority for vegetation treatments (including retreatment for maintenance) and wildfire 

suppression activities.

Existing Condition: Wildland-urban interface areas have been identified through locally 

developed community wildfire protection plans that emphasize a collaborative approach to fuel 

reduction projects on both public and private land and place priority on treatment areas identified 

by communities themselves. These plans involve identifying fuel hazards, the risk of wildfire 

occurrence, structures and other community values at risk, and local preparedness capabilities. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plans help establish community priorities and recommendations, 

and develop action plans and assessment strategies for communities at risk. Currently, all of the 

counties located within the national forests of the Blue Mountains have prepared Community 

Wildfire Protection Plans. The ability to reduce fire hazard across agency boundaries and on 

private ownership contributes to long-term forest health, mitigation of large fires, reduction of 

suppression costs, and greater firefighter and public safety. Much of the wildland-urban interface 

area is identified as moderately to highly departed from the vegetation desired condition, and 

includes a high incidence of lands categorized as fire regime condition class 2 and 3.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

86

Desired Condition: Vegetation conditions within the wildland-urban interface areas are 

based on wildfire protection objectives, which may over-ride ecological desired 

conditions. Vegetative structure would result in fire intensity that allows for safe and 

effective suppression actions within wildland-urban interface areas. In general, vegetation 

density would be more open, with lighter fuel loading, in comparison to areas outside the 

wildland-urban interface. Fire risk within wildland-urban interface areas would be 

managed so as not to limit the ability to use fire for resource restoration in areas adjacent 

to wildland-urban interface areas.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.7 Tribal Rights and Interest

Background: The Forest Service maintains government-to-government relationships with 

federally recognized American Indian Tribes. Government-to-government relationships are vital 

for protecting and managing ecological resources to honor, support, and respect cultural, spiritual, 

and community interests and to integrate these as fully as possible into project design. Through 

treaties, Tribes have reserved rights for their tribal members both on and off-reservation lands. 

The Forest Service has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian Tribes beyond those 

identified in treaties that are clarified in statutes, executive orders, and case law that is interpreted 

for the protection and benefit of federally recognized American Indian Tribes. In meeting these 

responsibilities, the Forest Service consults with Tribes whenever proposed policies or 

management actions may affect their interests.

For additional background information, see Federal Trust Responsibilities and Tribal Rights and 

Interests in Part 2 under Management Focus.

Existing Condition: Government-to-government relationships and communications are a priority 

in national forest management. National forest staffs understand the significance of an 

interconnectedness of natural and cultural resources within tribal cultures. Memoranda of 

Understanding for collaboration, consultation, and cooperation in the management of natural 

resources on National Forest System lands are in effect between the Forest Service and the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive 

Committee, and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation.

Desired Condition: The Forest Service maintains government-to-government 

relationships with federally recognized American Indian Tribes. The Forest Service 

consults with Tribes whenever proposed policies or management actions may affect tribal 

rights or interests that are protected by treaties, statutes, executive orders, and case law. 

Consultation serves to protect those rights and interests and to identify and manage areas 

and resources of tribal importance on national forest lands. National Forest System lands

are available for tribal members to exercise their reserved rights. The ability to utilize 

trust resources contributes to the exercise of tribal rights, interests, and cultures in a 

manner that promotes ecosystem sustainability.

Scale: Forestwide.

2.8 Culturally Significant Foods

Background: Culturally significant foods (which include generally water, fish, big game, roots 

and berries) are used in ceremonies and subsistence for the perpetual cultural, economic, and 

sovereign benefit of American Indian cultures.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

87

A key element of Plateau Indian spirituality is that all animals and plants in the ecosystem, like 

humankind, are intelligent and have moral rights and obligations. Humans can obtain power 

from animals or places in this system of faith. In this practice, species can communicate with, 

transfer power between, and learn from each other. This power extends to the inanimate as 

well, such as rocks and natural features (Spier 1930, Hanes and Hansis 1995, Radin 1914). 

Spiritual life for Columbia River Tribes relies on an environment where all natural components 

are present; in short, ritual life is inextricably linked to the natural world (Walker 1988).

Approximately 135 species of plants were used as sources of food by the Plateau peoples 

(Hunn et al.1998). Other plants and plant products are used for a variety of other purposes; for 

example, over 125 plants were used for dyes, cordage, containers, glues, weaving materials, 

and medicinal and spiritual purposes (Hunn et al. 1998).

The physical and spiritual healing powers of plants are well recognized by Plateau peoples 

(Hunn et al. 1998). Medicinal and ritual traditions in plant medicine are linked and are not 

thought of as separate types of treatment. Plants play important roles in the rituals of Columbia 

River Tribes. Plant foods are at the center of annual ceremonies that celebrate the return of the 

foods (and the beginning of harvest) and that are an important part of tamánwit4 (Conner and 

Lang 2006, Hunn et al. 1998).

Existing Condition: Forest composition creates varying risks to and opportunities for 

supporting culturally significant foods. Many federally recognized Tribes are actively engaged 

with the management and project planning on national forests in the Blue Mountains. These 

interactions include the expertise brought forward through the wide-ranging tribal natural 

resource programs aimed at restoring, enhancing, and protecting the natural resources that 

contribute to the Tribes’ cultures and traditions. Tribal resource management programs focus on 

protecting, preserving, enhancing, and delivering the resources necessary to meet the needs of 

the Tribe and tribal members for ceremonial and subsistence purposes under treaties or other 

authorities. Tribal natural resource management staff on reservation lands participate, through 

consultation with the Forest Service, in the planning, implementation, and decisionmaking of 

land management activities that affect treaty reserved rights. Tribal natural resource programs 

include land services, cultural resource management, wildlife resources, forest resources, water 

resources, range and agriculture resources, and environmental restoration.

The Tribes and the Forest Service have undertaken collaborative restoration and resource 

protection projects, monitoring programs, and wildlife habitat restoration efforts. Individual 

project elements include stream and watershed restoration, culvert replacement, streamside and 

spring protection (exclosures), riparian area planting and large wood recruitment, development 

and reconstruction of upland water sources for livestock and wildlife, water quality 

improvement, and wildlife habitat restoration. These combined project and program objectives 

help support and sustain culturally significant resources that are essential to tribal communities 

and contribute to the ongoing cultural vitality of the Tribes.

Desired Condition: Culturally significant foods are available and accessible and are 

sustained by the ecological and cultural processes under which they developed.

Scale: Forestwide.

 4 Indian law, natural law, or divine law which is the foundation of a physical and spiritual way of life handed down by 

the Creator at the beginning of time. (Source: Comprehensive Plan, The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, 2010).
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

88

2.9 Community Resilience

Background: Community resilience in this Forest Plan is considered the ability of communities 

and cultures to adapt to changing ecological, social, and economic conditions. The availability of 

national forest goods and services has varying impacts on communities within the Plan Area. 

Remote communities with less diversified economies tend to be less resilient than communities 

that are more urban (Horne and Haynes 1999, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997).

Community resilience is the ability of communities and cultures to adapt to changing ecological, 

social, and economic conditions. The resiliency of local communities and Tribes in the Blue 

Mountains is important because national forest management benefits from community 

infrastructure, which includes local knowledge, skilled workers, and social networks and 

relationships, to provide the foundation for accomplishing work on the national forest. 

Communities also provide and maintain roads and facilities that are needed for access to the 

national forests and services for the public, such as food, beverages, and lodging.

National forests are important to the resiliency of local communities and Tribes because residents 

benefit from jobs and income produced from management activities, such as timber harvesting, 

livestock grazing, and mining. National forests also provide the context and source for clean 

water and air, culturally significant foods relating to treaty-reserved rights, wildlife, recreation 

opportunities, and landscape settings that contribute to residents’ quality of life and the character 

of local communities and Tribes.

Since time immemorial, tribal communities have relied upon forested and grassland habitats for 

gathering culturally significant resources including water, fish, big game, roots, berries, and other 

resources for subsistence purposes as well as cultural survival. Forest management activities

including timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, recreation and other activities in the 

National Forest may impact these resources that tribal communities rely upon.

Past shifts in land management practices and priorities have had varying effects on local 

communities and Tribes. In general, isolated communities with less diversified economies have 

been the least resilient and have had the greatest difficulty retaining the local people whose 

knowledge and resources can contribute to national forest management and restoration.

Existing Condition: Some communities and Tribes that rely on national forests in the Blue 

Mountains have suffered from declining economies, which have created changes and challenges. 

Unemployment rates have risen along with the need for social services. Some of the communities 

are experiencing population declines, particularly among younger people of working age. For 

many communities, the lack of people in this demographic has meant a smaller pool of volunteers 

for the fire department, the school board, and for service organizations. While National Forest 

System employees have also declined in number, Federal jobs continue to remain relatively stable 

and represent a significant percentage of employment; Forest Service employees contribute to the 

community volunteer base. The demographic shift has also influenced declining school 

enrollment and the ability to maintain medical services in some communities.

Changes in national forest management have also contributed to declining local economies. 

Similarly, community changes threaten to hamper the ability of the Forest Service to implement 

projects that contribute to sustainability. In most counties, sawmills have closed either 

temporarily or permanently. Some skilled workers have remained in the communities, 

anticipating that market changes or other opportunities to earn a living will emerge.

Additional declines in social and economic conditions in the communities and Tribes will 

continue to negatively affect national forest management. Although some restoration work can be 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

89

accomplished by nonlocal contract workers, managing the national forests will require a

functional, local infrastructure, with attributes including local knowledge, skilled workers, people 

who have attachments to the local landscape, and social networks/relationships.

Many of the factors that contribute to community resiliency are beyond the control of 

communities, counties, States, and the Federal government, including the Forest Service. This 

limits the ability to improve community resiliency through the management of the national 

forests.

Desired Condition: Management of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest contributes 

to outputs and opportunities that support community infrastructure. The WallowaWhitman staff fosters healthy and resilient communities and American Indian Tribes by 

providing sustainable ecological services and products, employment and contributions to 

local organizations. In turn, communities use their infrastructure (which includes 

manufacturing facilities, local knowledge, skilled workers, and social 

networks/relationships) to support natural resource management and restoration 

activities. Local communities and Tribes that rely on the resources of the WallowaWhitman National Forest are resilient and adapt well to changing conditions.

Scale: Forestwide.

Goal 3: Promote Economic Well-being

Economic well-being is a condition that enables people to work, provide income for their 

families, and support the economies of local communities, American Indian Tribes, the region, 

and the Nation. The contributions of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest toward economic 

well-being are described for capital and wealth and for the economic production of goods and 

services.

There are many other values, benefits, and costs not addressed in the following discussion of 

economic well-being, that are addressed in the section Goal 2: Promote Social Well-being. They 

include the multitude of benefits and costs not traded in the marketplace and values that are 

difficult to express in monetary terms or other quantitative measures. These values, benefits, and 

costs are an important part of social and economic sustainability.

Local economic conditions are interrelated with changes in the economies of Oregon, Idaho, and 

Washington, as well as with changes in regional, national, and global economies. Recognizing the 

interdependency between the Forest Service’s need for forest management work and the degree to 

which local industries, infrastructure, employment (including youth), skilled workforce, and other 

factors provide for this need is important to sustaining and restoring the ecological integrity of the 

national forests and social and economic conditions of the communities.

Historically, national forests in the Blue Mountains made significant contributions to area 

communities, both socially and economically. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest contributes

in vital ways to community resilience by providing jobs and quality of life. It is important to note 

that the Wallowa-Whitman is not the sole provider of economic stability for communities in the 

Plan Area. Recognizing mutual benefits of the relationships between local communities and the 

national forest is critical to understanding the contributions to the maintenance and enhancement 

of other desired conditions, such as healthy forests, clean water and air, culturally significant 

foods, species’ recovery, scenery, cultural and historic resources, skilled workforce, and 

manufacturing infrastructure in the context of other local, regional, and national conditions.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

90

3.1 Facilities and Infrastructure

Background: The national forests in the Blue Mountains maintain administrative and 

recreational facilities for a variety of purposes. Examples of administrative facilities include 

offices, storage, service and utility buildings, and limited housing. Due to the recreation emphasis 

of the national forests, there are considerable numbers of recreational and historic facilities. Many 

of these are in remote locations. Some are only accessible by horseback, foot, or boat. This 

section does not address recreation facilities. Refer to Section 2.2 Recreation for more 

information. The Forest Service uses facility master plans to align changing budgets, 

administrative, and workforce needs.

Existing Condition: The existing square footage of owned and leased administrative facilities of 

national forests in the Blue Mountains exceeds the Forest Service’s administrative needs. There 

are approximately 727,021 square feet of facilities. Of this, 29 percent is office space, 45 percent 

is storage, and 25 percent is housing. The cost of maintaining these facilities exceeds current 

budget allocations. The long-term goal identified in the facility master plans is to reduce the 

amount of facilities space to affordable levels while meeting administrative needs. Office space is 

being reduced by 6 percent, storage by 13 percent, and housing by 22 percent. The total square 

footage will be approximately 624,839 square feet after these reductions are accomplished. The 

current master plans show that the facilities that will be retained are properly located. There are 

plans to either remove some of the remote facilities or leave them in place to deteriorate naturally, 

with no further planned maintenance.

Several buildings and sites are eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires Federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. An undertaking such as removal 

of an eligible or potentially eligible historic building would require compliance with Section 106

of the Act.

Desired Condition: Administrative facilities are safe, efficient, cost-effective, and are 

maintained at a function and use level that meets management needs. Facilities meet all 

applicable health, safety, and accessibility standards. Impacts to natural resources are 

minimal. Administrative facilities complement and harmonize with natural settings. The 

form of structures is derived by the function and from the landscape setting. For example, 

structures in mountainous, timbered landscapes have steep rooflines and broad eaves and 

use durable indigenous materials, such as stone and heavy timbers, with the appearance 

derived from the local environment. Structures, signage, and other built environment 

elements reflect the style and character inherent in the local environment (USDA Forest 

Service 2001). Facility master plans are updated periodically to reflect current needs of 

the national forest, and acquisition and decommissioning decisions are made based on the 

approved facility master plans.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.2 Land Ownership

Background: The National Forest System lands program emphasizes land acquisitions that 

protect and enhance identified management resource needs. The program also pursues 

opportunities to consolidate land ownership, decrease management conflicts, increase 

management efficiencies, secure and mark property boundaries, and secure rights-of-way to meet 

administrative and public needs. There is national emphasis on open space preservation, 

protecting the most ecologically and socially important lands, conserving working lands as 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

91

sustainable forests and grasslands, and working with communities and private land owners to 

preserve and maintain existing open space (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Existing Condition: Since 1990, national forests in the Blue Mountains have acquired privately 

held lands within the national forest boundaries through land exchanges and purchases. The 

Forest Service has also disposed of lands through land exchanges, small tract sales, and 

administrative site sales. Within the boundaries of national forests in the Blue Mountains, 94 

percent of the land is federally administered. Of the remainder, 5 percent is private land and 1 

percent is State or county land.

Desired Condition: Property boundaries are marked to standard. Encroachments, title 

claims, and trespasses are identified and resolved. Property boundaries are maintained to 

reduce the likelihood of future encroachments, title claims, and trespass. Road and trail 

easements are prioritized and obtained to continue access across private lands and reduce 

rerouting costs.

Landownership adjustment by purchase, exchange, or other authority simplifies and 

improves management of the national forest. Priorities for land acquisition include nonFederal inholdings within congressionally designated areas, when landowners are willing 

sellers and the property will enhance the values of the congressionally designated areas,

and acquiring lands that support known populations of threatened, endangered, proposed, 

or sensitive species. Acquisitions, conveyances and land exchanges that resolve 

fragmented Federal and non-Federal land ownership patterns and benefit the local 

communities merit high consideration as well.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.3 Goods and Services

Background: Historically, national forests in the Blue Mountains contributed to local economies 

and they continue to do so today. Many people depend on the national forests directly or 

indirectly for a wide range of goods and services. Some commercial uses include wood for 

sawmills and fuel, forage for livestock, water for drinking and irrigating downstream crops,

recreational opportunities for outfitters and guides, minerals, and energy. Other nontimber 

products include Christmas trees, firewood, poles, plants, herbs, traditional cultural plants, and 

mushrooms. Goods and services also include clean water and natural water storage.

There are mutual benefits that flow between cultures, communities, and the national forests that 

are critical to the maintenance and enhancement of desired conditions. The interdependency 

between the need for forest management work and the local needs of industries, workforce, and 

other factors are important to sustaining and restoring the ecological integrity of the national 

forests and the social and economic conditions of the cultures and communities.

Providing a flow of goods and services from the national forests is important for maintaining an 

economically viable workforce and supporting an industrial capacity to facilitate forest 

management needs and contributions to community resiliency. These contributions benefit local, 

tribal, regional, and national economies.

Existing and desired conditions for 3.3 Goods and Services are described in 3.3.1 Forest Products, 

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing, 3.3.3 Special Uses, 3.3.4 Mineral, Energy, and Geological Resources, 

and 3.3.5 Water Use.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

92

3.3.1 Forest Products

Background: The national forests in the Blue Mountains have a long history of providing timber 

and other forest products to address local community, regional (for Oregon and Washington), and 

national needs. During the post-World War II era, communities throughout the Plan Area had a 

strong economic component related to a wood products industry.

The amount of timber volume harvested from the national forests in the Blue Mountains has 

declined dramatically, from highs of almost 600 million board feet annually in the early 1990s to 

about 100 million board feet per year recently. Between 2013 and 2015, the average annual 

volume of timber sold by the Umatilla, Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, 

excluding firewood, was 100 million board feet. Harvest on all other ownerships has also 

declined by about 30 percent during the same period, for a total decline of about 70 percent in 

local log supply.

Existing Condition: National economic trends, national forest funding levels, and local market 

conditions have a considerable effect on the amount of timber sold, and quantities sold may vary 

considerably by year and by individual forest.

Declines in eastern Oregon federal timber harvest resulted in reductions in east-side volume 

delivered to Oregon mills over the past 20 years, particularly for ponderosa pine. Unlike other 

regions in the state, in eastern Oregon there is relatively little private or State forest land to make

up for reduced Federal harvests (Gale et al. 2012). During the past 20 years, processing for wood 

products has also changed. There was a decrease in sawmill production of almost 60 percent. 

Manufactured board processing decreased by approximately 30 percent, and there was a 

reduction in plywood and veneer processing of about 10 percent, while pulp processing remained 

about the same.

The decreasing production capacity, labor saving technological changes, and decreases in logging 

have resulted in declines for associated employment. More recently, since the bottom of the 

recession of 2009, the forest sector in Oregon has been slowly recovering. However, certain parts 

of the Blue Mountains region have been impacted so severely that it is now possible that recovery 

will be years away. The share of jobs lost during the recession that have since been regained 

remains at only one of three or fewer for many affected counties (Kaetzel 2015).

Although some economic diversification has taken place, especially in the retail, health, and 

business services sectors, economic growth in the Blue Mountains region has been slower than in 

Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. overall. However, wood products manufacturing remains an 

important part of local economies. There is expanding use and interest in biomass for fuels.

Timber harvest continues to be an important tool for managing vegetation to achieve desired 

conditions on the national forests, including those for wildlife habitat, ecological resilience, 

minimizing impacts by insect and disease susceptibility, and for hazardous fuel management. 

Without the local forest products industry, the capability of the Forest Service to affordably 

manage forest vegetation would be significantly reduced.

National forests in the Blue Mountains have also contributed nontimber forest products, such as 

firewood, mushrooms, and berries to residents and Tribes. For example, in fiscal year 2016, the 

three national forests sold about $148,000 of firewood collection permits and about $46,000 of 

mushroom collection permits. These products help provide communities with heat and food, and 

also represent important connections between people and the national forests. Forest products and 

treaty reserved resources contribute significantly to tribal economies and are not quantified.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

93

Desired Condition: Land classified as suitable for timber production has a regularly 

scheduled timber harvest program that provides social and economic benefits while 

contributing toward ecosystem health and sustainability. On land classified as unsuitable 

for timber production, but available for timber harvest, an irregular timber harvest 

program is used as a resource management tool to meet nontimber desired conditions 

such as ecosystem restoration, hazardous fuel reduction or reducing insect and disease 

risk. Forest products produced from these management activities are utilized to provide 

economic and social support to local communities.

The supply of timber outputs contributes to a local forest products industry.

Small-diameter biomass provides a variety of forest products, such as hog fuel, fuel 

chips, pulp, small-diameter round wood, and firewood. Biomass harvesting projects are 

designed to both improve the resilience and health of forests as well as support 

opportunities to lead the development of innovative wood building products.

Non-timber forest products, such as berries and mushrooms, continue to be available for 

gathering in sustainable amounts for public, commercial, and tribal use.

Where compatible with ecological desired conditions, salvage harvest is used to 

supplement the regularly scheduled timber harvest program and recover the economic 

value of dead and dying trees following disturbance events.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing

Background: Livestock grazing is a historical use that still resonates with the western culture on 

the national forests in the Blue Mountains. Grazing has been a part of the landscape since the 

1860s when the first miners and homesteaders entered the area. Although livestock grazing on 

National Forest System lands has decreased since the early 1900s, the ranching industry remains 

an important part of the local community, culture, and economy. Ranchers are permitted to graze 

livestock throughout the national forest during late spring, summer, and early fall. Grazing on 

public land is often an integral component of overall ranch operations.

The national forests in the Blue Mountains, like many areas in the western United States, have a 

history of intensive livestock use that started in the late 1800s and continued into the mid-1930s. 

One of the resulting effects is that woody shrubs have become more prevalent on the landscape. 

Beginning in the late 1970s, improved grazing systems and pasture designs were implemented to 

facilitate resource recovery. Implementation of the land and resource management plans in the 

early 1990s reduced the amount of allowable use by livestock grazing to accelerate the rate of 

land health recovery. In the mid to late 1990s, other mitigations associated with the Endangered 

Species Act and the PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) and INFISH (USDA Forest Service

1995a)5 amendments to the 1990 Forest Plans were implemented to further protect riparian areas 

and associated aquatic species.

Modified grazing strategies and implementation of utilization standards have resulted in reduced 

grazing use levels in riparian areas, resulting in many of the riparian systems showing signs of 

 5 PACFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 3, Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish–producing 

watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California.

INFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 4, Inland Native Fish Strategy). Interim strategies for managing fish–

producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and portions of Nevada.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

94

recovery and riparian vegetation improvement. Investments and maintenance of structural and 

nonstructural range improvements are contributed to across allotments by both the permittee and 

the Forest Service. Since the 1990 Forest Plan was implemented, permitted numbers of livestock 

and seasons of use have declined slightly in response to the utilization standards and resolution of 

resource conflicts.

The annual amount of grazing that occurs within the national forests varies due to resource 

conditions and livestock markets. The Forest Service adjusts the amount and timing of use based 

on forage utilization standards. Permittees adjust how much of their authorized use they request

based on market conditions.

Existing Condition The average number of cattle permitted to graze on the Wallowa-Whitman 

Nation Forest (excluding the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area) during the 2011, 2012, and 

2013 grazing seasons was about 22,750 animals. This amount of use averaged about 111,000

animal unit months. The average number of sheep during the same period was about 3,535

animals and 4,700 animal unit months.

Grazing use by horses and burros was less than 100 animals. During the 2011-2013 grazing 

seasons, there were 95 permittees grazing livestock within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. There were 86 allotments with approximately 1.1 million acres of rangeland and grazable 

forestland associated with those active allotments.

Desired Condition: Allotments provide sustainable forage for grazing livestock, while 

moving toward ecological, social, and economic desired conditions.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.3.3 Special Uses

Background: The Forest Service provides and manages a wide range of recreation and nonrecreation special use permits that authorize the occupancy and use of National Forest System

lands. Some of the key objectives for the special uses program include managing special uses in a 

manner that protects natural resource values and public health and safety consistent with the 

Forest Plans, and facilitating the delivery of recreational opportunities or other land uses.

There is some potential for wind energy development on the national forests in the Blue 

Mountains. If development of wind energy occurs, it would be managed under special use permit

and guided by provisions of Special Uses Handbook FSH 2709.11 Chapter 70, which includes 

provisions for the protection of wildlife, migratory birds, and raptors. Maps of wind power class 

provided by the Department of Energy show that wind energy potential sufficient for commercial 

development exists on National Forest System lands. One known request for placement of a 

meteorological tower on National Forest System lands has been received in the last 5 years and 

the future development potential is presently undetermined.

Existing Condition: The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest manages an average of 280 special 

use permits annually. This includes permits that are long-term in nature, such as a reservoir or a 

recreation residence. These types of special use permits may exist for decades. Permits also 

include short-term uses, such as movie or television filming, and recreation events.

Slightly more than one-half of all special use permits are recreation related with recreation 

residences being the most common, followed by outfitting and guide permits. The most common 

non-recreation special use permits authorize utility corridors for powerlines and water 

transmission, communication towers, and road easements.
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

95

Desired Condition: Special uses contribute to ecological, social, and economic desired 

conditions consistent with law, regulation, and policy.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.3.4 Mineral, Energy, and Geological Resources

Background: National forests provide an essential role in contributing to an adequate and stable 

supply of mineral and energy resources while continuing to sustain the land's productivity for 

other uses and its capability to support biodiversity goals. Geological resources in the national 

forests of the Blue Mountains include leasable energy minerals, such as oil, natural gas, coal, and 

geothermal resources; saleable minerals, such as sand, gravel, and other rocks used in the 

construction and landscaping industry; and locatable minerals, such as gold, silver, and other 

precious and base metals.

Existing Condition: Oil and gas resources are known or suspected to occur in a deep 

sedimentary basin that underlies parts of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The extent of 

these resources is unknown due to their depth and the difficulty of exploration through the 

overlying Columbia River basalts. Minor production occurred from the sedimentary basin in the 

vicinity of Richland, Washington in the late 1950s, but large-scale commercial production has not 

occurred and no economic discovery has been made in the basin to date.

Coal deposits are known to occur in the Troy and Flora areas and west of Ukiah in the Arbuckle 

coal field. To date, there has been very little coal development on National Forest System lands in 

the Plan Area. The coal deposits have been explored in the past with little indication that they are 

of economic value. There is no active, proposed, or anticipated coal mining or coal bed methane 

operation on the three national forests in the Blue Mountains.

Geothermal resources exist throughout the Blue Mountains and are revealed in numerous hot 

springs and warm water wells. This indicates the presence of a widespread, shallow geothermal 

resource. This resource is not limited to surface manifestations, such as hot springs, but rather 

appears to occur throughout the area; consequently, estimating the development potential is 

difficult. Future development potential on National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains 

appears to be limited as the distribution of geothermal resources on National Forest System lands 

is incompletely known and areas of higher potential exist outside the national forests. Presently, 

the area of highest known potential is Vale geothermal field, near Vale, Oregon.

Saleable common variety mineral resources exist throughout the Blue Mountains. The abundance 

of volcanic basalt and andesite formations make this resource readily available. Relatively minor 

production of rock materials (crushed basalt, riprap, crusher reject material) occurs intermittently 

on the national forests and has an economic value of less than approximately $25,000 annually.

Locatable mineral resources occur on all of the national forests in the Blue Mountains. Historical

production has included gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, platinum, and chromium. At one time, 

gold mines in northeast Oregon were the largest producers in the state. Gold mineralization 

appears to be associated with granitic intrusive rocks in the Greenhorn, Elkhorn, and Wallowa 

Mountains (Lindgren 1901), thus suggesting the development of hydrothermal mineralization at 

the time the granites were emplaced. Placer and lode gold deposits were worked extensively from 

discovery in 1861 through 1942 and some production continues to the present day. In 2016, 

Bureau of Land Management records show about 1,260 active claims on the three national 

forests; 1,000 of which are on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Placer mining has occurred 

in the North, Middle, and Upper Fork John Day, Powder River, Burnt River, and Upper Grande 

Ronde River. Approximately 1.3 million acres of the national forests, including 910,000 acres in 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

96

congressionally designated wilderness areas, and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, are 

withdrawn from mineral entry under Federal mining laws.

Desired Condition: Exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy 

resources contribute to the social and economic needs as well as local communities, and 

are conducted to minimize adverse environmental effects on national forest surface 

resources. Reasonable access is provided to valid existing mineral claims, as well as for 

exploration and production of leasable and locatable mineral resources. Congressionally 

designated wilderness, wild rivers, municipal watersheds, or other areas of important

natural or cultural resource value are withdrawn from mineral entry, subject to valid 

existing rights.

Scale: Forestwide.

3.3.5 Water Use

Background: The national forests in the Blue Mountains contain the headwaters of the John Day,

Umatilla, Walla Walla, Tucannon, Grande Ronde, Imnaha, Powder, Burnt, Malheur, and Silvies 

Rivers, as well as other streams. The combined area of these river basins totals roughly 19.7 

million acres, of which 5.2 million acres are on National Forest System lands. The combined flow 

of all rivers originating from National Forest System lands is an estimated 7.4 million acre-feet 

per year, and approximately 5.2 million acre-feet flows directly from within the national forests 

(Brown et al. 2008 and Gecy 2009). Seventy percent of total streamflow originates on less than 

30 percent of the watershed area that comprises the national forests. Groundwater is a major 

contributor to streamflow, especially in summer. Groundwater spring sources are numerous and 

occur throughout the Blue Mountains. Water provides habitat for aquatic species, sustains riparian 

vegetation, which provides habitat for numerous terrestrial wildlife species, and is used for 

recreation, stock watering, and other uses on national forests in the Blue Mountains. Streams and 

rivers downstream of the national forests provide water for these same purposes, in addition to 

domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural uses.

Existing Condition: Data for the 1995 water year (Solley et al. 1998) indicate that 97 percent 

(2.4 million acre-feet; 33 percent of total streamflow) of total water withdrawals from rivers 

emanating from the Blue Mountains is used for irrigation and about 1 percent is used for human 

consumption. Seventeen percent of total water withdrawals are from groundwater and the 

remaining 83 percent is water diverted directly from surface streams. Irrigation water is used 

primarily from March through October, depending on the basin and state water right laws. In all 

basins, the availability of additional water for irrigation use is limited and in some basins 

available water is already fully appropriated.

Within the proclaimed boundaries of the national forests in the Blue Mountains, State-recognized 

water rights are held for 8,279 points of diversion. Of these 1,360 (16 percent) have groundwater 

sources and the remainder (84 percent) are surface (stream) water sources. Of 3,913 water rights 

held by the national forests, 2,898 (74 percent) are used for livestock watering, 607 (16 percent) 

are for wildlife use, 111 (3 percent) for domestic or public use, and 264 (7 percent) for other 

forest management uses. State agencies in Oregon and Washington hold more than 2,750 water 

rights, 99 percent of which are used to protect instream flows.

During the past 30 to 40 years, there has been a trend toward decreased winter precipitation and 

lower spring stream flows in several river basins in response to gradually warming temperatures 

in the Pacific Northwest (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Continuation of this trend, combined with 
Part 1 – Vision

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

97

the lack of water in storage facilities, is likely to result in water shortages during years of lower 

than average winter precipitation.

Desired Condition: Water is available in sufficient quantity and quality, within and

downstream of the national forest, to meet human needs (including management actions) 

as well as the needs of aquatic species considering the range of possible climate change 

scenarios.

Scale: Watershed to subbasin.

See Desired Conditions: Watershed Function (1.1), Hydrologic Function (1.1.1), 

Riparian Function (1.1.2), Stream Channel Function (1.1.4), Aquatic Habitat Function 

(1.1.5), and Water Quality (1.11)

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

99

Part 2 – Strategy

Introduction

Part Two—Strategy describes how the Forest Service will achieve or maintain forestwide goals, 

desired conditions, and management area desired conditions. The strategy also includes a 

description of management areas, special areas, general suitability of areas, plan objectives, and 

the management focus.

Management Focus

Desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and objectives are used to guide development 

of projects and activities on the national forests in the Blue Mountains. These Plan 

components were developed to respond to the need for change and focus on:

• Restoring and Maintaining Terrestrial Vegetation Conditions

• Restoring and Maintaining Watershed Conditions

• Contributing to Social and Economic Stability

These three goals are critical for achieving strong sustainability on the national forests in the 

Blue Mountains (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Priorities for the national forests in the Blue 

Mountains: Strong sustainability through restoration 

of vegetation and watersheds helps improve socioeconomic conditions

Much of the forest and other vegetation on the national forests in the Blue Mountains is highly 

departed from desired conditions. Dry forest vegetation types have the greatest extent of departed 

acres and the greatest level of departure. Changes in vegetation conditions have cascading effects 

on the extent and quality of terrestrial wildlife habitats and watershed conditions. Riparian and 

aquatic habitats in the Blue Mountains have become fragmented to the extent that local 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

100

populations of some aquatic species have become extirpated, while the sustainability of 

remaining species is at an increasing risk. Many rural communities throughout the Blue 

Mountains have been affected because of downturns in local economies, associated in part with 

declines in the delivery of forest products. Many rural communities continue to be heavily 

dependent on forest products and services.

The overall strategy in the Forest Plan acknowledges the assessment that the restoration needs 

within the Blue Mountains are substantial and that they currently exceed the capacity of the 

present workforce and budgets. As such, there is a need to prioritize implementation of projects 

for the efficient and effective use of available resources. Projects that benefit multiple resource 

areas generally have a higher priority than those that benefit just one resource. Information 

contained in the State of Oregon Conservation Strategy, Northwest Power Planning Council 

subbasin assessments, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project scientific 

assessments, Nature Conservancy Portfolio Planning, Community Wildfire Protection Plans and 

local forest assessments was used in the development of the need for change. The Plan’s strong 

focus on restoring and maintaining watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions and 

functions provides a foundation of fulfillment for agency responsibilities under the Endangered 

Species Act to use agency authorities to promote recovery of federally listed species. This 

management focus is consistent with recovery plans for federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitats in the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Restoration will be accomplished by a combination of active and passive management activities. 

Active management is likely to be concentrated in areas that have established road systems and 

where previous investments on the land have been made. Undeveloped areas are likely to remain 

largely undeveloped, with both planned (prescribed) and unplanned (wild) fire used as the tools to 

improve ecosystem resilience. The full range of management activities associated with wildland 

fire strategies, from aggressive suppression to point-protection monitoring, will be used so long 

as the effects are compatible with maintaining or achieving desired conditions. The strategy also 

recognizes that restoration will not only occur in areas that are the most departed from the desired 

conditions. By maintaining areas through treatments that are close to or are at the desired 

condition, management may prevent a departure that could otherwise result in the need for 

expensive and expansive restoration treatments.

Restoring and Maintaining Terrestrial Vegetation Conditions

The cumulative effects of episodic and sometimes extended weather patterns, increasing 

vegetation density, shifts in forest species composition, and modified landscape patterns have 

created vegetation conditions in many locations that are characterized by:

• An increased vulnerability to large and severe fires, insect outbreaks, and disease 

epidemics;

• Creation of a simplified landscape vegetation pattern dominated by a surplus of dense 

young and mid-aged forests and a lack of old mature forests;

• A shifting of tree species composition away from species that are naturally the most 

resistant to disturbance agents like fire, drought, and insect and disease outbreaks; and

• Well-established invasive species that are difficult to eliminate which increases their 

potential to become more extensive.

These vegetation conditions lead to changes in disturbance regimes, which can put numerous 

plant and animal species at risk. For some species, the quality and quantity of habitat is below the 

level necessary for sustainability. Other species may currently have more favorable habitat than 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

101

was available historically, but the habitat itself may not be sustainable or other factors may render 

the habitat less than fully functional.

The management strategy includes creating more resilient and sustainable terrestrial ecosystems 

that can be maintained by future management in ways that include:

• Implementing invasive plant prevention practices to assist in lowering the introduction,

establishment, and spread of invasive plants associated with management actions;

• Modifying uncharacteristic stand conditions to reduce the likelihood of unusually severe 

disturbances from wildfires, insects, and disease;

• Improving the geographic extent, connectivity, and stand structure of plant and animal 

habitat;

• Using thinning and planned (prescribed) fire treatments as part of a climate change 

adaptation strategy;

• Concentrating active restoration activities in areas that are highly departed from desired 

conditions;

• Using the full suite of active restoration management options to facilitate the creation of a 

forest mosaic of different ages and structures; and

• Using wildland fire (planned prescribed fire or unplanned wildfire) alone or in 

combination with other treatments to accomplish restoration objectives.

Risks are involved with restoring terrestrial conditions. It is expected that throughout the life of 

the Forest Plan, existing conditions, restoration, and maintenance opportunities will vary within 

the Plan Area. The approach used will consider appropriate management of short-term risks to 

achieve long-term benefits.

To create a landscape that is more resilient and better able to respond to episodic or extended 

fluctuations in climate and other activities that occur on the national forest, managed activities 

will be designed to move toward desired conditions. Benefits of moving toward desired 

conditions include:

• Avoiding the potential loss of genetic diversity, including the elimination of native plant 

species;

• Decreasing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, insect or disease disturbances;

• Improving the sustainability of critical ecosystem services;

• Improving the ability of forest ecosystems to adapt to potential changes in climate; and

• Creating a more resilient forest, which provides for the full range of habitats for native 

terrestrial plant and animal species, while contributing to a sustainable flow of goods and 

services from National Forest System lands.

Restoring and Maintaining Watershed Conditions

Under the sustainable multiple-use management concept, this Forest Plan provides for quality 

land management by first assessing watershed conditions (i.e., water quality and quantity, and 

watershed conditions) such that the diverse needs of people can be sustained into the future. Best 

available science supports analysis from a landscape-scale or watershed approach, as has recently 

been reported by Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Geological Survey (Carter et al. 2017).
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

102

The approach of the Forest Plan includes:

1. Maintaining areas in good condition to keep them from becoming degraded;

Allowing for passive recovery where passive recovery provides for progress towards desired 

conditions;

Conducting new and ongoing management activities in a manner that, across broad scales, 

allows for recovery of those areas that are degraded; and

Actively restoring conditions in high-priority watersheds by implementing integrated, 

strategically focused sets of restoration treatments to facilitate recovery of critical 

watershed processes.

This strategy is an updated version of the Forest Service’s previous aquatic strategy known as 

PACFISH (USDA and USDI 1995) and INFISH (USDA Forest Service 1995a) consisting of five 

essential elements: riparian management areas, key watersheds, mid-scale analysis of watersheds, 

watershed protection or restoration, and monitoring (short-term and long-term). The elements are 

intended to be used together to achieve a distribution of watershed conditions that are resilient to 

natural disturbance and that maintain, restore, and enhance habitat for resident and anadromous 

fish and other aquatic and riparian dependent organisms.

Riparian management areas will emphasize the maintenance, restoration, and 

enhancement of the ecological health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, and promote 

recovery of federally listed species.

Key watersheds are subwatersheds, or groups of subwatersheds, selected to serve as 

population strongholds for important aquatic species or those that have the potential to do 

so. They also include subwatersheds that provide high quality water important for 

maintenance of downstream conditions that support such populations. For purposes of this 

Plan, key subwatersheds support strong populations of one or more of the following aquatic 

species: spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout and redband trout. Key watersheds 

also include a set of subwatersheds selected by staff that could be restored relatively easily. 

Key subwatersheds characterized as easily restorable are considered to be priority 

subwatersheds for focused investments in active restoration over the life of the Forest Plan. 

Priority subwatersheds targeted for active restoration are listed in Appendix A.

Mid-scale watershed analysis is a procedure used within the Pacific Northwest for 

evaluating the geomorphic and ecological processes operating within watersheds. It is 

used to assess the condition and trend of watershed, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems and 

provide the basis for watershed-scale protection and/or restoration.

Watershed protection and/or restoration is an integrated set of both passive and active 

actions intended to facilitate the recovery of the physical, biological, and chemical 

processes that promote the maintenance or recovery of riparian and aquatic ecosystem 

structure and function and promote recovery of federally listed species.

Monitoring is a strategic assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 

management actions and a means of determining whether progress toward achieving 

desired conditions is being made (or not), and it is used to influence adaptive 

management decisions.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

103

Adaptive management is a structured, iterative process for decision-making to reduce 

uncertainty through structured hypothesis testing and monitoring of outcomes. This 

approach supports decision-making that meets resource management objectives while 

simultaneously accruing information to improve future management. Key features of 

adaptive management include:

• Explicitly characterizing uncertainty and assumptions through repeated 

monitoring and reporting.

• Testing assumptions and collecting data using appropriate temporal and spatial 

scales.

• Analyzing new information obtained through monitoring and project experience.

• Learning from feedback between monitoring and decisions.

• Adapting assumptions and strategies to design better plans and management 

direction.

• Making iterative and responsive decisions, evaluating results, and adjusting 

actions based on what has been learned.

• Creating an open and transparent process that shares learning internally and with 

the public.

In the Blue Mountains, as elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, remaining high-quality aquatic 

habitats are largely located on Federal lands but are often fragmented or disconnected from other 

high-quality habitats, resulting in reduced ability of aquatic species to access or move between 

habitats. The quality and types of available habitats no longer encompass the range of habitats 

that existed historically and in some cases, may not be sufficient to support the full range of 

affected aquatic species.

Aquatic habitats on National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains once supported 

culturally and economically important populations of freshwater species, including anadromous 

and resident fishes (Chinook salmon, steelhead, redband trout, and bull trout), lamprey and 

mussels. In most cases, declines in the populations of these species can be traced to habitat 

degradation (Gregory and Bisson 1997).

It is generally recognized that preservation of existing high-quality habitats and remaining strong 

populations is critical to the continued survival of anadromous and resident fish populations 

(Reeves et al. 1995). In addition, restoration efforts should focus on restoring the key ecological 

functions responsible for the creation and maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitats to make 

the ecosystems self-sustaining (Beechie and Bolton 1999, Naiman et al. 1992).

In watersheds with federally listed aquatic species or their critical habitat, actions taken to protect 

or restore the ecological form, function, and processes that achieve the conservation and recovery 

of federally listed fish and their designated critical habitat are a high priority for both watersheds 

and socio-economic conditions.

Where management conflicts between desired conditions exist for federally listed aquatic species, 

consideration should be given to whether short-term disturbance from the activities would 

promote recovery of the species in the long term. An example is where short-term disturbance 

makes it necessary to replace an undersized culvert at a road crossing with a new culvert or 

bridge large enough to provide unimpaired fish passage year-round. To assist with meeting 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7(a)(1) obligations, management actions (including protection 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

104

and active restoration) should be conducted within the range of federally listed species and their 

designated critical habitat. These actions are needed to remove habitat impairments, correct 

degraded conditions, and promote an improvement rate such that fully functioning riparian and 

aquatic habitats (for short and long term) can be developed for the recovery of federally listed 

species.

The focus of watershed restoration is to complete needed restoration work from ridgetops to 

valley bottoms to have healthy watersheds. It should be recognized that not all watersheds will be 

in good condition at the same time and that the condition of some existing high-quality

watersheds will eventually be degraded by future disturbance. Replacement habitats will be 

needed for some populations of aquatic and riparian species (Reeves et al. 1995).

Because of the extent of decline in populations of some aquatic species and the degradation of 

their habitats, protection of remaining strong populations and their habitats is crucial to their 

recovery (Sedell et al. 1997). A network of key watersheds is identified to meet this need. Key 

watersheds have a combination of relative population strength for one of four aquatic species 

(Chinook salmon, steelhead, inland redband trout, and bull trout), good watershed conditions, and 

good aquatic and riparian habitat condition (Reiss et al. 2008). Key watersheds are identified at 

the subwatershed level (U.S. Geological Survey and USDA 2012).

Some attributes of key watersheds that make them important for aquatic species may also make 

key watersheds important habitats for terrestrial wildlife species. Key watersheds may encompass 

a variety of habitats important to various wildlife species, including source habitats, summer 

range, winter range, refugia, and migration corridors. In addition, key watersheds are likely to be 

less affected by past land uses and are therefore more likely to be important to the maintenance of 

water quality and quantity for a variety of downstream uses, including human uses.

The overall strategy in trying to meet the diverse needs of people for current and future needs is 

to protect and restore whole watersheds. A desired condition in achieving this strategy is to 

increase the availability and connectivity of high quality aquatic and riparian habitat. Watersheds 

in good condition should be preserved through the implementation of mitigation measures that 

will reduce any potential or existing adverse or negative impacts. Activities within watersheds 

that have been prioritized for restoration will be designed to reduce impacts using best 

management practices. Watershed restoration activities will be prioritized so that investments are 

made in areas that have the highest restoration potential while providing the greatest benefit to 

multiple resources and the least risk to existing plant, animal, or aquatic populations. These areas 

are identified as priority watersheds in this Plan. Restoration actions may take place in areas of 

lower priority as circumstances warrant and as opportunities are presented.

Land managers should identify and seek opportunities to protect or restore processes that promote 

or foster the goals and objectives in the Forest Plan to support aquatic and riparian habitats.

Key watersheds are located in 17 of the 25 subbasins with streams originating on the three 

national forests. Seventy key subwatersheds are named as priority watersheds and considered the 

highest priority for active restoration. These are watersheds where restoration work is currently 

occurring and where work is expected to begin within the next 10 to 15 years. Appendix A lists 

the key watersheds for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, including those identified as 

priorities for active restoration. Maps displaying locations of all the key and priority watersheds 

are provided in Appendix A.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

105

Restoring and Maintaining Social and Economic Conditions

Ecological conditions and forest management practices are driven by human values and the 

choices they have fostered (Cronon 1996, Langston 1995, Newell et al. 2005). Since its creation 

more than a century ago, the Forest Service has been charged with protecting watersheds, timber 

supply, and other resources, as well as with providing the American public with recreational 

opportunities and a flow of goods and services. Additionally, the Forest Service has been charged 

with meeting legal obligations to American Indian Tribes.

A sustainable flow of social amenities depends upon sustainable ecological management practices 

in watersheds (i.e., restoration of aquatic and terrestrial animal and plant species). Sustainability 

requires a symbiotic relationship between social, economic, and ecological aspects of ecosystem 

management (Forman 1995, Wright et al. 2002).

This Plan’s management approach is designed to restore and maintain forest ecosystems, scenery, 

cultural resources, treaty resources, recreation resources, and the wildland-urban interface, as well 

as contribute to economic opportunities for local communities by:

• Improving the integration of land and resource management with local community and 

tribal economic development strategies and capabilities;

• Improving the quality, diversity, and sustainability of natural resources on the national 

forest;

• Considering actions to achieve the goals of greater economic diversity, resilience, and 

vitality for rural and tribal communities;

• Utilizing local infrastructure to the extent practicable to accomplish ecosystem restoration 

objectives (such as mills, labor, contractors, and schools);

• Maintaining hunting and fishing opportunity through ecosystem management and 

restoration. The management focus for elk is designed to help distribute and maintain elk 

on National Forest System lands to provide adequate hunting and viewing opportunities 

and minimize elk related conflict on private lands by:

♦ Coordinating with State, tribal and other stakeholders to address ecological, social, 

and cultural issues with elk using best available science;

♦ Implementing an intermediate assessment to prioritize landscapes to maintain or 

improve elk habitat, in coordination with State, tribal, and other stakeholders, that 

consider and integrate social tolerance, recreational and hunting opportunity, 

biophysical conditions, and elk use across scales ecologically meaningful to elk (e.g., 

subwatershed); and

♦ Maintaining and improving elk habitat by: (1) providing a continuum of elk security 

across the landscape in strategic locations with a focus on increasing elk security in 

sub-watersheds with less than 30 percent elk security; (2) moving towards vegetative 

desired conditions; and (3) strategically creating or maintaining a mosaic of hiding 

cover and forage patches during project implementation to achieve a landscape 

pattern consistent with desired conditions.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

106

Federal Trust Responsibilities and Tribal Rights and Interests

American Indian Tribes retain sovereignty over their rights and resources and exercise selfgovernance with which the Forest Service has established and continues to maintain governmentto-government relationships. The Forest Service has unique legal responsibilities to American 

Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 

2), treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions. The support for tribal sovereignty and 

the special government-to-government relationship between the Tribes and the United States is 

further outlined in Executive Order 13175 (November 9, 2000).

Government-to-government relationships are vital to protecting and managing ecological 

resources to honor, support, and respect cultural, spiritual, and community interests and to 

integrate these as fully as possible into project design. Through treaties and other instruments, 

Tribes have reserved rights for their tribal members both on and off-reservation lands. A 

significant portion of lands ceded (by virtue of the multiple Treaties of 1855) by the Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (12 Stat. 945), Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation (12 Stat. 963), Nez Perce Tribe (12 Stat. 957), and Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama Reservation (12 Stat. 951) were established as 

part of the National Forest System by the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897.

While federal laws apply to all federally recognized American Indian Tribes, each Tribe is 

different and is recognized as a separate and unique government. While some Tribes have treaties, 

other Tribes were recognized under different authorities and have different rights. Treaty rights 

and the historical relationships between Tribes and the lands they aboriginally relied upon may

differ greatly among Tribes. Cultural differences between Tribes can also be significant. In some 

cases, several Tribes may each have legitimate interests in the same lands because they each may 

have occupied or otherwise used those lands during different historical periods. These factors and 

others combine to make each Forest Service-tribal consultation relationship unique.

Many treaties of the northwest were treaties of cession, whereby Tribes surrendered lands to the 

United States in exchange for a reservation as well as specific language recognizing that the 

Tribes reserved rights in their aboriginal territory. It is important to recognize that treaties were 

not a grant of rights to Tribes, but a grant of rights from the Tribes to the United States. At the 

time of treaty signing, the land and resources were owned and possessed by the Tribes. Specific 

rights were enumerated in the treaties as reserved, but other rights that were not ceded to the 

United States were retained, which is known as the Reserved Rights Doctrine. The WallowaWhitman staff understands the significance and interconnectedness of treaty rights and resources 

within tribal cultures. Tribal members continue to foster longstanding, customary relationships 

with natural resources on the national forest, continuing an interdependent relationship whereby 

tribal practices nurture ecological systems, and those systems in-turn nurture and sustain cultural 

identity and continuity. American Indian access to culturally significant sites is protected under 

laws that have been specifically enacted to protect tribal rights to: use and possess sacred objects,

protect their ancestral graves, archaeological and cultural sites, the freedom of worship through 

ceremonial and traditional practices, and to collect native plant and animal resources for 

traditional cultural purposes. Memoranda of Understanding for collaboration, consultation, and 

cooperation in managing natural resources on National Forest System lands are in effect between 

the Forest Service and:

• The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

• The Nez Perce Tribe, and

• The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

107

The Forest Service consults with Tribes whenever proposed policies or management actions may 

affect their interests. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, Fort 

McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, Fort Bidwell Indian Community of Paiute Indians, 

Klamath Tribes, and the Chief Joseph Band of Nez Perce-Colville Confederated Tribes are 

federally recognized American Indian Tribes that also have interests in the management direction 

and project planning of the national forests in the Blue Mountains.

Integration of the Management Focus

The integration of terrestrial vegetation, watershed, and socio-economic conditions help to 

highlight where active improvements are likely to occur.

Considering the factors discussed above, much of the active restoration is likely to occur in:

• Priority watersheds

• Wildland-urban interface

• Dry upland forest potential vegetation groups

Areas where multiple factors overlap have a higher priority than those with only a single factor. 

Depending on cost sharing or other factors, lower priority work may still occur before higher 

priority. Prioritization also recognizes the need for maintenance activities to prevent areas from 

becoming departed and then needing more expensive restoration treatments.

Management Areas

Management areas broadly describe areas where general management intent is similar (see 

Appendix D). The purpose of management areas is to provide consistent guidance for similar 

portions of national forest landscapes when implementing or continuing management activities. 

The management areas generally range along a continuum from little development in MA 1A to 

extensive human development in MA 5.

All management areas are displayed in Table 19 and full descriptions for each area are presented 

after the table. Overlap occurs between most management areas. The overlapping results in the 

total acreage of all management areas being greater than the official national forest acreages. For 

example, several Research Natural Areas (MA 2B) and wild and scenic rivers (MA 2A) overlap 

into congressionally designated wilderness areas (MA 1A). In situations where management areas 

overlap, the more restrictive direction will apply.

Inventoried roadless areas are not assigned to a specific management area. These designated areas 

overlap with multiple management areas, with most of the overlap occurring in MA 1B, MA 3A, 

and MA 3B. Other overlap occurs in special areas (MA 2). Regardless of these overlapping 

management areas, where inventoried roadless areas are present, the prohibitions outlined in the 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule apply.

Wilderness area acres have been recalculated using the most current geographic information 

systems technology. No additions or subtractions to any wilderness areas have been made since 

the 1990 forest plans were signed. Acres of private land inclusions are not included in any 

wilderness area acre calculations.

Scenic byways and national designated trails within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

are not included in the following table. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area

Comprehensive Management Plan is the portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land 

Management Plan that guides management of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

108

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan, which was updated 

and approved in 2003, is carried forward, unmodified in its entirety, in Appendix E to this Forest 

Plan.

Table 19. Management area designation, name, and acreage for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest (2F and 2G show miles) 

Management Area Designation and Name Acres

1A – Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas 372,900

1B – Recommended Wilderness Areas 12,000

1C – Wilderness Study Area 2,400

2A – Wild and Scenic River (Includes Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Rivers) 52,900

2B – Research Natural Areas 8,000

2C – Botanical Areas 1,000

2D – Geological Areas 5

2E – Historical Areas 2,300

2F – Scenic Byways and All-American Roads 85 miles

2G – Nationally Designated Trails 25 miles

2I – Starkey Experimental Forest and Range 30,500

2J – Municipal Watersheds 24,500

3A – Backcountry (nonmotorized use) 31,700

3B – Backcountry (motorized use) 209,400

4A – General Forest 861,400

4B – Riparian Management Areas (300/150/100-foot buffer) 362,500

4B – Riparian Management Areas (within 4A) 190,100

5 – Developed Sites and Administrative Areas 7,700

Note: Figures in the table are rounded to the nearest 100 (acres) unless specifically noted as miles (nearest whole mile).

Special Areas

Special areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are managed to protect or enhance 

unique or special characteristics. They are identified or designated because of their unique or 

special characteristics. These areas provide for conservation of representative, unique, or rare 

ecosystems or ecological components, as well as culturally significant components. Some of these 

areas help provide an important role under an adaptive management philosophy by providing 

natural reference areas that are managed for special objectives. Management emphasis is 

primarily focused on protecting or improving, and where appropriate, developing and interpreting 

the area’s special characteristics for public education and enjoyment.

Special areas are formally designated either by congressional statute or by administrative action 

and are divided into two types of designated areas: congressional and administrative.

Congressionally Designated Areas

Congressionally designated areas are established through a formal act of Congress. These 

include wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, national historic trails, and national 

recreation areas.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

109

Through legislation, Congress has designated several areas that are unique for their special 

characteristics and the opportunities they offer. Congressional designation provides specific 

management direction in these areas.

Administratively Designated Areas

These areas, such as inventoried roadless areas, have been established through 

administrative procedures by Federal agencies. While administratively designated areas 

may be proposed in the Forest Plan, they are established separately and after the 

planning process is completed. Management direction may include specific direction to 

preserve the unique characteristics of an area.

The following types of administratively designated areas occur on or across the Blue 

Mountains: scenic areas; historical, geological, and botanical areas; research natural 

areas; municipal watersheds; scenic byways; inventoried roadless areas; and nationally 

designated trails.

As established by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, inventoried roadless areas

have been designated by regulation, including prohibitions that apply within these 

designated areas. Inventoried roadless areas overlap multiple management areas with the 

majority overlapping three management areas: 1A – Recommended Wilderness Area, 3A –

Backcountry (nonmotorized use), and 3B – Backcountry (motorized use). Lesser amounts 

of overlap occur in special areas that contain scenic, historical, geological, botanical, 

zoological, paleontological, and other special characteristics. The desired conditions,

standards, and guidelines for these management area designations align with the regulations 

outlined in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

Management Area Descriptions and Desired Conditions

MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas

Description: As defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act, a wilderness area is undeveloped 

Federal land retaining its primitive character without permanent improvements or human 

habitation and is managed to preserve its natural conditions.

Three designated wilderness areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (excluding 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area) were established by legislative acts, including 

the Oregon Wilderness Act (1984). These areas are displayed in Table 20. Management plans 

for individual wilderness areas remain in place, and if management plan components conflict 

with Forest Plan components, the more restrictive will apply.

Table 20. Designated wilderness areas for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest1

Wilderness Area Name Acres2

Eagle Cap 351,859

Monument Rock 7,188

North Fork John Day 13,897

Total 372,944

1 Wilderness area acres within the HCNRA are not included in this table.

2 The management area acres displayed are taken from the 1990 forest plans and have not been recalculated 

using the most current GIS technology.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

110

Desired Condition: Designated wilderness areas exhibit primitive qualities. 

Opportunities for research, exploration, solitude, risk, challenge, and primitive recreation 

are widespread. On the trail system, opportunities for solitude are moderate to high, with 

few human encounters expected. Opportunities for solitude are high when traveling 

cross-country with almost no human encounters expected. Campsites may be visible at 

popular destinations along water features and at major trail junctions. These sites 

accommodate moderate use. Directional and regulatory signs are primarily found at 

trailheads outside of this management area but some signs may be present within these 

areas along trails and junctions. Buildings are rare within this management area; 

however, the preservation of historical features or retention of facilities for administrative 

use may occur. Ecosystems are influenced by natural processes with little or no human 

intervention. Geological and ecological processes, such as wildfire and insects and 

diseases, operate relatively free from the influence of humans. Any influences upon these 

processes by humans is intended to protect human life; protect adjacent private property 

or private in-holdings; and reduce impacts to federal facilities, historic or cultural 

structures, and threatened and endangered plant or animal species or species included in 

the regional forester’s sensitive species list. Predominantly diverse, native vegetation 

results from natural succession and disturbance processes, while nonnative vegetation is 

rare. The recreation opportunity spectrum is primitive.

MA 1B Preliminary Administratively Recommended Wilderness Areas

Description: The areas in MA 1B have been determined to meet the criteria established to qualify 

for designation as wilderness areas. These areas are recommended for designation and inclusion 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Regulations at 36 CFR 219.7(a)(2)(v) require 

units undergoing new plan development or plan revision to “identify and evaluate lands that may 

be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and determine whether 

to recommend any such lands for wilderness designation.” Until Congress acts, these areas will 

be managed to protect the wilderness characteristics that meet the criteria for designation of these 

lands as designated wilderness areas. The plan revision process identified one area on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that meets these criteria: Twin Mountain (12,019 acres).

Desired Condition: Recommended wilderness areas exhibit primitive qualities. 

Opportunities for research, exploration, solitude, risk, challenge, and primitive recreation 

are widespread. On the trail system, opportunities for solitude are moderate to high, with 

few human encounters expected. Opportunities for solitude are high when traveling 

cross-country with almost no human encounters expected. Ecosystems are influenced by 

natural processes with little or no human intervention. Geological and ecological 

processes, such as wildfire and insect and disease disturbances, operate relatively free 

from the influence of humans. Predominantly diverse, native vegetation results from 

natural succession and disturbance processes, while nonnative vegetation is rare. Uses are 

conducive to maintaining the wilderness characteristics of the areas. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum is primitive.

MA 1C Wilderness Study Area

Description: The Homestead Wilderness Study Area, including the neighboring Federal lands

managed by the Bureau of Land Management, contains about 14,000 acres of public land.

Inventoried roadless areas were reviewed, and the portion of this roadless area managed by the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest increased from about 5,700 acres to about 9,000 acres. Most 

of the area is within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, and the remainder of the 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

111

roadless area (2,400 acres) is within the Whitman Ranger District. The 1991 Bureau of Land 

Management wilderness study process included the national forest acres and did not propose to 

recommend this roadless area for wilderness designation. Congress has not yet acted on the study, 

so these acres remain in the wilderness study area category. Wilderness values and resources will 

be protected until Congress either designates the area as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System or releases the area from consideration.

Desired Condition: The Homestead Wilderness Study Area provides opportunities for 

primitive recreation where natural processes dominate the landscape. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum is primitive.

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers

(Includes Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Rivers)

Description: This management area applies to river segments that have been designated as part 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as 

amended (1968) and the Oregon Omnibus River Act (1988) (see Desired Condition: Eligible, 

suitable, and designated wild and scenic rivers are free flowing, without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rap or other modification of the waterways. Water quality and outstandingly 

remarkable values are protected and enhanced. Development and access levels are consistent with 

the classification of the stream or stream segment as designated (or deemed suitable or eligible in 

the case of river segments that are not designated).

Wild Rivers

Wild river segments are free flowing and are generally inaccessible except by trail or water; the 

shorelines are essentially natural appearing. Signs of human activity, including structures or 

evidence of resource use, are minimal. Visitors can interact in a natural environment with 

minimal sights and sounds of other people. Wild rivers within designated wilderness areas meet 

the desired condition for MA 1A. The recreation opportunity spectrum is primitive to semi

primitive nonmotorized.

Table 21). It also applies to rivers identified as eligible or suitable for designation (Table 22). The 

Act requires that a detailed study report be prepared for all rivers mandated for study under 

Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as amended, and for all other rivers identified by 

the Forest Service as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Sec. 

5(d)(1) of the Act). Section 5(d)(1) study rivers found eligible are to be protected pending a 

suitability determination. Land management agencies must protect section 5(d)(1) study rivers 

found suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System for their free-flowing 

condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The existence of low dams, 

diversion works, or other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System does not automatically disqualify it for designation, but 

future construction of such structures is not allowed.

On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, eight rivers have been designated by Congress as wild 

and scenic. Among these rivers, about 96 miles are classified as wild, 12 miles as scenic, and 38

miles as recreational (see Desired Condition: Eligible, suitable, and designated wild and scenic 

rivers are free flowing, without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rap or other 

modification of the waterways. Water quality and outstandingly remarkable values are protected 

and enhanced. Development and access levels are consistent with the classification of the stream 

or stream segment as designated (or deemed suitable or eligible in the case of river segments that 

are not designated).
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

112

Wild Rivers

Wild river segments are free flowing and are generally inaccessible except by trail or water; the 

shorelines are essentially natural appearing. Signs of human activity, including structures or 

evidence of resource use, are minimal. Visitors can interact in a natural environment with 

minimal sights and sounds of other people. Wild rivers within designated wilderness areas meet 

the desired condition for MA 1A. The recreation opportunity spectrum is primitive to semi

primitive nonmotorized.

Table 21). Management plans for individual designated rivers remain in place, and if management 

plan components conflict with Forest Plan components, the more restrictive will apply.

Desired Condition: Eligible, suitable, and designated wild and scenic rivers are free 

flowing, without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rap or other modification of 

the waterways. Water quality and outstandingly remarkable values are protected and 

enhanced. Development and access levels are consistent with the classification of the 

stream or stream segment as designated (or deemed suitable or eligible in the case of 

river segments that are not designated).

Wild Rivers

Wild river segments are free flowing and are generally inaccessible except by trail or water; the 

shorelines are essentially natural appearing. Signs of human activity, including structures or 

evidence of resource use, are minimal. Visitors can interact in a natural environment with 

minimal sights and sounds of other people. Wild rivers within designated wilderness areas meet 

the desired condition for MA 1A. The recreation opportunity spectrum is primitive to semi

primitive nonmotorized.

Table 21. Miles of designated wild and scenic rivers1 on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest2

River Name Wild Scenic Recreational

Eagle Creek 4.0 6.0 18.4

Grande Ronde River3 17.4 0.0 1.5

Joseph Creek 8.6 0.0 0.0

Imnaha River 15.0 0.0 0.0

Lostine River 5.0 0.0 11.0

Minam River 41.9 0.0 0.0

North Fork John Day River3 3.5 0.0 6.9

North Powder River 0.0 6.4 0.0

Totals 95.9 12.4 37.8

1. Mileages in this table are derived from legislative language and/or the most recent figures reported in river plans (or 

“Comprehensive River Management Plans”).

2. Miles within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area are not included in this table.

3. The Grande Ronde and North Fork John Day rivers are listed above for both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests as administration is shared. Mileage for the North Fork John Day River is divided within the table to 

reflect the mileage within and administered by each national forest. The Grande Ronde River is part of the 

administrative boundary between the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and the mileage is displayed 

equally for each of the national forests.

Scenic Rivers

Scenic river segments are free flowing. Shorelines and viewing areas are largely natural 

appearing but are accessible by roads in some places. Some recreation structures, evidence of 

timber harvest roads, and other evidence of human activity may be present but do not detract 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

113

from the near natural appearance and scenic qualities of the immediate environment. A variety of 

water related recreational opportunities are available. The recreation opportunity spectrum is 

semi-primitive nonmotorized to semi-primitive motorized.

Recreational Rivers

Recreational river segments are free flowing and are readily accessible from roads. Some major 

public use facilities, such as developed campgrounds, administrative buildings, bridges, private 

residences, and commercial businesses, may be within the corridor. Considerable development 

and silvicultural treatments may have occurred and may be evident near the river. A range of 

recreational opportunities is available in settings where visitors are likely to share their 

recreational experience with other individuals or groups. The recreation opportunity spectrum is 

semi-primitive motorized to roaded natural.

Table 22. Miles of suitable wild and scenic rivers on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest1

River Name Wild Scenic Recreational Outstanding Remarkable Values

Dutch Flat Creek 5.3 0.0 0.0 Scenery, recreation, geological, 

hydrological, botanical

East Eagle Creek 9.0 0.0 6.6 Scenery, recreation, fisheries, geological, 

cultural

Five Points Creek 0.0 12.1 0.0 Scenery, fisheries, wildlife

Totals 14.3 12.1 6.6 -

1. These rivers were determined suitable. Analysis is documented in the Dutch Flat Creek, Killamacue Creek, and Rock 

Creek Wild and Scenic River Study Report (1996) and Wild and Scenic River Study Report and Final Legislative EIS for 

Eight Rivers (1997).

MA 2B Research Natural Areas

Description: Research natural areas form a network of ecological reserves established for 

research and education purposes and for the maintenance of biodiversity. They are 

established to conserve unique ecological communities and are intended to promote and 

protect natural diversity. Research Natural Areas typify important vegetative, aquatic, and 

geological types, as well as other natural situations that have special and unique 

characteristics of scientific interest and importance.

Research, study, observation, monitoring, and educational activities that are nondestructive and 

nonmanipulative are generally allowed within research natural areas. While research natural areas 

are generally not suitable for livestock grazing, some incidental use by livestock could occur 

within these areas as administrative boundaries are typically not fenced. Forest Plan direction 

applies, whether the research natural area is established or proposed. The network of established 

or proposed research natural areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are displayed in 

Table 23.

Desired Condition: Research natural areas and proposed research natural areas exhibit 

unmodified examples of natural ecosystems with minimal human intervention where 

ecological processes prevail. Under some circumstances, deliberate manipulation may 

occur, except in wilderness areas, to maintain or restore the ecosystem or the unique 

feature for which the research natural area was established or proposed. Recreational uses 

do not threaten or interfere with the purposes for which the research natural area is 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

114

established or proposed. The recreation opportunity spectrum depends on the surrounding 

management areas.

Table 23. Research natural areas for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Area Name Acres Status

Clear Creek Ridge 637 Proposed

Craig Mountain Lake 172 Proposed

Glacier Lake 102 Proposed

Haystack Rock 418 Established

Horse Pasture Ridge 338 Established

Indian Creek 1,003 Established

Charles Grier Johnson Jr. (formerly Cougar Meadow) 130 Proposed

Lake Fork1 224 Proposed

Mount Joseph 705 Proposed

Nebo1 1,697 Proposed

Point Prominence 365 Proposed

Standley 742 Proposed

Gerald S. Strickler (formerly Government Meadow) 190 Established

Sturgill 139 Proposed

Tenderfoot Basin 891 Proposed

Vance Knoll 189 Established

West Razz Lake 47 Proposed

Total 7,989 -

1. Acres within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area are not included in this table.

MA 2C Botanical Areas

Description: Botanical areas have special values and unique natural characteristics. Botanical 

areas contain specimens, groups of plant colonies, or plant communities that are significant 

because of form, color occurrence, habitat location, life history, ecology, variety, or other features. 

While botanical areas are generally not suitable for livestock grazing, some incidental use by 

livestock could occur within these areas as administrative boundaries typically are not fenced.

Botanical areas may include national natural landmarks. The National Natural Landmark Program 

was established in 1962 and is part of the U.S. Department of Interior. The program is 

administered by the National Park Service and includes areas that have been designated by the 

Secretary of the Interior that represent unique examples of ecological and geological features that 

comprise our Nation’s natural history.

The purpose of the National Natural Landmark Program is to identify and encourage the 

preservation of exceptional examples of the nation’s geological and ecological features. National 

natural landmarks represent nationally significant examples of the nation’s natural heritage. The 

program serves to enhance the scientific and educational values of the designated sites, to 

strengthen public appreciation of natural history, and to foster conservation of the nation’s natural 

heritage. There is one botanical area that is a national natural landmark on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest: Mount Howard-East Peak (1,012 acres).
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

115

Desired Condition: Botanical areas exhibit the natural composition, structure, and 

function of each area’s unique ecosystem. National natural landmarks exhibit natural 

conditions where ecological processes predominate. National natural landmarks also 

provide scenic and recreational opportunities while protecting the ecological and geologic 

values for which the national natural landmark was designated.

MA 2D Geological Areas

Description: Geological areas have outstanding formations or unique geological features of the 

earth’s development, such as caves, fossils, dikes, cliffs, or faults. These areas are protected or 

enhanced, and where appropriate, public use and enjoyment is fostered. The Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest has one geological area: Ichthyosaur Site (5 acres).

Desired Condition: Geological areas display unique geological formations and events. 

Developments provide public enjoyment and interpretation opportunities with high 

scenic, recreational, and historic value.

MA 2E Historical Areas

Description: These areas are protected or enhanced, and, where appropriate, public use and 

enjoyment is fostered. These areas are usually small (generally less than 1,000 acres). 

Historical areas have historic sites, buildings, or objects of significance and may include 

Historic Properties of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes (HPRCSITs). 

Historical areas may include archaeological sites and districts; existing preservation and 

management plans developed for these resources inform management actions within these 

sensitive areas to conserve the values for which these areas are designated. The established 

historical areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are displayed in Table 24.

Desired Condition: Historical areas demonstrate legacies unique to the area. 

Developments exist to enhance public enjoyment and interpretation if appropriate. 

Their high historic value is maintained.

Table 24. Historical areas for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Area Name Acres

Oregon Trail 318

Sumpter Valley Railroad Main Line 913

Starvation Archaeological Area 260

Camp Carson

 

117

Ah Hee Diggings (Granite Chinese Walls) 40

Dooley Mountain Obsidian Sources

 

616

Reds Horse Ranch/Millard Ranger Station 44

Total 2,308 \

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All-American Roads

Description: The National Scenic Byways Program is a part of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. The program is a grassroots, collaborative effort established to help recognize, 

preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout the U.S. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

recognizes certain roads as All-American roads or national scenic byways based on one or more 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

116

of the following characteristics: archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, or scenic 

quality.

The purpose of the scenic byways program is to create a distinctive collection of designated 

roads, their stories, and treasured places by creating a unique travel experience and enhanced 

local quality of life through efforts to preserve, protect, interpret, and promote the intrinsic 

qualities of designated byways. Table 25 displays the miles of designated national and state scenic 

byways within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Each of the scenic byways has additional 

mileage beyond the national forest boundaries.

Table 25. Scenic byways within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Scenic Byway Name Length (miles) Designation

Blue Mountain Scenic Byway 2 State

Hells Canyon Scenic Byway1 10 National

Journey Through Time Scenic Byway 21 State

Elkhorn Scenic Byway 52 State

Total 85 -

1. A portion of the Hells Canyon Scenic Byway, an All-American Road, is within the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area and is not included in this table.

Desired Condition: The scenic integrity of scenic byways is high. Scenic byways 

connect communities with the surrounding natural environment. Corridor management 

plans provide a frame of reference for meeting scenic integrity objectives and for 

protecting and enhancing the intrinsic qualities for which byways were designated.

Constructed features contribute to the attractiveness of the landscape and/or theme. The 

recreation opportunity spectrum depends on the surrounding management areas.

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails

Description: The National Trail System Act (1968) authorized the creation of a national trail 

system comprised of national recreation trails, national scenic trails, and national historic 

trails. These trails are included in the listing of specially designated areas because of their 

scenic, recreational, and historic value. Table 26 displays trails designated within the WallowaWhitman National Forest.

Table 26. Nationally designated trails within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Trail Name Length (miles)

Elkhorn Crest National Recreation Trail 23.0

High Wallowa National Recreation Trail 2.0

Oregon Trail National Historic Trail 8.3

Total 33.3

The following designated trails not included in this table are within the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area: Nez Perce Nee-Me-Poo National Historic Trail and the Western 

Rim/Summit Ridge, Heaven’s Gate, and Snake River National Recreation Trails.

Oregon Trail National Historic Trail Background: The Oregon Trail National Historic Trail 

was established by Congress through Public Law 95-625 in 1978, amending the National Trails 

Systems Act of 1968 to designate it as a component of the National Trails System. The trail was 

designated to celebrate and mark the great westward migration that occurred during the mid-
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

117

nineteenth century, a movement that forever changed the American West. From the 1840s through 

the 1880s, thousands trekked to the western frontier, carrying few belongings and supplies for the 

journey.

Trail preservation efforts began shortly after settlement in the west. Pioneers formed historical 

societies that sought to retrace the continental trail and establish markers along its route. In 1978, 

Congress designated it as the Oregon National Historic Trail, part of the National Trails System. 

While only about 300 miles of actual trail ruts remain today, the route is preserved with over 125 

historic sites, auto tour routes, and markers. The trail is managed by the National Park Service, 

Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, State agencies, land owners, and private 

organizations that want the history of this American event preserved.

Nez Perce National Historic Trail Background: The Nez Perce National Historic Trail was 

established by Congress through Public Law 99-445 in 1986, amending the National Trails 

Systems Act of 1968 to designate the Nez Perce National Historic Trail as a component of the 

National Trails System. The trail was designated to commemorate the 1877 flight of the nontreaty Nez Perce from their homelands in eastern Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Five Nez Perce 

bands, nearly 800 men, women, and children, struggled across 1,200 miles of rugged country. The 

course they chose on their epic journey has been memorialized in the Nez Perce National Historic 

Trail. In its entirety, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail covers 1,170 miles, of which 319 miles 

have been designated high potential route segments.

On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the designated trail route is located principally within 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and has been identified as a high potential route 

segment. Several auto tour routes are located within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, both 

within and outside the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Motorized use is allowed where 

the Nez Perce National Historic Trail overlaps an existing road and along the auto tour route. 

Where the trail follows National Forest System trails, the Nez Perce National Historic Trail is 

nonmotorized. Along the trail alignment, resources on Federal lands that can be documented to 

have direct association with the event and the route become federally protected components of the 

trail.

Highways that roughly parallel the Nez Perce flight or that provide interpretative viewing 

opportunities have been designated the official Nez Perce National Historic Trail Auto Route. 

Through the cooperative efforts of the Forest Service and the States of Oregon, Idaho, 

Washington, Wyoming, and Montana, 1,500 miles of selected roadway display the Nez Perce 

National Historic Trail Auto Route signs. The Mainstream Route across the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest follows Highway 3 to the Joseph Canyon Viewpoint until the highway exits the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Adventurous and Rugged Routes follow other National 

Forest System roads distributed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, both within and 

outside the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Desired Condition: Nationally designated trails are managed according to the direction 

in their respective trail management plans. Nationally designated trails meet standards 

commensurate with the significance of each trail, and the values for which the trails were 

designated are protected. The trails and associated resources are identified, documented, 

and interpreted for the public where appropriate. Nationally designated trails are well 

maintained and are upgraded where necessary to minimize resource damage while 

providing a safe, consistent surface. Signage is adequate or is improved. Their high 

scenic, recreational, and historic value is evident. The recreation opportunity spectrum 

depends on the surrounding management areas.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

118

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range

Description: The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range (Starkey) was established in 1940. It is 

managed to support existing research projects and to provide for future research needs.

Experimental forests and ranges were established explicitly to conduct research benefitting and 

supporting National Forest System management. Management treatments on experimental forests 

and ranges generally are integrated with and support research projects. The national network of 

experimental forests and ranges, a land base authorized by Congress and designated by the Chiefs 

of the Forest Service over the last 100 years, provides sites where long-term ecological research 

can be maintained. Experimental forests and ranges are living laboratories where scientists not 

only make discoveries but also demonstrate relevant research results for cooperators and 

stakeholders. They provide opportunities to conduct the innovative research that will be required 

for sound management of future landscapes.

Starkey is a world-class research facility and a primary field location for long-term, operational 

scale scientific studies of the effects of management activities on ungulates and wildlife, as well 

as effects of deer, elk, and cattle on ecosystem process and function. Scientists conducting 

research at Starkey have generated many publications that have been instrumental in providing 

managers with defensible options and best management practices for managing roads and traffic, 

including off-road recreation, livestock grazing, and fuel treatments in relation to ungulates. 

Significant, long-term research on interactions between livestock and wild ungulates began in 

1989, through a joint wildlife research project conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Oregon State University, and the Forest Service.

The Station Director will review and concur with management activities proposed within this 

Experimental Forest and Range.

Desired Condition: The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range provides opportunities 

to study deer, elk, cattle, and other wildlife, as well as other aspects of intensive forest 

and rangeland management including disturbance ecology (e.g., fire, insects and diseases, 

grazing by large mammals). A wide variety of land uses and human activities will 

continue to be included in Starkey research including: active silviculture, fuels reduction, 

biofuel management, fire suppression, cattle grazing, public access, public uses of 

motorized and nonmotorized roads and trails, firewood cutting, camping and other

nonconsumptive recreation, and protection of all research facilities. Public access and 

activities are managed to protect the facilities and meet research needs.

Depending on research objectives, studies vary from nonmanipulative studies at small 

scales, to experiments involving commercial timber harvesting across multiple stands. 

Typical forest practices, such as fuels reduction, prescribed fire, and timber harvest, are 

conducted as part of research direction and may result in a higher level of uncertainty of 

effects than is expected in other management areas, because research within experimental 

areas can include testing of novel prescriptions and management approaches. Timber 

harvest is allowed to meet specific resource objectives for Starkey. Timber harvest is not 

scheduled and does not contribute towards the allowable sale quantity.

Enclosures, exclosures, and long-term vegetation plots are maintained and protected to 

provide a continuous data stream to meet research objectives. However, future research

may dictate treatment within these areas. Livestock management systems include (1) use 

of novel cattle grazing systems to facilitate habitat recovery in riparian systems, (2) 

manipulative ungulate treatments to evaluate cattle versus elk and deer herbivory effects 

on vegetation development, and (3) evaluation of effects of ungulates on a wide variety of 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

119

other resources (e.g., water quality, hydrology, nutrient cycling, forest productivity, and 

wildlife). The number of animals, as well as the allocation of this number between cattle, 

deer and elk, may be manipulated as part of the research conducted on the Starkey 

Experimental Forest and Range.

The recreation opportunity spectrum is roaded natural.

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds

Description: A municipal watershed is an area that serves a public water system as defined by the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act applies to systems that provide water for human consumption, 

have at least 15 service connections, or regularly provide water to at least 25 people. The Act was 

amended in 1996 to require source water protection zones for groundwater wells that provide 

water for public use. The Act regulates both community and non-community water systems.

The definition of municipal watershed in current Forest Service regulations does not include 

communities served by a well or confined groundwater unaffected by Forest Service activities. 

However, the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was amended in 1996 to require source water 

protection zones for groundwater wells that provide water for municipal use. Designation of 

municipal watersheds recognizes the need to protect public water supplies. Municipal watersheds 

may be managed for multiple uses so long as management activities do not degrade water quality.

Management of some municipal water supply watersheds is subject to the terms of existing 

agreements between the Secretary of Agriculture and the respective cities.

The management of the municipal watersheds is guided by existing agreements between the 

individual cities and either the Secretary of Agriculture or the Forest Service. Actions that could 

degrade water quality are either prohibited or are subject to approval by the respective city. For 

some communities, wells outside the national forest are the primary water source, but wellhead

protection zones may extend onto National Forest System lands.

Two municipal watersheds on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest supply water to the cities of 

Baker City and La Grande (Table 27).

Table 27. Designated municipal watersheds in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Watershed Acres City Year of Establishment

Baker City Municipal Watershed 

(multiple streams) 9,322 Baker City, OR 1912 Agreement with Department of 

Agriculture

La Grande City Municipal 

Watershed (Beaver Creek) 15,161 La Grande, OR 1935 Agreement with Department of 

Agriculture

Total 24,483 - -

In addition to the municipal watersheds listed in the table above, several communities in Oregon 

have watersheds or water sources located on or adjacent to National Forest System lands that 

should be protected to meet state source-water protection guidelines.

• The town of Granite has a water intake on National Forest System lands operating under 

special use permit. A wellhead protection zone for a groundwater well extends onto National 

Forest System lands.

• The town of Halfway has municipal water rights on National Forest System lands but has

converted the water system to groundwater sources on city-owned lands.
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

120

• The upper Wallowa River, including Wallowa Lake, is designated by the Oregon Department 

of Environmental Quality as the municipal water supply for the city of Joseph. The city water 

intake is located near the outlet of Wallowa Lake and is not on National Forest System lands.

• The city of Sumpter has a water intake operating under special use permit on National Forest 

System lands. The watershed is designated by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

as a municipal water supply.

• The city of Wallowa owns municipal water rights on National Forest System lands (Bear 

Creek), but has converted its water system to groundwater sources on city-owned lands.

• The communities of Richland and Greenhorn obtain their water from surface sources 

originating on National Forest System lands.

Fifteen additional sites within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, primarily campgrounds 

and administrative sites, provide water for human consumption and are regulated under the 

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act as non-community water systems.

Desired Condition: The quality of water used for human consumption meets or exceeds 

all associated state water quality criteria.

MA 3A Backcountry (Nonmotorized Use)

Description: Backcountry nonmotorized areas are generally areas where recreation opportunities 

are primitive nonmotorized and semi-primitive, and motorized transportation is not established or 

suitable. Boundaries are aligned closely with the boundaries of inventoried roadless areas. The 

prohibitions stated in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule for timber harvest and road 

building apply to MA 3A backcountry nonmotorized areas that overlap with inventoried roadless 

areas. Use is nonmotorized year-round and essentially primitive. Lands in this management area 

often have high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air; sources of public drinking water; 

diversity of plant and animal communities; habitat for species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act and other species that depend on large, undisturbed areas of land; primitive and semiprimitive nonmotorized dispersed recreation opportunities; natural appearing landscapes with 

high scenic quality, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness; and 

traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. Backcountry areas that do not overlap with 

inventoried roadless areas are not subject to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibitions.

Desired Condition: Generally, natural ecological processes predominate. The social 

setting is one of moderate to high challenge and risk, where people using these areas 

experience some isolation from the sights and sounds of others. Mechanized uses, such as 

bicycles, and motorized equipment for trail maintenance, such as chainsaws and 

generators, are suitable uses. Trail systems are constructed and maintained for use by 

hikers, equestrians, and cyclists. The scenic integrity of these areas is high. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum in MA 3A is semi-primitive or primitive nonmotorized.

MA 3B Backcountry (Motorized Use)

Description: Backcountry motorized areas are areas where recreation opportunities are 

essentially primitive and motorized use is established and suitable. Boundaries are aligned closely 

with the boundaries of inventoried roadless areas. The prohibitions stated in the 2001 Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule for timber harvest and road building apply to MA 3B backcountry

motorized areas that overlap with inventoried roadless areas. Use in MA 3B Backcountry 

Motorized Use includes both motor vehicle use and nonmotorized use. These areas are relatively 

remote but may show signs of past activities. Motor vehicle access to these areas may be 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

121

restricted seasonally, by route designations, or by area restrictions. These areas are characterized 

by semi-primitive nonmotorized and motorized dispersed recreation opportunities and modified 

appearing landscapes with moderate scenic quality. Backcountry areas that do not overlap with 

inventoried roadless areas are not subject to the Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibitions.

Desired Condition: Generally, natural ecological processes predominate.

The social setting is one of moderate challenge and risk, where people using these areas 

experience some isolation from the sights and sounds of others. Motorized and 

mechanized uses, such as motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, bicycles, and 

motorized equipment such as chainsaws and generators are suitable uses. Trails and 

primitive developments are constructed and maintained for both motor vehicle and 

nonmotorized users. The recreation opportunity spectrum in MA 3B is semi-primitive or 

motorized.

MA 4A General Forest

Description: General Forest areas are managed to meet a variety of ecological and human needs. 

All of the lands identified as suitable for timber production are contained within Management 

Area 4A. A wide variety of vegetative structure and composition is present, with some showing 

the effects of past management activities and others showing the effects of predominantly natural 

forces, such as wildfire, insects, and disease. These lands often display high levels of 

management activity and associated roads. Visitors expect to see other people and evidence of 

human activities.

Desired Condition: General forest contributes to the variety of native plant communities 

and the composition, structure, and patterns defined in the forestwide desired conditions. 

While the landscape is predominantly natural in appearance, there are some locations 

where the vegetation composition, structure, density or pattern is altered to meet short- or 

long-term management objectives that move the landscape towards the forestwide desired 

conditions. The area is maintained through ecological processes, as well as management 

activities. This management area contributes important habitat for aquatic, plant and 

wildlife species that benefit from functional habitat. Additionally, the area supplies a 

variety of dispersed or developed summer and winter recreational activities.

Recreational use is generally dispersed or located at recreation developments, such as 

campgrounds with higher use levels. Facilities (whether Forest Service or permitted) are 

those necessary to provide public or resource benefit, or provide for safety. This area has 

Forest Service system and other authorized routes. A wide spectrum of travelway types 

are present, ranging from maintenance Level 1 through 5 roads (closed roads to 

highways) to trails that serve as recreational features themselves. The recreation 

opportunity spectrum in MA 4A is roaded natural.

MA 4B Riparian Management Areas

Description: Riparian management areas are areas that include portions of watersheds where 

aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special 

management direction applies. Riparian management areas encompass lands adjacent to 

permanently flowing streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, seeps, springs, and intermittent streams, 

including geologically unstable sites that may influence these lands. Riparian management areas 

will generally have minimum widths but are designed to extend to the outer edge of riparian 

vegetation, or to the outer extent of the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater. Riparian 

management areas are managed to maintain and restore the riparian structure and function of 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

122

intermittent and perennial streams, confer benefits to riparian-dependent plant and animal species, 

enhance habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between 

upslope and riparian areas, and provide for greater connectivity within and between watersheds 

for both riparian and upland species.

The desired conditions, standards, and guidelines that apply to MA 4B apply to all riparian 

management areas (Table 28).

Table 28. Riparian management area widths

Category Minimum Riparian Management Area Width

Fish-bearing streams 300 feet slope distance on either side of stream or to 

outer edge of 100-year floodplain, whichever is greatest

Permanently-flowing non-fish-bearing streams 150 feet slope distance on either side of stream or to 

outer edge of 100-year floodplain, whichever is greatest

Constructed ponds, reservoirs and wetlands 

greater than 1 acre

150 feet slope distance from the outer edge of wetland or 

from the maximum pool elevation, whichever is greatest

Lakes and natural ponds 300 feet slope distance

Seasonally-flowing, intermittent and 

ephemeral streams, wetlands smaller than 1 

acre, and unstable areas

100 feet slope distance on either side of stream

Riparian vegetation performs numerous key functions for stream ecosystems, including the 

provision of shade, bank stability, nutrient transfer, retention of organic material, and the supply 

of woody material.

Because riparian plant species vary in their establishment mechanisms, water requirements, and 

tolerance to flooding, differences in channel and floodplain morphology result in high spatial and 

temporal variability in species composition and age class structure within and along riparian 

zones. This makes riparian areas among the most biologically diverse and productive habitats on 

the landscape.

Healthy riparian areas are important for the protection of the water quality upon which aquatic 

species depend and are also used by approximately 75 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species in 

the Blue Mountains (Raedeke 1989, Thomas 1979). In addition, riparian areas provide critical 

habitat for numerous sensitive, rare, or uncommon plant and lichen species. Management 

activities within riparian management areas are designed to maintain, enhance, or restore, as 

applicable, the ecological processes responsible for the diversity, productivity, and sustainability 

of riparian habitats.

Management of riparian management areas focuses on the ecological processes and conditions 

within the riparian management areas and contributes to the value of the aquatic and riparian 

habitats they contain.

Riparian and wetland areas are the interface between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are an 

integral part of the watersheds. Consequently, the health of these areas is closely interrelated to 

the condition of the surrounding watershed (DeBano and Schmidt 1989, Hornbeck and 

Kochenderfer 2000). The health of riparian corridors is dependent on the storage and movement 

of sediment through the channel system and on the movement of sediment and water from 

surrounding hillslopes into the channel system. Human-induced and natural disturbances can alter 

these processes either indirectly to the watershed or directly to riparian areas themselves by 

management related activities (i.e., recreation, livestock grazing, road construction, mining, 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

123

irrigation diversion, channel modification), natural events (i.e., flooding, wildfire), and similar 

disturbances (Baker et al. 2005, NRC 2002). One good measure of riparian and wetland health is 

the ecological condition of riparian vegetation relative to reference conditions.

Desired Condition: Riparian management areas within any given watershed reflect a 

natural composition of native and desired nonnative plant and animal species and a 

distribution of physical and vegetative conditions appropriate to natural disturbance 

regimes affecting the area.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Key riparian processes and conditions (including slope stability and 

associated vegetative root strength, bank stability, wood delivery to streams; and, within 

the riparian management areas: input of leafy and other organic matter to aquatic and 

terrestrial systems, solar shading, microclimate, and water quality) are operating 

consistent within natural disturbance regimes.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Native vegetation is functioning properly throughout the stream 

corridor or along wetlands and waterbodies. Native mid- to late-seral vegetation 

appropriate to the site’s potential dominates the plant communities and is vigorous, 

healthy, and diverse in age, structure, cover, and composition on more than 80 percent of 

the riparian and wetland areas in the watershed. Sufficient reproduction of native species 

appropriate to the site is occurring to ensure sustainability. Mesic herbaceous plant 

communities occupy most of their site potential. Vegetation is in a dynamic equilibrium 

appropriate to the stream or wetland system.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The species composition and structural diversity of native plant 

communities in riparian management areas, including wetlands, provides adequate side 

channels, pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates. These conditions result in a 

variety of depths, gradients, velocities, and structure for seasonal thermal regulation, 

nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of erosion and channel migration, and supplies 

amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris and fine particulate organic matter 

sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Scale: Watershed scale for forestwide planning; subwatershed scale for project planning.

Desired Condition: Riparian vegetation has the species composition, structural diversity, 

age class diversity, and extent that is characteristic of the setting in which it occurs and 

the hydrologic and disturbance regimes in which it developed. The condition and 

composition of small habitat patches may change over small temporal and spatial scales 

in response to local disturbances but remains relatively constant at larger scales. Plant 

communities are similar in species composition, age class structure, canopy density, and 

ground cover to plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative 

of a particular setting.

Scale: Subwatershed to subbasin.

Desired Condition: Riparian shrub communities occupy their historical range and 

extent. Individual plants are capable of reaching the full potential for a typical individual 

of a particular species, as defined by plant height, width, and growth form. Individual 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

124

plants are able to propagate or reproduce sexually or vegetatively. Plant communities are 

similar in species composition, age class structure, canopy density, and ground cover to 

plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a particular 

setting.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: Riparian areas consist of native assemblages of riparian-dependent 

plants and animals free of persistent nonnative species and provide for dispersal and 

travel corridors, as well as connectivity, between geographically important areas for both 

terrestrial and aquatic animals and plant species within the Plan Area.

Scale: Subwatershed.

Desired Condition: The potential for large wood recruitment to streams from within 

forested riparian areas, and from low-order streams to higher order streams is similar to 

the potential in reference watersheds with similar forest vegetation types.

Scale: Watershed.

Desired Condition: The wetland/riparian vegetation condition indicator from the 2011 

Watershed Condition Framework assessment provides a basis for addressing the impacts 

to soil and water relative to the vegetative health of rangelands (Watershed Condition 

Classification Technical Guide FS-278, July 2008). Rangelands reflect native or desired 

nonnative plant composition and cover at near-natural levels as defined by the site 

potential. Vegetation contributes to soil condition, nutrient cycling, and hydrologic 

regimes at near-natural levels. Functional and structural groups, number of species, plant 

mortality, and decadence closely match that expected for the site. Average annual plant 

production equals or exceeds 70 percent of production potential. Litter amount is 

approximately what is expected for the site potential and weather. The reproductive 

capacity of native or naturalized perennial plants to produce seeds or vegetative tillers is 

sustainable over the long-term. Introduced plant species are being managed to facilitate 

long-term replacement by site-adapted native species.

Scale: Subwatershed

MA 5 Developed Sites and Administrative Areas

Description: Developed sites, administrative areas, and permitted uses such as ski areas, 

developed campgrounds, recreation residences, administrative and communication sites, and 

utility corridors are generally limited in extent to meet their designated purpose and occur as a 

place or feature on the landscape. Ecological values are conserved while protecting the health and 

safety of humans. Livestock grazing within developed and administrative sites is generally

unsuitable, although some administrative sites are used to pasture Forest Service administrative 

stock. Transportation and motor vehicle access varies. Roads and trails are typically limited and 

provide access to main site features such as buildings, permit areas, and campsites. Some of these 

areas are used for administrative purposes such as employee housing, storage, long-term 

condition and trend studies, and conifer seed orchards. Though small, these areas are important 

data collection sites that assist with knowledge of ecosystem function and resilience.

Desired Condition Infrastructure design promotes employee, permit holder, and visitor 

safety and accessibility for all users. Facilities are maintained to standard to provide a 

safe and suitable work and visitor environment. Grounds, landscaping, and natural 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

125

vegetation are maintained in a safe condition free of hazards. The appearance is neat, 

orderly, and complementary to the surrounding landscape setting.

Facilities, structures, and other built elements blend with the natural landscape where 

possible. The scenic integrity of these areas is commensurate with the inventoried scenic 

class. Snags and down wood levels are generally less than in other management areas or 

are absent due to safety concerns. Administrative studies and seed orchards are 

maintained. The level of development of buildings and ancillary structures, such as water 

and power systems, support the developed site, permit area, or administrative area.

Vegetation treatments may include consideration of wildfire protection objectives, which 

may override ecological desired conditions. In these instances, vegetative structure would 

result in fire intensity that allows for safe and effective suppression actions.

The recreation opportunity spectrum in MA5 is roaded natural to rural. The following 

descriptions further explain the desired conditions for specific facility types within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Communication Sites

Desired Condition: Communication facilities and ancillary features are designed to be 

consistent with the designated purpose while maintaining human health and safety values 

and inventoried scenic class. New facilities are designed to minimize impairing scenic, 

natural, and cultural resource values and to blend with the natural appearing landscape, 

repeating the form, line, color, and texture of the surrounding valued landscape character. 

Existing sites and facilities are improved to mitigate affects to on-site values and visual 

appearance, and to be consistent with the inventoried scenic class. Wherever feasible, 

communication sites, towers, buildings and other improvements are shared between users 

to minimize the improvements placed on the national forest.

Utility Corridors

Desired Condition: Utility corridors and ancillary features are designed to be consistent 

with the designated purpose of providing power and telecommunication services to 

communities. Human health and safety values are maintained. Proposed new facilities are 

evaluated for compatibility with existing corridors and scenic, natural, and cultural 

resource values. Horizontal lines are softened through feathering and scalloping the edges 

of the corridors commensurate with vegetative and other resource needs. Proposals for 

new corridors are designed to minimize the visibility of the corridors and repeat the form, 

line, color and texture of the surrounding valued landscape character.

Developed Recreation Sites and Facilities

Desired Condition: Developed public facilities are operated by Forest Service personnel 

or permit holders. Sites such as campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, snow parks, and 

boating and interpretive sites are maintained to standards, fully functional, provide for 

visitor safety, and are accessible to people with disabilities. Grounds, landscaping, and 

natural vegetation are maintained in a safe condition and free of hazards. Potable water 

and sanitary systems are limited yet are provided at some sites and meet required health 

standards. Areas of highly concentrated use provide a full suite of amenities that provide 

for diversity of users. The facilities are fully utilized with occupancy rates approaching 

full capacity during peak use periods and moderate occupancy rates during nonpeak 

summer and fall periods. Facilities provide some comfort for the user as well as site 

protection. New construction and reconstruction projects utilize a contemporary yet rustic 
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

126

design based on the use of native or durable materials. Impacts to natural resources from 

concentrated visitor use are minimal. Partnerships with permit holders are encouraged 

and sustained at high-end public developed areas, such concessionaire-operated 

campgrounds.

Permitted Recreation Facilities

Desired Condition: Special use permit holders operate private facilities within the terms 

and conditions of the permit. Public uses are allowed at permitted sites such as lodges, 

organization camps, and trams. Public use facilities are maintained at a safe and 

functional use level and provide for universal accessibility. Grounds, landscaping, and 

natural vegetation at public use sites are maintained in a safe condition free of hazards. 

Private users are permitted at facilities such as recreation residences. No new recreation 

residence tracts or unoccupied lots are permitted. The recreation opportunity spectrum in 

MA5 is rural. The following descriptions further explain the desired conditions for 

specific facility types within the national forest.

Ski Areas

Desired Condition: Facilities and structures are designed to blend with the natural 

environment, using the principles in the Built Environment Image Guide for the National 

Forests and Grasslands (USDA Forest Service 2001). Facilities are maintained at a safe 

and functional use level and provide for universal accessibility. Removal of vegetation for 

ski runs is designed to blend with the natural patterns of the surrounding valued 

landscape character. Activities are consistent with the approved master development plan.

Administrative Sites

Desired Condition: Administrative facilities include, but are not limited to: guard 

stations, administrative sites, and administrative pastures. Administrative facilities are 

safe, efficient, cost-effective, and are maintained at a function and use level that meets 

management needs and provides for universal accessibility. Facilities meet all applicable 

health and safety standards and impacts to natural resources are minimal. Grounds, 

landscaping, and natural vegetation are maintained in a safe condition free of hazards. 

Administrative facilities complement natural settings. The form of structures is derived 

by the function and form of the landscape setting. For example, structures in 

mountainous, timbered landscapes have steep rooflines, broad eaves, and use durable 

indigenous materials (i.e., stone and heavy timbers) with the appearance derived from the 

local environment. Structures, signage, and other environmental elements designed 

reflect the style and character inherent in the local environment (USDA Forest Service

2001).

Suitability of Areas

An area may be identified as suitable for uses that are compatible with desired conditions and 

objectives. An area may also be identified as not suitable for uses that are not compatible with 

desired conditions and objectives. Identification of an area as suitable or not suitable for a use is 

guidance for project and activity decision-making and not a commitment nor a final decision 

approving projects and activities. Uses of specific areas are approved through project and activity 

decision-making.

Management areas are used in this Forest Plan to help further refine suitable uses and guide 

management. Suitability determinations for management areas are listed in Table 29.

Management area designations and names follow:
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

127

MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness 

Areas

MA 1B Preliminary Administratively 

Recommended Wilderness Areas

MA 1C Wilderness Study Area

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers (includes 

designated, eligible, and suitable rivers)

MA 2B Research Natural Areas

MA 2C Botanical Areas

MA 2D Geological Areas

MA 2E Historical Areas

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All-American Roads

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds

MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use)

MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use)

MA 4A General Forest

MA 4B Riparian Management Areas

MA 5 Developed Sites and Administrative 

Areas

Table 29. Suitability matrix for management areas

Use or Activity 1A 1B 1C 2A2 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G** 2I 2J* 3A 3B 4A 4B 5

Timber production U U U U U U U U U U U U U U S U U

Timber harvest3 U U U S U4 S S S S S S S S S S S S

Grazing (cattle and sheep) S S S S U U S S S S S U S S S S U

Motor vehicle use (summer)1 U U U U U S S S S U S U U S S S S

Motor vehicle use (winter) U U U U U S S S S S S U U S S S S

New Road construction U U U U U U S S S U S U U U S U S

New Trail construction (for 

motor vehicle use) U U U U U U S S S U S U U S S U S

Mechanical fuel treatment U U U U U4 U S S S S S S S S S S S

Energy development (wind 

farms, utility corridors, 

pipelines, etc.)

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U S U S***

S designates use or activity as suitable. Refer to desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for each management area and/or use for specific guidance.

U designates use or activity as unsuitable. Refer to desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for each management area and/or use for specific guidance.

* All activities in municipal watersheds are dependent on the agreement for management of the watershed between the Forest Service and the municipality.

**Establishing legislation may influence whether motorized use is allowed.

***Energy development is only suitable in designated utility corridors.

1. Indicates suitable applies only to use or activity on roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use that are in compliance with the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212).

2. Indicates not suitable for river segments classified as wild rivers, suitable for river segments classified as scenic and recreational rivers.

3. Vegetation in areas suitable for timber harvest shall not be subject to regularly scheduled timber production (regularly schedule timber harvest on suitable lands); since they are not part of 

our timber suitability landbase.

4. Unless required for restoration of an area to natural conditions (FSM 4063.3.2)
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

128

Objectives

Objectives are projections of Forest Service probable activities and program outcomes that are 

measurable and time specific. Like goals and desired conditions, objectives are not commitments 

or final decisions approving projects or activities. They are an effort by the Forest Service to 

demonstrate how progress toward achieving or maintaining the desired conditions during the life 

of the Plan will be measured. The objectives stated below are only a partial list of the 

management activities expected to be accomplished, but which will contribute to maintaining or 

achieving desired conditions (Table 30).

Objectives are based on ecological needs, local infrastructure (e.g. mills, labor, contractors, or 

schools), and expected funding, including budgets, partnerships, and cooperative agreements. The 

actual accomplishments will be dependent on actual funding, staffing levels, and local 

infrastructure. Objectives are not intended to limit or guarantee the amount of work that will be 

accomplished. More work may be accomplished if additional infrastructure or funding, such as 

increased budget allocations, partnerships, or other external sources, becomes available. Less 

work could occur if funding is less than expected, additional infrastructure is not constructed, or 

existing infrastructure declines or becomes unusable.

The objectives reflect the activities and program outcomes necessary to achieve or maintain 

desired conditions. Unless otherwise indicated, the objectives are expected to be accomplished 

during the first decade of the plan period. Many management activities are expected to be 

designed to address multiple integrated resource objectives at the same time. Therefore, these 

individually listed objectives are not meant to additively represent the total amount of expected 

treatment. For example, a single acre of dry forest restoration thinning treatment might 

simultaneously contribute to an acre of accomplishment toward individual objectives such as: 

improving hydrologic function by improving forest vegetation conditions; improving the quality 

of source habitat; moving dry forest toward fire regime condition class 1; decreasing insect or 

disease susceptibility; and reducing stand density as well as reducing the proportion of 

undesirable tree species.

Table 30. Objectives (probable activities) for the Wallowa-Whitman Forest1

Objective Measure

1.1 Watershed Function2

Increase the number of watersheds in condition class 1 

(from condition class 2) and 2 (from condition class 3) 

through active restoration. Measure: number of 

subwatersheds (HUC6) with improved condition class.

24 subwatersheds

Improve hydrologic function by:

Improving forest vegetative conditions 5,000 acres (annually)

Improving soil hydrologic function in areas of detrimental 

soil disturbance 950 acres

Reducing road-related sedimentation and reducing 

hydrologic connectivity of the road system by:

considering designating routes for other uses, or closing 

or decommissioning roads where open motor vehicle 

routes are negatively affecting riparian conditions.

30-35 miles road surface treated (annually)

Improve riparian and wetland function by: 

Restoring floodplain connections, channel morphology, 

channel structure, and flow regime (flood flows and low 

flows) (stream miles) 

90 miles (10 years)
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

129

Objective Measure

Restoring riparian/wetland species composition (riparian 

acres) by increasing natural seedling establishment, 

planting, fencing, or modifying riparian management 

(riparian acres)

225 acres

Increasing effective stream shade by increasing amount 

and extent of woody riparian species and increasing 

age-class structure of terrestrial vegetation in MA 

4B (stream miles) 

375 miles

Improve riparian and wetland function by:

Increasing extent and vegetative species diversity of offchannel and isolated wetlands by restoring hydrologic 

pathways, modifying existing water diversions, or fencing

40 sites

Increasing the number and extent of beaver-created 

wetlands 12 sites

Improve stream channel and aquatic habitat function 

by: Improving riparian habitat conditions (riparian acres) 675 acres (annually)

Restoring channel morphology to reflect natural 

conditions 60 miles

Increasing habitat complexity through channel 

reconstruction, placement of large wood or other 

structures, habitat enhancement

113 miles

Increasing aquatic habitat connectivity through culvert 

replacement

90 culverts,

135 stream miles

1.2 Species Diversity

In cooperation with state wildlife agencies, expand bull 

trout occurrence within 10 years into unoccupied suitable 

stream segments within its natural range.

1 segment

Increase the amount and quality of source habitat (open, 

old forest single-story in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group) for white-headed woodpecker (per 

decade).

11,000 acres

Increase the amount and quality of source habitat (open 

canopy dry/moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group) for western bluebird and Cassin’s finch (per 

decade).

66,000 acres (bluebird),

12,000 acres (finch)

Restore habitat quality and connectivity within and 

between stronghold watersheds for aquatic species, with 

emphasis on strongholds for Endangered Species Act 

listed aquatic species.

6-9 subwatersheds or 120-180 stream miles

Develop and implement habitat management plans for 

Spalding’s catchfly key conservation areas. 

Lower Imnaha, Crow Creek, and Clear Lake Ridge 

key conservation areas

1.4 Disturbance Processes

1.4.1 Wildland Fire 

Over the next 10 years, treat stands using silvicultural 

treatments and/or prescribed burning (planned ignitions) 

to move towards fire regime condition class 1 and 2 in 

the dry upland forest potential vegetation groups or to 

protect values at risk from wildland fire.

145,000 acres

Over the next 10 years, treat stands using silvicultural 

treatments and/or prescribed burning (planned ignitions) 

to move towards fire regime condition class 1 and 2 in 

the moist upland forest potential vegetation group or to 

protect values at risk from wildland fire.

35,000 acres
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

130

Objective Measure

Over the next 10 years, manage wildfires (unplanned 

ignitions) to meet desired conditions: modify species 

composition, stand density, structural stages, fire 

frequency, and fire severity to move fire regime condition 

class 2 and 3 to fire regime condition class 1 and 2.

50,000 acres

1.4.2 Insects and Diseases

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, 

over the next 10 years, treat stands using silvicultural 

methods or wildland fire to mitigate risk of damage from 

insects and diseases, and maintain low or moderate 

susceptibility.

155,000 acres

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, 

over the next 10 years, treat stands using silvicultural 

methods or wildland fire to mitigate risk of damage from 

insects and diseases, and maintain low or moderate 

susceptibility.

35,000 acres

1.5 Invasive Species

Reduce current infestations of invasive plant species. 7,000 acres

1.6 Structural Stages

Over the next 10 years, decrease mid-age multi-story 

forest (understory reinitiation stage) in the dry and moist 

upland forest potential vegetation groups by continuing 

to manage towards a large diameter (old forest) 

condition.

158,000 acres

Over the next 10 years, increase old forest single-story

(open canopy) in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group by converting old forest multi-story to 

old forest single-story.

10,000 acres

1.7 Plant Species Composition

Over the next 10 years, reduce the proportion of shade 

tolerant species within in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group.

154,000 acres

Manage rangeland vegetation to improve phases C and 

D to phase A or B. 12,405 acres

1.8 Stand Density

Over the next 10 years, reduce the dry and moist upland 

forest Potential Vegetation Groups that are in the closed 

stand density class 

74,000 acres

1.10 Soil Quality

Implement erosion control and stabilization measures on 

unstable hillslopes. Possible activities include road 

realignment and improving forest vegetation conditions.

150-250 acres

Restore soil function (also see objectives for 1.1 

Watershed Function). 75-150 acres

1.11 Water Quality

Improve water quality through implementation of water 

quality restoration plans. 5-7 watersheds, 200-280 stream miles
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

131

Objective Measure

2.3 Hunting and Fishing

2.3.1 Rocky Mountain Elk

Increase instances of elk occupancy and use of National 

Forest System lands by moving towards vegetative 

desired conditions and objectives to promote a mosaic 

patchwork of hiding cover and forage; and providing a 

continuum of effective elk security in strategic locations.

See objectives for vegetation (1.1, 1.4-1.8, and 1.12).

See objectives for 2.7.

Within 7 years of plan approval, improve elk 

security to within Desired Condition range (30 to 

100%) throughout 50% of the priority 

subwatershed.

Within 15 years of plan approval, improve elk 

security to within Desired Condition range (30 to 

100%) throughout 100% of the priority 

subwatershed.

Within the life of the Plan, improve elk security to 

within Desired Condition range (30 to 100%)

throughout 50% of General Forest MA 4A

2.5 Roads and Trails Access -

Maintain the road system for safe and efficient travel and 

for the protection, management, and use of National 

Forest System lands.

Miles of road maintenance:

90 miles maintenance levels (ML) 4/5

170 miles ML 3

150 miles ML 2

3.3 Goods and Services -

Contribute to local economies by harvesting sawlogs and 

timber volume other than sawlogs (Timber Sale Program 

Quantity annually over the next decade).

65 MMBF

Contribute to local economies by providing forage for 

cattle and sheep. 112,000 AUMs (annually)

AUM = animal unit month, MMBF = millions of board

1. Unless otherwise indicated, the objectives are expected to be accomplished during the first decade of the plan period.

2. All measures are proposed in priority watersheds.

Annual Anticipated

Accomplishments for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

The following tables display the anticipated vegetation management-related accomplishments 

(related to the objectives) that are expected to take place annually as the Forest Service strives to 

achieve or maintain desired conditions or both. These anticipated accomplishments are not

commitments or final decisions approving projects, nor are they targets or guarantees of future 

accomplishments. They are a means of measuring program progress toward achieving desired 

conditions. While the Forest Service will make every effort to achieve the following 

accomplishments, actual accomplishments may exceed or fall below these estimates, depending 

on yearly budgets and conditions at the time. Table 31 displays the anticipated vegetation 

management-related accomplishments (related to the objectives) that are expected to take place 

annually.

Long-term Sustained Yield Capacity and Allowable Sale Quantity

The long-term sustained yield capacity for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is the 

highest uniform wood yield from lands being managed for timber production that may be 

sustained under specified management intensities consistent with multiple-use objectives. 

Another key disclosure of the Forest Plan is the identification of the allowable sale quantity 

of timber. The allowable sale quantity is the average annual amount of commercial timber 

that can be sold from National Forest System lands that are suitable for timber production
Part 2 – Strategy

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

132

(see Table 32). Although the allowable sale quantity is identified as an average annual 

quantity, the amount produced in any one year may surpass the identified allowable sale 

quantity so long as the totals per decade are not exceeded. The long-term sustained yield 

capacity and allowable sale quantity are presented below in million board feet (MMBF).

• Long-term sustained yield capacity = 77 MMBF

• Average annual allowable sale quantity = 64 MMBF

Table 31. Average annual anticipated accomplishments related to objectives

Activity Value

Even-aged regeneration harvest (acres) 1,500

Uneven-aged and intermediate harvest (acres) 7,800

Total Timber Harvest (acres) 9,300

Planting (acres) 1,200

Precommercial thinning (acres) 1,600

Burning and mechanical treatment of fuels (acres) 19,800

Suppressing invasive plants (acres) 3,500

Cattle and sheep grazing (AUMS) 112,000

Table 32. Planned timber sale program annual average volume 

outputs for 1st decade

Lands Suitable For Timber Production MMBF

A. Sawtimber 49.4 

B. Non-saw products 2.6 

Lands Not Suitable For Timber Production MMBF

C. Sawtimber 12.4 

D. Non-saw products 0.6 

Timber Sale Program Quantity (TSPQ)

(Total of A – D.) 65.0 

MMBF = millions of board feet
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

133

Part 3 – Design Criteria

Introduction

Design criteria are used in combination with goals and desired conditions, objectives, and 

suitable uses to guide the management of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Design 

criteria include standards and guidelines. Standards and guidelines are sideboards that impose 

limitations on activities or uses for reasons of environmental protection, public safety, risk 

reduction, or to achieve desired conditions (goals) and objectives. These standards and 

guidelines will apply to all project decisions and implementations made following Forest Plan 

approval.

Direction for managing National Forest System lands comes from a variety of sources, 

including the Code of Federal Regulations and the Forest Service Directive System, which 

consists of the Forest Service Manual and the Forest Service Handbook. Laws, regulations, and 

other agency policy and directives are generally not repeated in the Forest Plan and are not 

repeated in these standards and guidelines. For example, threatened and endangered species 

have very specific direction in law, regulation, policy, agency directives, and other sources, 

such as recovery plans. Therefore, standards and guidelines for threatened and endangered 

species are limited. If a particular resource is not addressed in these standards and guidelines, it 

does not mean the resource is not managed or that the Forest Service considers a particular 

resource less important than those listed.

None of the management direction contained in this Plan is intended to prevent appropriate 

actions needed to protect human health and safety. This part of the Forest Plan includes both 

forest-wide and management area specific standards and guidelines. Forestwide design 

criteria applies to all management areas.

Standards are mandatory constraints upon project and activity decisionmaking. They are 

established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or 

mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Guidelines are a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for departure 

from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help 

achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, 

or to meet applicable legal requirements. Guidelines serve the same purpose as standards but 

they differ from standards in that they provide flexibility in defining compliance, while 

standards are absolute constraints.

Neither standards nor guidelines are commitments or final decisions approving projects and 

activities. Standards and guidelines do not compel or force action; they apply only when an 

action is being taken.

Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

Forestwide standards and guidelines are organized by resource or management action. Those 

ending in “S” are standards, while those ending in “G” are guidelines.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

134

GOAL 1: Promote Ecological Integrity

1.1 Watershed Function

KW-1S In key watersheds or subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical habitat 

for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species that are 

functioning properly6 there shall be no net increase (1 mile of road-related risk 

reduction for every new mile of road construction), where they are functioning-atrisk,

7 there shall be a net decrease (1.5 miles of road-related risk reduction for 

every new mile of road construction), and where they are impaired function,8 there 

shall be a net decrease (2.0 miles of road-related risk reduction for every new mile 

of road construction) in system roads that affect hydrologic function. Priority for 

road-related risk reduction shall be given to roads that pose the greatest relative 

ecological risks to riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Road-related risk reduction will 

occur prior to new road construction unless logistical restrictions require postconstruction risk reduction. This standard shall apply to the affected subwatershed 

when new system road construction is proposed in that subwatershed, and shall not 

be offset by reductions in open-road densities in other subwatersheds.

KW-2S In key watersheds and subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical habitat 

for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species, hydroelectric 

and other surface water development authorizations shall include requirements for 

in-stream flows and habitat conditions that maintain or restore native fish and other 

desired aquatic species populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable

channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity.

KW-3S In key watersheds and in subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical 

habitat for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species, new 

hydroelectric facilities and water developments shall not be located in a key 

watershed unless it can be demonstrated that there are minimal risks and/or no 

adverse effects to the fish and water resources for which the key watershed was 

established.

WM-1S When watershed function9 desired conditions are being achieved and watersheds 

are functioning properly10, projects shall maintain11 those conditions. When 

watershed function desired conditions are not yet achieved or watersheds have 

 6 “Functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and “impaired function” for the roads and trails indicator of Watershed 

Condition Framework are defined in Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest Service, 2011b. 

Local inventory, assessment and monitoring data and information can be used to refine initial classifications made per 

Watershed Condition Framework. 7 “Functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and “impaired function” for the roads and trails indicator of Watershed 

Condition Framework are defined in Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest Service, 2011b. 8 “Functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and “impaired function” for the roads and trails indicator of Watershed 

Condition Framework are defined in Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest Service, 2011b. 9 Per Revised Forest Plan Watershed Function desired conditions (watershed function, hydrologic, riparian, wetland, 

stream channel, groundwater dependent ecosystem, and aquatic habitat).

10 The Watershed Condition Framework categories of terminology for “functioning properly,” “functioning-at-risk,” 

and impaired function are equivalent to the “functioning appropriately” “functioning-at-risk” and “functioning at 

unacceptable risk” categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators (USFWS 1998), and to the respectively 

equivalent to “properly functioning” or “at risk” or “not properly functioning” categories within the matrix of pathways 

and indicators used by National Marine Fisheries Service (1996). 11 See glossary in the Blue Mountains ARCS (Appendix A) for definitions of “maintain” and “degrade.”
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

135

impaired function or are functioning-at-risk and to the degree that project activities 

would contribute to those conditions, projects shall restore12 or not retard13

attainment of desired conditions. Short-term adverse effects14 from project 

activities may occur when they support or do not diminish long-term recovery15 of 

watershed function desired conditions and federally listed species. Exceptions to 

this standard include situations where Forest Service authorities are limited (Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 1872 Mining law, valid state water 

rights, etc.). In those cases, project effects shall be minimized and not retard 

attainment of desired conditions for watershed function to the extent possible 

within Forest Service authorities. Use Blue Mountains ARCS Appendix A to assist 

in determining compliance with this standard.

WM-2S All projects shall be implemented in accordance with best management practices, 

as described in national and regional technical guides.

RE-1G Watershed restoration projects should be designed to utilize or emulate natural 

ecological processes to the extent practicable, for meeting and maintaining 

restoration objectives.

RE-2G Watershed restoration projects should be designed to minimize the need for longterm maintenance.

RE-3S Except where Forest Service authorities are limited, mitigation or planned 

restoration shall not be used as a substitute for preventing long-term watershed or 

habitat degradation.

RE-4S Hydrologic connectivity and sediment delivery from roads and trails shall be 

minimized. This includes roads, or road segments, whether inside and outside of 

riparian management areas, that deliver sediment to streams.

1.2 Species Diversity

SD-1G To the extent practical, known cavity or nest trees should be preserved when 

conducting prescribed (planned ignition) burning activities, mechanical fuel 

treatments, and silvicultural treatments to protect the integrity of the nest site.

SD-2G Known bat maternity and roost sites should not be disturbed to minimize 

disturbance to bats during critical times and to protect the integrity of the site.

SD-3G With the exception of the removal of danger/hazard trees or fuel treatments within 

the wildland-urban interface, when a need to harvest or destroy snags is identified 

as part of a silvicultural treatment, current conditions should be evaluated relative 

to the desired conditions tables for each snag size class (see Sec. 1.15, Table 13 and

16) and:

• Treatments should be limited to the extent that they will not result in a 

desired size-density category becoming underrepresented relative to 

desired conditions.

 12 See glossary in the Blue Mountain ARCS (Appendix A) for definitions of “restore.” 13 See glossary in the Blue Mountain ARCS (Appendix A) for definitions of “retard attainment.” 14 See glossary in the Blue Mountain ARCS (Appendix A) for definition of “short-term adverse effects.” 15 See glossary in the Blue Mountain ARCS (Appendix A) for definition of “long-term recovery.”
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

136

• If an area is determined to be currently underrepresented in one or more of 

the desired size-density categories, snags should be retained within 

treatment units in quantities that will contribute to the highest density 

levels that are currently underrepresented.

• Areas containing very low levels (less than 1 per acre) of snags as a result 

of the treatment should not exceed 10 contiguous acres in the dry upland 

forest potential vegetation group, or 5 contiguous acres within all other 

potential vegetation groups to assure a sufficient supply of habitat for snagdependent wildlife species.

SD-4G In addition to the requirements of guideline SD-3G, if a need for post-fire salvage 

harvesting is identified, current conditions should also be evaluated relative to the 

desired conditions table pertaining to post-fire habitat, (see Sec. 1.15, Table 15) and 

(see next items):

• Post-fire salvage treatments should be limited to the extent that the desired 

potential vegetation group proportions for post-fire habitat are currently 

being exceeded.

• Post-fire salvage should generally not occur following individual fire 

events of less than 100 acres, except within the wildland-urban interface or 

where necessary for the removal of danger/hazard trees.

SD-5S Any management activities that take place within greater sage-grouse habitat shall 

follow the specific plan direction (desired conditions, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines) identified in Appendix B - Sage Grouse Guidance for Malheur and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Appendix B contains general, special use 

authorization (non-recreation), land ownership adjustment, land withdrawal, wind 

and solar, habitat, livestock grazing, fire management, wild horse and burro, 

roads/transportation, fluid mineral, coal, locatable mineral, non-energy leasable 

mineral, and mineral material direction for the greater sage-grouse. Appendix B 

contains considerations for compensatory mitigation for the greater sage-grouse.

SD-6G16 Management activities within one mile of a known active (during same calendar 

year that use is documented) wolf den and rendezvous sites should implement 

appropriate seasonal restrictions based on site specific consideration and potential 

activity effects, to reduce disturbance to denning wolves.

SD-7G16 Do not authorize turnout of sick or injured livestock to reduce risk of attracting 

wolves.

SD-8G16 Remove or otherwise dispose of livestock carcasses such that the carcass will not 

attract wolves. If, due to location of the carcass, this is not possible, develop other 

remedies.

SD-9G16 Do not authorize salt or other livestock attractants near known active (during same 

calendar year that use is documented) wolf dens or rendezvous sites to minimize 

livestock use of these sites.

 16 Applies to all wolves on the national forest, regardless of whether they are federally listed or non-listed.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

137

1.3 Federally Listed Species

RE-5S Minimize adverse effects to federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and 

their designated and proposed critical habitat in accordance with Forest Service 

authorities. Management activities shall not retard recovery17 of listed, proposed, 

and candidate species and their designated and proposed critical habitat in the longterm in accordance with Forest Service authorities. Federally listed, proposed, and 

candidate species and their designated and proposed critical habitats shall be 

managed in accordance with their recovery or other conservation plans, in 

accordance with Forest Service authorities.

FLS-1G Management activities should avoid adverse impacts to wolverine and its habitat to 

maintain population viability and avoid a trend towards federal listing.

FLS-2G Livestock grazing should not be authorized in the peatlands sensitive plant habitat 

group, to protect the fragile habitat from trampling.

FLS-3S Maximum utilization of key forage species shall not exceed 30 percent in occupied 

habitat of threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate plant species, except 

where an approved conservation strategy, conservation agreement, or recovery plan 

recommends an alternate use level.

FLS-4G Maximum utilization of key forage species should not exceed 30 percent in 

occupied habitat of sensitive plant species, except where an approved conservation 

strategy or conservation agreement recommends an alternate use level.

FLS-5G New water developments and salting should not be authorized within one-quarter 

mile of occupied habitat of threatened, endangered, candidate or sensitive plant 

species to reduce concentrated livestock use and its associated impacts (e.g., 

excessive trampling, soil compaction and herbivory).

FLS-6S Timber harvest and associated vegetation management activities shall avoid 

adverse effects to the occupied habitat of threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate and sensitive plant species unless the silvicultural prescription would 

benefit the species or its habitat.

FLS-7G Slash piles and other fuels should be managed to avoid the occupied habitat of 

threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate plant species unless the burn plan or 

prescription would benefit the species or its habitat.

FLS-8G Construct fire control lines to avoid the occupied habitat of threatened, endangered, 

proposed, candidate and sensitive plant species to minimize adverse effects and 

impacts to these categories of plant species except where needed to provide for the 

protection of human life and public safety.

FLS-9S Road maintenance and new road construction shall be designed to minimize 

adverse effects to the occupied habitat of threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate plant species.

 17 Retard recovery: management action effects that, individually or in combination with other management actions or 

natural disturbances, measurably slow the natural rate of recovery. 
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

138

FLS-10G New road construction should be designed to minimize adverse impacts to the 

occupied habitat of sensitive plant species to avoid a trend towards federal listing.

FLS-11S Trail maintenance and new trail construction shall be designed to avoid adverse 

effects to the occupied habitat of threatened, endangered, and proposed plant 

species.

FLS-12S Recreation areas (e.g., ski areas) and other recreational activities shall minimize 

adverse impact to whitebark pine and its habitat.

FLS-13G Trail maintenance and new trail construction should be designed to avoid adverse 

impacts to the occupied habitat of sensitive plant species to avoid a trend towards 

federal listing.

FLS-14G Leasable Minerals: Consent to mineral leases should be given with stipulations to 

minimize adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. Active minerals 

leases should be mitigated to minimize impacts that exploration and production 

operations may have on threatened and endangered species. Where exploration or 

mineral production activities cannot avoid or minimize the effects of operations, 

utilize compensatory mitigation to enhance off-site habitats and to support no net 

loss or, if possible, a net benefit for threatened or endangered species.

Locatable Minerals: Locatable mineral operations should be mitigated within the 

context of the Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 228 to protect threatened and 

endangered plant species from the effects of exploration and mining activities.

LH-4G Land exchanges should avoid the disposition of occupied habitat of threatened, 

endangered, candidate, proposed, or sensitive species.

FLS-15S Livestock grazing of occupied Silene spaldingii habitat shall not be authorized 

between July 1 and September 30 (flowering-fruiting period).

1.5 Invasive Species

IS-1G Avoid cross contamination between streams, reservoirs and lakes from pumps, 

suction and dipping devices or any other equipment. Avoid dumping water directly 

from one stream or lake into another. Disinfect water storage and conveyance 

equipment including sampling equipment, water tenders, pumps, engines and 

aircraft prior to use on Forest.

IS-2S An integrated pest management approach, including early detection and rapid 

response, shall be used to manage pests, such as insects, diseases, and invasive or 

unwanted plants and animals.

IS-3G Determine appropriate range of treatments necessary to meet objectives for 

invasive species and native pests, while minimizing negative effects of treatments. 

Methods including prevention, manual, cultural, mechanical, regionally approved 

chemicals and biological agents may be considered within all management areas.

IS-4G Plan and conduct activities to minimize or prevent the potential spread or 

establishment of invasive species.

IS-5S Materials (e.g., straw, mulch, gravel, rock, fill, or soil) used for construction or 

restoration projects on National Forest System lands shall be weed-free. If State-
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

139

certified straw 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.

IS-6S Equipment used for actions conducted or authorized by written permit or contract 

by the Forest Service that will operate outside the limits of the road prism shall be 

weed- and pest-free prior to entering National Forest System lands.

IS-7S Pelletized or certified weed-free feed shall be used on all National Forest System

lands. If State-certified weed-free feed is not available, feed certified weed-free 

using North American Weed-Free Forage Program standards or a similar 

certification process may be used.

IS-8G Restore or revegetate sites disturbed by management activities, including sites 

treated specifically to control invasive plants, to prevent the introduction or spread 

of invasive species.

IS-9G To avoid or minimize exposure to pesticides, treatment areas should be posted to 

inform the public and forest workers of application dates and pesticides used.

1.9 Air Quality

AQ-1S Planned (prescribed) burning shall be conducted in accordance with State smoke 

management plans in Oregon and Washington, as applicable.

1.10 Soil Quality

SQ-1S Design project activity units to result in no more than 20 percent detrimental soil 

disturbance at project conclusion.

SQ-2S After completion of management activities, the minimum effective ground cover

within each activity unit shall be in place to prevent erosion from exceeding 

background erosion rates for each of four established erosion hazard classes: low, 

medium, high, or very high (see Table 33). Effective ground cover can include 

rocks, woody debris, vegetation, or other elements.

Table 33. Required minimum percent of effective ground cover (EGC) in the first and 

second years after an activity for each erosion hazard class

Erosion Hazard Class

Required Minimum %

Effective Ground Cover 

(EGC) 1st year following 

activity

Required Minimum % 

Effective Ground Cover 

(EGC) 2nd year following 

activity

Low (Very Slight) 20%-30% 30%-40%

Medium (Moderate) 31%-45% 41%-60%

High (Severe) 46%-60% 61%-75%

Very High (Very Severe) 61%-75% 76%-90%

SQ-3S Management actions shall be designed to avoid the potential for triggering 

landslides.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

140

SQ-4G Mechanical fireline should not be constructed in areas with greater than 35 percent 

slope or on highly erodible soils unless potential detrimental effects can be 

mitigated.

1.14 Old Forest and Individual Old/Large Trees

OF-1G Management activities should retain and generally emphasize recruitment of old18

trees, large19 trees and legacy20 trees. Exceptions where individual old, large or 

legacy trees may be removed or destroyed include situations where:

• Trees need to be removed to meet or maintain desired conditions for 

species composition on the landscape by removing shade tolerant species 

in favor of shade-intolerant species. (see Desired Conditions Sec. 1.7)

• Trees need to be removed from high density forest to meet or maintain 

desired conditions for low density stand conditions on the landscape where 

removal of smaller trees alone cannot achieve desired conditions.

• Trees need to be removed to control or limit the spread of insect or disease 

infestation.

• Trees need to be removed to reduce danger/hazard trees along roads or in 

developed sites.

• Trees need to be removed where strategically critical to reinforce, 

facilitate, or improve effectiveness of fuel reduction in wildland-urban

interfaces.

Additional exception applies only to large trees that do not also meet the definition 

of old trees:

• Trees need to be removed to favor aspen, cottonwood, whitebark pine or 

other special plant habitats.

• Trees needed to be removed to form key pieces in complex instream large 

wood structures.

GOAL 2: Promote Social Well-Being

2.1 Scenery

SC-1G Short-term reductions to existing scenic integrity levels should be authorized only 

when needed to achieve long-term ecosystem restoration or to improve scenic 

integrity and/or scenic stability.

 18 For the purpose of this guideline, the definition for the terms are as follows: “Old” trees are live trees with distinct 

features indicating ages of generally 150 years or older (see guidelines outlined in Van Pelt 2008). 19 "Large" trees are live grand fir over 30-inches diameter at breast height or live trees of any other species over 21 

inches diameter at breast height.

20 “Legacy” trees are old trees that have been spared during past harvest or have survived stand-replacing natural 

disturbances and are thus significantly older than the average trees in the general area. This distinguishes them from 

other ‘residual’ trees, which may also have been spared from harvest but are not always significantly older than the 

average trees in the area (Mazurek and Zielinski 2004; Franklin 1990). Legacy trees of particular value to wildlife 

include those that are also large, rough-boled with dead horizontal limbs, have witch’s broom deformities, are hollow, 

have heart rot, pockets of decay, dead or broken tops, cavities and/or substantial wounds (Bull et al. 1997).
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

141

SC-2S Project level decisions and implementation activities shall be consistent with the 

scenic integrity objectives associated with mapped scenic classes.

2.2 Recreation

REC-1G Recreation-related project-level decisions and implementation activities should be 

consistent with mapped classes and setting descriptions in the recreation 

opportunity spectrum.

2.3.1 Rocky Mountain Elk

RME-1S There shall be no net loss of elk security measured within watersheds (5th-field 

HUC) through building of new motorized routes or reopening of closed motorized 

routes for public travel.

RME-2G Motorized travel on system roads, trails and areas open to motorized vehicle use 

should not be authorized within elk winter range between December 1 and April 

14. These dates may be modified by as much as, but not exceed two weeks (e.g., 

March 31, April 30) as appropriate in consultation with State wildlife agencies. 

Federal and state highways and major forest system roads (such as arterials) may 

be exempted from this guideline to provide reasonable public access. Authorized 

administrative use of forest system roads also may be exempted from this 

guideline.

The intent is to minimize disturbance to elk while occupying winter range and 

encourage elk use of public land. Elk winter range maps in the planning record 

should be used as the basis for identifying winter range for future projects.

RME-3G Encourage elk use of Forest Service lands. Management activities that fall within 

identified elk priority areas should increase security by a minimum of 15 percent, 

to reach 30 percent or greater at the subwatershed (6th-field HUC) scale. This 

guideline applies to projects that affect security and/or treat greater than 500 acres 

of forested vegetation (prescribed fire is exempt).

The intent is to improve distribution of elk across all seasonal ranges on National 

Forest System lands by moving toward and/or within the desired condition range of 

30-100 percent elk security. Project effects analyses should identify and consider 

elk security, elk forage/nutrition, elk hiding cover, and elk habitat selection and 

distribution.

2.3.2 Bighorn Sheep

BHSM-1S Domestic sheep or goat grazing, trailing of domestic sheep or goats, or the use of 

domestic goats or sheep for manipulation of vegetation (i.e., noxious weed control, 

fuels reduction) shall not be authorized where effective separation21 from bighorn 

 21 Effective separation is determined on a site specific basis through a quantitative and qualitative analysis that includes 

the following considerations: 

• bighorn sheep herd size and relevant population parameters; 

• proximity of domestic sheep or goats to bighorn sheep; 

• permeability of the area separating bighorn sheep from permitted domestic sheep or domestic goats; and 

• management practices that contribute to maintaining effective separation between these species.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

142

sheep cannot be reasonably maintained. Effective separation between bighorn 

sheep and domestic sheep and goats is determined with a site-specific analysis.

BHSM-2S The use of pack goats shall not be authorized in occupied bighorn sheep habitat or 

where effective separation from bighorn sheep cannot be reasonably maintained.

BHSM-3S Permitted domestic sheep and goats shall be counted onto and off of the allotment 

by the permittee. A reasonable effort to account for the disposition of any missing 

domestic sheep or goats must be made by the livestock grazing permittee and 

reported back to the Forest Service within 24 hours.

BHSM-4S Domestic sheep and goats shall be individually marked in a manner that allows 

field identification of ownership when on National Forest System lands.

BHSM-5S To maintain effective separation, when bighorn sheep presence is likely to result in 

association with domestic sheep or goats, the Forest Service shall:

• notify the appropriate State agency

• implement actions that minimize the risk of contact between bighorns and 

domestic sheep or goats. This may involve rerouting within the permitted 

allotment, movement to a different allotment, or, if the situation cannot 

otherwise be resolved, moving the permitted sheep off the national forest 

until the situation can be resolved.

2.4 Cultural Resources

CR-1S Prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural properties shall be protected unless an 

exemption is specified in a programmatic agreement or a project specific mitigation 

plan is developed in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation 

Officer and affected Indian Tribe(s).

2.7 Tribal Rights and Interest

TR-1S The Wallowa-Whitman staff shall use consultation processes established with 

American Indian tribal governments to identify and manage areas and resources of 

tribal importance on National Forest System lands.

TR-2G Forest Service managers should take into account project effects to culturally 

significant foods prior to tribal consultation efforts.

GOAL 3: Promote Economic Well-Being

3.2 Land Ownership

LO-1G Use stipulations for permits and leases to protect sensitive resources, and exclude 

leasable and common mineral and energy development from areas in which such 

use is incompatible with mineral or energy development.

LO-2G Landownership adjustments should emphasize the following objectives: (a) 

acquisition to meet identified resource management needs, (b) acquisition 

contributing to consolidation that reduces administrative problems and costs and 

further enhances public use, and (c) conveyance of land better suited for nonFederal ownership.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

143

3.3.1 Forest Products

FP-1S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, cut blocks, patches, strips or 

other forest openings created by the application of even-aged or two-aged 

regeneration harvest methods shall be limited to a maximum size of 40 acres. 

Where units larger than 40 acres are considered likely to produce a more desirable 

combination of net public benefits, harvest openings larger than 40 acres may be 

permitted on an individual timber sale basis after 60 days' public notice and review 

by the Regional Forester. This maximum size opening limitation does not apply to 

areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and 

disease attack, or windstorm.

FP-2S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, cut blocks, patches, or strips 

created by the application of even-aged or two-aged regeneration harvest methods 

shall be shaped and blended with the natural terrain.

FP-3S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, clearcutting and other evenaged harvests may be used only when developed through interdisciplinary review 

that assesses the projects impacts through appropriate environmental 

documentation and a finding that the project is consistent with the multiple uses of 

the general area.

FP-4S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, the harvesting systems chosen 

for a project shall not be selected primarily because they give the greatest dollar 

return or the greatest output of timber.

FP-5S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, clearcutting shall be used only 

where it is determined to be the optimum method for meeting desired conditions.

FP-6S Timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production shall occur only to meet 

desired conditions other than timber production.

FP-7G The silvicultural systems used to manage forest vegetation should be consistent 

with those shown, by forest vegetation type, as shown in Table 34.

Table 34. Appropriate silvicultural system

Forest Vegetation 

Group or Cover 

Type

Even-Aged Two-Aged 1 Uneven-Aged

Cold upland forest

Clearcutting; 

Overstory Removal; 

ClearcuttingSalvage; Seed Tree; 

Shelterwood

Clearcutting; Overstory 

Removal w/Reserves; 

Seed Tree w/Reserves; 

Shelterwood w/Reserves

Single Tree 

Selection; Group 

Selection

Moist upland forest

Clearcutting; 

Overstory Removal; 

ClearcuttingSalvage; Seed Tree; 

Shelterwood

Clearcutting; Overstory 

Removal w/Reserves; 

Seed Tree w/Reserves; 

Shelterwood w/Reserves

Single Tree 

Selection; Group 

Selection

Dry upland forest

Overstory Removal; 

ClearcuttingSalvage; Seed Tree; 

Shelterwood

Overstory Removal 

w/Reserves; Seed Tree 

w/Reserves; 

Shelterwood w/Reserves

Single Tree 

Selection; Group 

Selection

1. Cuts in two-aged systems are a form of even-aged management and must comply with National Forest 

Management Act limitations for even-aged regeneration harvests.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

144

All intermediate silvicultural tending treatments including but not limited to 

commercial and pre-commercial thinning, improvement cuttings, 

sanitation/salvage, prescribed fire, tree planting, pruning, site preparation or 

mechanical fuel reduction may be incorporated into these systems if use is 

consistent with other plan components.

3.3.2 Livestock Grazing

LG-1G Grazing after fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) should be managed so as not 

to cause a trend away from the native or desired nonnative species desired 

condition. This may include deferment for one or more growing seasons following 

unplanned fire, which will be defined at the project level when restoration needs 

are assessed.

LG-2S All new water developments shall provide for small mammal and bird escape.

LG-3G In areas classified as less than fully capable or suitable for grazing, only limited 

livestock use should be authorized after the limitations of the site are considered in 

designing the site-specific allotment management plan.

LG-4G Upland Forage Utilization Guideline: Maximum percent utilization by management 

system (Table 35). Utilization should be based on a point in time measurement. 

Utilization accounts for reduction in forage by wildfire and all use by permitted 

livestock, wildlife, insects, or recreational use. Utilization will be based on heightweight curves and/or ocular estimates or other approved measures. Utilization is 

based on key species.

Table 35. Upland Forage Utilization Guideline: Maximum percent forage utilization by 

management system*

Management System Low to Moderate Departure 

from Desired Condition1

Moderate or Greater Departure 

from Desired Condition2

Season long 35% 30%

Management systems that 

incorporate deferment, 

rest, rotation

40% 35%

* Refer to MA 4B standards and guidelines for management direction for grazing within riparian 

management areas.)

1. Low to moderate departure from Desired Condition: phase A or B

2. Moderate or greater departure from Desired Condition: phase C or D

LG-5G To maintain plant diversity and productivity, upland shrub utilization of annual 

leader growth should not exceed 40 percent as determined by a science-based 

method, to maintain shrub health and reproduction capability.

3.3.3 Special Uses

SU-1G Wind towers should be placed to avoid areas of high scenic integrity.

SU-2G Wind towers should be placed to avoid areas where natural topography, such as 

ridgetops, saddles, or mountain passes, create preferred travel, foraging, or 

migration routes for migratory birds, raptors, or bats.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

145

SU-3G Any development of wind energy and associated infrastructure within the Plan 

Area will consider and mitigate negative impacts to wildlife.

3.3.4 Mineral, Energy, and Geological Resources

ME-1S Roads for mineral operations shall not be constructed prior to approval of a plan of 

operations and shall be designed and located to provide adequate protection to 

surface resources, including but not limited to slope stability, surface erosion, and 

water quality.

ME-2S The collection of vertebrate fossils from National Forest System lands is 

prohibited, except by permit to authorized individuals.

Management Area Standards and Guidelines

The following standards and guidelines are organized by management area first and then by 

resource or management activity and apply only to the associated management area. Each 

standard and guideline has an alpha-numeric identifier. Those ending in “S” are standards, while 

those ending in “G” are guidelines.

MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas

MA1A-1S Pets (such as dogs or other domestic animals that are not categorized as stock) may 

be authorized so long as their presence does not interfere with wildlife or contribute 

to resource impacts or user conflicts. Pets should be fully controlled by their owner 

through voice commands, a leash, or other restraint (such as an electronic collar).

MA1A-2S Wheeled vehicles, such as wagons and game carts, shall not be authorized in 

wilderness areas.

MA1A-3G Party sizes greater than 12 people and/or with more than 18 head of stock should 

not be authorized within wilderness areas to maintain wilderness character.

MA1A-4G The hitching or tethering of a horse or other saddle or pack animal should not be 

authorized within 200 feet of lakes or within 100 feet of streams and posted 

wetlands in wilderness areas to maintain wilderness character.

MA1A-5S Storing or abandoning personal property, equipment, and supplies for more than 72 

hours in wilderness areas shall not be authorized.

MA1A-8S Eagle Cap Wilderness Area visitors shall not be authorized unless they obtain and 

possess an entry permit.

MA1A-9S Campfires shall not be authorized within 100 feet of any lake or posted wetland in 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.

MA1A-10S Campfires shall not be authorized within one-quarter mile of the following lakes in 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area: Bear Lake (Bear Creek Area), Blue Lake, Chimney 

Lake, Dollar Lake, Eagle Lake, Frazier Lake, Little Frazier Lake, Glacier Lake, 

Hobo Lake, Ice Lake, Jewett Lake, Laverty Lake, Maxwell Lake, Mirror Lake, 

Moccasin Lake, Prospect Lake, Steamboat Lake, Sunshine Lake, Swamp Lake, 

Tombstone Lake, Traverse Lake, and Upper Lake.

MA1A-11S Grazing of horses and other saddle and pack animals shall not be authorized within 

200 feet of any lake in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

146

MA1A-12S Eagle Cap Wilderness Area visitors shall not be authorized to enter posted 

restoration sites.

MA1A-13S Storing or abandoning personal property, equipment, and supplies for more than 72 

hours shall not be authorized in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.

MA1A-14S Party sizes greater than 12 people and more than 18 head of stock shall not be 

authorized in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area.

MA1A-15S When camping, party sizes greater than 6 people and greater than 9 head of stock 

shall not be authorized in the Lakes Basin Management Area of the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness Area.

MA1A-16S Hitching or tethering of horses or other saddle or pack animals to trees, except for 

loading or unloading, shall not be authorized at campsites within wilderness areas

MA 1A Wildland Fire Management Activities in Wilderness

MA1A-17G To maintain wilderness character, all firelines should be restored by actions such as 

scattering slash piles along and onto firelines, knocking down or burning all slash 

piles greater than 18 inches tall, pulling back and covering all sod with slash, and 

placing boulders, logs, and slash on firelines to discourage use and camouflage 

entrance points.

Additionally, all firelines within 100 feet of intercepting trails, roads, or stream 

crossings should be restored by cutting stumps flush and close to the ground 

(height of 4 to 5 inches), covering tops with a layer of soil (1 to 2 inches), and 

chopping and roughening the ends of logs and stumps.

MA1A-18G Waterbars should be constructed on fireline slopes that exceed 10 percent in order 

to maintain wilderness character.

MA1A-19G Camps should be restored by replacing logs and rocks, recontouring terrain, 

scarifying soil, and scattering twigs, rocks, and dead branches to discourage use 

and camouflage entrance points to maintain wilderness character.

MA1A-20G Closed roads that were opened to provide access to wilderness areas should be 

closed after the use has concluded to maintain wilderness character.

MA1A-21G Wilderness trails used as firelines should be returned to original condition after the 

use has concluded in order to maintain wilderness character.

MA 1B Recommended Wilderness Areas

MA1B-1S Proposed uses that could compromise wilderness area eligibility prior to 

congressional designation shall not be authorized.

MA1B-2G Mechanized (bicycle) use and nonmotorized travel may occur on existing trails in 

recommended wilderness areas.

MA1B-3G Motorized equipment including chain saws and trail machines may be used for trail 

maintenance and reconstruction on existing trails within recommended wilderness 

areas.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

147

MA 1C Wilderness Study Area

MA1C-1G Management activities should not reduce or impair the wilderness characteristics 

and qualities for which the area was designated.

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers

(Includes Designated, Eligible, and Suitable)

MA2A-1G New proposals for outfitting and guiding special use permits or recreation event 

permits should be approved only when the special use or event is consistent with 

outstandingly remarkable values, wild and scenic rivers desired conditions, and 

when a need is identified and capacity is available.

MA2A-2S Hitching or tethering of horses or other saddle or pack animals to trees, except for 

loading or unloading, shall not be authorized at campsites within wild and scenic 

river corridors.

MA2A-3S New roads and motorized trails shall not be authorized within wild classifications 

of wild and scenic river management allocations.

MA2A-4S Hazard trees felled at trailheads or watercraft put-in/takeout locations within river 

segments classified as wild rivers will be left where they fall, or moved to an 

ecologically desirable location.

MA2A-5S Mining of common minerals shall not be authorized.

MA2A-6S Camping shall not be authorized in the Lostine River corridor except in 

campgrounds, at trailheads, and in designated campsites.

MA2A-7S With the exception of trailheads and other designated areas, hitching, tethering, 

hobbling, and confining of saddle and pack animals shall not be authorized within 

the Lostine River corridor.

MA 2B Research Natural Areas

MA2B-1S Management activities shall not be authorized that inhibit the purpose for the 

research natural area establishment.

MA2B-2G Mineral exploration and development activities should be managed to minimize 

impacts to research natural areas, consistent with valid existing rights.

MA2B-3S Removal of common mineral material shall not be authorized within research 

natural areas.

MA 2C Botanical Areas

MA2C-1G Visitor activities should be managed to avoid degradation to botanical areas.

MA2C-2G Interpretive facilities should not conflict with the overall purpose of establishing 

botanical areas.

MA2C-3G Silvicultural treatments should not degrade the special features of botanical areas.

MA2C-4G To prevent damage to special features, firewood collection should not be authorized 

within botanical areas.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

148

MA2C-5G Mineral exploration and development activities should be managed to minimize 

impacts to botanical areas.

MA2C-6G Removal of common mineral material should not be authorized within botanical 

areas unless doing so will not adversely modify special features.

MA2C-7G Utility corridors should not be authorized within botanical areas, unless doing so 

will not adversely modify special botanical features.

MA2C-8G Artificial control of endemic (normal) levels of insects and diseases should not be 

authorized within botanical areas, to retain natural processes and influences.

MA 2D Geological Areas

MA2D-1G Management activities should not reduce or impair the natural and ecological 

values and qualities for which the area was designated.

MA 2E Historical Areas

MA2E-1G Visitor activities should be managed to avoid degradation to historical areas, and 

interpretive facilities should not conflict with the overall purpose of designated 

historical areas.

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All American Roads

MA2F-1G Visual impacts from vegetation treatments, recreation uses, rangeland 

developments, and other structures should blend with the overall landscape 

character along scenic byways.

MA2F-2G Signs, kiosks, and other exhibits should provide interpretive, education, and safety 

information along scenic byways and in adjacent recreation sites.

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails

MA2G-1S The Nez Perce National Historic Trail shall be managed consistently with the 

guidance in the Nez Perce National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service et al. 1990).

MA2G-2S The Nez Perce National Historic Trail shall be managed as a nonmotorized route 

for primitive hiking and horseback riding for trail segments that are not identified 

as auto tour routes.

MA2G-3G Management activities should not reduce or impair the scenic, historic, and 

recreational values and qualities for which the trail was designated.

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range

MA2I-1S Vehicle access shall only be allowed on designated routes, unless necessary to meet 

research needs or objectives 

MA2I-2S Starkey Experimental Forest and Range shall be closed to public access from fall 

until spring to protect deer and elk from harassment and stress during winter, with 

specific dates established periodically as consistent with research objectives.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

149

MA2I-3G Existing old forest stands should be retained and additional stands that are the 

closest to old forest structure should be retained at a rate of 20 percent of the land 

area.

MA2I-4S Special forest product collection and firewood cutting shall only be allowed 

when/where compatible with research objectives.

MA2I-5G Planned ignitions should only occur when/where compatible with research needs or 

objectives.

MA2I-6G To protect valuable infrastructure and assure compatibility with research needs and 

objectives, unplanned ignitions should be suppressed with a high level of 

management response. Suppression activities are coordinated with the Station 

director, research project leader, or designee.

MA2I-7S Plans of operation for locatable, leasable, and saleable mineral operations shall be 

reviewed and modified, to the extent practicable, to be compatible with existing or 

planned research.

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds

MA2J-1S All management activities shall be designed to protect water quality at the intake in 

public water supply watersheds. Activities that could influence drinking water 

sources will be conducted consistent with State and Federal water quality

regulations.

MA2J-2S All fertilizers and chemicals shall only be used in emergency situations, consistent 

with existing agreements between individual cities and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture.

MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use)

MA3A-1S Backcountry management areas within Inventoried Roadless Areas shall be 

managed consistent with the guidance in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule (36 CFR 294) (USDA 2001).

MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use)

MA3B-1S Backcountry management areas within inventoried roadless areas shall be managed 

consistent with the guidance in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 

CFR 294) (USDA 2001).

MA 4A General Forest

MA4A-1S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, when trees are harvested from 

lands identified as suitable for timber production, the harvests shall be made in 

such a way as to reasonably assure that the technology and knowledge exists to 

adequately restock the lands within 5 years of final regeneration harvest. Research 

and experience shall be the basis for determining whether the harvest and 

regeneration practices planned can be expected to result in adequate restocking. 

The adequate level of restocking shall be prescribed in a site-specific silviculture 

prescription for a project, which will specify the minimum number, size, 

distribution and species composition of regeneration needed based on the 

objectives and desired conditions for the Plan Area and project.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

150

MA4A-2G As directed by the National Forest Management Act, even-aged regeneration 

harvests of stands on lands suitable for timber production should not occur until the 

stands have generally reached or surpassed the culmination of the mean annual 

increment measured in cubic feet. This does not preclude the use of thinning or 

other intermediate stand improvement treatments or salvage/sanitation harvesting 

of timber stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow, or other 

catastrophic event or that are in imminent danger of insect or disease outbreaks. 

Exceptions may be made after consideration of overall multiple uses other than 

timber production including:

• Cutting related to research or experimental purposes, or

• Removing particular species of trees, or

• Improving wildlife habitat, range or recreation resources.

MA 4B Riparian Management Areas

RMA-1S Riparian management areas include portions of watersheds where aquatic and 

riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis. When 

riparian management area desired conditions are functioning properly, projects 

shall protect or maintain those conditions. When riparian management area desired 

conditions are not yet achieved or riparian management areas have impaired 

function or are functioning-at-risk and to the degree that project activities would 

contribute to those conditions, projects or permitted activities shall restore or not 

retard attainment of desired conditions.22 Short-term adverse effects from project 

activities may occur when they support long-term recovery of riparian management 

area desired conditions.23 Exceptions to this standard include situations where 

Forest Service authorities are limited (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act, 1872 Mining law, valid state water right, etc.). In those cases, project effects 

shall be minimized and not retard attainment of desired conditions to the extent 

possible within Forest Service authorities. Use Blue Mountains ARCS Appendix A

(e.g. diagnostic indicators and riparian management area ecological process and 

function descriptions) to assist in determining compliance with this standard.

RMA-2S Herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and other toxicants, and other chemicals shall 

be applied only to maintain, protect, or enhance aquatic and riparian resources or to 

restore native plant communities in a manner that does not harm aquatic or riparian 

resources.

RMA-3S Trees felled for safety shall be retained onsite unless in excess of what is needed to 

achieve aquatic and riparian desired conditions. If the desired quantity and size 

distribution of large wood has been met on site, the wood can be transported to 

other aquatic and riparian restoration projects.

 22 Per Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest Service (2011b), subsequent versions of this 

guide and/or other comparable methods. The Watershed Condition Class terminology for functioning properly, 

“functioning-at-risk,” and impaired function are equivalent to “functioning appropriately” or “functioning-at-risk” and 

“functioning at unacceptable risk” functioning categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators (USFWS 1998), 

and respectively equivalent to “Properly Functioning” or “At Risk” or “Not Properly Functioning” categories within 

the matrix of pathways and indicators used by National Marine Fisheries Service (1996).

23 The definitions and rationale for the terms maintain, restore, degrade, retard attainment, short term, and long term are 

included in Forest Plan standard WM-1S.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

151

RMA-4G Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse effects on 

stream channel stability, sedimentation, and in-stream flows needed to maintain 

riparian resources, channel conditions, and fish habitat. To prevent the spread of 

invasive species, water should not be discharged into other waterbodies.

RMA-5S Pumps shall be screened at drafting sites to prevent entrainment of fish and shall 

have one-way valves to prevent back-flow into streams.

RMA-6G Fish habitat and water quality should be protected when withdrawing water for 

administrative purposes.

RMA-7S Refueling shall occur with appropriate containment equipment and a spill response 

plan in place. Wherever possible, storage of petroleum products and refueling will 

occur outside of riparian management areas. The use of containment devices, 

absorbent pads, and a developed spill plan will help reduce the risk of fuel and 

petroleum products from getting into streams and other waterways if an accident 

were to occur. If refueling or storage of petroleum products is necessary within 

riparian management areas, these operations will be conducted no closer than 100 

feet from waterways.

MA 4B Fuels Management and Wildland (Unplanned) Fire Activities

FM-1G Locate temporary firefighting facilities (e.g., incident bases, camps, helibases, 

staging areas, helispots, and other centers) for incident activities outside riparian 

management areas. When no practical alternative exists, all appropriate measures to 

protect, maintain, restore, or enhance aquatic and riparian dependent resources 

should be used. If the only suitable location for such activities is within a riparian

management area, use may be granted following review by a resource advisor and 

discussion with the agency administrator. The resource advisor will work with the 

incident management team to prescribe the location, use conditions, and 

rehabilitation requirements. Use an interdisciplinary team to predetermine suitable 

incident base and helibase locations.

FM-2G Aerial application of chemical retardant, foam, or other fire chemicals is prohibited 

within 300 feet (slope distance) of perennial and intermittent waterways. 

Waterways are defined as any body of water (including lakes, rivers, streams, and 

ponds) whether or not it contains aquatic life except in cases where human life or 

public safety is threatened and chemical use could be reasonably expected to 

alleviate that threat. This includes open water that may not be mapped as such on 

avoidance area maps and intermittent streams that are running or holding surface 

water at the time of retardant use.

FM-3S Portable pump set-ups shall include containment provisions for fuel spills and fuel 

containers shall have appropriate containment provisions. Vehicles shall be parked 

in locations that avoid entry of spilled fuel into streams. When drafting, pumps 

shall be screened at drafting sites to prevent entrainment of aquatic species, screen 

area shall be sized to prevent impingement on the screens, and shall have one-way 

valves to prevent back-flow into streams. Use National Marine Fisheries Service 

approved screening criteria where listed fish or critical habitat are present.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

152

FM-4G Locate and configure firelines to minimize sedimentation to waterbodies, capture 

of overland and stream flows, and development of unauthorized roads and trails. 

Restore firelines following suppression or prescribed fire activities.

FM-5S To minimize soil damage when chipping fuels within riparian management areas, 

chip bed depths on dry soils shall be limited to 7.5 cm or less (Busse et al. 2006).

FM-6G Disturbed areas, such as firelines, drop-points, camps, roads, and trails, should be 

restored by actions such as scattering slash piles, replacing logs and boulders, 

scarifying soils, recontouring terrain, and reseeding with native species.

FM-7G Pumping directly from a stream channel should be avoided if chemical products are 

to be injected directly into the system. When chemicals are used, pumping should 

be conducted from a fold-a-tank that is located outside the riparian area.

FM-8G Minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST) should be used in sensitive areas, 

such as designated wilderness areas, designated wild and scenic river corridors, 

research natural areas, botanical areas, riparian management areas, cultural and 

historic sites, developed recreation areas, special use permit areas that have 

structures, and historic and recreational trails. Minimum impact suppression tactics

techniques should also be used for post fire restoration activities.

FM-9G Prescribed burn direct ignition in riparian management areas should not be used 

unless site or project-scale effects analysis demonstrates that it would not retard 

attaining aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

FM-10S Ensure prescribed burn projects contribute to and do not retard the attainment of 

the aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

FM-11G Chemicals or retardant should not be used for suppression or mop-up within 

riparian areas.

FM-12S Pumps and charged hoses shall not be back flushed into stream channels, wetlands, 

or surface water.

MA 4B Silviculture and Timber Management

TM-1S Silvicultural treatments shall occur in riparian management areas only as necessary 

to maintain, enhance, or restore desired conditions for aquatic and riparian 

resources. When conducted, these activities shall avoid or minimize adverse effects 

to aquatic and riparian resources. Vegetation in riparian management areas shall not 

be subject to regularly scheduled timber harvest because they are not part of the 

timber suitability landbase.

TM-2S Fuelwood cutting shall not be authorized in riparian management areas unless 

specifically designed to attain aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

TM-3G Use of existing or construction of new landings, designated skid trails, staging, and 

decking should not occur in riparian management areas, unless they are associated 

with projects designed to improve riparian management areas conditions. These 

features should:

• be of minimum size,

• be located outside the active floodplain, and
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

153

• avoid negative effects to large wood, bank integrity, temperature, and 

sediment levels.

TM-4G Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel; unless 

other alternatives will have less damage to riparian areas and stream channels.24

TM-5S Silvicultural practices shall include provisions, as appropriate, to avoid detrimental 

changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses; including protection for 

streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water, and 

deposits of sediment.

TM-6S Silvicultural practices shall include provisions (e.g. best management practices) for 

the maintenance or restoration of soil resources.

TM-7S Timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production shall occur only to meet 

desired conditions for each management area other than timber production.

TM-8G In watersheds where stream channels and aquatic habitats are in properly 

functioning condition, forest vegetation within riparian management areas should 

be managed to maintain or increase large wood recruitment and delivery to 

streams.

TM-9S In watersheds in which stream channels and aquatic habitats are not in properly 

functioning condition, and where instream wood frequency and volume are below 

reference conditions and/or site potential, manage forest vegetation within riparian 

management areas to maintain or increase large wood recruitment and delivery to 

streams.

TM-10S As directed by the National Forest Management Act, timber harvest shall only 

occur when a site-specific finding has determined that it will not cause irreversible 

damage to soil, slope, or other watershed conditions.

MA 4B Livestock Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation

GM-1S Manage livestock grazing to attain aquatic and riparian desired conditions. Where 

livestock grazing is found to prevent or retard attaining aquatic and riparian desired 

conditions, modify grazing practices (such as number of livestock, timing, and 

physical structures). If adjusting practices is not effective, remove livestock from 

that area using appropriate administrative authorities and procedures.

GM-2S New livestock handling and/or management facilities shall be located outside 

riparian management areas unless they do not prevent or retard attaining aquatic 

and riparian desired conditions.

GM-3G The purpose of this guideline is to manage livestock grazing to help attain and 

maintain aquatic and riparian desired conditions over time. Specifically, it is 

intended to maintain or improve vegetative and stream conditions, help ensure the 

viability of aquatic species, provide important contributions to the recovery of 

federally listed species, and facilitate attainment of State water quality standards.

The annual livestock use and disturbance indicators described below should be 

applied to help achieve, over longer timeframes, conditions at site and watershed 

 24 Active channel is the bank full width of flowing perennial or intermittent streams.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

154

scales that enable attainment and maintenance of desired conditions. The values 

specified below are starting points for management. Only those indicators and 

numeric values that are appropriate to the site and necessary for maintaining or 

moving towards desired conditions should be applied.25 Specific indicators and 

indicator values should be prescribed and adjusted, if needed, in a manner that 

reflects existing and desired conditions and the natural potential of the specific geoclimatic, hydrologic and vegetative setting in which they are being applied.

26

Indicators and indicator values should be adapted over time based on long-term 

monitoring and evaluation of conditions and trends. Alternative use and 

disturbance indicators and values, including those in current Endangered Species 

Act consultation documents or non- Endangered Species Act allotment 

management plans or allotment National Environmental Policy Act decisions, may 

be used if they are based on best available science and monitoring data and meet 

the purpose of this guideline.

1. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and riparian 

vegetation have been attained27 and riparian vegetation is in late-seral 

conditions28, protect or maintain those conditions by managing annual 

livestock grazing use and disturbance as follows 29:

• maintain a minimum of 4-inch residual stubble height 30 of key 

herbaceous species on the greenline;

• utilize no more than 30-45 percent of deep-rooted herbaceous 

vegetation in the active floodplain31 and, as needed, in other critical 

portions of the riparian management area;

• limit streambank alteration32 to no more than 20-25 percent; and

 25 Not all indicators may apply to a particular site. For example, stubble height is a meaningful indicator for lower 

gradient streams where herbaceous vegetation plays an important role in stabilizing streambanks. It is generally less 

useful for steeper channels, where channel morphology is controlled by coarse substrates. Moreover, not all numeric 

values may apply to a particular site (e.g., sites with short graminoids).

26 Indicator values for specific sites should be determined based on consideration of local conditions including, but not 

limited to, the degree of departure between existing and desired conditions, the current and desired rate of improvement, 

site sensitivity to grazing, grazing season, the presence of special status species (e.g., federally listed species, Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species) that are sensitive to grazing, whether or not water quality standards and related requirements 

(e.g., total maximum daily loads for impaired waters) are being met, and the site’s importance in maintaining or attaining 

those standards and requirements. Consideration of these conditions is especially important in prescribing specific stubble 

height values within the 4-inch to 6-inch range and streambank alteration values within the 15-20% range.

27 Assessment of conditions and trends should be based on best available information at a variety of spatial and 

temporal scales. Site-specific information is particularly important.

28 Late seral conditions means the existing riparian vegetation community is similar to the potential natural community 

composition (per Winward 2000).

29 Per PACFISH-INFISH Monitoring, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (BLM Technical Reference 1737-23) protocols or 

comparable methods for stubble height, streambank alteration, and use of woody species. Per Bureau of Land 

Management protocols (BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730) or comparable methods for herbaceous utilization.

30 Stubble height criteria apply at the end of the grazing period, when that period ends after the growing season. When 

the grazing period ends before the growing season does, stubble height criteria can be applied at the end of the grazing 

period or the end of the growing season.

31 Active floodplain is defined as the area bordering a stream inundated by flows at a surface elevation that is two times 

the maximum bankfull depth (measured at the thalweg). 32 Streambank alteration criteria apply within 1-2 weeks of removal of livestock from each pasture.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

155

• limit use of woody species to no more than 30-40 percent of current 

year’s leaders along streambanks and, as needed, in other critical 

portions of the riparian management area.

2. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and/or riparian 

vegetation have not yet been attained, but conditions are moving towards 

those desired conditions,

27 enable continued recovery by managing annual 

livestock grazing use and disturbance as follows:

• maintain a minimum of 4-inches to 6-inches residual stubble height of 

key herbaceous species on the greenline;

26

• follow the criteria for utilization of deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation, 

streambank alteration, and use of woody species described in (1).

3. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and/or riparian 

vegetation have not been attained and conditions are not moving towards 

those desired conditions,27 enable recovery by managing annual livestock 

grazing use and disturbance as follows:

• maintain a minimum of 6-inches residual stubble height of key 

herbaceous species on the greenline;

• utilize no more than 30-35 percent of deep-rooted herbaceous 

vegetation in the active floodplain and, as needed, in other critical 

portions of the riparian management area;

• limit streambank alteration to no more than 15-20 percent,

26 and

• limit use of woody species to no more than 20-30 percent of current 

year’s leaders along streambanks and, as needed, in other critical 

portions of the riparian management area.

GM-4G During allotment management planning, existing livestock handling or 

management facilities that prevent or retard attaining aquatic and riparian desired 

conditions should be removed, as appropriate.

GM-5G Livestock trailing, watering, loading, and other handling in riparian management 

areas should be avoided or minimized.

GM-6S Livestock grazing shall be managed and implemented to avoid trampling federally 

listed threatened or endangered fish redds.

MA 4B Roads and Trails Management

RF-1G New roads and trails should not be constructed within riparian management areas 

unless no other feasible alternative exists.

RF-2G Temporary roads, including stream crossings, in riparian management areas should 

be minimized. Temporary roads, if constructed, should be managed to protect and 

restore aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

RF-3S Side-casting (placement of unconsolidated earthen waste materials resulting from 

road construction or maintenance) in riparian management areas shall be avoided.

RF-4S Fill material shall not be placed on organic debris in riparian management areas.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

156

RF-5S Disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and 

interception of surface and subsurface flow shall be avoided when constructing or 

reconstructing roads or landings either inside or outside of riparian management 

areas.

RF-6G Wetlands and unstable areas should be avoided when reconstructing existing roads 

or constructing new roads and landings. Minimize impacts where avoidance is not 

practical.

RF-7S New or replaced permanent stream crossings shall be designed to allow for the 

100-year flood and its bedload and debris. 100-year flood estimates will reflect the 

best available science regarding potential effects of climate change.

RF-8S Where physically feasible, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings will 

avoid diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of 

crossing failure.

RF-9S Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings shall provide and maintain 

passage for all life stages of all native and desired nonnative aquatic and ripariandependent organisms. Crossing designs shall reflect the best available science 

regarding potential effects of climate change on peak flows and low flows.

RF-10G Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access by 

undesirable nonnative species and are consistent with restoration of habitat for 

native species.

RF-11G Design roads to minimize delivery of water and sediment from roads to streams. 

Avoid or minimize disruption of hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of 

streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow when constructing, 

reconstructing, and maintenance of roads or landing.

RF-12G Road drainage should be routed away from potentially unstable channels, fills, and 

hillslopes to the extent practicable.

RF-13S Road maintenance and new road construction shall be designed to minimize 

adverse effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate aquatic species 

and their habitat.

MA 4B Recreation Management

RM-1G New facilities or infrastructure should not be placed within expected long-term 

channel migration zones if it has the potential to impact channel or floodplain 

function. If some facilities must occur in riparian management areas (such as roadstream crossings, boat ramps, docks, and interpretive trails), locate and design them 

to minimize impacts on floodplains and other riparian dependent resource 

conditions (e.g., within geologically stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites).

RM-2G Existing recreation facility components that are causing unacceptable33 impacts in 

riparian management areas should be removed or relocated. Site condition should 

be restored to improve riparian area function.

 33 Conditions that are not meeting or trending towards desired conditions.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

157

MA 4B Minerals Management

MM-1G For operations in riparian management areas, ensure operators take all practicable 

measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and 

wildlife and other riparian dependent resources that may be affected by the 

operations. Ensure operations do not retard or prevent attaining aquatic and riparian 

desired conditions. Exceptions to this guideline include situations where Forest 

Service has limited discretional authorities. In those cases, project effects should be 

minimized and should not prevent or retard attaining aquatic and riparian desired 

conditions to the extent possible within those authorities.

MM-2G To the maximum extent possible, construct new structures, support facilities, and 

roads outside of riparian management areas. If new structures, support facilities and 

roads cannot be constructed outside riparian management areas because of site 

limitations, then construct and manage them to minimize adverse effects to aquatic 

and riparian dependent resources. Existing roads and facilities should be 

maintained to minimize damage to aquatic and riparian dependent resources, and 

should be removed/relocated if roads and facilities are causing unacceptable 

impacts in riparian management areas. When structures, support facilities, and 

roads are no longer required for mineral activities, they should be restored or 

reclaimed to achieve aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

MM-3S Mine waste with the potential to generate hazardous material (as defined by 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA)) shall not be authorized within riparian management areas and/or areas 

where groundwater contamination is possible. The exception is temporary staging 

of waste during abandoned mine cleanup.

MM-4G Mineral operations should minimize adverse effects to aquatic and ripariandependent resources in riparian management areas. Require best management 

practices and other appropriate conservation measures to mitigate potential mine 

operation effects.

MM-5S Mineral activities on National Forest System lands shall avoid or minimize adverse 

effects to aquatic threatened or endangered species/populations or their designated 

critical habitat.

• All suction dredge mining activities in habitat for aquatic threatened or 

endangered species/populations or in their designated critical habitat shall 

be evaluated by the District Ranger to determine if the mining activity is 

causing or “will likely cause significant disturbance of surface 

resources.”34 A likelihood that a threatened or endangered species "take" 

(defined in Section 3[18] of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as 

amended) incidental to the mining activity is an example of a significant 

resource disturbance. Other significant disturbances that do not involve 

 34 The phrase “will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources” means that, based on past experience, 

direct evidence, or sound scientific projection, the District Ranger reasonably expects that the proposed operations 

would result in impacts to National Forest System lands and resources which more probably than not need to be 

avoided or ameliorated by means such as reclamation, bonding, timing restrictions, and other mitigation measures to 

minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System resources.
Part 3 – Design Criteria

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

158

incidental take might involve effects on channel stability or stream 

hydraulics.

• If the District Ranger determines that placer mining operations are causing 

or will likely cause significant disturbance to surface resources, the District 

Ranger shall contact and inform the operator to seek voluntary compliance 

with 36 CFR 228 mining regulations and to cease operations until 

compliance.

MA 4B Uses and Hydropower

LH-1S Authorizations for all new and existing special uses, including, but not limited to 

water diversion or transmission facilities (e.g., pipelines and ditches), energy 

transmission lines, roads, hydroelectric, and other surface water development 

proposals, shall result in the re-establishment, restoration, or mitigation of habitat 

conditions and ecological processes identified as being essential for the 

maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions for fish, water and other riparian 

dependent species and resources. These processes include in-stream flow regimes, 

physical and biological connectivity, water quality, and integrity and complexity of 

riparian and aquatic habitat.

LH-2S New support facilities shall be located outside of riparian management areas. 

Support facilities include any facilities or improvements (e.g., workshops, housing, 

switchyards, staging areas, and transmission lines) not directly integral to the 

production of hydroelectric power or necessary for the implementation of 

prescribed protection, mitigation or enhancement measures.

LH-3G If existing support facilities are located within the riparian management areas, they 

should be operated and maintained to restore or enhance aquatic and riparian 

dependent resources. At time of permit re-issuance, consider removing support 

facilities, where practical.

MA 5 Developed Sites and Administrative Areas

MA5-1G Facilities should be maintained and protected to support management operations.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

159

Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Monitoring includes testing assumptions, tracking changes, and measuring management 

effectiveness and progress toward achieving or maintaining the Forest Plan’s desired conditions 

or objectives. Monitoring information should enable managers to determine if a change in Plan 

components or other Plan content applicable to the Plan Area may be needed, forming the basis 

for continual improvement and adaptive management. Monitoring and evaluation will occur as 

the Forest Plan is implemented (i.e., following future site-specific actions).

Monitoring and evaluation are separate, sequential activities required by the National Forest 

Management Act. Monitoring is the collection of data by observation or measurement. Evaluation 

is the analysis and interpretation of monitoring data. The results of monitoring and evaluation 

may lead to changes in Forest Plan management direction.

There are three types of monitoring: (1) implementation, (2) effectiveness, and (3) validation.

• Implementation monitoring determines if the practices (i.e., plan components) we said we 

would do were implemented.

• Effectiveness monitoring determines how well a particular practice helps to achieve a project 

objective and helps to determine the rate at which desired conditions are being achieved.

• Validation monitoring tests key assumptions and generally involves designed research.

Two monitoring approaches, using implementation and effectiveness-type monitoring actions, are 

used for monitoring the Plan Area to determine whether the land management plan needs to be 

changed.

1. The Plan monitoring program identifies the monitoring questions and associated 

indicators for monitoring the Plan. The Plan monitoring program consists of a set of 

monitoring questions and associated indicators to evaluate whether Plan components are 

effective and appropriate and whether management is effective in maintaining or 

achieving progress toward desired conditions and objectives for the Plan Area.

2. Broader-scale monitoring information is used to address relevant Plan monitoring 

questions that are best answered at a larger geographic scale. The Regional Forester is 

responsible for developing a broader-scale monitoring strategy (FSH 1909.12 sec. 33) to 

answer and manage Plan monitoring questions common to two or more Plan Areas in the 

Region. Broader-scale monitoring strategies may be comprised of questions and 

indicators or may also include a description of protocols, data management, 

responsibilities, and partnerships for the questions and indicators. An example of broadscale monitoring may include the PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness 

Monitoring program which addresses the condition of aquatic and riparian communities 

within the range of steelhead and bull trout.

The Forest Plan monitoring program will be coordinated and integrated with broader-scale 

monitoring strategies to ensure that monitoring is complementary and efficient, and that 

information is gathered at scales appropriate to the monitoring questions (36 CFR 219.12). The 

monitoring plan in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan 

applies to resources in the National Recreation Area. The monitoring elements presented in the 

following tables contain monitoring actions that will be conducted throughout the Planning Area,

and may include resources in the National Recreation Area, as appropriate.
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

160

Biennial monitoring evaluation reports will document whether a change to the Forest Plan or 

change to the monitoring program is warranted based on new information, whether a new 

assessment may be needed, or whether there is no need for change at that time (36 CFR 219.12). 

The monitoring evaluation report will summarize Plan monitoring results and will incorporate 

broad-scale monitoring information to answer the relevant monitoring and evaluation questions. 

The monitoring evaluation report is intended to inform adaptive management for the Plan Area. 

The monitoring evaluation report will be made available to the public. Table 36 through Table 43

display the Plan monitoring framework including monitoring questions, indicators, and Plan 

components to be monitored. Both Plan-specific monitoring and broader-scale monitoring actions 

are identified in Table 36 through Table 43.
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

161

Table 36. Monitoring plan framework: 1. Status of select watershed conditions. Key ecosystem characteristics related to water resources and 

watershed conditions, such as water quality, quantity, timing and distribution provide the basis for monitoring watershed conditions.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

What is the status and trend of 

water quality?

Miles of statelisted impaired 

waters

State 303d-list 5 years Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C 1.11 Water 

Quality

What is the status and trend of 

stream temperature?

Stream 

temperature

NRIS-Aquatic 

Surveys

temperature 

data, other 

agency 

databases, 

RMRS stream 

temperature 

models

Annual status, 

5 years for 

trend

Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C WM-2S

What is the status and trend of 

stream flows? Streamflow

Federal and state 

agency 

databases and 

Forest Service 

databases

Annual status, 

10 years for 

trend

Effectiveness Moderate S, C

1.1.1 

Hydrologic 

Function

Are watershed/aquatics standards 

and guidelines and best 

management practices being 

implemented at project sites (e.g., 

range, roads, recreation, and 

vegetation management)?

Multiple Project files, field 

observations

Annual for 

status, 5 years 

for trend

Implementation, 

Effectiveness High L, S, C

1.1 

Watershed 

Function

Are watershed/aquatics standards 

and guidelines and best 

management practices effective at 

achieving desired on-site 

conditions at project sites (e.g., 

range, roads, recreation, and 

vegetation management)?

Multiple Field 

observations

Annual, 5 

years

Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C

1.1 

Watershed 

Function
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

162

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

What is the status and trend of 

watershed condition in all 

watersheds and in key 

watersheds?

Multiple 

watershed 

condition 

indicators and 

attributes

Forest Service 

and other agency 

databases 

(WCF)

3-5 years for 

grazing-related 

parameters, 5 

years for full 

WCF status 

updates.

Effectiveness Moderate S, C

1.1 

Watershed 

Function

What is the status and trend of 

riparian vegetation condition?

Condition and 

trend of riparian 

vegetation, PIBO 

parameters

PIBO and forest 

datasets 5 years Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C 1.1.2 Riparian 

Function

What is the change in the 

distribution of known sites for 

selected aquatic and riparian 

invasive species?

Presence of 

selected invasive 

species

Federal and state 

agency 

databases and 

Forest Service 

databases

Annual,

5 years Implementation High S, C 1.5 Invasive 

Species

What is the status and trend of 

aquatic habitat?

Miles of stream 

habitat improved, 

PIBO parameters

Forest Service 

databases, PIBO 

datasets

Annual,

5 years Implementation Moderate L, S, C

1.1.5 Aquatic 

Habitat

Function

What is the status and trend of 

aquatic habitat connectivity and 

accessibility for aquatic species?

Miles of aquatic 

habitat with 

improved access 

for surrogate 

species

Forest Service 

databases

Annual,

5 years Implementation High L, S, C

1.1.5 Aquatic 

Habitat

Function

NRIS = Natural Resource Information System, PIBO = PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion, RMRS = Rocky Mountain Research Station, WCF = Watershed Condition Framework
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

163

Table 37. Monitoring plan framework: 2. Status of select ecological conditions including key characteristics of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Have lands been adequately 

restocked within five years of 

regeneration harvest?

Stocking FACTS 5 years,

5 years Implementation High L MA4A-1S

Have lands that are not suitable for 

timber production become 

suitable?

Forest extent CVS, GIS 5 years,

5 years Implementation Moderate L 3.3.1 Forest 

Products

What is the maximum size opening 

from even-aged management? Opening sizes FACTS 5 years,

5 years Implementation Moderate L FP-1S

What are the trends in fire regime 

condition class?

Acres by fire regime 

condition class (FRCC)

CVS (FIA)

vegetation 

databases, 

remote sensing

Annual,

5 years Implementation Moderate S 1.4.1 Wildland

Fire

What are the trends in insect and 

disease hazard?

Forest level hazard of 

tree mortality due to 

insects and diseases

National Insect 

and Disease Risk 

Map Assessment

6 years Effectiveness Moderate S 1.4.2 Insects 

and Diseases

What are the trends in stand 

density?

Acres of low density 

forest by potential 

vegetation group

(PVG)

CVS (FIA), 

FSVEG Spatial

5 years,

5 years Implementation High S 1.8 Stand 

Density

What are the trends in stand 

density?

Acres of stand density 

reduction treatment FACTS Annual,

5 years Implementation High S 1.8 Stand 

Density

What are the trends in the 

introduction, establishment, and 

spread of invasive plants?

Acres infested/acres 

treated NRIS, FACTS Annual,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate L 1.5 Invasive 

Species

What are the trends in early seral 

tree species (ponderosa pine and 

western larch) composition?

Acres with desired 

species composition

CVS (FIA), 

FSVEG Spatial

5 years,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate S

1.7 Plant 

Species 

Composition

What is the success of post-fire 

revegetation efforts where 

droughty/mollisol soils occur?

Acres where 

revegetation efforts in 

droughty/ mollisol soils 

was not successful

NRIS, FACTS 5 years,

10 years Effectiveness Moderate S 1.8 Stand 

Density

CVS = common vegetation survey, FACTS = Forest Service ACtivities Tracking System, FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis, FSVEG = field sampled vegetation, GIS = geographic 

information system, NRIS = Natural Resource Information System
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

164

Table 38. Monitoring plan framework: 3. Status of select set of the ecological conditions required under 36 CFR 219.9 to contribute to the recovery of 

federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each surrogate

species.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

What is the condition and trend in 

habitats for aquatic surrogate 

species (steelhead, spring Chinook 

salmon, bull trout, and redband 

trout)? (Designated Critical 

Habitats coincide with habitats for 

steelhead, spring chinook salmon 

and bull trout in subbasins 

occupied by listed populations).

See Status and 

Trend-Aquatic 

habitat, Status 

and TrendAquatic Habitat 

Connectivity

Forest Service 

databases, PIBO 

datasets

Annual,

5 years

Implementation, 

Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the trends in whitebark 

pine survival and recruitment?

Whitebark pine 

survival and 

recruitment

Whitebark pine 

transects and 

plots

5 years,

5 years NA Moderate S 1.13 Special

Plant Habitats

What are the trends in source 

habitat and risk factors for Cassin's 

finch?

Changes due to 

management or 

disturbance 

events

Accomplishment 

reports, FACTS, 

Fire GIS layer

2 years,

2 years

(5 years for 

Alternatives 

B, C, and F, 

UMA only)

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the trends in source 

habitat for bighorn sheep?

Changes due to 

management or 

disturbance events

FSVEG Spatial 5 years Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the risk factors for 

bighorn sheep?

Pathogens from 

domestic livestock, 

invasive plants

Range suitability Annual, 

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the population trends for 

bighorn sheep?

Population data, 

herd composition

ODFW and 

WDFW data/

surveys

Annual Implementation, 

effectiveness High S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

FACTS = Forest Service ACtivities Tracking System, FSVEG = field sampled vegetation, GIS = geographic information system, ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, PIBO 

= PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion, WDFW = Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

165

Table 39. Monitoring plan framework: 4. Status of focal species to assess the ecological conditions required under36 CFR 219.9.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

What are the population trends 

and/or habitat trends of Pileated 

woodpeckers?

Regional Protocol See regional 

protocols 5 years Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate L 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the population trends 

and/or habitat trends of whiteheaded woodpeckers?

Regional Protocol See regional 

protocols 5 years Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate L 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What are the population and 

habitat trends/distribution of Rocky 

Mountain elk?

State population 

and distribution 

data/security 

acres/distance 

from open routes

ODFW and 

WDFW 

data/surveys/ 

FACTS

Annual,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate L, S

1.2 Species 

Diversity, 

2.3.1 Rocky 

Mountain Elk

What are the population trends 

and/or habitat trends of Rocky 

Mountain elk?

Acres greater than 

0.5 miles from 

open routes/acres 

of security habitat

State population 

and distribution 

data/distance 

from open 

routes/FACTS

5 years,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate L, S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

FACTS = Forest Service ACtivities Tracking System, ODFW = Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, WDFW = Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

166

Table 40. Monitoring plan framework: 5. Status of visitor use, visitor satisfaction, and progress toward meeting recreation objectives.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Is recreation user satisfaction 

maintained or improved over time? Visitor use

National Visitor 

Use Monitoring 

Data or similar 

national 

monitoring 

protocol

5 years Effectiveness High S 2.2 

Recreation

Are recreation facilities properly 

maintained and meet all health, 

safety and accessibility 

requirements?

Recreation facility 

condition

National Visitor 

Use Monitoring 

Data or similar 

national 

monitoring 

protocol

5 years Effectiveness High S 2.2 

Recreation

Table 41. Monitoring plan framework: 6. Measurable changes on other Plan Area related to climate change and other stressors that may be affecting 

the Plan Area.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Does new scientific information 

related to climate change indicate a 

need to change plan components?

New scientific 

findings

Best available 

scientific 

information

5 years Effectiveness Low S

1.2 Species 

Diversity, 2.9 

Community 

Resilience
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

167

Table 42. Monitoring plan framework: 7. Progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the Plan, including for providing multiple 

use opportunities.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring Type Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Are watershed/aquatic restoration 

projects (e.g., road decommissioning, 

passage improvements, riparian stream 

habitat improvements, etc.) being 

implemented at a rate consistent with 

Forest Plan objectives?

Annual 

accomplishment 

metrics (e.g., road 

miles 

decommissioned)

Forest Service 

databases Annual Implementation High S, C

1.1 

Watershed 

Function

Are structural stages trending towards 

the desired range of variation?

Structural stage 

distribution by 

PVG

CVS (FIA), 

FSVEG Spatial

Annual,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness Moderate S

1.6 

Structural 

Stages

Are trends in percent of herblands and 

shrublands making progress towards 

achieving the desired condition?

CVS plots CVS (FIA) 5 years,

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness High S

1.6 

Structural 

Stages

Are acres restored using wildfire 

consistent with levels expected in the 

Forest Plan?

Acres of 

restoration from 

wildfire

FACTS Annual,

5 years Implementation Moderate S

1.4.1 

Wildland

Fire

Is the mix of wildfire severity and 

frequency within the range of variability 

shown in Table 5?

Wildfire severity 

and frequency

Remote sensing 

data

Annual,

5 years Implementation Moderate S

1.4.1 

Wildland

Fire

Are roads and trails being maintained at 

the appropriate level?

Miles of 

maintenance level 

changes

GIS, INFRA, 

MVUM

Annual,

5 years Implementation High S

2.5 Roads 

and Trails 

Access

Are outputs of goods and services 

being produced consistent with the 

levels expected in the Forest Plan?

Acres of fuels 

reduction 

treatments, cubic 

feet of timber 

harvest, AUMs

FACTS, TIM, 

NRM INFRA

Annual,

5 years Implementation High L 3.3 Goods and Services

Are actual costs per acre of 

implementation treatments within 20% 

of Forest Plan estimates?

Cost per acre of

restoration and 

fuel reduction 

treatments

FACTS 5 years Implementation Moderate L N/A
Part 4 – Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

168

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring Type Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Are destructive insects and disease 

organisms increasing to potentially 

damaging levels following management 

activities?

New insect and 

disease activity in 

recently treated 

areas

Aerial Insect

and Disease

detection 

surveys; 

FSVEG Spatial; 

CVS Plots

Annual,

5 Years Implementation Moderate L

1.4.2 Insects 

and 

Diseases

AUM = animal unit months, CVS = common vegetation survey, FACTS = Forest Service ACtivities Tracking System, FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis, FSVEG = field sampled 

vegetation, GIS = geographic information system, INFRA = Infrastructure, MVUM = Motor Vehicle Use Map, NRM = Natural Resource Manager, TIM = Timber Information Manager

Table 43. Monitoring plan framework: 8. The effects of each management system to determine that they do not substantially and permanently impact 

the productivity of the lands (16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(C). Focus on key ecosystem characteristics in the Plan Area related to soils and soil productivity 

identified in the assessment and planning process.

Proposed Monitoring Question Parameter

Related 

Program 

Indicators

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Frequency

Monitoring 

Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why?

L: legal 

Requirement;

S: strategic; 

C: consultation

Plan 

Component

Are projects being designed and 

implemented to result in no more 

than 20% detrimental soil 

disturbance at project conclusion?

Percent of 

detrimental soil 

disturbance after 

project conclusion

Project files, field 

observations 

(such as Forest 

Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring 

Protocol, GTR 

WO-82a)

Annual,

5 years Implementation Moderate L, S, C 1.10 Soil 

Quality
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

169

Summary of the Analysis of the Management 

Situation

Introduction

This section summarizes the analysis of the management situation produced in 2005 for the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, including the portion of the 

Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur, collectively referred to as the national 

forests of the Blue Mountains. The analysis of the management situation provides a 

determination of the ability of the Plan Area to supply goods and services in response to 

society’s demands. The primary purpose of this analysis is to provide a basis for formulating a 

broad range of reasonable alternatives. Required elements of the analysis of the management 

situation include:

• Benchmark analysis (defines the range within which the alternatives can be 

constructed)

• The current level of goods and services provided by the unit

• Projections of demand for goods and services

• Determination of the potential to resolve public issues and management concerns

• Determination of the need to establish or change management direction

Benchmark Analysis

The development of benchmarks is required as a provision of 1982 Planning Rule, sec 

219.12 (e.1). During the need for change evaluation, all benchmarks were reviewed and 

evaluated. The nontimber benchmarks, including wildlife, wilderness areas, and range, were 

determined to be appropriate and reasonable, therefore no new ones were developed. 

Following the need for change evaluation, five new timber benchmarks were developed:

1. Minimum level (219.12 (e)(1)(i))

2. Maximum biological potential (219.12 (e)(1)(ii) (C) with departure from the base 

schedule

a. Maximum biological potential (219.12 (e)(1)(ii) meeting the base schedule

3. Maximum present net value (219.12 (e)(1)(iii) (C) with departure from the base 

schedule

a. Maximum present net value (219.12 (e)(1)(iii) meeting the base schedule

Summary of Projected Timber Benchmark Annual Outputs 

(millions of board feet)

Table 44 shows that benchmarks 2 and 2a would produce the greatest long-term sustained yield 

(LTSY) because they would have more timber production acres than benchmarks 3 and 3a. 

Benchmark 2 would produce the greatest first decade level of volume as the allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ). The high first decade harvest rates in benchmarks 2 and 3 attempted to reduce 

the high level of available over-stocked stands more quickly than benchmark 2a or 3a. The first 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

170

decade volume for benchmark 2A and 3A are lower than benchmarks 2 and 3 because they level 

out the flow of volume so that each subsequent decade volume is greater than or equal to the 

previous decade volume (nondeclining flow).

Table 44. Projected benchmark timber outputs (MMBF)

Benchmark MAL 

LTSY

MAL 

ASQ

UMA 

LTSY

UMA 

ASQ

WAW 

LTSY

WAW 

ASQ

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 126 123 80 79 134 99

2a 126 86 80 40 134 55

3 112 107 71 57 114 83

3a 112 79 71 34 114 43

MAL = Malheur, UMA = Umatilla, WAW = Wallowa-Whitman

Summary of Wildlife, Fish and Grazing Benchmarks

(from 1990 forest plans)

The nontimber benchmarks from the 1990 Plans, including wildlife, fish, and range, were 

reviewed and found to be appropriate and reasonable; and therefore, no new ones were 

developed. These existing benchmarks provide a basis for developing a reasonable range of 

alternatives. Table 45 displays the 1990 benchmarks for livestock, big game, and fish.

Table 45. Maximum yearly benchmark outputs from 1990 Forest Plans summary of the analysis of 

the management situation

National Forest Livestock Grazing 

(thousand AUMs)

Big Game Use 

(thousand user days)

Fish Production (thousand pounds per 

year)

Malheur 194 168 (WFUDs) 43

Umatilla 103 580 (WUDs) 28 (RVDs), no estimate of pounds but 1.7 

million smolts produced per year

WallowaWhitman 227 6,957 (WFUDs) 221

AUM= animal unit month, RVD= anadromous fish use days, WFUD= wildlife and fish user days, WUD= wildlife user 

days

Current Level of Goods and Services Provided by the Unit

The following section describes the current social, ecological, and economic conditions based on 

the analysis of the management situation produced in 2005. The section provides a brief summary 

of existing conditions and serves as an overview of select resources managed by the national 

forests of the Blue Mountain region. Four subsections for individual resource areas are presented 

within the summary report and include the status of desired future conditions and objectives; 

current conditions and trends; major changes since 1990; and areas of concern. The information 

presented below was developed under the “current conditions and trends” subsection and 

provides detail and trends that 1) have influenced whether the 1990 stated desired conditions were 

achieved and/or 2) may influence the ability or desire to continue working toward the same 

desired conditions. Table 46 through Table 50 display current levels of goods and services for 

several selected resources.
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

171

Timber

Current levels of acres of silvicultural treatment and volume of timber harvested have greatly 

decreased from projected levels in the current Forest Plans. Harvest methods have shifted from 

even-age management to uneven age methods. National policy direction, as well as increasing 

experience in applying ecosystem management, has substantially reduced the number of 

harvested acres. The trend for acres accomplished for reforestation and precommercial thinning is 

also declining. Acres of precommercial thinning needed to create a more resilient condition are 

rapidly increasing beyond the ability to accomplish considering current or anticipated budgets.

Table 46 Timber sale program quantity sold (excluding firewood or permit sales)

National Forest Average per year FY2013-2015 (million board feet)

Malheur 52

Umatilla 26

Wallowa-Whitman 23

Range

Most of the southern end of the Blue Mountains (Malheur and southern Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests) as well as the far north end (Wallowa Valley Ranger District), were 

characterized by the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) as 

having between 70-100 percent low range and ecological composite integrity (USDA 1996). 

Forage conditions have been reduced by woodland juniper encroachment and expansion of 

invasive weed species. A decline in herb lands and shrub lands was observed. Much of the area 

was characterized as sensitive to overgrazing and invasive plants. Most of the Umatilla National 

Forest and the western portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (La Grande and Baker 

Ranger Districts) were modeled by ICBEMP as having 76 percent low range integrity and 58 

percent low ecological integrity, with existing conditions that have been highly altered from 

historic conditions by livestock grazing, timber harvest, and exclusion of fire. Historic high levels 

of grazing combined with possible climate shifts and fire suppression may have created 

conditions favorable to the establishment of large numbers of tree seedlings.

Table 47. Animal unit months (AUMs) per year (2013)

National Forest AUMs (thousand)

Malheur 132

Umatilla 49

Wallowa-Whitman 112

Water and Soils

According to scientific assessments in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project, riparian systems in several Blue Mountain watersheds have declined from their historic 

extent and condition. The Interior Columbia Basin study noted a decline in riparian shrub 

communities in the Blue Mountains of up to 70 percent since the 1930s resulting from impacts of 

agricultural development, roads, grazing, logging, water development, and other human uses.

As of 2018, the only basins in the Blue Mountains for which total maximum daily load 

assessments (TMDL) have not been completed are the Powder (Powder, Burnt, and Brownlee 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

172

sub-basins) and the Oregon Closed basins (Silvies, Silver, and Harney-Malheur lakes sub-basins). 

The Powder sub-basin TMDL is in progress.

Special Habitats

A wide variety of special habitats occur across the Blue Mountains. Some of these habitats were 

officially designated as Management Areas as part of the original planning process. Other, 

undesignated habitats (such as cliffs, talus slopes, and wet areas) are considered unique and 

receive certain protections.

Riparian areas are also considered to be special habitats. Riparian areas across the Blue 

Mountains, as well as all other national forests within the Columbia River Basin, are afforded 

protection through interim management direction referred to as PACFISH and INFISH. 

Additional protection measures may have resulted from project-specific Endangered Species Act

consultations. The interpretation of habitat protection provided by PACFISH and INFISH varies 

between the three National Forests. In addition to providing habitat for fish populations, riparian 

areas also serve as travel corridors between old growth units for big game species.

Wildfire/Prescribed Fire

Acres burned by wildfire in the Blue Mountains have increased over the last 20 years when 

compared to totals prior to 1980. High severity wildfires within the warm, dry forest types have 

increased in both extent and severity when compared to estimated historic levels.

The use of fire managed for resource benefit has only occurred in a limited number of situations 

in wilderness areas across the three National Forests. Acres of natural fuel treatments are 

increasing. Acres of activity-related fuel treatment are decreasing and related to decreased timber 

harvest.

Recreation

National forests in the Blue Mountains provide a variety of recreation opportunities from highly 

developed downhill skiing facilities to remote wilderness. The recreation resources are described 

and managed in terms of recreation opportunities, using the recreation opportunity spectrum. The

recreation opportunity spectrum inventory identified five physical/social settings on the three 

national forests (see Table 48). Within the recreation opportunity spectrum settings, the national 

forests provide two principle types of recreation: developed recreation sites, in which activities 

are dependent on constructed facilities (such as recreational vehicle camping, downhill skiing, 

and recreation residences); and dispersed recreation, where the activities are not dependent on 

constructed facilities (such as hunting, fishing, and off-highway vehicle use).

Table 48. Acres of National Forest System lands in each recreation opportunity spectrum class

National 

Forest Primitive

Semiprimitive 

Nonmotorized

SemiPrimitive 

Motorized

Roaded 

Natural

Roaded 

Modified Rural

Malheur* 81,300 45,600 140,100 748,100 444,400 0

Umatilla 36,000 269,000 6,000 119,000 972,000 0

WallowaWhitman 590,815 269,000 260,200 985,600 242,100 1,500

* may not include Emigrant Creek Ranger District lands formerly administered by the Ochoco National Forest.
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

173

Developed Recreation Sites

Facility infrastructure continues to have a backlog of deferred maintenance needs. Sites are 

slowly coming into conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act standards. Capital

improvement projects have upgraded some high use sites and agreements with other recreation

providers and volunteer groups have resulted in improved sites at many locations.

The Oregon State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (State of Oregon 2003) survey

specifically identified two major developed facility-related issues in this planning region of 

Oregon. Funding priorities established in the report were for major rehabilitation of outdoor 

recreation facilities (paving, off-highway vehicle areas, watchable wildlife areas, and 

accessibility), and for winter recreation facilities (snow parks, snowmobile parking, trail shelters, 

and winter recreational vehicle parking).

The October 2002 Assessment of Outdoor Recreation in Washington State (Eychaner 2002) 

reported that a growing demand is resulting in more reported crowding, increased specialization, 

increased user conflicts, and increased management actions to limit adverse impacts to access and 

activities.

The top five most popular activities across the Blue Mountains involve developed facilities 

according to the 2003 National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys. Developed campgrounds and 

picnic areas remain popular, as are developed fishing sites. In some of the developed sites, a few 

visitors had the overall impression that the site was crowded, but it was not a prevailing issue 

with those surveyed. The demographic results from the National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys 

indicate that the “average visitor” to the Blue Mountain national forests is: male (77 percent), 

between 41 and 60 years old (45 percent), and white (97 percent). The vast majority of visitors 

come from counties contiguous to the national forest boundaries, about 38 percent of them stay 

overnight on the national forests, and the average length of their stay is 31 hours. The national 

forests serve as “backyards” to moderate population areas for activities that are not often 

available in the private sector (viewing scenery and wildlife, developed and primitive camping, 

hiking, and walking).

Dispersed Camping

In the current Forest Plans, uses allowed within the Management Area guidelines are specific to 

the intensity of development within the Management Area itself. Summer and winter motorized 

use is increasing. Winter activity takes place largely on trail systems. The off-highway vehicle 

section below also discusses this growing segment of recreation use.

The national forests are the primary provider nationwide of dispersed recreation opportunities

(National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 1999-2002 (USDA 2003)). Potential 

activities that take place on national forest lands (that have not been previously discussed) where 

the Forest Service is most likely the “primary provider” include: rustic motorized and 

nonmotorized camping, hunting, viewing scenery and wildlife, nature study, orienteering, 

geocaching, “hanging out and relaxing,” fishing, gathering forest products, hang gliding, 

parasailing and paragliding, and target shooting.

Nature and natural settings play an important role in many activities by category and type. There 

is a high participation in observing and photographing the outdoors, especially wildlife, as well as

continued participation in nature-dependent activities like hunting and fishing, all of which 

indicate the importance of preserving habitat for fish and wildlife.
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

174

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

Since 1989, off-highway vehicle use of national forests has changed dramatically. This overall 

increased use is also occurring across the Blue Mountains. Factors such as an increase in 

recreationists with more disposable income, advanced technologies and abilities for off-highway 

vehicles, and an aging population, has led to an increase in use. However, not all off-highway 

vehicle users are pursuing recreational activities, and use is not limited to roads and trails. The 

traditional high use periods of mid-summer and early fall have also been expanded due to 

increased hunting seasons and riders using the machines for new activities. Some general user 

categories and uses are:

Variety of Users:

• Hunters – estimated to be more than 75 percent of tri-forest users

• Trail and road riders – families, individuals, and small groups.

• Cross-country users – explorers, antler hunters, and mushroom pickers

• Forest Service permittees and adjacent landowners

• Organized clubs and events riders

• State and federal administrative use

• Extreme riders – less than 1 percent

Variety of Uses:

• Cross-country travel – exploring, retrieving game, hunting sheds, and picking berries

• Long distance routes – long day loops

• Family recreation – short rides and loops; “tot lots” and play areas.

• Personal challenges – hill climbing, rugged terrain, variety and difficulty of trails.

• Permit related – fence maintenance, utility corridor inspection, Forest Service surveys 

and monitoring

• Adjacent property and home related use – short trips to visit neighbors, or going to local

markets.

Variety of Seasons:

• Spring - Winter: hunting

• Summer: vacation and leisure-time use

• Year-round: local resident use

Wilderness Areas (Existing and Potential)

The table below shows the amount and distribution of existing wilderness areas across the Blue 

Mountain national forests. According to the 2001 Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Report 

(USDA 2002), most of the monitoring has been field observations. On the Malheur National 

Forest, “violations of wilderness rules and regulations were minimal, the pristine area maintained 

its character, the primitive area retained its characteristics and met the management objectives” 

for both Monument Rock and Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Areas (USDA 2002). The 

Umatilla National Forest reports state that “...the amount of nonconforming use is at a low

enough level that wilderness values are not being damaged.” Wilderness standards are being met

for the Wenaha-Tucannon, North Fork John Day, and North Fork Umatilla Wilderness Areas on 

the Umatilla National Forest. For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, monitoring for the 

Eagle Cap and Hells Canyon Wilderness Areas was inconclusive for determining if the wilderness 

is being managed according to management direction and provisions of the Wilderness Act. 

Minimum maintenance is done on trails within the Baldy Creek unit of the North Fork John Day 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

175

Wilderness, and nonconforming uses include all-terrain vehicles and mountain bike 

encroachment. Within the Wallowa-Whitman portion of the Monument Rock Wilderness, all of 

the trails were maintained; however, Forest Service presence was minimal during the visitor use 

season.

Table 49. Designated wilderness areas by national forest 

National Forest Acres of Wilderness Areas 

(percent of national forest)

Malheur 81,970 (2%)

Umatilla 304,925 (22%)

Wallowa-Whitman* 585,781 (24%)

Total 972,676 (18%)

* Includes designated Wilderness in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Table 50 Potential wilderness areas by national forest in the Blue Mountains

National Forest National Forest 

(acres)

Number of 

Potential 

Wilderness Areas

Potential 

Wilderness Areas 

(acres)

Percent National 

Forest

Malheur 1,708,960 16 149,590 9%

Umatilla 1,403,920 24 297,240 21%

Wallowa-Whitman* 2,405,180 35 258,480 11%

Total 5,518,060 75 705,310 13%

* Includes potential wilderness in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area

Projections of Demand for Goods and Services

Timber

The timber supply and demand situation has changed dramatically during the past few decades. 

Since the early 1990s, Oregon counties in the Blue Mountains analysis area have experienced 

significant declines in timber harvest due to federal management changes intended to protect 

wildlife species and encourage the growth of older forests. These declines resulted in reduced 

timber volumes sold from the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests of the 

Blue Mountains area. Timber volume sold from these national forests in recent years has 

increased some, but has declined dramatically, from a high of almost 600 million board feet 

during the early 1990s to about 100 million board feet today.

Numerous primary wood processing plants have closed since the 1980s in the Blue Mountains 

region. For example, according to Ehinger (2012), 30 sawmills, 4 plywood plants, 3 veneer plants 

and 2 composite panel plants have closed since 1990 in the 17 Oregon counties east of the 

Cascade Crest. This has reduced log demand by about 1 billion board feet and resulted in the loss 

of about 3,800 direct manufacturing jobs.

Depending on supply and prices, demand for logs and fiber from the Blue Mountains region also 

involves at least 23 facilities outside of Eastern Oregon proper. These include 12 pulp/paper 

mills, most of them located along the Columbia or Snake Rivers, a charcoal briquette plant in 

Springfield, and 4 biomass energy producers (White City, Roseburg, Eugene and Lyons). Other 

non-Eastern Oregon purchasers include a post/pole operation in Idaho and a major firewood 

dealer in Lyons. Sawlogs are shipped at times to a reload facility in White City from Eastern 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

176

Oregon, and sawlogs and chips are trucked directly to two export facilities in Coos Bay on the 

coast as supply and market prices allow. A densified wood fuel plant in Cascade Locks (i.e., 

wood pellets and “bricks”) purchases fiber on occasion from Eastern Oregon, but only Douglasfir processing residuals (i.e., sawdust and shavings) (Swan et al. 2012).

The timber industry surrounding the national forests in the Blue Mountains has undergone 

significant declines in the past few decades. Solid-wood product prices will slightly rise, whereas, 

prices for paper and paperboard are expected to decline in real terms. These national level reports 

point to relatively stable supply-demand conditions. While this may be true nationally, it creates a 

problem locally. The stable end-product or output prices may mean that without advancements in 

wood processing technology, log prices may remain low and not induce investments for local log 

supply or increased imports. Without a sufficient and reliable supply of logs, it is likely there will 

be continued reductions in wood product processing capacity.

Range

Livestock grazing on the national forests in the Blue Mountains is an important use to the local 

ranching industry. Grazing on public lands contributes directly to livestock forage needs. In 2012, 

the counties in the Oregon portion of the plan revision area had about 40 percent of the total cattle 

and 18 percent of the total sheep inventory of the State (USDA National Agriculture Statistics 

Service). Grazing on national forest lands directly provided about three percent of the forage 

needs of the local cattle inventory. The total contribution of national forest grazing is likely 

greater since ranchers have the opportunity to grow forage on other ranch lands for feed.

Total annual forage production is estimated to be 600 million pounds on the Malheur, 350 million 

on the Umatilla, and 650 million pounds on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

The demand for forage from National Forest System lands is affected by the price that permittees 

have to pay for that forage. As long as that price approximates the appraised market value for that 

forage, the demand will remain high.

Wilderness

The following factors were summarized from the Blue Mountains wilderness need evaluation.

Use, Visitors, and Changing Patterns of Use

Currently, use of the Blue Mountains wilderness areas account for only a small part (8 percent) of 

the overall use on the Blue Mountains and even a smaller proportion (4 percent) of the use of 

national forest lands in the general vicinity. Use trend data suggests that aging populations and 

shifts in the type of activities younger people are interested in will result in a 2 to 8 percent 

increase in demand for activities over the next 15 years. This increase will primarily be in day use 

from nonwilderness areas. Current wilderness areas in the Blue Mountains reach capacity only in 

specific areas during brief high use periods.

Opportunities for Unconfined Outdoor Recreation Experiences

The Blue Mountains provide high potential opportunities for unconfined recreation experiences 

and solitude both regionally and locally. The social demand for unconfined experiences is related 

to general dispersed settings; it is not just specifically wilderness areas that provide both 

motorized and nonmotorized activities. Management direction in the Forest Plan will maintain 

many undeveloped areas where natural ecosystem processes predominate in both wilderness and 

nonwilderness settings.
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

177

Capacity of Designated Wilderness Areas to Support Human Use

Although there is a desire by some public for more wilderness areas across the Blue Mountains, 

there is not a social need to designate additional wilderness because the current wilderness areas 

are not exceeding capacity, except in site-specific locations on limited occasions. Alternative sites 

exist within and adjacent to these areas and within other wilderness areas in the Blue Mountains 

to accommodate visitor responses to these instances. Based on current uses, trends, primary 

market zones, demographic changes, crowding levels, visitor pressures, projected uses, existing 

opportunities for unconfined recreation, and social values, wilderness use is unlikely to exceed 

the capacity of the existing wilderness areas and is not likely to result in a need for more 

wilderness in the next 15 years.

Determination of the Potential to Resolve Public Issues and 

Management Concerns

The Forest Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests share many 

common issues and resource similarities. The Forest Service established one team, the Blue 

Mountains Forest Plan Revision Team, to revise the Forest Plan for the three national forests. 

There are several reasons for this collaboration:

• All three forest plans were approved in 1990;

• They share key issues, resources, customers, and interested entities; and

• Forest managers desire similar management across administrative boundaries.

Since June 2004, the Blue Mountains Revision Team has been working collaboratively with local 

communities to:

• Develop a vision for the future management of the national forests in the Blue 

Mountains,

• Create building blocks that will be used in the Revised Forest Plan,

• Identify what is not working in the 1990 Forest Plans, and

• Craft revision proposals.

The Blue Mountains Revision Team worked with State and county governments, Tribes, and 

resource advisory groups as co-conveners using the collaborative process. These groups have 

broad networks of contacts with expertise in land management planning, and have demonstrated 

that they can build partnerships, resolve conflicts, and find resolutions to existing problems, as 

well as to design mitigations for issues that could occur in the future.

Determination of the Need to Establish or Change 

Management Direction

Legal Requirement

The existing Forest Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are 

more than 20 years old. The National Forest Management Act of 1976 requires each national 

forest to revise its land and resource management plan every 10 to 15 years. Since 1990, 

economic, social, and ecological conditions have changed; new laws, regulations and policies are 

in place; and new information based on monitoring and scientific research is available. The 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

178

Malheur National Forest Plan was signed May 25, 1990 and has been amended 82 times since 

that date. The Umatilla National Forest Plan was signed June 11, 1990 and has been amended 34 

times since that date. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan was signed April 23, 1990 and 

has been amended 52 times since that date.

The analysis of the management situation that was developed in 2005 noted that forest plans are 

based on the concept of “Need for Change,” and provided several subsections that identified 

initial needs for change.

Provincial Consistency

The three forests share key issues, resources, customers, and interested publics. The three national 

forests need to work together to consider management of ecosystems across administrative 

boundaries and develop a more consistent management program. By working together and 

sharing personnel, services, budget, and experience, the overall efficiency and quality of the 

revision effort is expected to increase.

Appropriate blending of the three Forest Plans will lead to improved management, administration, 

and implementation consistency across the Blue Mountains. This will provide better service to 

constituents of the three national forests.

Changing Social Values

There have been many changes to society since the Forest Plans were approved in 1990. Changes 

are evident in population growth, recreation activities, land uses, and urban development. 

Changes are also evident in people’s values, attitudes, and beliefs regarding public lands. These 

human issues are one reason the 1990 Forest Plans need to be reviewed.

A description of many of the changes to the local communities and residents is found in Chapter 3 

of the Analysis of the Management Situation. An example of a changing social value is an 

increasing awareness and concern with linking stewardship activities to improve social and 

economic conditions of communities in the Blue Mountains while recognizing changes in the 

broader social context of a global economy. Another example is the widely varying values that 

people hold to describe what a balance of the social, economic, and environmental benefits from 

the national forests means to them.

Over the past 14 years, natural resource management activities have been planned and 

implemented in a way that emphasizes greater attention to collaborative involvement and 

decision-making. These efforts have increasingly changed how people expect to be involved in 

forest planning processes and how they expect to be able to contribute to integrating resource 

needs and meeting concerns through partnerships with the Forest Service.

Laws, Regulations, and Policy

Since the 1990 Forest Plans were finalized, there have also been many changes to the direction 

that guides natural resource management. This direction is found in laws; regulations that 

implement laws; Forest Service directives (Manuals and Handbooks); and internal agency policy. 

Internal policy comes to forests through letters from the Chief of the Forest Service and from 

Regional Foresters. Also refer to the following section titled “Evolving Agency Direction since 

Forest Plans were Adopted” for additional information.

As outlined in previous sections of this document, numerous new policies have been put into 

effect since the 1990 Forest Plans were adopted. These include, but are not limited to: the 
Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

179

Roadless Area Conservation Rule, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDA/USDI 

1995 and 2003); the Roads Rule and Policy as well as the interim direction known as PACFISH, 

INFISH, and the Eastside Screens, which amended the 1990 Forest Plans. In addition, there have 

been numerous court decisions that identify and interpret the implementation of some of the 

above laws regulations, and policies.

Science Developments

In the past decade, there have been many scientific studies and assessments that address land

management issues applicable to the Blue Mountains. Such developments include, but are not 

limited to the Integrated Scientific Assessment for Ecosystem Management in the Interior 

Columbia Basin (Quigley 1996), Forest Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Reports, other scientific 

publications, and studies. Management of threatened and endangered or old growth-dependent 

species needs are examples of the changes that occur in Forest Plan direction as a result of 

scientific study or assessments.

In addition, analytical models and data used in models have changed and improved in recent 

years. New modeling techniques and new data sources will be used in this plan revision. 

Improved analysis and data should also result in revised estimates of outputs and outcomes that 

are realistic and attainable. Each revision topic in the Current Management Situation Report and 

future documents will cite specific sources of scientific information that is used in the planning 

analysis.

Agency Direction

Since the current Forest Plans were adopted, the Forest Service’s policy and resource 

management direction has continued to evolve. Much of the analysis that will be done through the 

Forest Plan revision will be based upon an understanding of the sustainable interrelationships and 

processes involved in protecting ecosystems and managing for multiple-uses.

Recent Listings under the Endangered Species Act

In 1990, when the Forest Plans were implemented, there were two birds (bald eagle, peregrine 

falcon) and one plant (MacFarlane’s four o’clock) listed as threatened or endangered species 

within the Blue Mountains. Since 1990, several other species and their critical habitats have been 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (see the Aquatic Species Diversity and Viability section 

in Chapter 3 of the final Environmental Impact Statement for a list of current threatened and 

endangered species on the three national forests).
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

180

Glossary and Acronyms

Many definitions in this glossary are from the following sources. Some definitions are in general 

use within the Forest Service. Terms adequately defined in general dictionaries are not necessarily 

included, though some of those that are less well known are included for the convenience of the 

reader.

Partial Source List

• National Forest Management Act Regulations ([1982] 36 CFR 219)

• Dictionary of Forestry (Helms 1998)

• Wildland Planning Glossary (USDA Forest Service 1976)

• Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington 

(Thomas 1979)

• Forest Service Manual or Forest Service Handbook

• A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management, Second Edition (Society for Range 

Management 1974)

• Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDA and USDI 1997)

• Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 1990)

• Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDA and USDI 2000a)

• Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (USDA and USDI 2000b)

• A Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (Lincoln et al. 1982)

• Webster’s Dictionary

• Hells Canyon National Research Area Public Land Use Regulations (36 CFR 292.41)

• Hells Canyon National Research Area Private Land Use Regulations (36 CFR 292.21)

A

active management: Planned, intentional actions in an area that are specifically designed to 

obtain a desired objective or result.

active restoration: Refer to restoration.

activity unit: An area on which one or more activities occurs. Activity units may be analogous to 

stand or timber sale harvest unit (polygon). An activity unit can be a polygon (acres), line (miles) 

or point (each) geospatial feature.

adaptive management: An approach to natural resource management in which decisions are 

made as part of an ongoing process. Adaptive management involves planning, implementing, 

monitoring, evaluating, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches based on 

scientific findings and the needs of society. Effects are monitored for the purpose of learning and 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

181

adjusting future management actions, which improves the efficiency and responsiveness of 

management.

administrative site: Areas such as work centers, fire lookouts, permitted ranch headquarters, 

seed orchards, communication sites, utility corridors, and other areas that are occupied or used by 

the Forest Service during the administration of work associated with national forest lands.

air pollutant: Any substance in air that could, if in high enough concentration, harm humans, 

animals, vegetation, or material. Air pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial matter 

capable of being airborne, in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or a combination 

of these.

air quality: The composition of air with respect to quantities of pollution therein, used most 

frequently in connection with standards of maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations.

allotment (grazing): Area designated for the use of a certain number and kind of livestock 

grazing for a prescribed period.

allotment management plan (AMP): A document that specifies the actions from a NEPA 

decision to be taken to manage and protect the rangeland resources and reach a given set of 

objectives.

allowable sale quantity (ASQ): The quantity of timber that may be sold from the area of suitable 

land covered by the Forest Plan for a time period specified by the Plan. This quantity is usually 

expressed on an annual basis as the average “annual allowable sale quantity.”

anadromous fish: Fish that hatch in fresh water, migrate to the ocean, mature there, and return to 

fresh water to reproduce; for example, salmon and steelhead.

animal unit: One mature cow of approximately 1,000 pounds, either dry or with calf up to 6 

months of age, or the equivalent (one horse, five domestic sheep). This concept is based on a 

standardized amount of forage consumed.

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one mature (1,000 lb.) cow or its 

equivalent for one month (based upon average forage consumption of 26 lb. of dry matter per 

day). Refer to head month.

aquatic: Pertaining to water.

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS): A regional strategy designed to restore 

and maintain the processes that create and maintain conditions in aquatic ecosystems on national 

forest lands in Oregon and Washington.

aquatic ecosystem: Waters that serve as habitat for interrelated and interacting communities and 

populations of plants and animals. The stream channel, lake or estuary bed, water, biotic 

communities and the habitat features that occur therein.

assessment: The collection, integration, examination, and evaluation of information and values.

B

basalt: A finely or fine grained, dark, dense volcanic rock.

basin (river): (1) In general, the area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials 

to a common point along a stream channel. River basins are composed of large river systems; (2) 

in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), a 3rd-field hydrologic unit denoted by a six-digit 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

182

number (HU6, formerly HUC3), or three two-digit numeric fields. For example, 17 is the numeric 

code for the Columbia hydrologic region, 1702 represents the Middle Columbia sub-region, and 

170702 is the numeric code for the John Day basin. In the Columbia Region, basin areas range 

from 2.6 to 20.8 million acres and average 8.2 million acres in size. See also: subbasin, 

watershed, and subwatershed.

benches: Mid-elevation flat or gently sloping sites. Grazing and homesteading/ranching activities 

were concentrated in these areas, which were also used by American Indians for pasturing 

livestock. Benches from 2,000 to 4,500 feet generally have potential to support the bunchgrass 

associations described for the lower and mid-position slopes. Cheatgrass brome, Kentucky 

bluegrass, and an assortment of annual and perennial forbs (including some noxious weeds) 

dominate much of the benchland, some of which was severely disturbed by early farming and 

ranching activities.

beneficial uses: Any of the various uses which may be made of the water, including, but not 

limited to, domestic water supplies, fisheries and other aquatic life, industrial water supplies, 

agricultural water supplies, navigation, recreation in and on the water, wildlife habitat, and 

aesthetics.

best management practices (BMPs): Practice or set of practices that enable a planned activity to 

occur while still protecting the resource managed, normally implemented and applied during the 

activity rather than after the activity.

best management practices (BMPs) (Watershed): A practice or a combination of practices, that 

is determined by the state (or designated area-wide planning agency) after problem assessment, 

examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective, 

practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of 

preventing, or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level 

compatible with water quality goals.

big game: Those species of large mammals normally managed as a sport hunting resource. 

Generally includes; elk, moose, white-tailed deer, mule deer, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, black 

bear and mountain lion.

biological diversity (biodiversity): The variety and variability among living organisms and the 

ecological complexes in which they occur.

biophysical: The combination or grouping of biological and physical components in an 

ecosystem.

biotic: Living.

biomass: Dry weight of organic matter in plants and animals in an ecosystem, both above and 

below ground.

board-foot: A specialized unit of measure for the volume of rough-sawn lumber and timber in the 

United States and Canada. It is the volume of a one-foot length of a board one foot wide and one 

inch thick. It is commonly abbreviated BF. Thousand board-feet can be abbreviated MBF. 

Similarly, million board-feet can be abbreviated MMBF.

boreal: Pertaining to cool or cold temperature regions of the northern hemisphere; the northern 

coniferous zone.

broad scale: A large, regional area, such as an entire river basin and typically a multi-state area.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

183

browse: That part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): An agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior 

with land management responsibility for the public domain lands.

C

candidate species: Plant and animal species that may be proposed for listing as endangered or 

threatened in the future by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NFMS); these species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA).

canopy: In a forest, the branches from the uppermost layer of trees; on rangeland, the vertical 

projection downward of the aerial portion of vegetation.

canopy cover: The proportion of the forest floor covered by the vertical projection of the tree 

crowns (Jennings et al. 1999).

capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and 

allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices and at a given level of 

management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as 

climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices, 

such as silviculture or protection from fire, insects, and disease.

carrying capacity: The number of animals or plants that can be maintained over a specific period 

of time on a specified amount of land without damage to either the organisms or the habitat.

cavity: The hollow excavated in a tree that is used by birds or mammals for roosting and/or 

reproduction.

ceded lands: Lands that American Indian Tribes ceded to the United States by treaty in exchange 

for reservation of specific land and resource rights, annuities, and other promises in the treaties.

channel (stream): The deepest part of a stream or riverbed through which the main current of 

water flows.

channel morphology: The dimension (width, depth), shape and pattern (sinuous, meandering, 

straight) of a stream channel.

coarse woody material: Pieces of woody material derived from tree limbs, boles, and roots in 

various stages of decay, having a diameter of at least three inches.

co-conveners: A group of participating county commissioners from within the Planning Area that 

have served as co-meeting managers for the land management plan revision process and assisted 

in coordinating the public involvement processes and community collaborative workshops.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): A codification of the general and permanent rules 

published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal 

government.

cold upland forest: Forests occurring at moderate or high elevations in the subalpine zone 

characterized by cold, wet winters, and mild, relatively cool and dry summers. Late successional 

stands are typically dominated by subalpine fir, grand fir, Engelmann spruce, whitebark pine and 

lodgepole pine. Whitebark pine, lodgepole pine and western larch are more common as early 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

184

successional species, but they often persist in older stands. Cold upland forests are adjoined by a 

treeless alpine zone at their upper edge (often separated by a narrow zone of dwarf or krummholz 

trees), and by moist upland forests at their lower elevation transition boundary.

collaboration: Working together; to cooperate willingly with an agency or instrumentality with 

which one is not immediately connected.

commercial thinning: Any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the 

value of the direct costs of harvesting.

community resiliency: The ability of communities to adapt to changing ecological, social, and 

economic conditions.

compaction: Making soil hard and dense and decreasing its ability to support vegetation because 

the soil can hold less water and air and because roots have trouble penetrating the soil.

compatible: Capable of existing together in harmony.

comprehensive management plan (CMP): The document that establishes the array, levels, and 

manner of resource uses within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area on the WallowaWhitman National Forest. It was incorporated as a part of the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman Land and 

Resource Management Plan, and will be incorporated unchanged into the revised WallowaWhitman Forest Plan.

connectivity: The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation. Connectivity is the opposite of fragmentation.

conservation strategy or agreement: Plans to remove or reduce threats to candidate and 

sensitive species of plants and animals so that a listing as threatened or endangered is 

unnecessary.

consultation: (1) An active, affirmative process that (a) identifies issues and seeks input from 

appropriate American Indian governments, community groups, and individuals; and (b) considers 

their interests as a necessary and integral part of the Forest Service’s decision-making process; (2) 

the federal government has a legal obligation to consult with American Indian Tribes. This legal 

obligation is based in such laws as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 

the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and numerous other executive orders and statutes. 

This legal responsibility is, through consultation, to consider Indian interests and account for 

those interests in the decision; (3) the term also refers to a requirement under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act for Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries with regard to federal actions 

that may affect listed threatened and endangered species or critical habitat.

core area: The combination of core habitat (i.e., habitat that could supply all elements for the 

long-term security of species of conservation concern) and a core population (a group of one or 

more local populations that exist within core habitat) constitutes the basic unit on which to gauge 

recovery within a recovery unit. Core areas require both habitat and the species of conservation 

concern, and the number (replication) and characteristics of local populations inhabiting a core 

area provide a relative indication of the core area’s likelihood to persist. A core area represents 

the closest approximation of a biologically functioning unit.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

185

corridor: A tract of land forming a passageway. Can refer to areas of wildlife movement, 

boundaries along rivers, or the present or future location of transportation or utility rights-of-way 

within its boundaries.

cover: (1) Trees, shrubs, rocks, or other landscape features that allow an animal to conceal itself 

partly or fully for protection from predators, or to ameliorate conditions of weather, or in which to 

reproduce; (2) the area of ground covered by plants of one or more species.

cover type: A category or classification of vegetation defined primarily by its vegetation species 

composition. Cover type is typically depicted in terms of a genus, species, group of species, or 

life form of tree, shrub, grass, or sedge of an area.

crown: The part of a tree containing live foliage; treetops.

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) (see also mean annual increment): The 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth is the age in the growth cycle of an even-aged 

stand at which the average annual rate of increase of volume is at a maximum. In land 

management plans, mean annual increment is expressed in cubic measure and is based on the 

expected growth of stands, according to intensities and utilization guidelines in the Plan.

culture: The ideals, values, and beliefs that members of a society share to interpret experience 

and generate behavior that is reflected by their work and thought (Haviland 2002).

cultural resources: An object or definite location of human activity, occupation, or use 

identifiable through field survey, historical documentation, or oral evidence. Cultural resources 

are prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or architectural sites, structures, places, or objects and 

traditional cultural properties. Cultural resources include the entire spectrum of resources for 

which the Heritage Program is responsible, from artifacts to cultural landscapes, without regard to 

eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places

cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effects or impacts are the impacts on the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or 

nonfederal) or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Effects and impact 

are synonymous (40 CFR 1508.7).

D

decommission (building): Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration and/or disposal of a 

deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. This 

action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an asset or 

component may remain if they do not cause problems nor require maintenance.

decommission (road): Permanently closing a road to vehicular use and left in a hydrological 

maintenance free condition. Decommissioning will include activities such as water barring, out 

sloping, recontouring, decompaction of road surface, removal of drainage structures, and road 

barricades as needed.

defensible space: An area surrounding a home or structure that has vegetation characteristics that 

minimize the spread of wildland fire and allows for safely defending the home against fire.

deferred maintenance: Maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or when 

it was scheduled and which, therefore, was put off or delayed for a future period. When allowed 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

186

to accumulate without limits or consideration of useful life, deferred maintenance leads to 

deterioration of performance, increased costs to repair, and decrease in asset value. Deferred 

maintenance needs may be categorized as critical or noncritical at any point in time. Continued 

deferral of noncritical maintenance will normally result in an increase in critical deferred 

maintenance. Code compliance (such as safety, Americans with Disabilities Act, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration, or environmental), plan direction, best management practices, 

biological evaluations other regulatory or executive order compliance requirements, or applicable 

standards not met on schedule are considered deferred maintenance.

density (stand): An absolute measure of the degree to which an area is occupied by trees and, 

hence the intensity by which trees are competing for site resources, usually expressed in terms of 

trees per acre or basal area per acre (Tappeiner 2007).

departure (ecological): The degree of difference between existing ecological conditions and the 

desired range of conditions.

departure (sale schedule): A sale schedule that deviates from the principle of nondeclining flow 

by exhibiting a planned decrease in the sale schedule at any time during the planning horizon. A 

departure is characterized by a temporary increase, usually in the beginning decade(s) of the 

planning horizon, over the base sale schedule originally established. This increase does not impair 

the future attainment of desired conditions or the long-term sustained yield capacity.

design criteria: Part Three of the land management plan that provides the parameters, including 

guidelines, for how future site-specific activities can occur within the context of the Plan.

designated critical habitat: Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species at 

the time of listing under Endangered Species Act that contain physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the species.

desired condition: A desired condition is a description of specific social, economic, or ecological

characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the 

land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are 

specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not include 

completion dates.

detrimental soil disturbance: A term used by soil scientists to indicate how much adverse soilmovement has occurred in an area following an event or a managed activity. The level of 

disturbance (considered to be a negative impact) is referred to in four erosion hazard classes: low, 

medium, high, and very high. The differences between the levels depends upon many subjective 

visual observations soil scientists have been trained to make during site surveys. These include: 

1) the amount of topsoils buried beneath subsoils, 

2) the redistribution of soil orders and whether or not nutrients needed for plant growth are 

lost,

3) the amount of vegetation left remaining on and in the soil, 

4) how slope, aspect, and hydrology are altered, and 

5) whether the disturbance is further impacted by compaction, or other landform changes 

(i.e., bank failure, landslides, etc.).
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

187

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that in turn result in concentrated use of 

an area; for example, a campground. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds 

and ski areas; facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, 

drinking water, ski lifts, and buildings.

developed site: Facility provided for developed recreation use. Refer to facilities.

diameter at breast height (d.b.h.): A standard method of expressing the diameter of the bole of a 

standing tree, measured at 4.5 feet from the ground.

disease: A harmful deviation from normal functioning of physiological processes, usually 

pathogenic or abiotic in origin.

disjunct: Populations that are separated geographically from the main distribution of a species. 

Many plants with disjunct populations are biologically unique because they are not found again 

for dozens to over one hundred miles. Disjunct populations are thus rare in this portion of their 

distribution.

dispersed (recreation): Recreation that does not occur in a developed recreation site; for 

example, hunting or backpacking.

dispersed campsites: Primitive sites typically used for overnight, dispersed recreation. Usually 

includes a hardened area around a fire pit, a barren area, and/or user-constructed facility.

displacement: Recreation visits are considered “displaced” or no longer consumed at a site or 

area when practical maximum capacity thresholds of the site or area are exceeded. Visitors are 

assumed to completely leave the national forest rather than seek an alternative location for their 

activity.

disturbance: Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, watershed, 

community, or species population structure and/or function and changes resources, substrate 

availability, or the physical environment. Natural disturbances include, among others, drought, 

floods, wind, fires, volcanic eruptions, and insects and diseases. Human caused disturbances 

include, among others, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and prescribed burning.

disturbance regime: A description of the characteristic types of disturbance on a given 

landscape; the frequency, severity, and size distribution of these characteristic disturbance types; 

and their interactions. Disturbance regime refers to the spatial and temporal dynamics of 

disturbances over a longer time period.

diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

dry upland forest: Forests generally occurring at low to moderate elevations in the montane 

vegetation zone, characterized by warm, dry summers, with warm to hot daytime temperatures 

and cool nighttime temperatures, and cold, wet winters. Late-seral stands are dominated by 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir or grand fir. Ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir will also be found as 

cover types in early and mid-seral successional stages. Dry forests generally begin where the 

lower elevation woodlands and shrublands begin to transition into higher sites capable of carrying 

more substantial forest cover. The moist upland forests form their upper elevation transition 

boundary.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

188

E

early seral: see succession.

Eastside Screens: Regional Forester’s Amendment #2, Interim management direction 

establishing riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife standards for timber sales on National Forest 

System lands in eastern Oregon and Washington (USDA Forest Service 1995c).

ecological function: Refer to ecological processes.

ecological integrity: The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological 

characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species 

composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variability and can withstand and 

recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence. 

(36 CFR 219.19).

ecological processes: The flow and cycling of energy, materials, and organisms in an ecosystem. 

Examples of ecosystem processes include the carbon and hydrologic cycles, terrestrial and 

aquatic food webs, and plant succession, among others.

economics: A social science concerned primarily with description, distribution, and consumption 

of goods and services.

economic well-being: A condition that enables people to work, provide income for their families, 

and generate economic wealth to local communities, the region, and the nation.

economy: System of production, distribution, and consumption of economic goods.

ecosystem: A complete, interacting system of living organisms and the land and water that make 

up their environment; the home places of all living things, including humans.

ecosystem diversity: The variety and relative extent of ecosystem types, including their 

composition, structure, and processes within all or a part of an area of analysis.

ecosystem management: The use of an ecological approach to achieve multiple-use management 

of public lands by blending the needs of people and environmental values in such a way that 

lands represent diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.

ecosystem function (processes): The major process of ecosystems that regulate or influence the 

structure, composition, and pattern. These include nutrient cycles, energy flows, trophic levels 

(food chains), diversity patterns in time/space development and evolution, cybernetics (control), 

hydrologic cycles and weathering processes.

ecosystem health: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over 

time and where the system’s capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, 

values, and services of the ecosystem are met.

ecosystem services: The combined resources and processes of natural ecosystems that provide 

benefit to humans, including, but not limited to, the production of food and water, the control of 

climate and disease, cycling of nutrients and crop pollination, spiritual and recreational benefits, 

and the preservation or maintenance of biodiversity.

ecosystem sustainability: The ability to sustain diversity, productivity, resilience to stress, 

health, renewability and/or yield of desired values, resource uses, products, or services from an 

ecosystem, while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem over time.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

189

edge: An area where plant communities meet or where successional stages or vegetation

conditions within the plant communities come together.

effects: Environmental changes resulting from an action. Included are direct effects, which are 

caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused 

by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably 

foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth–inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects 

on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. Effects include ecological 

(such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of 

affected ecosystems), aesthetic quality, historic, cultural, economic, social, or healthy effects, 

whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions that 

may have both beneficial and detrimental effects even if on balance the agency believes that the 

effects will be beneficial (40 CFR 1508.8, 2).

eligible wild and scenic rivers: River segments that have been identified as eligible for inclusion 

in the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. The river segment must be free-flowing and it must possess one or more outstandingly 

remarkable scenic, recreational, geological, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, ecological or 

other value.

elk security: Effective security for elk includes non-linear areas that are greater than one-half mile 

from open motorized routes and at least 250 acres in size (Hillis et al. 1991).

emission: A release of air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere.

endangered species: Species listed under the Endangered Species Act by either the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Any species of animal or plant that is 

in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

endemic: Occurring naturally in a certain region and distribution. Populations nearly always 

present, often remaining at low levels, and causing little management concern. Endemism is the 

occurrence of endemic species in an area.

environmental assessment (EA): A comprehensive evaluation of actions and their predictable 

short– and long–term environmental effects, which include physical, biological, economic, social, 

and environmental design factors and their interactions. It is a formal document that must follow 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Council on Environmental 

Quality, and guidelines and directives of the agency responsible for the project proposal.

environmental impact statement (EIS): A statement of the environmental effects of a proposed 

action and alternatives to it. It is required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment 

and review. A draft Environmental Impact Statement is released to the public and other agencies 

for review and comment. A final Environmental Impact Statement is issued after consideration of 

public comments. A record of decision is based on the information and analysis in the final 

Environmental Impact Statement.

ephemeral: A channel in which streamflow occurs inconsistently, infrequently, or seasonally and, 

except during periods of streamflow, does not intersect the local groundwater table.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

190

erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, gravity, or other 

geological activities; can be accelerated or intensified by human activities that reduce the stability 

of slopes or soils.

essential fish habitat: Identification by the National Marine Fisheries Service of habitat essential 

to conserve and enhance federal fishery resources that are fished commercially under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

evaluation: An essential companion activity to monitoring; the tool for translating data gathered 

by monitoring into useful information that could result in change or adaptive management.

even-aged management: The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation 

of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed even-aged forests are 

characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and, therefore, tree sizes) throughout the 

forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy level of a stand usually 

does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. Regeneration in a 

particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time that a stand has reached the 

desired age or size for regeneration and is harvested. Clearcut, shelterwood, seed tree, or coppice 

regeneration cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

extirpation: Loss of populations from all or part of a species’ range within a specified area.

F

facility: A single or contiguous group of improvements that exists to shelter or to support Forest 

Service programs. The term may be used in either a broad or narrow context; for example, a 

facility may be a ranger station compound, lookout tower, leased office, work center, separate

housing area, visitor center, research laboratory, recreation complex, utility system, or 

telecommunications site.

upgrade: Total redesign and construction of a camping facility. Location may change 

considerably depending on ecological, environmental, or social concerns. The overall goal 

would be to maintain a rustic appearance but promote designs and materials that would result 

in lower operation and maintenance costs. Some campground classifications may change to 

the next higher level but none would exceed a Level 4 site development for this planning 

period. Accessibility standards would be appropriate to the designated recreation opportunity 

spectrum. A change in design standards has the potential to move the recreation opportunity 

spectrum to a higher development setting although that is not the intent of upgrading a 

facility.

facilities maintenance (annual): Work performed to maintain serviceability, or repair failures 

during the year in which they occur. Includes preventive and/or cyclic maintenance performed in 

the year in which it is scheduled to occur. Unscheduled or catastrophic failures of components or 

assets may need repaired as a part of annual maintenance.

facilities maintenance (deferred): Work that was not performed when it should have been or 

when it was scheduled and has been delayed to a future period. Deferred maintenance includes 

actions not taken to comply with codes for health and safety, accessibility, environmental factors 

and other compliance requirements or applicable standards. To reduce or eliminate deferred 

maintenance, rehabilitation or replacement may be necessary.

rehabilitation: Renovation or restoration of an existing fixed asset or any of its components 

in order to restore the functionality or life of the asset. Because there is no significant 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

191

expansion or change of purpose for the fixed asset, the work primarily addresses deferred 

maintenance.

replacement: Substitution or exchange of an existing fixed asset or component with one 

having essentially the same capacity and purpose.

decommission: Demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration, and/or disposal of a 

deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. 

This action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an asset 

or component may remain if they do not cause problems nor require maintenance.

fauna: The vertebrate and invertebrate animals of an area or region.

federally listed species: Species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

fine-scale: A generally high level of landscape resolution involving greater levels of detail and 

relatively small areas. 

fire cycle, fire frequency: Refer to fire return interval.

fire-dependent systems: Forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems historically composed of 

species of plants that evolved with and are maintained by fire regimes.

fire intensity: The energy output from a fire or the amount of energy or heat released per unit of 

time; can be expressed as reaction intensity, fireline intensity, temperature, heating duration, or 

radiant energy

fire regime: The characteristics of fire in a given ecosystem, such as the frequency, predictability, 

intensity, and seasonality of fire. A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire 

would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention but 

including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993; Brown 1995). Coarse-scale definitions 

for natural fire regimes were developed by Hardy and others (2001) and Schmidt and others 

(2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five 

natural fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years between fires (fire 

frequency or Mean Fire Interval [MFI]) combined with the severity of the fire (the amount of 

vegetation replacement) and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation. These five natural 

fire regimes are as follows:

fire regime I: 0- to 35-year frequency and of low severity (most commonly associated with 

surface fires) to mixed severity (in which less than 75 percent of the dominant overstory 

vegetation is replaced).

fire regime II: 0- to 35-year frequency and of high severity (stand replacement: greater than 

75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation is replaced).

fire regime III: 35 to 200-year frequency and of mixed severity.

fire regime IV: 35- to 200-year frequency and of high severity.

fire regime V: 200-year-plus frequency and of high severity.

fire regime condition class: A classification of the degree of departure from the natural fire 

regime. The fire regime condition class classification is based on a relative measure describing 

the degree of departure from the historical natural fire regime. This departure can result in 

changes (or risks) to one, or more, of the following ecological components: vegetation (species 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

192

composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy cover, and mosaic pattern across the landscape); 

fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances.

condition class 1: Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of losing 

key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, structure, and 

pattern) are intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range.

condition class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) 

range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This 

result in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity,

and landscape patterns. Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from their 

natural (historical) range.

condition class 3: Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) 

range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed 

from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more 

of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes 

have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range.

fire severity: Degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; loosely, a product of 

fire intensity and residence time.

• Low-severity fire, meaning less than 25 percent average vegetation top-kill

• Mixed -severity fire, meaning greater than 25 and less than 75 percent average vegetation 

top-kill

• High-severity fire, meaning greater than 75 percent average vegetation top-kill

fire suppression: All work and activities connected with fire-extinguishing operation, beginning 

with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.

fish-producing: Streams, rivers, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and reservoirs that serve as spawning or 

rearing habitat for fish.

fledgling: A young bird that has acquired the feathers necessary for flight.

floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat areas joining inland and coastal waters including 

debris cones and flood-prone areas of off-shore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject 

to a one percent (100-year recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year (Executive 

Order 11988, Section 6c); or the area of relatively flat land adjacent to streams that is inundated 

during times of high flow; or an area formed by the deposition of stream-transported sediment.

floodplain function: Collectively, the normal physical and biological processes that are 

responsible for the formation and maintenance of river floodplains and the biotic communities 

that inhabit them.

flow regime: The range of magnitude, duration, timing and frequency of stream flow 

characteristics of a given stream.

focal species: A small subset of species whose status permits inference to the integrity of the 

larger ecological system to which it belongs and provides meaningful information regarding the 

effectiveness of the Plan in maintaining or restoring the ecological conditions to maintain the 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

193

diversity of plant and animal communities in the Plan Area. Focal species would be commonly 

selected on the basis of their functional role in ecosystems.

food web: Networks of food chains or feeding relationships by which energy and nutrients are 

passed from one group of living organisms to another.

forb: Broad-leafed, herbaceous, nongrass-like plant species other than true grasses, sedges, and 

non–woody plants; fleshy leafed plants; having little or no woody material.

forage: All browse and herbaceous foods that are available to grazing animals. It may be grazed 

or harvested for feeding. Refer to rangeland vegetation.

forest land: Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had 

such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for non-forest 

use include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved roads 

of any width, and adjoining road clearing and powerline clearing of any width.

forest roads: Any road wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the national forest and 

which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the national forests and 

the use and development of its resources (23 USC 101).

Forest Service Handbook (FSH): Directives that provide detailed instructions on how to 

proceed with a specialized phase of a program or activity.

Forest Service Manual (FSM): A system of manuals that provides direction for Forest Service 

activities.

fragmentation (habitat): The break-up of a large continuous land area by reducing and dividing 

into smaller patches isolated by areas converted to a different land type. Habitat can be 

fragmented by natural events or development activities.

fragmentation (forest): The breakup of a large land forest area into smaller patches isolated by 

areas converted to a different land type. Opposite of connectivity.

free-flowing: A river or stream that exists or flows in natural condition without impoundment, 

diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway (16 U.S.C. §1286).

fuel: Plants or plant parts, both living and dead, capable of burning.

fuel load: The dry weight of combustible forest fuels per unit area; usually expressed as tons per 

acre.

fuel treatment: Any forest vegetation treatment which alters the continuity, rearranges, or 

removes forest fuels primarily for the purpose of modifying potential fire behavior and/or 

lessening resistance to control tactics.

functioning-at-risk: Riparian-wetland areas that are in functional condition but an existing soil, 

water, or vegetation attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

G

geographic information system (GIS): An information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display data; a system of computer maps with corresponding sitespecific information that can be combined electronically to provide reports and maps.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

194

geologic: Based on geology which is the study of the structure, processes, and chronology of the 

earth.

geological/geomorphic process: The actions or events that shape and control the distribution of 

materials, their states, and their morphology, within the interior and on the surface of the earth. 

Examples of geologic processes include: volcanism, glaciation, streamflow, metamorphism 

(partial melting of rocks), and landsliding.

goal: Goals are broad statements of intent, other than desired conditions, usually related to 

process or interaction with the public. Goals are expressed in broad, general terms, but do not 

include completion dates.

goods and services: The various outputs, including on-site uses, produced from forest and 

rangeland resources.

government-to-government consultation: The active and continuous process of contacting 

tribal leadership, soliciting their participation, involvement, comments, concerns, contributions, 

and traditional knowledge that will assist the agency in making informed decisions in planning, 

managing and decision-making actions.

graminoid: Grasses and grass-like plants such as sedges and rushes.

grassland: Land on which the vegetation is dominated by grasses, grass-like plants, or forbs.

grazable forestland: Forestland that produces, at least periodically, understory vegetation that 

can be grazed. In this document, that condition is defined as any forested site with an existing 

overstory canopy cover less than 60 percent with greater than about 200 pounds of forage 

production per year per acre.

grazing: The consumption of standing forage by livestock or wildlife.

grazing lands: Any vegetated land that is grazed or has the potential to be grazed by animals 

(domestic or wild). This includes rangeland and grazable forestland.

grazing permit: Document authorizing livestock to use national forest lands or other lands under 

Forest Service control for livestock production.

ground fire: A fire that burns the organic material in the soil layer and the decayed material or 

peat below the ground surface.

groundwater: All of the water that has percolated through the surface soil into the bedrock.

groundwater-dependent ecosystems: Communities of plants, animals, and other organisms 

whose extent and life processes are dependent on access to or discharge of groundwater. (USDA 

Forest Service 2011)

group selection regeneration method: A method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which 

trees are harvested in small groups, and new age classes are established. The width of groups is 

commonly approximately twice the height of the mature trees, with smaller openings providing 

microenvironments suitable for tolerant regeneration, and the larger openings providing 

conditions suitable for more intolerant regeneration. In the group selection regeneration method, 

the management unit or stand in which regeneration growth and yield are regulated consists of a 

landscape containing an aggregation of groups.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

195

guideline: A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for 

departure from its terms, so long as the intent of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established 

to help achieve a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to 

meet applicable legal requirements.

H

habitat: A place that provides seasonal or year-round food, water, shelter, and other 

environmental conditions for an organism, community, or population of plants or animals.

harvest (timber): The removal of trees for wood fiber use and other multiple-use purposes.

harvest (wildlife): removal of game animals or fish from a population, typically by hunting or 

fishing.

head month: One month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal. For grazing fee 

purpose, it is a month’s use and occupancy of range by one weaned or adult cow with or without 

calf, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or mule, or five sheep or goats. Refer to animal unit month.

headwaters: Beginning of a watershed; the uppermost, unbranched tributaries of a stream.

healthy ecosystem: An ecosystem in which structure and functions allow the maintenance of the 

desired conditions of biological diversity, biotic integrity and ecological processes over time.

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act: The Act of December 31, 1975, as amended (PL 

94-199, 89 Statute 117), which established the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

herbaceous: Green and leaf-like in appearance or texture; includes grasses, grass-like plants, and 

forbs, with little, or no woody component.

herbicide: A pesticide used for killing or controlling the growth of plants.

herbivore: An animal that subsists on plants or plant materials, either primarily or entirely.

heterogeneous: quality of consisting of dissimilar or diverse elements, as with mixed habitats or 

cover types occurring on a landscape; opposite of homogeneous, in which elements are the same.

hiding cover: Vegetation, primarily trees, capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult game 

animal from the view of a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet during all seasons of 

the year that elk or deer use the area. Generally, any vegetation used for security or to escape 

from danger.

high-severity fire: see fire severity.

historical conditions: see historical range of variability

historical range of variability (HRV): The variation of ecological characteristics and processes 

over scales of time and space that are appropriate for a given management application. The 

historical range of variability concept focuses on a distilled subset of past ecological knowledge 

developed for use by resource managers; it represents an explicit effort to incorporate a past 

perspective into management and conservation decisions. The pre-European influenced reference 

period considered is sufficiently long, often several centuries, to include the full range of 

variability produced by dominant natural disturbance regimes such as fire and flooding and also 

includes short-term variation and cycles in climate. The historical range of variability can help 

identify key structural, functional, compositional, and connectivity characteristics, for which plan 

components may be important for either maintenance or restoration of such ecological conditions.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

196

human-caused disturbance: Refer to disturbance.

hydroelectric: Of or relating to the production of electricity by waterpower.

hydrologic: Refers to the properties, distribution, and effects of water. Hydrology refers to the 

broad science of the waters of the earth, their occurrence, circulation, distribution, chemical and 

physical properties, and their reaction with the environment.

hydrologic function: The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of water flow. Favorable conditions of water flow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing.

hydrologic unit: A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, 

hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria 

that delineate an area of land upstream from a specific point on a river, stream or similar surface 

waters. A hydrologic unit can accept surface water directly from upstream drainage areas, and 

indirectly from associated surface areas such as remnant, noncontributing, and diversions to form 

a drainage area with single or multiple outlet points.

hydrologic unit code (HUC): A hierarchical coding system developed by the U.S. Geological 

Survey to identify geographic boundaries of watersheds of various sizes (12).

4th-code HUC refers a subbasin generally about 450,000 acres in size.

5th-code HUC refers to a watershed. These areas generally range from 40,000 to 250,000 

acres in size.

6th-code HUC refers to a subwatershed hydrologic unit that generally ranges from 10,000 to 

40,000 acres in size.

hyporheic: Denoting an area or ecosystem beneath the bed of a river or stream that is saturated 

with water and that supports invertebrate fauna, which play a role in the larger ecosystem.

I

impacts: Refer to effects.

implement: To carry out.

improvement cutting: An intermediate treatment made in a stand, pole-sized or larger, primarily 

to improve composition and quality by removing less desirable trees of any species.

infestation: The attack or invasion by parasites or pests.

infiltration: The process by which water seeps into the soil, influenced by soil texture, aspect, 

and vegetation cover.

infrastructure: The basic facilities, equipment, and installation needed for the functioning of a 

system; commonly refers to items such as roads, bridges, power facilities, and the like.

INFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 4, Inland Native Fish Strategy (USDA Forest Service 

1995a). Interim strategies for managing fish–producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and portions of Nevada.

insecticide: A pesticide employed against insects.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

197

instream flow: Flow of water in its natural setting (as opposed to waters diverted for off-stream 

uses such as industry or agriculture). Instream flow levels provided for environmental reasons 

enhance or maintain the habitat for riparian and aquatic life, with timing and quantities of flow 

characteristic of the natural setting.

integrated pest management: A process for selecting strategies to regulate forest pests in which 

all aspects of a pest-host system are studied and weighed. The information considered in selecting 

appropriate strategies includes the impact of the unregulated pest population on various resources 

values, alternative regulatory tactics and strategies, and benefit/cost estimates for these alternative 

strategies. Regulatory strategies are based on sound silvicultural practices and ecology of the 

pest-host system and consist of a combination of tactics such as timber stand improvement plus 

selective use of pesticides. A basic principle in the choice of strategy is that it be ecologically 

compatible or acceptable.

integration: Bringing the values and systems of different disciplines together to address 

questions with a common framework using consistent techniques and measurement units.

interagency: Involving the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and/or other 

Federal agencies.

interdisciplinary team: A group of specialists assembled as a cohesive team with frequent 

interactions to solve a problem or perform a task.

intermediate harvest treatment: A collective term for any harvest treatment or tending designed 

to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of the stand after establishment or 

regeneration and prior to final regeneration harvest.

intermittent stream: A stream in which the flow of water on the surface is discontinuous, or that 

alternates between zones of surface and sub-surface flow.

invasion (plant): The movement of a plant species into a new area outside its former range.

invasive plant species: Nonnative plant species that invade or are introduced into an 

environment or ecosystem in which they did not evolve where they have the ability to compete 

with, and at times overshadow, the existing native plant species. Invasive species are also likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Invasive species include seeds, 

eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to 

that ecosystem (with respect to a particular ecosystem). Noxious weeds are a specific type of 

invasive plants that carry a legal designation due to their potential for detrimental impacts to the 

environment.

inventoried roadless areas (IRAs): Those areas identified in the Land Management Plan and 

listed on a set of inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, (USDA Forest Service 2000), 

which are held at the Washington Office of the Forest Service, or any update, correction, or 

revision of those maps through the land management planning process.

invertebrate: Small animals that lack a backbone or spinal column. Spiders, insects, and worms 

are examples of invertebrates.

issue: A point, matter of controversy, dispute, question of public discussion, or general concern 

over resource management activities or land uses to be addressed or decided through the planning 

process. To be considered a significant environmental impact statement issue, it must be well 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

198

defined, relevant to the proposed action, and within the ability of the agency to address through 

alternative management strategies.

K

key species/key forage species: (1) Forage species whose use serves as an indicator to the 

degree of use of associated species. (2) Those species which must, because of their importance, 

be considered in the management program.

L

landform: One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface such as a plain, 

mountain, or valley, as defined by its particular combination of bedrock and soils, erosion 

processes, and climatic influences.

land management plan: A document or set of documents that provide management direction for 

an administrative unit of the National Forest System developed under the requirements of the land 

management planning regulation at 36 CFR part 219 or a prior planning rule. 

landscape: A defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries, such as a 

spatial mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landforms, and plant communities, repeated 

in similar form throughout such a defined area.

landscape character: Identifiable image made by particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a 

landscape.

landscape ecology: The study of the interaction between spatial pattern and ecological processes, 

that is, the causes and consequences of spatial heterogeneity across a range of scales (Turner et al. 

2001).

landscape-level/landscape-scale: Refer to broad-scale.

landscape pattern: Number, frequency, size and juxtaposition of landscape elements (stands and 

patches) that are important to the determination or interpretation of ecological processes.

landscape structure: The mix and distribution of stand or patch sizes across a given area of land. 

Patch sizes, shapes, and distributions are a reflection of the major disturbance regimes operating 

on the landscape.

late seral: see succession.

legacy tree: Old trees that have been spared during past harvest, or have survived stand replacing 

natural disturbances, and are thus significantly older than the average trees in the general area. 

This distinguishes them from other ‘residual’ trees, which may also have been spared from 

harvest but are not always significantly older than the average trees in the area (Mazurek and 

Zielinski 2004; Franklin 1990).

lichens: Organisms made up of specific algae and fungi, forming identifiable crusts on soil, 

rocks, tree bark, and other surfaces. Lichens are primary producers in ecosystems; they contribute 

living material and nutrients, enrich the soil and increase soil moisture-holding capacity, and 

serve as food sources for certain animals. Lichens are slow growing and sensitive to chemical and 

physical disturbances.

litter: The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, which is essentially the freshly 

fallen or slightly decomposed vegetation material such as stems, leaves, twigs, and fruits.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

199

local population: A group of individuals that spawn or breed in a particular area; the smallest 

group of individuals that is known to represent an interacting reproductive unit.

long term: Generally refers to a period longer than 10 years up to 100 years.

long-term sustained yield timber capacity: The highest uniform wood yield from lands being 

managed for timber production that may be sustained under a specified management intensity 

consistent with multiple-use objectives.

M

maintain: To continue; or keep ecosystem functions, processes, and/or components (such as soil, 

air, water, vegetation) in such a condition that the ecosystem’s ability to accomplish current and 

future management objectives is not weakened. Management activities may be compatible with 

ecosystem maintenance if actions are designed to maintain or improve current ecosystem 

condition.

major population group: A group of either salmon populations or group of steelhead 

populations that are geographically and genetically cohesive. The major population group is a 

level of organization between demographically independent populations and evolutionarily 

significant units or distinct population segments.

management area: A land area identified within the Planning Area that has the same set of 

applicable plan components. A management area does not have to be spatially contiguous.

management concern: An issue, problem, or a condition which constrains the range of 

management practices identified by the Forest Service in the planning process.

management practice: A specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

mean annual increment: Mean annual increment of growth is the total increment of increase of 

volume of a stand (standing crop plus thinnings) up to a given age divided by that age. In land 

management plans, mean annual increment is expressed in cubic measure and is based on the 

expected growth of stands, according to intensities and utilization guidelines in the Plan.

mechanical fuel treatment: A fuel treatment using mechanical means, such as thinning by 

chainsaw or machines, mastication, crushing down wood, or piling down wood with machines.

mechanized: Wheeled forms of transportation (including nonmotorized carts, wheelbarrows, 

bicycles and any other nonmotorized, wheeled vehicle).

mesic: Pertaining to conditions of moderate moisture or water supply; used of organisms 

occupying moist habitats.

metapopulations: Multiple populations of the same species coexisting in time but not space.

microclimate: The climatic conditions within a small habitat such as: a tree stump, under a 

boulder, in the space between grasses, or on the side of a slope.

migration corridor: The habitat pathway an animal uses to move from one place to another.

minerals-leasable: Coal, oil, gas, phosphate, sodium, potassium, oil shale, sulphur, and 

geothermal resources.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

200

minimum impact suppression tactics (MIST): A set of guidelines prescribing safety, fire line 

procedures, tools, and equipment that has the least impact on the environment during suppression 

and mop-up phases of fire (USDA and USDI 2003).

mining: Any activity related to the discovery, extraction, and exploration of minerals under the 

Mining Act of 1872 and the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 through the use of, among other things, 

hydraulic equipment, pans, ground sluicing, sluice boxes, rockers, or suction dredges.

mitigation: Measures designed and implemented to counteract environmental impacts or to make 

impacts less severe.

mixed-severity fire: These fire regimes will have the greatest toll on thinner barked and/or young 

age classes within the stand. Low intensity fires within the stand will favor overstory fire-resistant 

species (ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas fir). Crown fire potential does exist 

depending on stand structures and age classes of different stand cohorts of any available ladder 

fuels. If it occurs, the result will favor the return to grass and forbs.

moist upland forest: forests generally occurring at moderate elevations in the montane 

vegetation zone, or at the lower end of the subalpine zone. They are adjoined by cold forests at 

their upper edge and by dry forests at their lower edge. They are characterized by slightly longer 

growing seasons compared to the cold upland forest, and generally have cooler temperatures and 

higher precipitation than the lower elevation dry upland forests. Late successional stands are 

generally dominated by subalpine fir, grand fir or Douglas-fir. Lodgepole pine or western larch 

often occur as dominant species in early successional moist upland forests. Douglas-fir and 

western white pine are common mid-seral species.

monitoring: A systematic process of collecting information to evaluate effects of actions or 

changes in conditions or relationships.

mosaic: A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of communities are interspersed in 

patches, such as clumps of shrubs with grassland between.

motorized equipment: Any machine powered by a nonliving source. This term does not include 

motorized river craft or small hand-held devices such as flashlights, shavers, wristwatches, and 

Geiger counters.

multi-story: Structural arrangement of trees within a stand generally characterized by having 

more than one distinct horizontal layer of tree crowns. Each layer may also be referred to as a 

stratum.

multiple-use management: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of 

the National Forest System so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the 

needs of the American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these 

resources or related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic 

adjustments in use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some lands will be used for 

less than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various 

resources, each with the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the 

combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output ([1982] 36 

CFR § 219.3).

municipal watersheds (public supply watersheds): A watershed that serves a public water 

system as defined in Public Law 93-523 (Safe Drinking Water Act) or as defined in state safe 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

201

drinking water regulations. The definition does not include communities served by a well or 

confined groundwater unaffected by Forest Service activities.

N

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act to declare a national policy which will 

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, to 

promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and 

stimulate the health and welfare of humanity, to enrich the understanding of the ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the nation, and to establish a Council on 

Environmental Quality.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the 

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring the preparation of forest 

plans and the preparation of regulations to guide that development.

National Forest System (NFS): All national forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public 

domain of the United States; all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, 

donation, or other means; the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered 

under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012); and 

other lands, waters, or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are 

designated for administration through the Forest Service as a part of the system.

National Forest System road: A classified forest road under the jurisdiction of the Forest 

Service. The term National Forest System roads is synonymous with the term forest development 

roads as used in 23 USC 205. Generally referred to as a Forest Road.

National Recreation Trail: Trails designated by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of 

Agriculture as part of the national system of trails authorized by the National Trails System Act. 

National recreation trails provide a variety of outdoor recreation uses.

National Register of Historic Places: A listing (maintained by the U.S. National Park Service) 

of areas that have been designated as being of historical significance. The Register includes 

places of local and state significance as well as those of value to the Nation.

National Wild and Scenic River System: Includes rivers with outstanding scenic, recreational, 

geological, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values designated by Congress 

under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for preservation of their free-flowing condition. Refer to 

Wild and Scenic River.

native species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. Animals or plants 

that have historically occupied a given aquatic or terrestrial area.

natural disturbance: (see disturbance).

net public benefits: An expression used to signify the overall long- term value to the nation of all 

outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs) 

whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public benefits are measured by both 

quantitative and qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or index. The maximization of 

net public benefits to be derived from management of units of the National Forest System is 

consistent with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.

niche: A place or activity for which a thing is best fitted.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

202

noxious weeds: Plants designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the 

responsible state official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following 

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host of 

serious insects or disease, and being native or new to or not common to the united states or parts 

thereof. A noxious weed is one that causes disease or has other adverse effects on the human 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and commerce of the United States 

and to the public health.

nutrient cycling: Ecological processes in which nutrients and elements such as carbon, 

phosphorous, nitrogen, calcium, and others, circulate among animals, plants, soils, and air.

O

objective: A concise, time-specific statement that describes the incremental progress expected to 

take place to meet goals (desired conditions) over the planning period with respect to estimated 

quantities of services and accomplishments. Objectives are projections of outcomes based on 

certain social, economic, and ecological indicators that measure the Plan’s performance and 

identify specific opportunities and possible future proposals in terms of ongoing programs and 

future projects to support the goals for the Planning Area.

off-channel: Aquatic habitats separated from the main stream or river, such as side-channels, 

oxbows, ponds, or sloughs, which may or may not be directly connected to a river or stream.

off-highway vehicle (OHV): Any motor vehicle designed for or capable of cross-country travel 

on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or other natural terrain.

old forest stage: Old forests are ecosystems distinguished by a relative abundance of old trees 

and related structural attributes. Old forest encompasses the later stages of stand development that 

typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include tree size, 

accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and 

ecosystem function. The age at which stands reach the old forest stage and the specific structural 

attributes that characterize the old forest stage varies by forest type, site conditions, and 

disturbance regime. Measurable criteria for these attributes have been established for the major 

forest cover types by the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service

1993). These structure based definitions incorporate minimum numbers of trees per acre of 

minimum qualifying ages ranging from 150 to 200 years as well as minimum sizes of 21 to 31 

inches for several forest types common to this area. Depending largely on the natural disturbance 

regime, old forest may occur in a single-story stage, called “old forest single-story (OFSS),” or as 

a multi-storied stage, called “old forest multi-storied (OFMS).”

• old forest multi-story (OFMS): This stage of old forest includes multiple age classes 

and canopy layers, along with large, old trees. Decaying fallen trees may also be present 

that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. Overstory diameters are generally greater 

than 20 inches.

• old forest single-story (OFSS): This stage of old forest typically results from lowintensity surface fire. This structure class can include multiple age classes, but generally 

only includes one main overstory strata. Large, old trees are common. Decaying fallen 

trees may also be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. Overstory 

diameters are generally greater than 20 inches.

openings: Natural or artificially created areas characterized by a lack of significant tree or shrub 

cover. Examples include meadows, clearcuts, and other areas of vegetation that do not provide 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

203

hiding or thermal cover. When openings are created in the forest by the application of even-aged 

silviculture, as a minimum, openings in forest stands are no longer considered openings once a 

new forest is established.

outcome: The long-term results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose 

(Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (5 U.S.C. 306)). Outcome is a state of being 

similar to long-term ecological, social, or economic condition or goal (such as the maintenance of 

an ecosystem’s biodiversity, jobs and income, or the quality of a regions’ surface water as 

measured by indicators).

outdoor recreation activities: Activities such as camping, picnicking, rafting, boating, hiking, 

rock climbing, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and the viewing of wildlife or scenery.

outfitting: Providing through rental or livery any saddle or pack animal, vehicle or boat, tents or 

camping gear, or similar supplies or equipment, for pecuniary remuneration or other gain. The 

term guide includes the holder’s employees, agents, and instructors. Pecuniary remuneration 

means monetary reward (Washington Office Amendment 2709.11-95-11, 41-53C).

outputs: A broad term for describing any result, product, service or concern that a system 

produces by its activities. They are measurable and capable of being used to determine the 

effectiveness of programs and activities in meeting objectives. The unit of measure should 

indicate or serve as a proxy for what the recipients get rather than what the agency does in the 

process of producing the given output. Example: timber sold, recreation use, livestock grazing 

use, etc. Any good, service, or on-site use that is produced from rural resources.

outstandingly remarkable values: Term used in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968; to 

qualify as outstandingly remarkable, a resource value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary 

feature that is significant at a regional or national level.

over-snow vehicle: A self-propelled vehicle intended for travel primarily on snow driven by a 

track or tracks in contact with the snow, and steered by a ski, ski’s or tracks in contact with the 

snow.

overstory: Trees whose crowns constitute the highest horizontal layer of vegetation in a forest 

stand.

overwinter: To keep livestock or plants alive through the winter by sheltering them, or to be kept 

alive in this way.

P

PACFISH: Regional Forester’s Amendment 3, Interim strategies for managing anadromous fish–

producing watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

(USDA and USDI 1995).

paleontological sites: Areas that contain any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that 

has been preserved in the earth’s crust before the Holocene epoch.

particulate emissions: Solid particles or liquid droplets that can be suspended or carried in the 

air, or released as air contaminants into the outdoor atmosphere.

patch: An area of vegetation that is relatively homogeneous internally and differs from 

surrounding elements.

pathogen: An agent such as a fungus, virus, or bacterium that causes disease.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

204

pattern: The spatial arrangement of landscape elements (patches, corridors, matrix) that 

determines the function of a landscape as an ecological system.

pesticide: A chemical preparation used to control individuals or populations of injurious 

organisms.

permittee (livestock): Any entity that has been issued a grazing permit.

phases: Plant communities or seral stages within a steady state connected to each other by 

community pathways.

plan component: Parts of a national forest land and resource management plan that cannot be 

changed without a plan amendment analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the Planning Rule. Plan components include goals, desired conditions, standards, 

guidelines, objectives, special areas, management areas, and suitable uses and activities.

Planning Area: The area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest 

plan.

plant associations: A plant community type based on the land management potential, 

successional patterns and species composition.

plant communities: Any grouping of plants that have some structural similarity (Johnson and 

Simon 1987).

plateau: Any comparatively flat area of great extent and elevation; specifically an extensive land 

region considerably more elevated above the adjacent country; it is commonly limited on at least 

one side by an abrupt descent.

pool: Portion of a stream where the current is slow, often with deeper water than surrounding 

areas and with a smooth surface texture. Often occur above and below riffles and generally are 

formed around stream bends or obstructions such as logs, root, wads, or boulders. Pools provide 

important feeding and resting areas for fish.

potential natural community: The biotic community that would become established if all 

successional sequences were completed without interference by humans under present 

environmental conditions. Natural disturbances are inherent in development.

potential vegetation group (PVG): A group of potential vegetation types grouped on the basis of 

similar general moisture or temperature environment and similar types of life forms.

precommercial thinning: Thinning generally within stands or size classes considered too small 

to be harvested commercially, where the removal of trees is not for immediate financial return but 

to improve the stand by reducing stocking and concentrating growth on the more desirable trees.

prehistoric site: An area that contains important evidence and remains of the life and activities of 

early societies that did not record their history.

prescribed fire: Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. Prescribed 

fire is intended to mimic natural fire regimes to: 1) reduce the risk of fires burning outside of 

historic intensities and severities that could substantially reduce long–term productivity; 2) 

maintain tree species compositions that occur under the natural disturbance regime; 3) reduce 

competition; 4) increase nutrients; 5) prepare sites for natural regeneration; 6) improve forage 

resources; 7) enhance/create wildlife habitat; and 8) protect private and public property values. A 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

205

written, approved prescribed fire plan must exist, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

requirements (where applicable) must be met, prior to ignition.

prescription: A management pathway to achieve a desired objective(s).

present net value (PNV): The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs 

to which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs 

of managing the Planning Area.

primitive recreation: Those types of recreation activities associated with unroaded land, for 

example: hiking, backpacking, and cross–country travel.

private land: Land not in federal, state, or local government ownership.

productive capacity: The growth and accumulation of plant biomass (primary productivity) as 

well as the growth of animal species that use the products (secondary productivity). Key elements 

of productivity include the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils which provide 

for vegetative growth and the accumulation and cycling of nutrients.

productivity: Productivity is based on using natural resources no faster than they are produced or 

can be replaced and using natural resources without impairment of the long-term productive 

capacity of the ecosystem from which they are derived.

programmatic agreement (PA): This is a historic preservation document that records the terms 

and conditions agreed upon to resolve the potential adverse effects of a Federal agency program, 

complex undertaking or other situations in accordance with the Section 106 review under 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [36CFR800.14(b)].

project: An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, timing, activities, 

outputs, effects, and time period and responsibilities for executions.

project-level: Site-specific analysis and planning processes for a specific project or set of 

projects usually on an individual ranger district.

proposed action: A proposal by a federal agency to authorize, recommend, or implement a 

management action.

preliminary administratively recommended wilderness area (PARWA): An area that has been 

determined to meet the criteria to be designated as wilderness and is proposed in this land 

management plan by the forest supervisor(s) to be recommended to Congress for inclusion into 

the National Wilderness Preservation System.

public issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management of the 

National Forest System.

Q

qualitative: Traits or characteristics that relate to quality and cannot be measured with numbers.

quality of life: Refers to the satisfaction people feel for the places where they live (or may visit) 

and for the places they occupy as part of that experience.

quantitative: Traits or characteristics that can be measured with numbers.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

206

R

rangeland (range): Lands where the vegetation is predominately grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, 

or shrubs. Rangelands include natural grasslands, shrublands, savannahs, tundra, most deserts, 

and riparian and wetland plant communities, including marshes and wet meadows, with greater 

than about 200 pounds of forage production per year per acre.

rangeland vegetation: Vegetation on all land with rangeland resource objectives or rangeland 

resource values, including riparian areas. Generally, the focus is on land supporting grass or 

grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs during one or more ecological stages. Forested and nonforested 

sites providing forage and habitat for wild and domestic animal species are included.

rearing habitat: Area in rivers or streams where juvenile salmon and trout find food and shelter 

to live and grow.

recontour: To move soil back (usually with mechanical or hand tools) to a previous condition 

thus making an area blend with the natural landscape.

record of decision (ROD): An official document separate from, but associated, with a final 

environmental impact statement in which a deciding official identifies all alternatives, and 

specifies which were environmentally preferable, states the decision, and states whether all 

practicable means to avoid environmental harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if 

not, why not (40 CFR 1505.2).

recovery plans: A plan for the survival and conservation of species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Act [Section 4(f)] requires that recovery plans contain: 1) objectives, 

measurable goals for delisting; 2) a comprehensive list of the actions necessary to achieve the 

delisting goals; and 3) an estimate of the cost and time required to carry out those actions. In 

addition, NOAA Recovery Planning Guidelines suggest that recovery plans include an assessment 

of the factors that led to population declines and/or which are impeding recovery. Finally, it is 

important that the plans include a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program for gauging 

the effectiveness of recovery measures and overall progress toward recovery (USDI 1988).

recreation: Leisure time activity such as swimming, picnicking, boating, hunting, and fishing.

developed recreation: Recreation that requires facilities that, in turn, result in concentrated 

use of an area. Examples of developed recreation areas are campgrounds and ski areas; 

facilities in these areas might include roads, parking lots, picnic tables, toilets, drinking water, 

ski lifts, and buildings.

dispersed recreation: A general term referring to recreation use outside developed recreation 

sites; this includes activities such as scenic driving, hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing, 

snowmobiling, horseback riding, cross–country skiing, and recreation in primitive 

environments.

recreation opportunity: The availability of choices for users to participate in the recreational 

activities they prefer within the settings they prefer.

recreation opportunity spectrum: A recreation opportunity setting is the combination of 

physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place. Thus, an 

opportunity includes qualities provided by-nature (vegetation; landscape, topography, scenery), 

qualities associated with recreational use (levels and types of use), and conditions provided by 

management (developments, roads, regulations). By combining variations of these qualities and 

conditions, management can provide a variety of opportunities for recreationists. The settings, 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

207

activities, and opportunities for obtaining experiences have been arranged along a continuum or 

spectrum divided into six classes: primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive 

motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban (40 CFR 1505.2).

primitive - Area is characterized by an essentially unmodified natural environment of fairly 

large size Interaction between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. The 

area is managed to be essentially free from evidence of human-induced restrictions and 

controls. Motorized use within the area is not permitted.

semi-primitive nonmotorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is 

often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site 

controls and restrictions may be present, but would be subtle. Motorized recreation use is not 

permitted, but local roads used for other resource management activities may be present on a 

limited basis. Use of such roads is restricted to minimize impacts on recreational experience 

opportunities.

semi-primitive motorized – Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is 

often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site 

controls and restrictions use of local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural 

surfaces and trails suitable for motor bikes is permitted.

roaded natural -Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments 

with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidence usually harmonizes 

with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be moderate to high, with 

evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, 

but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and 

incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities

rural -Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities is 

designed for use by a large number of people Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites Facilities for 

intensified motorized use and parking are available.

urban - Area is characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural appearing elements. Renewable resource modification and 

utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often 

exotic and manicured. Sights and sounds of humans, on-site, are predominant. Large numbers 

of users can be expected, both on site and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified 

motor use and parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people 

throughout the site.

recreation residences: Privately owned recreation cabins authorized by special use permit on 

National Forest System land that occupy planned, approved tracts or those groups of tracts 

established for recreation residence use.

recreation site: Specific places in the national forest other than roads and trails that are used for 

recreational activities. These sites include a wide range of recreational activities and associated 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

208

development. These sites include highly developed facilities like ski areas, resorts, and 

campgrounds. It also includes dispersed recreation sites that have few or no improvements but 

show the effects of repeated recreation use.

recreation visit: An entry of one person to a recreation site or area of land or water for the 

purpose of participating in one or more recreation activities for an unspecified period.

recreational facilities: Refers to facilities associated with or required for outdoor recreational 

activities and includes, but are not limited to, parks, campgrounds, hunting and fishing lodges, 

and interpretive displays.

recreational river: Refer to Wild And Scenic River.

redd: Nest in gravel of stream bottom where a fish deposits eggs.

reforestation: A reference to a specific reforestation activity used to establish reproduction in a 

stand. Treatments include tree planting, direct seeding, coppice or root suckers, site preparation 

for natural reproduction (regeneration), or natural regeneration without site preparation.

refugia: Areas that have not been exposed to great environmental changes and disturbances 

undergone by the region as a whole; refugia provide conditions suitable for survival of species 

that may be declining elsewhere.

regeneration: The process of establishing new plant seedlings, whether by natural means or 

artificial measures (e.g., planting, seeding).

regeneration harvest method: A timber harvest procedure by which a new age class is created. 

The major methods are clearcutting, seed-tree, shelterwood, single-tree selection, group selection 

and coppice. Regeneration methods are grouped into four categories: coppice, even-aged, twoaged, and uneven-aged.

regulations: Generally refers to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, chapter II, which 

covers management of the Forest Service.

rehabilitate: To repair and protect certain aspects of a system so that essential structures and 

functions are recovered, even though the overall system may not be exactly as it was before.

research natural area (RNA): An area set aside by a public or private agency specifically to 

preserve a representative sample of an ecological community, primarily for scientific and 

educational purposes. In Forest Service usage, Research Natural Areas are areas designated to 

ensure representative samples of as many of the major naturally–occurring plant communities as 

possible.

resident fish: Fish that spend their entire life in freshwater; examples include bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout.

resilience: The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the 

same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity 

to adapt to stress and change.

resource: Anything which is beneficial or useful, be it animal, vegetable, mineral, a location, a 

labor force, a view, an experience, etc. Resources, in the context of land use planning, thus vary 

from such commodities as timber and minerals to such amenities as scenery, scenic viewpoints, or 

recreation opportunities.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

209

responsible official: The Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry 

out a specific planning action.

restoration: The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing the composition, 

structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions.

riparian area: An area with distinctive soils and vegetation between a stream, or other body of 

water, and the adjacent upland area consisting of vegetation that requires free, or unbound, water 

for survival.

riparian-dependent species: Plant species that rely on free or unbound water for establishment 

and survival, and animal species that would normally occupy, or rely on, riparian habitats.

riparian management areas (RMAs): Portions of watershed where riparian–dependent 

resources receive primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards 

and guidelines. Riparian management areas include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, 

intermittent headwater streams, and other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to 

maintenance of the streams’ water, sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery system.

fish-bearing streams: Riparian management areas consist of the stream and the area on each 

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the 

inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian 

vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope 

distance (600 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. In 

degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should extend from the edge of 

the active channel to the outer extent of the former floodplain. It is expected that riparian 

management area widths along fish-bearing streams will not be less than described here.

permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams: Riparian management areas consist of the 

stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream 

channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to 

the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential 

tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), 

whichever is greatest. In degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should 

extend from the water’s edge to the outer extent of the former floodplain.

constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre: Riparian 

management areas consist of the body of water or wetland and: the area to the outer edges of 

the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or the extent of unstable 

and potentially unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 

150 feet slope distance from the edge of the wetland greater than 1 acre or the maximum pool 

elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs, whichever is greatest.

lakes and natural ponds: Riparian management areas consist of the body of water and the 

area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, 

or to the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height 

of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, seeps and springs less than 1 acre, 

and unstable and potentially unstable areas: This category applies to features with high 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

210

variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the riparian management 

areas should include:

• The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

• The stream channel and extend to the top of the inner gorge, or in incised streams, to 

the edge of the former floodplain.

• The stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel or 

wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, extending from the edges of the 

stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet 

slope distance, whichever is greatest. A site-potential tree height is the average 

maximum height of the tallest dominant trees for a given site class.

• Intermittent streams are defined as any nonpermanent flowing drainage feature 

having a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. This includes 

what are sometimes referred to as ephemeral streams if they meet these two physical 

criteria. Including intermittent streams, springs, and wetlands within riparian 

management areas is important for full implementation of the Blue Mountains ARCS. 

Accurate identification of these features is critical to the correct implementation of 

the strategy and protection of the intermittent stream and wetland functions and 

processes. Identification of these features is difficult at times due to the lack of 

surface water or wet soils during dry periods. Fish-bearing intermittent streams are 

distinguished from non-fish-bearing intermittent streams by the presence of any 

species of fish for any duration. Many intermittent streams may be used as spawning 

and rearing streams, refuge areas during flood events in larger rivers and streams or 

travel routes for fish emigrating from lakes. In these instances, the guidelines for fishbearing streams would apply to those sections of the intermittent stream used by the 

fish.

riverine: On or near the banks of a river; riparian.

road: A motor vehicle route over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A 

road may be classified, unclassified, or temporary (36 CFR 212.1).

closed road: A road with all use suspended year–long by an active form of facility 

management utilizing regulations and appropriate enforcement to secure and ensure user 

compliance with closure.

open road: A road that has no use restrictions or regulations imposed and is available for use 

by vehicles at any time during the year.

temporary roads: Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or 

emergency operation not intended to be a part of the national forest transportation system and 

not necessary for long-term resource management (36 CFR 212.1).

road construction: Activity that results in the addition of forest classified or temporary road 

miles (36 CFR 212.1). New construction activities may include vegetation clearing and grubbing, 

earthwork, drainage installation, instream activities, pit development or expansion, surfacing 

(including paving), and aggregate placement.

road decommissioning: Activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7703). Road decommissioning activities 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

211

include revegetation, recontouring, water barring, roadbed scarification or ripping, culvert 

removal, berm construction, and side cast pullback.

road density: An indicator of the concentration of roads in an area.

road maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to the 

approved road management objective.

road maintenance levels (MLs): Maintenance levels define the level of service provided by, and 

maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with road 

management objectives and maintenance criteria. Roads assigned to maintenance levels 2 through 

5 are either constant service roads or intermittent service roads during the time they are open to 

traffic.

Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the times they are closed to vehicular 

traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to 

keep damage to adjacent resources to acceptable levels and to perpetuate the road to facilitate 

future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities 

and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. Appropriate traffic 

management strategies are prohibit and eliminate.

Roads receiving Maintenance Level 1 maintenance may be of any type, class, or construction 

standard, and may be managed at any other maintenance level during the time they are open 

for traffic. However, while being maintained at Maintenance Level 1, they are closed to 

vehicular traffic, subject to prohibitions and restrictions, and may be available and suitable 

for nonmotorized users.

Maintenance Level 1 maintenance activities include road condition surveys, evaluation, and 

monitoring of maintenance needs. Activities include limited equipment operation, opening 

closed roads, manual cleaning of drainage structures, and vegetation management that 

stabilizes or reduces erosion. Repairs are scheduled and completed within funding limitations 

when critical resource damage is reported.

Roadway activities including blading, clearing logs, and noncritical repairs that can be 

delayed are accomplished when the road is placed in an active status.

Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Providing access for 

passenger cars is not a consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of 

administrative, permitted, dispersed recreation, and/or other specialized uses. Log hauling 

may occur. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to discourage or prohibit 

passenger cars or to accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles.

Maintenance Level 2 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, 

surface blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip 

cleanup and repair, sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Many roads in this category have grass in the travel 

way. User comfort is not a consideration.

Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard 

passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are not considered priorities.

Roads in this maintenance level are typically low-speed, single-lane, with turnouts and spot 

surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native or processed material. 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

212

Appropriate traffic management strategies are encourage or accept. Discourage or prohibit 

strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users.

Maintenance Level 3 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, 

surface blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip 

cleanup and repair, sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be 

needed on segments of multi-purpose roads.

Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience 

at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double-lane and aggregate-surfaced. However, 

some roads may be single-lane. Some roads may be paved and/or dust abated. The most 

appropriate traffic-management strategy is encourage. However, the prohibit strategy may 

apply to specific classes of vehicles or users at certain times.

Maintenance Level 4 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard tree removal, 

surface blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, clearing logs, slide and slip 

cleanup and repair, sign maintenance and surface replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be 

needed on segments of multi-purpose roads.

Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. 

These roads are normally double lane, paved. Some may be aggregate-surfaced and dustabated. The appropriate traffic management strategy is encourage.

Maintenance Level 5 maintenance activities include roadside brushing, hazard-tree removal, 

surface blading, drainage maintenance, structure maintenance, logging out, slide and slip 

cleanup and repair, sign maintenance and surfacing replacement. Drainage function and soil 

stabilization are of prime importance. Dust abatement and more frequent blading may be 

needed on segments of multi-purpose roads. All of the Maintenance Level 5 roads within a 

national forest have a permanent (paved) surface.

road management objectives: Road management objectives define the level of service provided 

by a National Forest System road consistent with the surrounding recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) class.

semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM): Most semi-primitive nonmotorized areas do not 

have developed roads. All motorized traffic is prohibited. Semi-primitive nonmotorized roads 

provide hiking or equestrian trails on closed or decommissioned roads.

semi-primitive motorized (SPM): Semi-primitive motorized roads are generally used for 

four-wheel drive, logging, or ranching activities. Passenger-car use is discouraged by 

entrance conditions or signage. Users can expect semi–primitive motorized roads where there 

are no attractions such as viewpoints or trailheads.

• low-level SPM: Native surface roads suitable for high-clearance vehicles but not 

passenger cars or vehicles towing trailers. Users may need to back vehicles for long 

distances when meeting oncoming traffic. Maintenance activities occur usually every 

five years or when resource needs are identified. Roads are allowed to “brush in” and 

users are responsible for removing trees blocking the road. Ruts and potholes are 

accepted if they do not contribute to sediment loading. Corresponds to road 

Maintenance Level 2 and Traffic Service Level D (abbreviated: 2-D).
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

213

• high-level SPM: Single-lane native surface road or road surfaced with spot rock, 

strip rock or pit run material suitable for high-clearance vehicles. The road may have 

infrequent turnouts. Pit run material is applied to the road surface, but is not grid 

rolled, leaving a rough, rocky surface that drains well and discourages passenger car 

use. User maintenance is the same as for the low-level semi–primitive motorized. 

This standard meets resource and safety needs and is the minimum standard for 

accessing attractions such as viewpoints or trailheads. Maintaining current road 

alignment, road surface type, and corridor width are emphasized. Corresponds to 

Maintenance Level 2 and Traffic Service Level C (abbreviated: 2-C).

roaded natural (RN): Roaded natural roads provide safe access for passenger cars. 

Maintenance activities generally occur annually or every two years, depending on funding 

and need. Forest Service clears these roads of brush and logs. Surface maintenance increases 

at higher levels. Because of increased speeds, turnouts are needed more frequently. Open 

local roads and some collector roads within roaded natural are managed for high-clearance 

vehicles. In such cases, road-maintenance standards defined for semi–primitive motorized

would be used.

• low-level RN: Road-surface type of either native or base course. Pit-run material is 

processed to provide a rough but suitable service for passenger cars. Dust increases 

during dry conditions, and the road provides good resource protection when wet. 

Corresponds to road Maintenance Level 3 and Traffic Service Level C (abbreviated: 

3-C).

• medium-level RN: Road-surface type of crushed aggregate, maintained for 

passenger cars. Usually maintained annually, surfaces may “washboard” and become 

dusty with increased use. Corresponds to road Maintenance Level 3 and Traffic 

Service Level C or B (abbreviated: 3-C or 3-B).

• high-level RN: Road-surface type of an aggregate that has been dust-abated or 

treated with soil or silicone stabilizers, or asphalt emulsions. A dust-free, smooth 

surface for passenger cars is the desired product. This standard is often applied to 

provide double-lane access to attractions such as viewpoints or campgrounds. 

Corresponds to road Maintenance Level 4 and Traffic Service Level B or A 

(abbreviated: 4-B or 4-A).

rural (R): Rural is generally the highest standard of road. These arterial roads provide the 

main access to the national forest lands but generally lack the speeds and alignment provided

by state highways. Roads are double–lane with a road-surface treatment and generally 24-feet 

wide. The road has center striping and often stripes marking the shoulders. Corresponds to a 

road Maintenance Level 5 and Traffic Service Level A (abbreviated: 5-A).

road prism: an area consisting of the road surfaces and any cut slope and road fill.

road surface types:

asphalt/concrete: A well-graded aggregate and asphalt cement.

paved: One or more bituminous bound layers of aggregate placed on a prepared road 

foundation.

surface treated: One or more applications of asphalt or other processed or natural materials 

to a road surface to provide traction, abate dust, protect, or renew the surface without 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

214

increasing pavement structural capacity. Surface treatment is commensurate with existing 

surface.

S

salmonids: Fishes of the family Salmonidae, including salmon, trout, chars, whitefish, ciscoes, 

and grayling.

salvage harvest: Harvest of dead trees or trees being damaged or dying due to injurious agents 

other than competition, to recover value that would otherwise be lost. A salvage harvest is an 

intermediate harvest. If the salvage cutting is heavy enough to require regeneration, it would be 

correct to use terminology referring to a regeneration harvest method.

sanitation harvest: The removal of trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing actual 

or anticipated spread of insects and diseases. A sanitation harvest is an intermediate harvest. If the 

sanitation cutting is heavy enough to require regeneration, it would be correct to use terminology 

referring to a regeneration harvest method.

savannah: The transitional biome between grassland and desert or desert and rainforest, typically 

having drought resistant vegetation dominated by grasses with scattered tall trees.

scale: (1) The level of resolution under consideration (for example, broad-scale or fine-scale); (2) 

the ratio of length on a map to true length.

scenery management system (SMS): The scenery management system is the method that was 

adopted after the Forest Plan was completed in 1990. The scenery management system utilizes 

two indicators to determine desired landscape character: ecological landscape integrity and scenic 

integrity. Ecological landscape integrity evaluates whether the landscape is managed in a 

sustainable and ecologically sound manner. Scenic integrity evaluates whether the landscape 

character is being managed in a way that conserves constituent values in terms of the level of 

human-caused deviations that are acceptable to the public (USDA Forest Service 1995b SMS 

Handbook).

scenic area: Places of outstanding or matchless beauty that require special management to 

preserve these qualities. They may be established under 36 CFR 294.1 whenever lands possessing 

outstanding or unique natural beauty warrant this classification.

scenic class: Scenic class indicates the importance or value of a particular landscape determined 

by constituent information.

scenic identity: The scenic image and identity is the landscape character of an area. The 

landscape character identifies the “ideal” or optimal set of valued scenery attributes and describes 

the setting provided by these scenery attributes within each biophysical setting. It is important to 

understanding of the process, structure, and functions that support the valued set of scenery 

attributes. This understanding helps identify conditions and stressors that put scenery resources at 

risk.

scenic integrity level: Measures the degree to which a landscape is free from visible disturbances 

that detract from the natural or socially valued appearance. Scenic integrity objectives establish 

the desired level of scenic integrity for an area. Scenic stability measures the degree to which the 

valued landscape character and its scenery attributes can be sustained through time and ecological 

progression. Scenic stability objectives establish the desired level of scenic stability for a 

particular area. It is used to describe an existing situation, an objective for management, or 

desired conditions.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

215

very high scenic integrity: Scenery with fully intact landscape features and scenic 

compositions presenting the optimal landscape character in complete harmony, with very 

minute, if any, scenic discordance. Due to the optimal scenic integrity of the physical, 

biological, and cultural features in these scenic compositions, the landscape character and 

sense of place are expressed at the highest possible level. Very high scenic integrity is most 

compatible with wilderness, backcountry, biophysical, or cultural preserves, and other special 

classification areas.

high scenic integrity: Scenery with whole or nearly intact landscape features and scenic 

compositions that present the optimal landscape character completely or nearly in full, and 

contain scenic discordances that are not evident.

moderately high scenic integrity: Scenery with slightly altered landscape features and 

compositions in which the valued landscape character is the dominant scenic impression, yet 

minor discordance is apparent, but visually subordinate. The “moderate” level of scenic 

integrity in the Scenery Management Handbook has been split into two categories to reflect 

more accurately the scenic conditions on the in the Blue Mountains.

moderately low scenic integrity: Scenery with altered landscape features and compositions 

that display a beginning dominance of valued landscape character expression and readily 

noticeable discordance.

low scenic integrity: Scenery with obviously altered landscape features and compositions 

that dominate yet still express some aspects of valued landscape character. The scenic 

harmony of the valued landscape character is seriously fragmented and barely restorable 

within reasonable periods and resource expenditures.

very low scenic integrity: Scenery with extremely altered landscape features and 

composition that no longer sustains significant aspects of valued landscape character. The 

scenic harmony of the optimal landscape character does not exist and its restoration may be 

impossible if not unrealistic.

scenic integrity objective: An established goal for the management of the scenic resource 

applied to a specific portion of the national forest.

scenic river: Refer to Wild and Scenic River.

screening: The reduction or elimination of the visual impact of any structure or land modification 

as seen from any public travel route within the national forests.

sediment: Solid materials, both mineral and organic, in suspension or transported by water, 

gravity, ice, or air; may be moved and deposited away from their original position and eventually 

will settle to the bottom.

sediment regime: The rate, frequency, magnitude, and duration of sediment movement. Refer to 

flow regime.

seed tree regeneration method: An even-aged regeneration harvest method in which a new age 

class develops from seeds that germinate in fully-exposed micro-environments after removal of 

the previous stand, except for a small number of trees left to provide seed. Any retained trees, 

referred to as leave trees, should generally comprise less than 10% of the growing space of the 

stand. When the seed tree method is employed, the sequence of treatments can include three 

distinct types of cuttings:
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

216

1. seed tree preparatory cut - An optional cut that enhances conditions for seed production 

and/or develop wind firmness for a future seed cut.

1. seed cut - A cut to prepare the seed bed and create a new age class under full sun while 

retaining trees needed to provide seed needed for regeneration.

2. seed tree removal cut - An optional final removal cut that releases established 

regeneration from competition with seed trees after they are no longer needed for seed or 

as leave trees.

self-reliance: Reliance on one’s own capabilities, judgment, or resources through application of 

outdoor skills in an environment that offers a high degree of risk and challenge.

self-sustaining populations: Populations that are sufficiently abundant, interacting, and welldistributed in the Plan Area, within the bounds of their life history and distribution of the species 

and the capability of the landscape, to provide for their long-term persistence, resilience and 

adaptability over multiple generations.

sensitive species: Plant or animal species identified by a regional forester for which population 

viability is a concern either: 1) because of significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers or density; or 2) because of significant current or predicted downward trends 

in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution. Those species that have 

appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification or are under consideration for 

official listing as endangered or threatened species, that are on an official state list, or that are 

recognized by the regional forester as needing special management to prevent placement on 

federal or state lists.

seral: Refers to the stages that plant communities go through during the progression in structure 

and composition over time. Development stages have characteristic structure and plant species 

composition. See succession for definitions of different seral stages.

shade intolerant: Species of plants that are less tolerant of shaded conditions than other species, 

and often cannot survive in shaded conditions.

shade tolerant: Species of plants that can tolerate and survive in more shaded conditions than 

other species can..

shelterwood regeneration method: A method of regenerating an even-aged stand in which a 

new age class develops beneath the moderated micro-environment provided by the residual trees. 

Any retained trees, referred to as leave trees, should generally comprise less than 10% of the 

growing space of the stand. When the shelterwood regeneration method is employed, the 

sequence of treatments can include three distinct types of cuttings:

1. shelterwood preparatory cut - An optional cut that enhances conditions for seed 

production and/or develop wind firmness for a future shelterwood establishment cut.

2. shelterwood establishment cut - A cut to establish a moderated micro-environment, 

prepare the seed bed, and create a new age class.

3. shelterwood removal cut - A final removal cut that releases established regeneration from 

competition with shelter trees after they are no longer needed for shelter under the 

shelterwood regeneration method

shrubland: Area of land where the potential vegetation is dominated by shrubs.

short term: Generally refers to a period of 10 years or less.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

217

silviculture: The art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, 

and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and 

society on a sustainable basis.

silvicultural system: A management process whereby forests are tended, harvested, and replaced, 

resulting in a forest of distinctive form. Systems are classified according to the method of 

carrying out the fellings that remove the mature crop and provide for regeneration and according 

to the type of forest thereby produced.

silvicultural treatment: A forest management activity such as thinning, harvesting, planting, 

pruning, prescribed burning, mastication, or site preparation that is designed to alter the 

establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands to meet the 

diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis.

single-story: Structural arrangement of trees within a stand generally characterized by having 

only one distinct horizontal layer of tree crowns. This layer may also be referred to as a stratum.

site: (1) A specific location of an activity or project, such as a campground, a lake, or a stand of 

trees to be harvested; (2) The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation 

or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished, where the location 

itself maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure 

[36CFR65] (historic or archaeological definition).

snag: A standing dead tree usually greater than five feet in height and six inches in diameter at 

breast height (d.b.h.).

social well-being: A condition that enables citizens, communities, and visitors to contribute to 

their wellness, values and quality of life.

society: A group of people who have a common homeland, are interdependent, and share a 

common culture.

soil: The earth material that has been so modified and acted upon by physical, chemical, and 

biological agents that it will support rooted plants.

soil function: The characteristic physical and biological activity of soils that influences 

productivity, capability, and resiliency.

soil productivity: The inherent capacity of a soil to produce plant growth, due to the soil’s 

chemical, physical, and biological properties (such as depth, temperature, water-holding capacity, 

and mineral, nutrient, and organic matter content). It is often expressed by some measure of 

biomass accumulation.

soil quality: The capacity of a soil to function within ecosystem boundaries to sustain biological 

productivity, maintain environmental quality, and promote plant and animal health.

source habitat: Habitat in such conditions that result in a positive or increasing population 

growth for a particular species. Those characteristics of vegetation that support long-term wildlife 

species persistence, or characteristics of vegetation that contribute to stable or positive population 

growth for a species in a specified area and time. Source habitats are described using dominant 

vegetation cover type and structural stage combinations that can be estimated reliably at the 247-

acre (100-hectare) patch scale. Various combinations of these cover type–structural stages make 

up the source habitats for the terrestrial species discussed in this Final Environmental Impact 
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

218

Statement, and provide the range of vegetation conditions required by these species for food, 

reproduction, and other needs (Wisdom et al. 2000).

spatial: Related to or having the nature of space.

special habitat: A habitat which has a special function not provided by plant communities and 

successional stages. Includes riparian zones, snags, dead and downed wood, and edges (Thomas 

1979).

specially designated areas: Also referred to as special areas and is one of the Plan components. 

Areas designated because of their unique or special characteristics, such as botanical areas or 

areas designated by stature or administrative processes such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, 

or research natural areas.

special use authorization: A permit, term permit lease, or easement which allows occupancy, 

use, rights, or privileges of national forest lands (36 CFR 251.51).

special use permit: A special authorization which provides permission without conveying any 

interest in land, to occupy and use national forest land or facilities for specified purpose, and 

which is revocable, terminable and noncompensable.

species: A population or series of populations of organisms that can interbreed freely with each 

other but not with members of other species.

species composition: The species that occur on a site or in a successional stage of a plant 

community (Thomas 1979).

species diversity: The number of species occurring in a given area.

stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age class distribution, composition, 

and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit, 

such as mixed, pure, even-aged, and uneven-aged stands.

stand density (see also relative stand density): It is an absolute measure of tree occupancy per 

unit area, like trees per acre or basal area per acre. Stand density indicates the degree to which an 

area is occupied by trees and, hence the intensity by which trees are competing for site resources 

(Tappeiner 2007).

stand initiation stage (SI): Structural stage of young stands that develop following a standreplacing disturbance such as wildfire or a regeneration timber harvest. Growing space is 

typically reoccupied rapidly by vegetation that either survives the disturbance or colonizes the 

area. Forest vegetation within these stands literally survive the disturbance above ground, or 

initiate growth from their underground roots or from seeds stored on-site. Colonizers also 

disperse seed into disturbed areas, the seed germinates and then new seedlings establish and 

develop. A single canopy layer of young trees is typically present in this stage. Average dominant 

tree diameters are usually less than five inches.

stand-replacement fire: A fire severity classification where at least 75 percent replacement of 

the upper layer of vegetation is removed.

stand structure: General term referring to the collection and spatial arrangement of species, tree 

sizes, canopy layers, and age-classes in a forest stand.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

219

standard: A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decisionmaking, 

established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

state and transition model: Nonequilibrium ecological model to describe vegetation dynamics 

of rangeland sites as adopted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Models recognize 

multiple steady states of vegetation and emphasize disturbance processes.

stem exclusion stage: Structural stage is usually created when vigorous, fast growing trees that 

compete strongly with one another for available light and moisture occupy the growing space. 

Because trees are taller and the growing space is fully occupied, establishment of new trees is 

generally precluded by a lack of sunlight or moisture. Individuals that compete unsuccessfully are 

often stressed or die. These stands typically only have one dominant layer. Average overstory tree 

diameters usually range from 5 to 20 inches.

strategy: Part two of a land management plan that explains the suitable uses and includes the 

special designated areas, and management categories.

stream channel: Refer to channel.

stronghold: Directly associated with strong populations. For native fish, strong populations have 

stable numbers or are increasing, and all major life history forms that historically occurred within 

the watershed are present.

structure (see also stand structure): (1) Any permanent building or facility, or part thereof such 

as barns, outhouses, residences, and storage sheds including transmission line systems, 

substations, commercial radio transmitters, relays or repeater stations, antennas, and other 

electronic sites and associated structures.

structural stage: One of five distinct classifications of stand structure used in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement analysis process including; stand initiation (SI), stem exclusion 

(SE), understory reinitiation (UR), old forest single-story (OFSS) and old forest multi-story 

(OFMS).

subalpine: A terrestrial community that generally is found in harsher environments than the 

montane terrestrial community. Subalpine communities are generally colder than montane and 

support a unique clustering of wildlife species.

subbasin: In the National Hydrography Dataset, a subdivision of basins, also called HU8 

(formerly HUC4) and denoted by an 8-digit numeric code. Subbasins in the Pacific Northwest 

have drainage areas averaging between 800,000 and 1,000,000 acres. The Upper John Day 

subbasin, for example, is denoted by the numeric descriptor 17070201; the North Fork John Day 

subbasin is 17070202, the Middle Fork John Day subbasin is 17070203, and the Lower John Day 

subbasin is 17070204. See also: basin, watershed, and subwatershed.

subsistence: Customary and traditional uses of wild renewable resources (plants and animals) for 

food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, etc.

subwatershed: In the National Hydrography Dataset, a subdivision of watersheds with drainage 

areas of approximately 20,000 acres, equivalent to a 6th-field (12-digit) HUC, or HU12 (formerly 

HUC6). Subwatersheds are the smallest hydrologic units described in the forest plans and FEIS 

although it is possible to delineate smaller subdivisions, for example HU14 (HUC7) and HU16 

(HUC8). See also: basin, subbasin, and watershed.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

220

succession: The sequential replacement over time of one plant community by another, in the 

absence of major disturbance. Conditions of the prior plant community or successional stage 

create conditions that are favorable for the establishment of the next stage. The different stages of 

succession are often referred to as seral stages. Developmental stages are as follows:

early seral: Communities that occur early in the successional path and generally have less 

complex structural developmental than other successional communities. Seedling and sapling 

size classes are an example of early seral forests.

mid-seral: Communities that occur in the middle of the successional path. For forests, this 

usually corresponds to the pole or medium sawtimber growth stages.

late-seral: Communities that occur in the later stage of the successional path with mature, 

generally larger individuals, such as mature forests.

suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.

suitable habitat: Habitat that currently has both the fixed and variable stand attributes for a given 

species habitat requirements. Variable attributes change over time and may include seral stage, 

cover type and overstory canopy cover.

suitable uses: Uses that are compatible with the desired conditions and objectives for a given 

area which are identified as guidance for project and activity decisionmaking and do not represent 

a commitment or final decision approving projects or activities.

surface fire: A fire that burns surface litter, dead woody fuels, other loose debris on the forest 

floor, and some small vegetation without significant movement into the overstory, usually with a 

flame less than a few feet high.

surface water development: The practice of diverting or impounding surface water sources by 

the construction of dams, diversions, canals, or ditches for use, such as irrigation, livestock 

watering, and human consumption.

surrogate species: A species that represents other species that share similar habitat and risk 

factors and include Region 6 sensitive species, State-listed species, or other species for which the 

published literature has identified a concern for their viability. The key characteristic of a 

surrogate species is that its status and trend provide insights to the integrity of the larger 

ecological system to which it belongs. Surrogate species serve an umbrella function in terms of 

encompassing habitats needed for other species, are sensitive to the changes likely to occur in the 

area, or otherwise serve as an indicator of ecological sustainability.

sustainability: Meeting needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability is composed of desirable social, economic, 

and ecological conditions or trends interacting at varying spatial and temporal scales, embodying 

the principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield (FSM 1905).

sustained-yield of products and services: The achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a 

high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the National 

Forest System without impairment of the productivity of the land.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

221

T

talus: A slope formed by the accumulation of rock debris at the base of a cliff.

temporal: Related to time.

terrestrial: Pertaining to the land.

terrestrial wildlife: Wildlife species that dwell primarily on land (Thomas 1979).

thermal regulation: The processes by which many animals actively maintain the temperature of 

all or parts of their body; the protection against local climatic extremes provided by, for example, 

shade produced by vegetation, protection from wind or sun, or protection from extreme cold.

thinning: An intermediate treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve 

growth, enhance forest health, or to recover potential mortality. Variations include crown thinning 

(thinning from above, high thinning), free thinning, low thinning (thinning from below), 

mechanical thinning (geometric thinning), and selection thinning (dominant thinning).

timber harvest: The removal of trees for wood fiber utilization and other multiple-use purposes.

timber production: The purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. For 

purposes of this subpart, the term timber production does not include production of fuelwood.

timber sale program quantity (TSPQ): The volume of timber planned for sale during the first 

decade of the planning horizon. It includes the allowable sale quantity (chargeable volume) and 

any additional volume planned for sale from lands generally suitable for timber harvest. The 

timber sale program quantity usually is expressed as an annual average for the first decade.

travel corridors: An area of vegetation that provides completely or partially suitable habitat for 

animals to travel from one location to another.

travel route: A route, such as a county or national forest road or river or trail, that is open for use 

by members of the public.

treaty-reserved right: Tribal rights or interests reserved in treaties, by Native American Indian 

Tribes for the use and benefit of their members. The uses include such activities as described in 

the respective treaty document. Only Congress may abolish or modify treaties or treaty rights.

treaty resource: A resource associated with the language in a specific treaty, usually interpreted 

to include collections or association of species; not limited to a single species. For example: fish 

may include all fish species (some treaties included rights to erect temporary houses for curing 

fish); roots and berries may include a wide variety of plants that will encompass the nature of the 

plants as they were used historically; grasses are necessarily included for the treaty reserved right 

to graze cattle or livestock. Hunting rights may include all species of animals hunted in historic 

and prehistoric times. As these apply to the Forest Service, they are public natural resources on 

national forest lands, to which American Indian Tribes have reserved certain rights for taking or 

gathering.

trend: As used to describe range conditions, the direction of change in range or forage condition 

or in ecological status toward or away from the desired condition.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

222

Tribe: Term used to designate any native American Indian Tribe, band, nation, or other organized 

group or community which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services 

provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.

trust resource: A resource or property that constitutes a corpus or object of trust that is held in 

trust status by another (trustee) on behalf of a beneficiary. A trustee is usually a governmental 

entity (Secretary of the Interior) who is assigned a trust duty to care for resources that are for the 

exclusive use and benefit of Indian Tribes and/or their members. A beneficiary may be an Indian 

Tribe or individual tribal member, who has property being held in trust status, for example: land, 

money, timber, or any Indian-owned asset.

two-aged regeneration method: A planned sequence of silvicultural treatments designed to 

regenerate or maintain a stand with two age classes. The resulting stand may be two-aged or tend 

towards an uneven-aged condition as a consequence of both an extended period of regeneration 

establishment and the retention of reserve trees that may represent one or more age classes. (Twoaged regeneration harvests must comply with National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

limitations for even-aged harvest methods).

U

understory: The small trees and other woody species/shrubs whose crowns constitute the lowest

horizontal layer of vegetation in a forest stand, growing under the canopy formed by taller trees.

understory reinitiation stage (UR): Structural stage forming as the forest continues to develop 

and new age classes of trees establish as individual overstory trees die or are removed. The 

original trees no longer occupy all of the growing space. Regrowth of understory vegetation then 

occurs, and trees begin to develop in vertical layers. This stage typically contains multiple layers 

and multiple tree sizes. Average tree overstory diameters range from 5 to 20 inches.

uneven-aged management: The application of a combination of actions needed to 

simultaneously maintain continuous high-forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, 

and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to 

provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the number 

or proportion of trees of particular sizes to retain within each area, thereby maintaining a planned 

distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are 

single-tree selection and group selection.

ungulates: Hoofed, plant-eating mammals such as elk, deer, and cattle.

upland: The portion of the landscape above the valley floor or stream.

utility corridor: A parcel of land, without fixed limits or boundaries that is being used as the 

location for one or more transportation or utility rights-of-way.

V

vector: An organism that carries or transmits a pathogenic agent from one host to another.

vegetation management: Management activities such as thinning, harvesting, planting, pruning, 

prescribed burning, mastication, or site preparation that is designed to alter the establishment, 

growth, composition, health, and/or quality of forests, woodlands, grasslands, and shrublands to 

meet the diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable basis.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

223

vertebrate: An animal with a backbone; mammals, fishes, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are 

vertebrates.

viability: In general, viability means the ability of a population of a plant or animal species to 

persist for some specified time into the future.

viable population: A population that is regarded as having the estimated numbers and 

distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that its continued existence is well distributed in 

the planning area.

vision: Part one of a land management plan that describes the roles, contribution, and desired 

conditions of the national forest. This section also contains monitoring measures to assess 

progress toward the desired conditions.

W

water right: A right to use surface water or ground water evidenced by a court decree or by a 

permit or certificate approved by the state water resources department. Statutory exempt uses of 

surface water and ground water are not water rights, nor are time-limited licenses. A perfected 

water right is defined by applicant name, source, purpose, amount (quantity, rate and duty), 

season of use, priority date, point of diversion, place of use, and certificate number.

water quality: A term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of 

water, usually in respect to its suitability for a particular purpose.

watershed: (1) The region draining into a river, river system, or body of water; (2) also the 

divide, or ridgeline that separates two adjacent drainages; (3) In the terminology of the National 

Hydrography Dataset, subdivisions of a subbasin, ranging in size from 40,000 to 250,000 acres; 

the fifth level (10-digit) in the hydrologic hierarchy, and also called HU10 (formerly HUC5). See 

also: basin, subbasin, and subwatershed.

watershed condition classes: Watersheds are rated as Class 1, 2, or 3.

Class 1 Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. Drainage network is generally stable. Physical, 

chemical, and biological] conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are 

predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.

Class 2 Condition: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an 

unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, 

aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.

Class 3 Condition: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be 

unstable. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian 

systems do not support beneficial uses.

watershed function: The processes acting on hillslopes and stream channel within a drainage 

basin that control the movement of water, wood, sediment, and nutrients.

watershed integrity: The degree to which the physical and biological processes affecting the 

movement of water, sediment, wood, and nutrients are operating within normally expected 

ranges.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

224

watershed runoff: Refer to runoff.

water yield: The amount of water that flows from a watershed within a specific period of time.

wetlands: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient 

to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetative or 

aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and 

reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as 

sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds (Executive Order 

11990, Section 7c).

wild and scenic river (WSR): Those rivers or sections of rivers designated as such by 

congressional action under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as supplemented and 

amended. Wild and scenic rivers include all national forest lands within the designated wild and 

scenic river corridor (15). The following classifications are used:

wild river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and 

generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted.

scenic river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with 

watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places 

by roads.

recreational river areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road 

or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have 

undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past.

study river areas: Those rivers formally designated by Congress to be studied under 

Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

wilderness area: An area designated by congressional action under the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

Wilderness is defined as undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence 

without permanent improvements or human habitation. Wildernesses are protected and managed 

to preserve their natural conditions, which generally appear to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature with the imprint of human activity substantially unnoticeable; have outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; are of sufficient size to 

make practical their preservation, enjoyment, and use in an unimpaired condition; and may 

contain features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value as well as ecologic and 

geologic interest.

Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (WROS): The Wilderness Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum system was developed in conjunction with the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS). The terminology is similar, although settings are described in terms of pristine, 

primitive, and semi-primitive settings for wilderness. The descriptions of the primitive and semiprimitive settings for Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum differ slightly from the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum descriptions and, to avoid confusion with Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum settings, are not abbreviated as acronyms.

Pristine: Visitation is very limited. Maintaining a natural and unmodified environment is 

emphasized. Visitors seldom and only temporarily displace wildlife throughout the year. This 

is the best opportunity for isolation and solitude, requiring a maximum degree of primitive 

skills, challenge, and risk. Access is difficult, requiring travel without trails or the use of 

routes created by animals or previous human visitation.
Glossary and Acronyms

Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan

225

Primitive: Visitation is limited. The environment is essentially unmodified and natural with 

no long-term changes to the landscape except for facilities or structures that are deemed 

historically important to the area or experience. Signs of human use are minimal. Visitation 

does not displace wildlife during critical periods. High opportunity exists for exploring and 

experiencing considerable isolation and solitude. Primitive recreation skills are required with 

a high degree of challenge and risk. Access is via trails maintained to a “most difficult” 

standard.

Semi-primitive: Visitation is low to moderate. The environment is essentially unmodified 

and natural, with no long-term changes to the landscape, except for facilities or structures that 

are historically important to the area or experience. Visitation does not displace wildlife 

during critical periods. Moderate opportunity exists for exploring and experiencing isolation, 

independence, and closeness to nature. No-trace camping and primitive skills are required, 

with a moderate to high degree of challenge and risk. Access is via constructed and 

maintained trails managed to “more difficult” or “most difficult” standards.

wildfire: An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, 

escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fire 

where the objective is to put the fire out.

wildland: A nonurban, natural area that contains uncultivated land, timber, range, watershed, 

brush or grassland.

wildland fire: Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland. This 

term encompasses fires previously called both wildfires and prescribed natural fires (USDA and 

USDI 1998).

wildland-urban interface (WUI): The area directly adjacent to home and communities.

winter range: The area available to and used by wildlife (big game) during the winter season. 

Generally, lands below 4,000 feet in elevation, on south and west aspects, that provides forage 

and thermal/snow intercept.

woodland: Dry, low elevation areas with a potential vegetation type of juniper.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

226

References

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Ager, A. A., B. K. Johnson, J. W. Kern and J. G. Kie. 2003. Daily and seasonal movements and habitat 

use by female Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy. 84 (3): 1076-1088.

Andrews, A. and K. Kutara. 2005. Oregon's Timber Harvests: 1849-2004. Selected Counties. Oregon 

Department of Forestry.

Angermeier, P. L. 1997. Conceptual roles of biological integrity and diversity. In: Watershed restoration: 

principles and practices, Williams, J. E., C. A. Wood and M. P. Dombeck, eds. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 49-65.

Aubry, C., D. Goheen, R. Shoal, T. Ohlson, T. Lorenz, A. Bower, C. Mehmel and R. Sniezko. 2008. 

Whitebark pine restoration strategy for the Pacific Northwest Region, Executive Summary. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Bacon, W. 1974. The visual management system. In: National forest landscape management, 

Agricultural Handbook No. 462 (Vol.2), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Baker, B. W., H. C. Ducharme, D. C. S. Mitchell, T. R. Stanley and H. R. Peinetti. 2005. Interaction 

of beaver and elk herbivory reduces standing crop of willow. Ecological Applications. 15 (1): 

110-118.

Beechie, T. and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat forming processes in Pacific 

Northwest watersheds. Fisheries. 24 (4): 6-15.

Benda, L. E. 1990. The influence of debris flows on channels and valley floors in the Oregon Coast 

Range, U.S.A. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 15 (5): 457-466.

Benton, T. G., J. A. Vickery and J. D. Wilson. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the 

key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 18: 182-188.

Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2 (4): 371-374.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Influences of 

Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, Meehan, W. R., ed. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 83-138.

Bolon, N. A. 1994. Estimates of the values of elk in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington: 

evidence from the existing literature. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-316. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 38 p.

Bormann, B. T., P. S. Homann, R. L. Darbyshire and B. A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest wildfire 

sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 38 (11): 2771-2783.

Brady, N. C. 1990. The nature and properties of soils. MacMillan Publishers, Ltd., New York.

Brown, G. and P. Reed. 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest planning. 

Forest Science. 46 (2): 240-247.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

227

Brown, J. H., D. W. Mehlman and G. C. Stevens. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology. 76 

(7): 2028-2043.

Brown, J. K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management, Society of American 

Foresters. Convention (USA), Anchorage, AK, Society of American Foresters, 171-178.

Brown, T. C., M. T. Hobbins and J. A. Ramirez. 2008. Spatial distribution of water supply in the 

coterminous United States. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 44 (6): 1474-

1487.

Bull, E. L., C. G. Parks and T. R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior 

Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 12 p.

Burns, R. M. and B. H. Honkala. 1990. Silvics of north America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Washington DC.

Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith and E. R. Cowley. 2011. Riparian area management: multiple indicator 

monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation. U.S. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center.

Busse, M. D., S. E. Beattie, R. F. Powers, F. G. Sanchez and A. E. Tiarks. 2006. Microbial community 

responses in forest mineral soil to compaction, organic matter removal, and vegetation control. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36 (3): 577-588.

Carter, S. K., N. B. Carr, C. H. Flather, E. Fleishman, M. Leu, B. R. Noon and D. J. Wood. 2016.

Assessing Ecological Integrity Using Multiscale Information from Bureau of Land Management 

Assessment and Monitoring Programs. In: Multiscale Guidance and Tools for Implementing a 

Landscape Approach to Resource Management in the Bureau of Land Management. Open-File 

Report 2016-1207, Carter, S. K., N. B. Carr, K. H. Miller and D. J. A. Wood, eds. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, VA. 39-53.

Ciuti, S., J. M. Northrup, T. B. Muhly, S. Simi, M. Musiani, J. A. Pitt and M. S. Boyce. 2012. Effects 

of humans on behavior of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS 

ONE. 7 (11)

Coats, R. N. and T. O. Miller. 1981. Developing best management practices for California forests. A 208 

progress report. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 36 (4): 205-208.

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, J. W. Kern, S. L. Findholt, J. G. Kie and M. J. Wisdom. 2001. Responses 

of elk and mule deer to cattle in summer. Journal of Range Management. 54: A51-A76.

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, K. M. Stewart and J. G. Kie. 2005. Spatial and temporal interactions of elk, 

mule deer, and cattle. In: The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule 

deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference, Wisdom, M. J., ed. Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. 150-

158.

Coe, P. K., B. K. Johnson, M. J. Wisdom, J. G. Cook, M. Vavra and R. M. Nielson. 2011. Validation 

of elk resource selection models with spatially independent data. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 75 (1): 159-170.

Conner, R. and W. Lang. 2006. Early contact and incursion, 1700–1850. Wiyáxayxt as days go by, our 

history, our land, and our people, the Cayuse, Umatilla and Walla Walla. 23-57.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

228

Cook, J. G., R. C. Cook, R. Davis and L. L. Irwin. 2016. Nutritional ecology of elk during summer and 

autumn in the Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs. 195: 1-81.

Cordone, A. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. The influences of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of 

streams. California Fish and Game. 47 (2): 189-228.

Countryman, B. and D. Justice. 2010. Analysis of existing versus historic condition for structural stages 

and potential vegetation groups within the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision 

Team, Baker City, OR. 16 p.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, DC, 79 p.

Cronon, W. 1996. Uncommon ground. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.

Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetlands classification of the Malheur, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Baker City, OR, 299 p.

DeBano, L. F. and J. L. Schmidt. 1989. Improving southwestern riparian areas through watershed 

management. General Technical Report RM-GTR-182. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 33 p.

Dettinger, M. 2005. Changes in streamflow timing in the western United States in recent decades. Fact 

Sheet 2005-3018. U.S. Geological Survey, La Jolla, CA. 4 p.

Dodge, M. 1972. Forest fuel accumulation--A growing problem. Science. 177 (4044): 139-142.

Dunham, J. B., A. E. Rosenberger, C. H. Luce and B. E. Rieman. 2007. Influences of wildfire and 

channel reorganization on spatial and temporal variation in stream temperature and the 

distribution of fish and amphibians. Ecosystems. 10 (2): 335-346.

Egan, D. 2007. Conserving and restoring old growth in frequent-fire forests: cycles of disruption and 

recovery. Ecology and Society. 12 (2)

Ehinger, P. F. 2012. Forest industry data, Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Montana. Operating 

Mills and closed mill history from 1990 to 2012. Paul F. Ehinger & Associates, Eugene, OR. 90 

p.

Endter-Wada, J., D. Blahna, R. Krannich and M. Brunson. 1998. Framework for understanding social 

science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications. 8 (3): 891-904.

Environmental Protection Agency, [EPA]. 2005. Federal implementation plans under the Clean Air Act 

for Indian reservations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington; Final Rule. Federal Register Friday 

April 8, 2005; 40 CFR Parts 9 and 49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

18074 -18134.

ESSA Technologies Ltd. 2007. Vegetation dynamics development tool user guide, version 6.0. ESSA 

Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, BC.

Euliss, N., J. LaBaugh, L. Fredrickson, D. Mushet and M. Laubhan. 2004. The wetland continuum: a 

conceptual framework for interpreting biological studies. Wetlands. 24 (2): 448-458.

Farina, A. 2013. Soundscape ecology: principles, patterns, methods and applications. Springer, New 

York.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

229

Fischer, J., D. B. Lindenmayer and A. D. Manning. 2006. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and 

resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and 

the Environment. 4 (2): 80-86.

Forman, R. T. T. 1995. Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, UK.

Forster, D. L., C. P. Bardos and D. D. Southgate. 1987. Soil erosion and water treatment costs. Journal 

of Soil and Water Conservation. 42 (5): 349-351.

Fowler, P. E. 2001. Washington State elk herd plan- Blue Mountains elk herd. Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 47 p.

Franklin, J. F. 1990. Biological legacies: a critical management concept from Mount St. Helens. Trans. 

North American Wildlands Natural Resource Conference. 216-219.

Franklin, J. F. and J. K. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues in 

Science and Technology. 20 (1): 59-66.

Franklin, J. F. and C. T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 417 p.

Franklin, J. F. and K. N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific 

Northwest Journal of Forestry. 110 (8): 429-439.

Franklin, J. F., D. B. Lindenmayer, J. MacMahon, W. A. McKee, J. Magnuson, D. Perry, R. Waide 

and D. Foster. 2000. Threads of continuity. Conservation. 1 (1): 8-17.

Gale, C. B., C. E. Keegan III, E. C. Berg, J. Daniels, G. A. Christensen, C. B. Sorenson, T. A. 

Morgan and P. Polzin. 2012. Oregon's forest products industry and timber harvest, 2008: 

industry trends and impacts of the great recession through 2010. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Gecy, R. 2009. Twentieth century climate trends and potential effects of climate change on National 

Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains, northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. 

Unpublished. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Blue 

Mountains Forest Plan Revision Team, Baker City, OR.

Gosz, J. R., J. Asher, B. Holder, R. Knight, R. Naiman, G. Raines, P. Stine and T. B. Wigley. 1999.

An ecosystem approach to understanding landscape diversity. In: Ecological stewardship: a 

common reference for ecosystem management, Johnson, N. C., A. J. Malk, W. T. Sexton and R. C. 

Szaro, eds. Elsevier, New York. 157-194.

Gregory, S. V. and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of salmonid habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems, Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. 

Naiman, eds. Chapman & Hall, New York. 277-314.

Hagen, C. A. 2011. Greater sage-grouse conservation assessment and strategy for Oregon: a plan to 

maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, 

OR. 221 p.

Halofsky, J. E. and D. E. Peterson, eds. 2017. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue 

Mountains Region, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-939. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 331 p.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

230

Hamlet, A. F., P. W. Mote, M. Clark and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2005. Effects of temperature and 

precipitation variability on snowpack trends in the western United States. Journal of Climate. 18 

(21): 4545-4561.

Hamlet, A. F., P. W. Mote, M. P. Clark and D. P. Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in 

runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the western United States. Journal of Climate. 20 

(8): 1468-1486.

Hanes, R. C. and R. Hansis. 1995. Interactions of American Indian nations and ethnic groups with the 

natural environment. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Boise, ID.

Hann, W. J. and D. L. Bunnell. 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across 

multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10 (4): 389-403.

Hann, W. J., J. L. Jones, M. G. Karl, P. F. Hessburg, R. E. Keane, D. G. Long, J. P. Menakis, C. H. 

McNicoll, S. G. Leonard, R. A. Gravenmier and B. G. Smith. 1997. Landscape dynamics of 

the basin, Chapter 3. In: An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin 

and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-405, 

Volume 2, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 363-960.

Hann, W. J., M. J. Wisdom and M. M. Rowland. 2003. Disturbance departure and fragmentation of 

natural systems in the Interior Columbia Basin. Quigley, T. M. Research Paper PNW-RP-545. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR.

Hardy, C. C., K. M. Schmidt, J. P. Menakis and R. N. Sampson. 2001. Spatial data for national fire 

planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10 (4): 353-372.

Harvey, A. E., J. M. Geist, G. I. McDonald, M. F. Jurgensen, P. H. Cochran, D. Zabowski and R. T. 

Meurisse. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management 

on soil properties, processes, and productivity. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 71 

p.

Haugo, R., C. Zanger, T. DeMeo, C. Ringo, A. Shlisky, K. Blankenship, M. Simpson, K. MellenMcLean, J. Kertis and M. Stern. 2015. A new approach to evaluate forest structure restoration 

needs across Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 335: 37-50.

Haviland, W. A. 2002. Cultural anthropology. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Helms, J. A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Society of American Foresters, 210 p.

Hemstrom, M. A., J. J. Korol and W. J. Hann. 2001. Trends in terrestrial plant communities and 

landscape health indicate the effects of alternative management strategies in the Interior 

Columbia River Basin. Forest Ecology and Management. 153 (1-3): 1-21.

Hessburg, P., B. Smith, R. Salter, R. Ottmar and E. Alvarado. 2000. Recent changes (1930s–1990s) in 

spatial patterns of interior northwest forests, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 136 (1-3): 

53-83.

Hessburg, P. F. and J. K. Agee. 2003. An environmental narrative of Inland Northwest United States 

forests, 1800–2000. Forest Ecology and Management. 178 (1-2): 23-59.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

231

Hessburg, P. F., J. K. Agee and J. F. Franklin. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland 

northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 211 (1-2): 117-139.

Hessburg, P. F., D. J. Churchill, A. J. Larson, R. D. Haugo, C. Miller, T. A. Spies, M. P. North, N. A. 

Povak, R. T. Belote, P. H. Singleton, W. L. Gaines, R. E. Keane, G. H. Aplet, S. L. Stephens, 

P. Morgan, P. A. Bisson, B. E. Rieman, R. B. Salter and G. H. Reeves. 2015. Restoring fireprone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecology. 30 (10)

Hessburg, P. F., B. G. Smith, S. D. Kreiter, C. A. Miller, R. B. Salter, C. H. McNicholl and W. J. 

Hann. 1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the Interior Columbia River 

Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins; Part 1: linking vegetation patterns and 

landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-458. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 357 p.

Heyerdahl, E. K. and J. K. Agee. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four sites in the Blue Mountains, 

Oregon and Washington. Seattle, WA, 

Hillis, J. M., M. J. Thompson, J. E. Canfield, L. J. Lyon, C. L. Marcum, P. M. Dolan and D. W. 

McCleery. 1991. Defining elk security: The Hillis paradigm In: Proceedings for symposium on 

elk vulnerability, Christensen, A. G., L. J. Lyon and T. N. Lonner, eds. Montana State University, 

Bozeman, MT. 38-54.

Holmes, R., L. Croft and R. R. Clausnitzer. 2009. Plant species assessments for Region 6 Forest Plan 

revisions. Unpublished report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR. 8 p.

Hornbeck, J. W. and J. N. Kochenderfer. 2000. Linkages between forests and streams: a perspective in 

time. In: Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States, Verry, E. S., J. 

W. Hornbeck and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 89-98.

Horne, A. L. and R. W. Haynes. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic resiliency in the Interior 

Columbia Basin. In: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific 

assessment, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-453, Quigley, T. M., ed. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 41 p.

Hunn, E. S., N. J. Turner and D. H. French. 1998. Ethnobiology and subsistence. In: The Handbook of 

North American Indians, Walker, D. E., ed. 525-545.

Huntington, T. G. 2004. Climate Change, Growing Season Length, and Transpiration: Plant Response 

Could Alter Hydrologic Regime. Plant Biology. 6 (6): 651-653.

Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern 

Rocky Mountain (USA) conifer forests. Conservation biology. 9 (5): 1041-1058.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board, [ISAB]. 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia River 

Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest 

Power Planning Council, the Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. 146 p.

Jennings, S. B., N. D. Brown and D. Sheil. 1999. Assessing forest canopies and understorey 

illumination: canopy closure, canopy cover and other measures. Forestry. 72 (1): 59-74.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

232

Johnson, B. K., A. A. Ager, J. H. Noyes and N. J. Cimon. 2005. Elk and mule deer responses to 

variation in hunting pressure. In: The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and 

mule deer, M. J. Wisdom, technical editor, ed. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS. 127-138.

Johnson, C. G., Jr. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco Mountains. 

Publication R6-ERW-TP-036-92. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Portland, OR. 164 p.

Johnson, C. G., Jr. and S. A. Simon. 1987. Plant associations of the Wallowa-Snake province. R6-

ECOL-TP-225A-86. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR. 272 p.

Johnson, C. G. and D. K. Swanson. 2005. Bunchgrass plant communities of the Blue and Ochoco 

mountains: A guide for managers. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-641. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Johnson, D. H. and T. A. O'Neil, eds. 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 736 p.

Johnson, D. R. and D. H. Chance. 1974. Presettlement overharvest of upper Columbia River beaver 

populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 52 (12): 1519-1521.

Johnston, J. 2016. Forest successional and disturbance dynamics in the Southern Blue Mountains of 

Oregon. Oregon State University, 125 p.

Jones, J. R. and G. A. Schier. 1985. Growth. In: Aspen: Ecology and management in the western United 

States, DeByle, N. V. and R. P. Winokur, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 19-24.

Justice, D. and B. Countryman. 2006. Existing Vegetation - VDDT Coding. Baker City, OR. 11 p.

Kaetzel, B. R. 2015. Oregon Forest Sector Economic Report. Report prepared for the Oregon Board of 

Forestry. 11 p.

Kaufmann, M., D. Binkley, P. Fulé, M. Johnson, S. Stephens and T. Swetnam. 2007. Defining old 

growth for fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Ecology and Society. 12 (2)

Kimmins, J. P. 2004. Forest Ecology; A foundation for sustainable forest management and environment 

ethics in forestry. Benjamin Cummings, 3rd ed.

Knopf, F. L. and M. L. Scott. 1990. Altered flows and created landscapes in the Platte River headwaters, 

1840-1990. In: Management of dynamic ecosystems, Sweeney, J. M., ed. North-Central section, 

The Wildlife Society, West Lafayette, IN. 47-70.

Knowles, N., M. Dettinger and D. Cayan. 2006. Trends in snowfall versus rainfall for the western 

United States. Journal of Climate. 19 (18): 4545-4559.

Langston, N. 1995. Forest dreams, forest nightmares: the paradox of old growth in the inland west. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Lanner, R. M. 1996. Made for each other: a symbiosis of birds and pines. Oxford University Press on 

Demand.

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow and J. E. Williams. 1998. Interior Columbia 

Basin ecosystem management project: Aquatic species and habitats. Journal of Forestry. 96 (10): 

16-21.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

233

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, J. E. Williams, D. Burns, J. Clayton, L. Decker, 

R. Gresswell, R. House, P. Howell, K. M. Lee, K. MacDonald, J. McIntyre, S. McKinney, T. 

Noel, J. E. O'Connor, C. K. Overton, D. Perkinson, K. Tu and P. Van Eimeren. 1997.

Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats, Chapter 4, General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-405, Volume III. In: An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, Quigley, T. M. and S. J. 

Arbelbide, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 1057-1496.

Leopold, L. B. and T. Maddock. 1953. The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some 

physiographic implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Washington, DC. 57 p.

Leopold, L. B. and M. G. Wolman. 1957. River channel patterns: braided, meandering, and straight. 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 282-B. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 

39-85.

Lincoln, R. J., G. A. Boxshall and P. F. Clark. 1982. A dictionary of ecology, evolution, and 

systematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Lindenmayer, D. B., W. F. Laurance, J. F. Franklin, G. E. Likens, S. C. Banks, W. Blanchard, P. 

Gibbons, P. Ikin, K. Blair, L. McBurney and A. D. Manning. 2014. New policies for old trees: 

averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conservation Letters. 7 (1): 61-69.

Lindgren, W. 1901. The Gold Belt of the Blue Mountains, Oregon. 22nd Annual Report, Part 2. U.S. 

Geological Survey, 551-776.

Liquori, M. and C. R. Jackson. 2001. Channel response from shrub dominated riparian communities 

and associated effects on salmonid habitat. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

37 (6): 1639-1651.

Long, R. A., J. L. Rachlow and J. G. Kie. 2008. Effects of season and scale on response of elk and mule 

deer to habitat manipulation. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72: 1133-1142.

MacDonald, L. H. and P. R. Robichaud. 2008. Post-fire erosion and the effectiveness of emergency 

rehabilitation treatments over time. Stream Notes. January: 1-6.

Mattson, D. J., K. C. Kendall and D. P. Reinhart. 2001. Whitebark pine, grizzly bears, and red 

squirrels. Whitebark pine communities. In: Whitebark pine communities: ecology and restoration, 

Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno and R. E. Keane, eds. Island Press, Washington DC. 3-25.

May, C. L. and R. E. Gresswell. 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns of debris-flow deposition in the 

Oregon Coast Range, USA. Geomorphology. 57 (3-4): 135-149.

Mazurek, M. J. and W. J. Zielinski. 2004. Individual legacy trees influence vertebrate wildlife diversity 

in commercial forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 193 (3): 321-334.

McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A. 

Brown. 1994a. Management history of eastside ecosystems: changes in fish habitat over 50 

years, 1935 to 1992. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-321, Volume III. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 55 p.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

234

McIntosh, B. A., J. R. Sedell, J. E. Smith, R. C. Wissmar, S. E. Clarke, G. H. Reeves and L. A. 

Brown. 1994b. Historical changes in fish habitat for select river basins of eastern Oregon and 

Washington. Northwest Science. 68 (Special Issue): 36-53.

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. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing 

snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. 

Version 2.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and 

Pacific Northwest Research Station; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

Millar, R. G. 2000. Influence of bank vegetation on alluvial channel patterns. Water Resources Research. 

36 (4): 1109-1118.

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, R. D. Smith, K. M. Schmidt and G. Pess. 1995. Pool spacing in 

forest channels. Water Resources Research. 31 (4): 1097-1105.

Moody, J. A. and D. A. Kinner. 2006. Spatial structures of stream and hillslope drainage networks 

following gully erosion after wildfire. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 31 (3): 319-337.

Mote, P., E. Salathé, V. Dulière and E. Jump. 2008. Scenarios of future climate for the Pacific 

Northwest. A report by the Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 14 p.

Mote, P. W. 2003. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the twentieth 

century. Northwest Science. 77 (4): 271-282.

Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. 

O'Connor, P. L. Olson and E. A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements of ecologically healthy 

watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: Watershed Management, Balancing 

Sustainability and Environmental Change, Naiman, R., ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 127-188.

National Research Council, [NRC]. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group, [NWCG]. 2014. Minimum impact suppression tactics. In: 

Incident response pocket guide, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Boise, ID. 91-92.

Newell, B., C. L. Crumley, N. Hassan, E. F. Lambin, C. Pahl-Wostl, A. Underall and R. Wasson. 

2005. A conceptual template for integrative human-environment research. Global Environmental 

Change. 15: 299-307.

O'Hara, K. L., P. A. Latham, P. F. Hessburg and B. G. Smith. 1996. A structural classification for 

inland northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11 (3): 97-102.

O'Hara, K. L. and B. S. Ramage. 2013. Silviculture in an uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged 

management systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry. 86 (4): 401-410.

Oliver, C. D. and B. C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2003. Oregon's elk management plan. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. 63 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2005 (updated 2010). Oregon wolf conservation 

and management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 116 p.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

235

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2006a. The Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2006b. Elkhorn Wildlife Area Management Plan. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR, 48 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2007. Wenaha Wildlife Area Management Plan. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR, 40 p.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, [ODFW]. 2015. Shed hunt responsibly to protect big game. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 3 p.

Oregon Department of Forestry, [ODF]. 2014. Operational guidance for the Oregon smoke 

management plan. Directive 1-4-1-601. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR. 51 p.

Pickett, S. T. A. and P. S. White. 1985. The ecology of natural disturbance and patch dynamics. 

Academic Press, New York.

Pierce-Colfer, C. J. and Y. Byron, eds. 2001. People managing forests: the links between human wellbeing and sustainability. Resources for the Future. , Washington, DC.

Proffitt, K. M., M. Hebblewhite, W. Peters, N. Hupp and J. Shamhart. 2016. Linking landscape-scale 

differences in forage to ungulate nutritional ecology. Ecological Applications. 26: 2156-2174.

Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the Interior 

Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. General Technical Report PNWGTR-405, Four Volumes. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR.

Quigley, T. M., R. W. Haynes and G. T. Russel, eds. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for 

ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great 

Basins. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-382. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 303 p.

Radin, P. 1914. Religion of the North American Indians. The Journal of American Folklore. 27 (106): 

335-373.

Raedeke, K. J., ed. 1989. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. Institute 

of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbance-based 

ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of evolutionarily significant 

units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium. 

17: 334-349.

Reiss, K. Y., P. Dawson, K. Gallo, D. Konnoff and L. Croft. 2008. Process for determining Forest 

Service contribution to sustainability and determining key watersheds. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 150 p.

Reneau, S. L. and W. E. Dietrich. 1987. The importance of hollows in debris flow studies: examples 

from Marin County, California. In: Debris flows/avalanches: process, recognition, and 

mitigation, Costa, J. E. and G. F. Wieczorek, eds. Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO. 

165-180.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

236

Rieman, B., J. Dunham and J. Clayton. 2006. Emerging concepts for management of river ecosystems 

and challenges to applied integration of physical and biological sciences in the Pacific Northwest, 

USA. International Journal of River Basin Management. 4 (2): 85-97.

Rogers, P. 1996. Disturbance ecology and forest management: a review of the literature. General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-336. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18 (3): 235-249.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in 

relation to roads. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 64 (3): 672-684.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of roads on elk: 

implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: The Starkey Project: a synthesis of longterm studies of elk and mule deer, Wisdom, M. J., ed. Lawrence, KS. 42-52.

Ryan, R. L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and 

fuels management. General Technical Report GTR-NC-261. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 58 p.

Samson, F. B. 2002. Population viability analysis, management, and conservation planning at large 

scales. In: Population viability analysis, Beissinger, S. R. and D. R. McCullough, eds. The 

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 425-442.

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 41 p.

Schumm, S. A. 1960. The shape of alluvial channels in relation to sediment type. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, DC. 30 p.

Schwandt, J. W. 2006. Whitebark pine in peril: a case for restoration. R1-06-28. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 20 p.

Schwarz, C. F., E. C. Thor and G. H. Elsner. 1976. Wildland Planning Glossary. General Technical 

Report PSW-13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 252 p.

Sedell, J. R., F. N. Leone and W. S. Duvall. 1991. Water transportation and storage of logs. In: Influence 

of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, Meehan, W. R., ed. 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 325-368.

Sedell, J. R., G. H. Reeves and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Habitat policy for salmon in the Pacific Northwest. 

In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems, Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. 

Chapman & Hall, New York. 375-387.

Shakesby, R. A. and S. H. Doerr. 2006. Wildfire as a hydrological and geomorphological agent. EarthScience Reviews. 74 (3-4): 269-307.

Shirley, D. M. and V. Erickson. 2001. Aspen restoration in the Blue Mountains of northeast Oregon, 

Shepperd, W. D., D. Binkley, D. L. Bartos, T. J. Stohlgren and L. G. Eskew, eds. Sustaining aspen 

in western landscapes: Symposium proceedings, Proceedings RMRS-P-18, Grand Junction, CO, 
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

237

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, 

CO, 101-116.

Slichter, P. 1998. Cous, Cous Biscuitroot, Cous-root Desert Parsley. 

http://science.halleyhosting.com/nature/basin/5petal/pars/lom/cous/cous.htm. Flora and Fauna 

Northwest, Portland.

Society for Range Management, Range Term Glossary Committee and M. Kothmann. 1974. A 

glossary of terms used in range management. Society for Range Management.

Solley, W. B., R. R. Pierce and H. A. Perlman. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States in 

1995. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 71 p.

Spier, L. 1930. Klamath Ethnography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology 

and Ethnology Vol. 30. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Spies, T. A. 1997. Forest Stand Structure, Composition, and Function. In: Creating a Forestry for the 21st 

Century: The Science Of Ecosystem Management, Kohm, K. A. and J. F. Franklin, eds. Island 

Press, Washington DC.

Spies, T. A. and S. L. Duncan. 2009. Searching for old growth. In: Old growth in a New World: a Pacific 

Northwest icon, Spies, T. A. and S. L. Duncan, eds.

Stine, P., P. F. Hessburg, T. A. Spies, M. G. Kramer, C. J. Fettig, A. Hansen, J. F. Lehmkuhl, K. L. 

O'Hara, K. M. Polivka and P. H. Singleton. 2014. Ecology and Management of Moist Mixedconifer Forests in Eastern Oregon and Washington: A Synthesis of the Relevant Biophysical 

Science and Implications for Future Land Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Swan, L., J. Tokarcyk and B. Klaetzel. 2012. Eastern Oregon primary wood products processing 

facilities and operations. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR.

Swanson, M. E., J. F. Franklin, R. L. Beschta, C. M. Crisafulli, D. A. DellaSala, R. L. Hutto, D. B. 

Lindenmayer and F. J. Swanson. 2010. The forgotten stage of forest succession: earlysuccessional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9 (2): 117-

125.

Swift, B. L. 1984. Status of riparian ecosystems in the United States. Water Resources Bulletin. 20 (2): 

223-228.

Tappeiner, J. C., D. A. Maguire and T. B. Harrington. 2007. Silviculture and ecology of western US 

forests. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Thomas, J. W., ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Washington and 

Oregon, Agriculture Handbook No. 553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington, DC. 512 p.

Thomas, J. W., D. A. Leckenby, M. G. Henjum, R. J. Pedersen and L. D. Bryant. 1988. Habitateffectiveness index for elk on Blue Mountain winter ranges. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 28 p.

Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno and R. E. Keane. 2001. The compelling case for management intervention. 

In: Whitebark Pine Communities: ecology and restoration, Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno and R. E. 

Keane, eds. Island Press, Washington DC. 3-25.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

238

Toweill, D. E. and J. W. Thomas, eds. 2002. North American elk: ecology and management. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Turner, M. G. and R. H. Gardner. 2015. Landscape Ecology in Theory and Practice. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 2nd ed.

Turner, Z. 2003. Upper Chewaucan monitoring project. The Stewardship Chronicles. 5 (1): 5.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA]. 2010. Web Soil Survey online at 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ accessed 01/14/09. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and U.S. Department of Interior, [USDI]. 1995. Decision 

notice and record of decision: interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds on federal lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

[PACFISH]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and U.S. Department of Interior, [USDI]. 1997. Interior 

Columbia Basin Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station Boise, ID.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and U.S. Department of Interior, [USDI]. 1998. Wildland 

and prescribed fire management policy-implementation procedures reference guide. National 

Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 81 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and U.S. Department of Interior, [USDI]. 2000a. Interior 

Columbia Basin supplemental draft environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA] and U.S. Department of Interior, [USDI]. 2000b. Interior 

Columbia Basin Final Environmental Impact Statement. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station Boise, ID.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 1990. Land and resource management 

plan, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 1993. Forest Service Region 6 Interim 

Old Growth Definition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 1995a. Decision notice and finding of no 

significant impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy [INFISH]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions, Missoula, MT; Ogden, 

UT; Portland, OR. July 28, 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 1995b. Landscape aesthetics, a handbook 

for scenery management. Agriculture Handbook 701. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

239

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 1995c. Decision Notice for the Revised 

Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife 

Standards for Timber Sales. (Eastside Screens). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Region 6: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, WallowaWhitman and Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington, 140 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Washington Office, Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2001. The built environment image guide 

for the National Forests and Grasslands. FS-710. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2003. Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area Comprehensive Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Two Volumes. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, 

OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2005 (updated 2010). Blue Mountains 

forest plan revision, need for change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Team, 

Baker City, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2006. Landtype associations of Blue 

Mountains ecoregion in Oregon and Washington. Prepared by J. Sassich based on the work of R. 

J. Ottersberg. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, 

OR. 114 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2007. Forest Service open space 

conservation strategy. Cooperating across boundaries to sustain working and natural landscapes. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 16 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2010a. National report on sustainable 

forests - 2010. FS-979. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC. 214 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2010b. Terrestrial species assessments 

Region 6 forest plan revisions. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR. 34 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2011b. Watershed condition framework. 

FS-977. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC. 24 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2012. Groundwater-dependent 

ecosystems: level l inventory field guide: inventory methods for assessment and planning. 

General Technical Report WO-86a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, 

DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2016. A Citizen's Guide to Forest 

Planning. Prepared by the Federal Advisory Committee on Implementation of the 2012 Land 

Management Planning Rule. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 64 

p.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

240

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, [USDA FS]. 2018. Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy, Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 146 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service website. Undated. 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/index.php.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [USFWS]. 1996 (updated in 1998). Endangered species consultation 

handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington 

DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [USFWS]. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day 

finding on a petition to list the redband trout in the Great Basin as threatened or endangered. 

Federal Register 63. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 63657–63659.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, [USFWS]. 2008. Birds of conservation concern 2008. U.S. Department 

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 

p.

U.S. Geological Survey, [USGS] and U.S. Department of Agriculture, [USDA], Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 2012. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed 

Boundary Dataset (WBD) (3d ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11-A3. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington. Washington State Department 

of Natural Resources.

Walker, D. E. 1988. Protecting American Indian Sacred Geography. Northwest Anthropological Research 

Notes. 22 (2): 253-266.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, [WDFW]. 2005. Washington's comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Natural Resources, [WA DNR]. 1998. Smoke Management Plan. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, 106 p.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, MD.

Wells, A. F. 2006. Deep canyon and subalpine riparian and wetland plant associations of the Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-682. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. 277 p.

Wildland Fire Executive Council. 2014. 2014 Quadrennial Fire Review. Final Report. Wildland Fire 

Executive Council, Washington DC. 32 p.

Winward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden, UT, USA.

Wisdom, M. J., L. R. Bright, C. G. Carey, W. W. Hines, R. J. Pedersen, D. A. Smithey, J. W. Thomas 

and G. W. Witmer. 1986. A model to evaluate elk habitat in western Oregon. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
References

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

241

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. 

Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial 

vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management 

implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, 3 volumes. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Wissmar, R. C. 2004. Riparian corridors of eastern Oregon and Washington: Functions and sustainability 

along lowland-arid to mountain gradients. Aquatic Sciences - Research Across Boundaries. 66 

(4): 373-387.

Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell, eds. 1994a. 

Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 65 

p.

Wissmar, R. C., J. E. Smith, B. A. McIntosh, H. W. Li, G. H. Reeves and J. R. Sedell. 1994b. A 

history of resource use and disturbance in riverine basins of eastern Oregon and Washington 

(early 1800's-1990's). Northwest Science. 68 (Special Issue): 1-35.

Wolman, M. G. and J. P. Miller. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes. 

Journal of Geology. 68: 54-74.

Wright, P. A., G. Alward, J. L. Colby, T. W. Hoekstra, B. Tegler and M. Turner. 2002. Monitoring for 

forest management unit scale sustainability: The local unit criteria and indicators development 

(LUCID) test (technical edition). Inventory and Monitoring Report No. 4. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. 370 p.

Young, M. K. 1995. Conservation assessment for inland cutthroat trout. General Technical Report RMGTR-256. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 61 p.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

243

Appendices

Appendix A: Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance for Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Appendix D: Maps

Appendix E: Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan 

(separate bound document)

United States Department of Agriculture

Blue Mountains

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

Appendix A to the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests Land Management Plans

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 2018
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA 

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

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

complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, 

large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter 

addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

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

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

Contents

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

2. Resource Context............................................................................................................................ 4

3. Overview of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy ............................ 4

4. Scientific Basis............................................................................................................................... 9

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems .................................................................................................. 9

Ecosystem Disturbance, Sensitivity, and Resilience .................................................................... 10

Ecosystem Management ............................................................................................................... 12

Spatial Scales for Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystem Management............................................ 14

Riparian Management Areas ........................................................................................................ 15

New Threats.................................................................................................................................. 16

5. Management Areas....................................................................................................................... 19

Riparian Management Areas ........................................................................................................ 19

Key and Priority Watersheds........................................................................................................ 21

6. The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy and Forest Plans .................. 30

Goals and Desired Conditions...................................................................................................... 32

Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 40

Standards and Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 43

Suitability of Areas....................................................................................................................... 53

Monitoring.................................................................................................................................... 55

7. Watershed Analysis...................................................................................................................... 56

Background................................................................................................................................... 56

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 56

Watersheds to be Analyzed .......................................................................................................... 57

Line Officer Role.......................................................................................................................... 57

Analysis Process........................................................................................................................... 57

Updating Existing Watershed Analyses ....................................................................................... 58

General Products........................................................................................................................... 58

Relationship with Project and Watershed Planning and Landscape Analysis.............................. 60

Documentation.............................................................................................................................. 60

Analysis Resources....................................................................................................................... 60

8. Watershed Restoration Strategy ................................................................................................... 67

Background................................................................................................................................... 67

Implementing Integrated Projects that Restore and Maintain Watershed Conditions.................. 72

9. Monitoring.................................................................................................................................... 76

Monitoring, Verification, and Feedback in Restoration ............................................................... 76

Implementation, Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring.......................................................... 77

Broad-scale and Forest Plan Implementation-scale Monitoring................................................... 78

Linkage between Monitoring, Watershed Analysis and Restoration............................................ 82

10. Coordination and Cooperation.................................................................................................... 82

11. Risks and Uncertainties.............................................................................................................. 83

12. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 83

11. References.................................................................................................................................. 84

12. Acronyms ................................................................................................................................... 95

13. Glossary...................................................................................................................................... 96

Attachment A. Document Tables................................................................................................... 103

Attachment B. Use of the Matrix of Pathways and Watershed Indicators and Watershed Condition 

Framework to Replace Riparian Management Objectives............................................................. 115
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

ii

Tables

Table 1. Municipal and public source watersheds on National Forest System lands in the Blue 

Mountains..................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 2. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve watershed function objectives...... 41

Table 3. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve species diversity objectives.......... 42

Table 4. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve plant species composition objectives

...................................................................................................................................................... 43

Table 5. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve soil quality objectives................... 43

Table 6. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve water quality objectives................ 43

Table 7. Desired and actual changes in overall and individual habitat ................................................. 79

Table 8. Excerpt of aquatic and fish related monitoring from the Blue Mountains forest plans. ....... 103

Table 9. Key and priority watersheds for the Malheur National Forest. Acres are total National Forest 

System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests. .............................................. 108

Table 10. Key and priority watersheds for the Umatilla National Forest. Acres are total National 

Forest System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests. ................................... 109

Table 11: Key and priority watersheds for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Acres are total 

National Forest System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests...................... 111

Table 12. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on the 

Malheur National Forest (17/17). ............................................................................................... 113

Table 13. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on the 

Umatilla National Forest (14/10)................................................................................................ 114

Table 14. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (25/19)............................................................................... 114

Table 15. Cross-walk between riparian management objectives (RMOs), matrix of pathways and 

indicators (MPI) watershed condition indicators (WCIs), Watershed Condition Framework 

(WCF) indicators and Blue Mountains land management plan desired conditions for bull trout 

local population characteristics within core areas...................................................................... 117

Table 16. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for water quality .............................................................. 120

Table 17. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for habitat access............................................................. 121

Table 18. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for habitat ........................................................................ 122

Table 19. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for channel conditions and dynamics.............................. 125

Table 20. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for flow and hydrology.................................................... 126

Table 21. Cross-walk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land 

management plan desired conditions for watershed conditions ................................................. 126

Table 22. Matrix of pathways and indicators...................................................................................... 132

Table 23. Baseline and project effects matrix..................................................................................... 142

Table 24. Wetted width and pools per mile from McKinney and others and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service ........................................................................................................................................ 143

Table 25. Description of the aquatic physical indicators .................................................................... 146

Table 26. Description of the aquatic biological indicators.................................................................. 146

Table 27. Description of the terrestrial physical indicators................................................................. 146

Table 28. Description of the terrestrial biological indicators.............................................................. 146

Table 29. Empirical (multiple regression) estimates of stream channel metrics in reference watersheds 

using selected biophysical variables, Columbia River Basin (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2010)......... 151
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

iii

Figures

Figure 1. Number of federally Act-listed species by subwatershed within National Forest System 

lands. Cross-hatched areas denote subbasins in which INFISH and PACFISH direction currently 

applies. Subwatersheds are displayed only within National Forest System boundaries................. 3

Figure 2. The five primary elements of Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy. 5

Figure 3. Natural connectivity model between uplands, headwater streams and larger streams and 

rivers............................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4. Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Montgomery and 

Buffington 1998) .......................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 5. Relationship between sensitivity to and recovery from disturbance at different spatial scales 

(Frissell et al. 1986, Naiman 1998, Naiman et al. 1992b)............................................................ 11

Figure 6. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic and riparian 

resources....................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Basic decision structure for determining aquatic ecological condition of watersheds in the 

Blue Mountains (modified from Reiss et al. 2008) ...................................................................... 24

Figure 8. Watershed condition framework, a 6-step process for watershed restoration ....................... 27

Figure 9. Map of key watersheds on national forests of the Blue Mountains....................................... 29

Figure 10. Map showing completed watershed analyses (green) on National Forest System lands in the 

Blue Mountains. ........................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 11. The distribution of stream habitat condition index scores for sites on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest ............................................................................................................................. 64

Figure 12. Twelve-indicator watershed condition model used in Watershed Condition Framework. .. 70

Figure 13. Overall watershed condition and the condition of three selected indicators, per the 

Watershed Condition Framework assessment process................................................................. 71

Figure 14. Status and trends of stream habitat conditions on the Malheur National Forest, 2001-2012

...................................................................................................................................................... 79

Figure 15. Trends in habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on Federal lands in the 

interior Columbia Basin, 2001-2012 (Roper et al. 2016). ............................................................ 80

Figure 16. Spatial distribution of average August stream temperatures for the 1993-2001 baseline 

period............................................................................................................................................ 81

Figure 17. Core national watershed condition framework indicators................................................. 144

Figure 18. Distribution of pool frequency (pools per mile) values for streams in minimally-managed 

“reference condition” watersheds of the Columbia River Basin: plane-bed channels, Rosgen E 

channels...................................................................................................................................... 150

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

1

1. Introduction

Background and Purpose

This appendix presents the components of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy (Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy) that have 

been incorporated into the revised land management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. The strategy is based on, and part of, a regional strategy 

(USDA Forest Service 2008, 2016) designed to protect, maintain and restore the ecological health 

of watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystems on National Forest System land throughout the 

Pacific Northwest Region.

The regional strategy combines the Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan 

and elements of the Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH; USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995) and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (known as 

INFISH; USDA Forest Service 1995) with the intent of providing a common approach to the

protection, conservation and restoration of aquatic and riparian-dependent species on all National 

Forest System lands in the Pacific Northwest Region. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 

PACFISH, and INFISH share the short-term goal of halting habitat degradation and restoring 

aquatic and riparian habitats. The strategy presented here shares the stated long-term goal of the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy of developing networks of functioning watersheds that support 

healthy populations of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy pertains only to the national 

forests in the Blue Mountains: Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests, as 

well as the portion of the Ochoco administrated by the Malheur undergoing plan revision. Like 

PACFISH and INFISH, the focus of this strategy it to protect, maintain, or restore the dynamic 

ecological processes responsible for creating and sustaining aquatic and riparian habitats and 

provide high-quality water at subbasin or landscape scales (USDA and USDI 1994a and 1994b). 

In addition, by means of a memorandum of understanding between Federal land management 

agencies (the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management) and regulatory agencies 

(National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency), this strategy incorporates elements of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project Strategy. These elements are intended to complement other efforts that 

address natural resource management within the Columbia River basin, including recovery plans 

for listed species, subbasin planning, total maximum daily load development, and Federal, State, 

and Tribal habitat restoration efforts.

This strategy is intended to replace PACFISH and INFISH direction and will represent the longterm aquatic and riparian habitat conservation strategy for the Blue Mountains that will be part of 

a regionally consistent strategy for the management of aquatic and riparian resources on Federal 

lands in the Pacific Northwest.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy retains the eight riparian goals 

of PACFISH and INFISH and presents them as desired conditions, along with several additional 

desired conditions that collectively describe the characteristics of productive watershed, riparian, 

stream channel, and aquatic habitats and the physical and biological processes necessary for their 

creation and maintenance. The strategy recognizes that watersheds and the riparian and aquatic 

habitats within them are dynamic systems that vary over time in response to natural and human 

caused disturbance (Reeves et al. 1995, Bisson et al. 1997, Beechie and Bolton 1999) and that 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

2

salmonid species are adapted to spatially and temporally variable habitats implying that habitat 

variability is important to their long-term survival (Reeves et al. 1999, Waples et al. 2009).

This strategy and the regional strategy to which it tiers are founded in the premise that the 

existing strategies (PACFISH, INFISH, and the Aquatic Conservation Strategy) are 

fundamentally sound, are generally understood by Forest Service personnel, and have 

significantly improved the management of aquatic resources on National Forest System lands in 

the Pacific Northwest (Heller et al. 2004, Reeves 2006). Further, monitoring of aquatic habitats 

within the areas currently managed under PACFISH and INFISH appear to reflect improving 

habitat conditions at broad scales, indicating that the strategies have been successful at halting 

habitat degradation at watershed and larger scales and that at least some elements of riparian and 

aquatic habitat condition are improving (Archer et al. 2009, Meredith et al. 2012, 2013). 

Similarly, monitoring of within the area of the Northwest Forest Plan have also shown upward 

trends in aquatic and riparian habitat conditions (Gallo et al. 2005, Reeves et al. 2006, Miller et 

al. 2015). Despite these improvements, there are still large differences in habitat conditions at 

managed sites in the Blue Mountains and reference sites located throughout the Columbia River 

basin (Archer et al. 2009). Reeves et al. (2006) proposed that some improvement may be 

observed in the short term but full recovery of habitat conditions and the disturbance regimes 

responsible for their creation and maintenance may take several decades to more than a century to 

be realized.

An initial summary of PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring data using

the first year of repeat sampling at 195 sites in the Columbia River basin presented by Archer and 

Coles-Ritchie (2007) found neutral to favorable (desired direction) changes in 7 of 12 habitat 

variables examined. A comparison of repeat data for the Blue Mountains through 2009 (the 4th

year of repeat sampling) using similar methods, found neutral to favorable changes in 10 of 13 

habitat variables and 9 of 11 vegetation variables, with 50 to 58 percent of sites showing 

favorable change, averaged across all sites. Figure 1 depicts the presence and distribution of 

federally listed fish species in the Blue Mountains.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy includes plan components and 

other plan content that:

• protect and maintain the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and 

watersheds, riparian areas, and water quality and water resources;

• restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds, 

riparian areas, and water quality and water resources;

• contribute to the recovery of federally listed species, conserve proposed or candidate 

species, and maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern; and

• identify watershed(s) that are a priority for protection, maintenance or restoration.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

3

Figure 1. Number of Endangered-Species-Act-listed (federally listed) species by subwatershed within National 

Forest System lands. Crosshatched areas denote subbasins in which INFISH and PACFISH direction currently 

applies. Subwatersheds are displayed only within National Forest System boundaries.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

4

2. Resource Context

National Forest System lands in the Pacific Northwest Region play a critical role in the provision 

of water for consumptive (for example, municipal water supplies) and nonconsumptive uses (for 

example, instream flows for aquatic ecosystems), both on and off the national forests. For 

example, 20 to 35 percent of the flow in mainstem Columbia River originates on National Forest 

System lands. In comparison, data for the Blue Mountains suggests that roughly 70 percent of 

total streamflow in all of the rivers that originate in the Blue Mountains comes from National 

Forest System lands (USDA 2014).

National Forest System lands in the Pacific Northwest are critically important to aquatic biota, as 

they contain over 100,000 miles of streams, about 25,000 miles of which are fish-bearing, as well 

as numerous lakes and wetlands providing some of best remaining aquatic habitats in the region 

for some species (for example, Wild Salmon Center 2012). National forests in the Blue 

Mountains contain roughly 11,000 miles of streams of which roughly half are mapped as fishbearing streams, including about 3,100 stream miles designated as critical habitat for federally 

listed bull trout, steelhead, or Chinook salmon.

The quality of water within the national forests is generally high and suitable for most uses 

(National Research Council 2008). This is largely true of water from National Forest System 

lands in the region, but an appreciable number of streams and lakes on these lands do not 

currently meet State standards for one or more water quality parameters and are listed as impaired

under the Clean Water Act. Within the river basins encompassing the Blue Mountains, 6,800 

stream miles in Oregon and Washington, including 1,500 stream miles on National Forest System 

lands, do not meet one or more State water quality criteria (WA DOE 2016, OR DEQ 2014).

3. Overview of the

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 

Strategy

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy integrates and refines the three 

existing strategies into a single, unified strategy intended to build upon prior successes, 

incorporate lessons learned, and address new needs. It combines ecosystem and landscape 

perspectives to forge a management strategy to be applied over a broad, heterogeneous area. It 

focuses first on broad-scale aquatic resource protection, coupled with strategically focused active 

restoration in priority areas (USDA Forest Service 2005).

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy is comprised of five elements

(figure 2):

1. Riparian management areas

2. Key watersheds

3. Watershed analysis

4. Watershed protection and restoration

5. Monitoring and adaptive management

Each of these is described below in detail. Interaction of all five elements at the watershed and 

landscape-scales provides the basis for watershed, aquatic, and riparian ecosystem management 

and restoration. These components work together and complement each other to achieve the goal 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

5

of a distribution of watershed conditions that are resilient to disturbance and that protect, 

maintain, restore, and enhance water quality for multiple beneficial uses and habitat for inland 

and anadromous fish, other aquatic organisms, and a variety of wildlife and other ripariandependent resources (Forest Service Manual 2526) on National Forest System lands in the region. 

They will not achieve desired results if implemented alone or in limited combination (FEMAT 

1993). As such, they are designed to be applied in an integrated fashion.

Figure 2. The five primary elements of Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

These elements are intended to work together to protect, maintain and restore aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems and water quality. They are implemented via land management plan components 

(desired conditions, suitability determinations, objectives, and standards and guidelines), other 

plan content and other administrative direction (see sections 6 through 11).

Riparian Management Areas

Riparian management areas include lands along permanently flowing streams, ponds, lakes, 

wetlands, seeps, springs, intermittent and ephemeral streams, and unstable sites that may 

influence these features. Aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis in 

these areas and special management direction applies there. Specifically, management activities 

in riparian management areas are designed to protect, maintain, or enhance water quality and the 

ecological health of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and associated resources. These areas 

function at the ecosystem level (coarse filter) to represent and maintain the full range of aquatic 

and riparian ecological diversity. The goal is to maintain a certain percentage and distribution in 

high quality aquatic and riparian ecological diversity and allow a certain percentage and 

distribution to persist at lower quality aquatic and riparian ecological diversity.

Key Watersheds

Key watersheds are a network of watersheds important to rare species that serve as critical 

sources of high-quality water for those species. They are also important sources of high-quality 

water for municipalities. Special management direction applies to these watersheds. They are 

selected because of their extraordinary resource values. They may serve as strongholds for 

important aquatic resources or have the potential to do so. They may be areas crucial to 

threatened or endangered fish and other aquatic and riparian species of concern or interest. Key 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

6

watersheds may also comprise areas that provide high-quality water important for maintenance of 

downstream aquatic and riparian populations. In addition, they could serve as municipal drinking 

water sources for communities in the region. Management emphasizes minimizing risk and 

maximizing protection, restoration or retention of ecological health. Because part of the key 

watershed selection process is based on the habitat requirements of federally listed species and 

species of conservation concern, the network helps address species-level diversity (fine filter) by 

conserving critical biophysical processes, restoring critical biophysical processes, or both.

Watershed Analysis

Watershed analysis is an interdisciplinary evaluation of important geomorphic and ecological 

processes operating in specific watersheds. These analyses (1) evaluate the condition and trend of 

watersheds, riparian zones and aquatic ecosystems; (2) assess connectivity of the watershed for 

terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna species; (3) identify and evaluate resource conditions and 

trends; and (4) provide the context for management. These types of analyses provide a basis for 

development of watershed-scale management and restoration strategies and are a tool for more 

specifically defining desired conditions, developing management objectives and strategies, and 

designing monitoring strategies.

Watershed Protection and Restoration

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy also includes a more formalized 

and structured process for watershed protection and restoration than the existing strategies. 

Specifically, as described in section 10, the Blue Mountains strategy incorporates concepts from 

the Pacific Northwest Region’s Aquatic Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005) and 

adopts the six-step National Watershed Condition Framework process for planning and 

implementing watershed restoration.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy more explicitly recognizes 

broad-scale aquatic resource protection (passive restoration) during all land management 

activities as an essential foundation for restoration. The foundation of the passive restoration 

direction in the plan stems from a suite of robust standards and guidelines, which form the basis 

for design criteria that mitigate the effects to sensitive resources, such as wetlands and riparian 

areas. Active restoration builds upon this foundation, through targeted, strategically focused 

active restoration implemented via the Watershed Condition Framework process of watershed 

assessment, selection of potential Watershed Condition Framework and Watershed Condition 

Framework Priority watersheds, and development, implementation and monitoring of multi-year, 

watershed-scale restoration plans (see sections 6 and 10).

Priority watersheds identified through the Watershed Condition Framework process are expected 

to generally be a subset of the broader key watershed network. As such, the Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy incorporates the framework as a near-term (5 to 7 

years) implementation process for restoration across the broader, long-term key watershed 

network. The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy also looks to the 

future by providing a subset of key watersheds that may be selected as Watershed Condition 

Framework priority watersheds in the future. Through this process, forest plans will be better 

aligned with the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, as selection of Watershed 

Condition Framework priority watersheds and identification of needed restoration work will be 

informed by Endangered Species Act recovery plans and water quality restoration plans for 

impaired waters.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

7

Under this strategy, land management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests include quantitative, measureable objectives for restoration. Objectives describe 

the general scope and scale of various restoration treatments (for example, miles of streams 

restored, miles of road improved or decommissioned) expected to be implemented during the life 

of the plan and ultimately, the number of watersheds in which all essential restoration actions are 

expected to be completed.

Standards and Guidelines

Overall, the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy standards and 

guidelines are quite similar to those in PACFISH and INFISH, although, there are some 

differences (attachment A). Many of those differences result from the process of integrating and 

synthesizing direction from three strategies into one. In addition, consistent with recent direction 

for standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2015), those standards and guidelines 

associated with procedural requirements (for example, watershed analysis, interagency 

coordination) were omitted as plan components in the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy, as were standards or guidelines that were already addressed by 

comparable ones.

In addition to these changes, the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 

includes some new or substantially modified standards and guidelines (section 8). Revised 

standards RF-7, RF-8 and RF-9 help implement direction to incorporate climate change into 

decision-making, especially that pertaining to infrastructure (for example, USDA Forest Service 

2015, Executive Order-11988). These new road standards provide alignment with new 

requirements under the Endangered Species Act, while standard KW-1 aligns with new desired 

conditions by accelerating progress in addressing road impacts in key watersheds. Grazing 

management guideline GM-3G was developed to (1) provide more consistent, objective, sciencebased grazing management direction across the entire Blue Mountains; and (2) provide greater 

certainty of implementation to regulatory agencies and the public, given the current legal and 

regulatory context in which the Forest Service is managing grazing context (significant areas with 

threatened, endangered or sensitive fish; waters listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act; or 

both). It replaces older PACFISH recommended livestock grazing guidelines (USDA and USDI 

1995e) that currently apply to only to those areas implementing the PACFISH strategy and some 

other areas that have chosen to use them. Revised standard FM-2 helps to better manage invasive 

species risks associated with water use in firefighting and standards FM-1 through FM-12 provide 

consistency with recent national policy associated with fire retardant application. The updated 

guideline RMA-4 places additional emphasize on reducing risks associated with invasive species 

during water drafting.

Monitoring and Adaptive Management

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy includes a more consistent, 

explicit, and structured approach to monitoring and adaptive management than the existing 

strategies did when they were originally developed. Per the 2012 Planning Rule, it includes both 

broad-scale and Forest plan level monitoring. Specific elements are focused on determining 

whether restoration objectives are being attained, whether water quality best management 

practices and other standards and guidelines are being implemented and are effective at the sitescale, determining the status and trend of watershed conditions and aquatic ecosystems, assessing 

changes in the distribution of federally listed aquatic species and species of conservation 

concern, and tracking the status and trend of stream temperatures (see section 10).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

8

Importantly, the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy defines the types of 

management decisions that will be informed by monitoring information at various spatial and 

administrative scales. Linkages between monitoring and other components of the Blue Mountains

strategy (for example, watershed analysis) are also clearly defined.

Expectations and Limitations

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy is intended to prevent 

degradation of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and to restore the ecological processes responsible 

for creating those ecosystems and providing high-quality water over broad landscapes (USDA 

and USDI 1994b). However, it is built upon the knowledge that watersheds and the aquatic 

habitat that they contain are dynamic systems and that conditions are variable over time (Reeves 

2006, Benda et al. 1998). Processes that control the routing and distribution of water, wood, 

sediment and nutrients shape aquatic and riparian habitats (Naiman et al. 1992) and result in a 

distribution of aquatic system states shaped by natural and human-caused disturbance (Benda et 

al. 1998).

It has been proposed that a complete or near complete range of aquatic habitats can be maintained 

if anthropogenic disturbance are compatible with the natural disturbance regime to the extent 

possible and further that when natural disturbances do occur that the transfers of organic (wood) 

and inorganic (sediment) materials to streams are not impeded (Bisson et al. 1997). The 

occurrence of natural disturbance (fire, floods, debris flows) implies that habitat conditions vary 

at any given scale so that it is not expected that all watersheds will be in good condition at all 

times or necessarily that all habitats within a given watershed will be in good condition at all 

times. However, comparison of habitat conditions in the Blue Mountains to reference conditions 

suggests the need for improved aquatic habitat conditions at broad scales.

Implementation of the Blue Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy is expected to 

substantially contribute to the recovery of federally listed fish, including anadromous salmon and 

trout, by increasing the quantity and quality of freshwater habitat (FEMAT 1993). It is also 

expected to significantly contribute toward attainment of Clean Water Act goals of protecting and 

restoring the quality of the nation’s waters. By itself, however, it is not expected to prevent the 

listing of species or distinct population segments or enable their full recovery, primarily because 

factors off National Forest System land often strongly influence populations, particularly those 

that are migratory. For federally listed migratory fish, factors outside the responsibility of Federal 

land managers contribute to the status and trends of populations. These include the condition of 

freshwater and estuarine habitats, harvest in commercial and recreational fisheries, management 

of main stem dams, and the effects of hatchery practices and introductions (National Research 

Council 1996). Similar limitations apply to water quality.

Climate change is another factor beyond the direct control of Federal land managers. 

Nonetheless, those managers have a responsibility to address and respond to climate change 

through adaptation and mitigation. Key adaptation actions relevant to water and aquatic resources 

are reflected in Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

9

4. Scientific Basis

This section summarizes the science upon which the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy is based.

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are highly dynamic in space and time (Reeves et al. 1995). 

Ecologically healthy watersheds are maintained by natural disturbances that create spatial 

heterogeneity and temporal variability in the physical components of the system (Naiman et al. 

1992a, Bisson et al. 1997, Miller et al. 2003, Rieman et al. 2015). Natural disturbances have 

resulted in a mosaic of habitat conditions over time and native fish populations have adapted to 

this dynamic environment (Naiman et al. 1995, Reeves et al. 1995). Aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems are resilient to the types of disturbances under which they have developed. Recovery 

from disturbance may take decades or longer, depending upon its magnitude and extent, but some 

improvements can be expected in 10 to 20 years (Reeves 2006).

Naiman et al. (1992b) described different disturbance regimes based on the frequency and 

magnitude of disturbance and its location in a watershed (for example, headwaters, middle, or 

lower reaches). Under natural disturbance regimes, a landscape would have watersheds exhibiting 

a range of conditions because of the asynchronous nature of large and infrequent disturbance 

events (Miller et al. 2003). Other studies describe stream systems as complex, branching 

networks rather than linear systems, providing a better understanding of the ecological processes 

that link riparian, aquatic, headwater and downstream ecosystems (Fisher 1997, Benda et al. 

2004). These perspectives imply that aquatic ecosystems are not in a steady state. Rather, streams 

are invariably dynamic, and conditions vary in space and time because of periodic events such as 

wildfire, large storms and subsequent floods, hillslope failures, landslides, debris flows, and 

channel migration. An important implication is that streams and aquatic ecosystems are linked to 

the dynamics of both the riparian and upland communities and the watershed and physical 

processes that shape them.

Small streams35 serve as critical source areas for high-quality water. Because the spatial extent of 

headwater streams comprise a major portion of the total catchment area (Sidle et al. 2000, Meyer 

and Wallace 2001), these and adjacent upland ecosystems are important sources of sediment, 

water, nutrients, energy, and organic matter for downstream systems (Furniss et al. 2005, Gomi et 

al. 2002, Meyer et al. 2003, Wipfli et al. 2007). These relationships are illustrated in figure 3.

Headwater streams are sources of energy and serve as conduits for fish, amphibians and other 

biota, nutrients, energy, and wood, linking upland ecosystems with larger navigable waters 

downstream (modified from Wipfli et al. 2007).

Riparian ecosystems are among the most diverse, dynamic and complex biophysical habitats on 

the landscape. They have many interfaces, edges, or ecotones and possess a relatively high 

diversity of resources. Riparian zones control energy and material flux, are sites of biological and 

physical interaction at the terrestrial and aquatic interface, support unique vegetation 

assemblages, provide critical habitats for rare species, and are refuges and source areas for a wide 

variety of species (Kauffman et al. 2001). Riparian zones also play a critical role in connectivity 

of watersheds by providing dispersal and travel habitat and corridors across the landscape for 

both terrestrial and riparian-dependent species. The functions of living and dead vegetation in 

 35 Small streams are also called headwater, intermittent, ephemeral, seasonal, low-order, and upper network streams 

(after Furniss et al. 2005).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

10

riparian zones include regulating bank erosion, providing an adequate and continuous supply of 

coarse woody debris to streams, and providing shade and microclimate protection. Most 

vertebrates (for example, 53 percent of wildlife species occurring in Oregon and Washington) use 

riparian zones for at least part of their activities (Kauffman et al. 2001). Moreover, approximately 

25 to 30 percent of plants in Oregon and Washington, respectively, are facultative or obligate 

wetland species (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006, FEMAT 1993). These 

species play a critical role in the productivity, resiliency, and function of riparian zones.

Figure 3. Natural connectivity model between uplands, 

headwater streams and larger streams and rivers

Ecosystem Disturbance, Sensitivity, and Resilience

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy is intended to contribute to the 

sustainability of aquatic and riparian ecosystems and species. The basic approach is to maintain 

and restore the ecological health of watersheds and to retain the ability of riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems to recover from natural disturbances. This approach stems from recent science 

suggesting that, to provide for resilient, productive, and persistent natural systems, it is important 

for management to: 1) conserve natural processes that constrain or influence the structure and 

variability in landscapes, 2) conserve natural variation or diversity, and 3) account for the 

influence of scale by identifying and conserving patterns and key processes at multiple spatial and 

temporal scales (Rieman et al. 2006, Rieman et al. 2015).

Stream habitats are heterogeneous and dynamic in longitudinal (headwaters to larger rivers), 

lateral (stream, floodplain, riparian area interactions), and vertical (stream channel-hyporheic 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

11

interactions) dimensions (Stanford and Ward 1992). Stream and riparian habitats also vary in their 

response to disturbance (Reeves et al. 1995). Different physical processes may affect aquatic 

habitat at different spatial and temporal scales. Figure 4 displays the relative frequencies and 

scales of selected disturbances that may affect stream channels and watersheds, producing 

spatially and temporally variable habitats and water quality (Montgomery and Buffington 1998). 

For example, disturbance from storms, debris flows, fires, or a combination of these things are 

typically more frequent and occur at smaller spatial scales than climate change and tectonic 

processes. The probability that a particular location will be affected by disturbance at a particular 

time may be low, but it increases with increasing spatial scale.

Figure 4. Relationship between sensitivity to and recovery from 

disturbance at different spatial scales (Frissell et al. 1986, Naiman 1998, 

Naiman et al. 1992b)

The scale of biological response to disturbance will vary depending upon spatial requirements 

(for example, home range, territory size, migratory patterns) and temporal constraints (for 

example, generation time, and migration time) of different species (Rieman et al. 2006). 

Similarly, the relationship between recovery time and the relative sensitivity to disturbance will 

vary depending on the relative scale of various habitat and stream features (Figure 5). For 

example, individual sites have a relatively high sensitivity to disturbance, but relatively short 

recovery periods. Conversely, watersheds with relatively low sensitivities to disturbance may 

have relatively long recovery periods (Frissell et al. 1986, Naiman 1998, Naiman et al. 1992b.). 

Aquatic and riparian ecosystem management needs to account for these processes interacting at 

multiple scales to establish the context for aquatic resource conservation (Fausch et al. 2002).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

12

Figure 5. Influences on stream channels at a range of spatial and temporal 

scales (Montgomery and Buffington 1998)

Allen and Hoekstra (1992) suggest that to understand ecological processes, it is necessary to 

assess three scales of ecosystem organization concurrently: (1) the scale in question, (2) the scale 

below that provides mechanisms (dominant processes), and (3) the scale above that gives broader 

context, role, or relative significance. The relationship between the finest spatial or temporal 

resolution studied or of interest (grain) and the size of the study area or study duration (extent) 

determines the scale of processes that can be understood (Wiens 1989).

Ecosystem Management

Management and conservation strategies (Holling and Meffe 1996, Dale et al. 2000), including 

those involving aquatic organisms (National Research Council 1996, Independent 

Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999), require consideration of large spatial and temporal 

extents and the conservation of biophysical processes rather than just individual biological and 

physical elements (Rieman et al. 2015). In the case of many federally listed fish, this necessitates 

a continued transition from the current focus on relatively small spatial extents with little or no 

consideration of temporal dimensions, to larger spatial extents (ecosystems and landscapes) over 

longer (10 to100 years) periods of time (Reeves et al. 1995, Poff et al. 1997, Naiman and Latterell 

2005). Williams et al. (1989), for example, found that at the time, no fish species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act was ever recovered after listing. They attributed this failure to the 

general focus of recovery efforts on habitat attributes, rather than on restoration and conservation 

of ecosystem processes. The recent delisting of Oregon chub is a rare success story that stems 

from its ecosystem management approach.

Factors to be considered in developing ecosystem management plans and policies include the 

frequency, magnitude, extent, duration (Pickett and White 1985, Hobbs and Huenneke 1992), and 

context of interacting disturbance regimes (including legacy effects) in managed ecosystems 

(Hobbs and Huenneke 1992, Reeves et al. 1995, Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). The resilience 

of an ecosystem can be reduced if any of these factors are modified. Reduced resilience to 

disturbance can lead to a decrease in the range of conditions that an ecosystem can experience, 

extirpation of some species, increases in species favored by available habitats, and an invasion of 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

13

exotic species (Lugo et al. 1999, Levin 1974, Harrison and Quinn 1989, Hansen and Urban 1992). 

The effects of land management on the ecosystem depend on how closely the management 

disturbance regime resembles the natural disturbance regime with regard to these factors.

The focus of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy on ecological 

processes and dynamics is well supported in the scientific literature. Ecosystems constantly 

change through time, they are not in a steady state; periodic disturbance is necessary to maintain 

the long-term productivity and integrity of an ecosystem (Lugo et al. 1999). Based on recognition 

of ecosystem dynamics, a key focus of ecosystem management and the Blue Mountains strategy

is maintaining or restoring ecological processes and resilience as opposed to attempting to 

maintain a desired set of static conditions through time (Dale et al. 2000). Ecosystem 

management also strives to maintain a variety of ecological states or patches in a desired spatial 

and temporal distribution (Gosz et al. 1999, Concannon et al. 1999).

Ehrenfeld (1992) supports these perspectives, noting that conditions in many ecological 

communities are in flux because of disturbance. This makes it difficult to determine a normal 

state. Applying fixed standards developed for ecological conditions at small spatial extents with 

the expectation of achieving constant conditions over large areas is likely to compromise or 

decrease the long-term productivity of ecosystems and can create false or unrealistic expectations 

about the outcomes of policies or regulations (Holling and Meffe 1996, Bisson et al. 1997, 

Caraher et al. 1999, Dale et al. 2000, Poole et al. 2003).

As such, the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy does not include 

relatively uniform and static quantitative management objectives for stream habitat attributes (for 

example, pools per mile), known as riparian management objectives, which were incorporated 

into the PACFISH and INFISH strategies. Instead, as described in Section 11, the dynamic 

conditions in populations of streams in managed and reference watersheds will be used to track 

trends at the broad-scale and Forest scale. Moreover, those data along with other information can 

be used in watershed analysis as a diagnostic tool for assessing conditions in particular 

watersheds and their causes. Lastly, it can be used to establish more specific desired conditions 

for individual watersheds (Section 9). Focus will instead be placed on the matrix of diagnostics 

(anadromous listed-fish) and the matrix of pathways and indicators (bull trout) used in 

consultation with the Services. These matrices will be used in conjunction with standards and 

guidelines (for example, WM-1S and RMA-1S) framed around the watershed conditions that 

measure the following for a variety of metrics:

• functioning appropriately (bull trout) and properly functioning (steelhead and Chinook)

• functioning at risk (bull trout) and at risk (steelhead and Chinook)

• functioning at unacceptable risk (bull trout) and not properly functioning (steelhead and 

Chinook)

These metrics in combination present a diagnostic tool that will be useful at the project level to 

determine whether projects are moving toward or away from functional watershed conditions. 

Additionally, an adaptive strategy will be useful as a mechanism for changing these metrics as the 

best available science changes over time or where watershed conditions merit a closer look 

because they do not fall within the ranges specified.

A variety of sources, including interested citizens, interest groups, scientific review and 

evaluation groups (for example, the Independent Multidisciplinary Scientific Team 1999, 

National Research Council 1996), regulatory agencies, and policy and decisionmakers have 

called for development of policies and practices to manage the freshwater habitats of at-risk fish 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

14

at ecosystem and landscape extents. In response, the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy focuses on larger, varied spatial scales, longer timeframes and use of 

“coarse” and “fine” filter strategies to maintain and restore aquatic habitat diversity over a range 

of spatial and temporal scales. The overarching goal of the Blue Mountains strategy is to prevent 

degradation of riparian and aquatic ecosystems, restore habitat and the ecological processes 

responsible for creating habitat over broad landscapes (USDA and USDI 1994b). To ensure that 

management activities help to move watersheds, riparian and aquatic habitats toward desired 

conditions across the planning area at multiple spatial scales (Franklin and Lindenmayer 2009), 

the Blue Mountains strategy includes land management plan components (desired conditions, 

suitable use determinations, standards and guidelines, and monitoring) that apply to riparian 

management areas wherever they occur. Other applicable plan components include active 

watershed restoration and monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2008), along with strategic elements 

that are not plan components (for example, watershed assessments and designation of key 

watersheds). Success in meeting desired conditions requires full application of all these elements 

(USDA Forest Service 2008).

The coarse-scale strategy assumes natural disturbances will create and maintain a shifting mosaic 

of aquatic habitats across the landscape, capable of supporting native aquatic species diversity 

through time (Haufler et al 1996, Wallington et al 2005). Assuming the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

and Riparian Conservation Strategy is effective, the proportion of watersheds in good condition is 

expected to remain the same or increase over time (Reeves et al. 2006); not all watersheds will be 

in good condition at any point in time, nor will any particular watershed be in a certain condition 

through time.

The fine-scale strategy refines an earlier coarse-scale concept of a static network of conservation 

reserves (Nature Conservancy 1982, Frissell and Bayles 1996), by creating a network of key

watersheds based on strong local populations and high-quality habitats for a suite of vulnerable 

surrogate species that may not be sufficiently protected by the disturbance-based coarse-filter 

strategy alone (Noss 1987, Hunter 1991). These species inhabit a range of aquatic environments 

in the planning area. We assume the surrogate species and their habitats represent the temporal 

and spatial variability in habitats needed by other species, and will be sensitive to habitat changes 

likely to occur. Key watersheds also include readily restorable watersheds for active restoration 

with the goal of improving connectivity between current strong populations and high-quality 

habitats, and providing future high-quality areas through time as current high-quality habitats are 

altered by natural disturbance processes. Select standards and guidelines provide additional finescale plan protections for key watersheds and critical habitats for federally listed surrogate

species. In the short term (10 to 20 years), full implementation of the fine-scale strategy is 

intended to protect watersheds that currently have good habitat and fish populations (FEMAT 

1993; USDA Forest Service 2008).

Spatial Scales for Watershed and Aquatic Ecosystem Management

Effective watershed and aquatic ecosystem management requires analysis, planning and action 

across a range of spatial scales. The National Watershed Boundary Dataset provides a consistent 

basis for this. The spatial scales most relevant to the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy are river basin (6-digit hydrologic unit code or 3rd field hydrologic unit 

code), subbasin (8-digit hydrologic unit code or 4th field hydrologic unit code), watershed (10-

digit hydrologic unit code or 5th field hydrologic unit code), subwatershed (12-digit hydrologic 

unit code or 6th field hydrologic unit code), drainage, and site (figure 6). These terms are used 

throughout this document.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

15

Aquatic populations have been classified in a manner consistent with the watershed-scale 

definitions. Bull trout core populations (Whitsell et al. 2004) and anadromous fish populations, 

for example, have been generally identified at subbasin scales. In addition, bull trout local 

populations and anadromous fish major and minor spawning areas are generally defined by 

watersheds or subwatersheds.

Figure 6. A hierarchy of spatial scales and terms for managing watersheds and aquatic and riparian 

resources

Riparian Management Areas

Protection and restoration of riparian areas is particularly important to achieving the Blue 

Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy goals and objectives. Riparian 

management strategies differ substantially across the United States and within the Pacific Coastal 

region (Lee et al. 2004, Everest and Reeves 2007). Key differences include the type and size of 

riparian areas identified for protection or restoration (for example, riparian management area 

widths), management goals for them (for example, desired conditions), the kinds and timing of 

activities that are or are not permissible (for example, suitability), and the nature of management 

direction used to guide or constrain those activities (for example, standards and guidelines).

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy approach to riparian area 

management involves designation of relatively large default riparian management areas to protect 

and restore water quality, habitat for a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial species, and critical 

ecological processes (see section 6). Watershed analysis can be used to adjust these default 

riparian management area widths in particular watersheds (Section 9). The scientific basis for this 

approach was originally provided in FEMAT (1993) and later supported by a review by Everest 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

16

and Reeves (2007), who concluded that there was no scientific evidence that either the default 

prescriptions or the options for watershed analysis in the Northwest Forest Plan provide more 

protection than necessary to meet stated riparian management goals.

Riparian management areas are not intended as exclusion zones or reserves. Instead, management 

activities designed to benefit aquatic and riparian-dependent resources and move the landscape 

towards desired conditions are allowed and encouraged within them. Furthermore, while the Blue 

Mountains strategy default riparian management areas widths are uniform, the management of 

them is not intended to be. Instead, a wide range of management activities, involving highly

varied prescriptions, is expected to occur within them. These activities are to be planned and 

implemented based on watershed analyses that lead to project-specific designs that prescribe the 

types, locations, spatial extent, and timing of the activities. These designs must meet applicable 

standards and guidelines. This approach recognizes that effective project designs, including 

identification of both treated and untreated areas, depends on objectives and on local landscape 

context (Richardson et al. 2012).

Evolving science continues to provide new insights to help inform project-level plans for 

activities in riparian management areas. Recent scientific syntheses related to Endangered Species 

Act consultation in western Oregon (USDA Forest Service et al. 2013); for example, provide 

information about the potential effects of forest thinning on stream temperature, large woody 

debris, and terrestrial wildlife species. Other recent work (Benda et al. 2016, Olson et al. 2014, 

and Olson and Burton 2014) provide additional science that can be used to plan and implement 

management activities in riparian management areas to help achieve desired conditions.

The management approach adopted in the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategy differs substantially from other strategies that often have different management goals; 

specify smaller riparian areas; contain more prescriptive and uniform regulatory standards across 

broad, diverse areas; or a combination of these things. It is consistent, however, with recent trends 

away from simple, uniform standards towards more complex guidelines that are planned and 

implemented at larger watershed scales (Lee et al. 2004).

New Threats

Two threats, climate change and invasive species, have emerged as major issues since the existing 

strategies were first developed in the early to mid-1990s. These threats and the ways in which the 

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy addresses them are described in the 

following section.

Importantly, these risks and uncertainties do not suggest a need to change the basic structure and 

components of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy. Instead, they 

reinforce and amplify the need for this type of strategy, the associated monitoring and adaptive 

management (Seavey et al. 2009, Furniss et al. 2010). As described below, these threats will also 

influence the details of how the Blue Mountains strategy is implemented at subbasin, watershed, 

and site scales (Furniss et al. 2010, Rieman and Isaak 2010, Perry et al. 2015).

Climate Change

Science conducted since the existing strategies were developed has greatly advanced 

understanding of the potential effects of climate change on water resources and aquatic 

ecosystems. Some of this knowledge was summarized by the Independent Scientific Advisory 

Board (ISAB), which provides independent scientific advice and recommendations to the 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

17

National Marine Fisheries Service, Columbia River Indian Tribes, and Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council in 2007 (ISAB 2007).

The Independent Scientific Advisory Board identified the following potential impacts in the 

Pacific coastal region future: (1) higher temperatures will result in more precipitation falling as 

rain rather than snow; (2) snowpacks will diminish and seasonal stream flow patterns will be 

altered; (3) peak river flows will likely increase; (4) summer low flows will be lower; and (5) 

water temperatures will continue to rise. The magnitude of likely effects and the sensitivity of 

affected resources varies substantially across the landscape and not all anticipated effects are 

necessarily harmful to aquatic habitats. In addition, the magnitude of anthropogenic impacts may 

be much greater than climate impacts. Nonetheless, climate change will likely have major 

implications for native fishes and aquatic ecosystems.

Climate change is expected to increase large flood events, wildfires, and forest pathogen 

outbreaks. These could actually improve habitat complexity in some areas as a result of 

floodplain reconnection and large wood recruitment. However, many climate change effects will 

likely have negative habitat consequences for aquatic organisms. For example, more frequent 

severe floods may increase egg mortality due to gravel scour. These effects, however, are unlikely 

to extirpate entire populations of salmonids because while scour magnitude may increase, the 

frequency of these events relative to typical salmonid life cycles is relatively low (Goode et al. 

2013). Moreover, unconfined portions of the stream network are less susceptible to increased 

scour than those in confined valleys because overbank flows can spread across floodplains.

Winter snowpacks will likely retreat and runoff earlier in the spring (Mote et al. 2003a and 

2003b), potentially impacting species whose migration to the ocean is timed to coincide with 

plankton blooms (Pearcy 1997). Summer base flows will probably decline. This may shrink the 

network of perennially flowing streams and thus force fish into smaller channels and less diverse 

habitats (Battin et al. 2007). Warmer water temperatures would increase physiological stresses 

and lower growth rates. Summer peak temperatures may approach or exceed lethal levels for 

salmon and trout (Crozier and Zabel 2006, Crozier et al. 2008). Higher temperatures will also 

favor species that are better adapted to warmer water, including potential predators and 

competitors (Reeves et al. 1987). Recent science, however, suggests that stream temperatures in 

steep, mountain streams of the Pacific Northwest may be less sensitive than those in larger, low 

gradient rivers (Isaak et al. 2016).

Climate change will likely force shifts in the distribution of fish populations. This could reduce 

their resilience to natural disturbances, particularly drought (Battin et al. 2007). Streams located 

high in watersheds that historically provided some of the best habitat may no longer be accessible 

to migratory fish if snowpack is reduced, thus limiting available rearing areas and access to 

thermal refugia in summer. Even moderate climate-induced changes may significantly increase 

the risk of extirpating local populations of Chinook salmon (Crozier et al. 2008). Climate-related 

factors such as temperature and streamflow could affect habitat in different ways and at different 

scales, depending on local site characteristics. Therefore, a diversity of conditions is needed for 

population stability (Crozier and Zabel 2006).

Existing, well-connected, high-elevation habitats on public lands will be important to supporting 

salmon survival and recovery as the climate continues to warm (Martin and Glick 2008). 

Protecting, maintaining and restoring these areas is a fundamental objective of the Blue 

Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy. The strategy incorporates numerous 

adaptive actions relevant to climate change. These include maintaining instream flows by 

managing water withdrawals, reducing flood peaks by enhancing floodplain connectivity and 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

18

disconnecting roads from streams, reconnecting isolated habitats by removing anthropogenic 

barriers, managing riparian forests to provide shade and other functions, and improving waters 

where aquatic habitats and water quality have been degraded (Furniss et al. 2010). Importantly, 

some of these actions can more than offset the effects of climate change in some situations

(Diabat et al. 2016). Actual impacts to aquatic ecosystems will be highly dependent on the degree 

to which these adaptation actions are implemented now and in the future. Without them, aquatic 

habitats may become increasingly isolated, simplified, and less likely to recover after significant 

disturbance events.

Climate change has been factored into the land management plans in that many of the desired 

conditions factor climate change into them. The Forest Service has added a monitoring plan 

component, to insure that monitoring of climate change effects. The Blue Mountains climate 

change vulnerability assessment and adaptation strategies (for example, Halofsky and Peterson, 

2017) will be incorporated into the plans. As the assessment, becomes incorporated, findings will 

be incorporated, by validating the desired conditions, standards and guidelines, Key and priority 

watershed selections, integrating additional objectives indicating our commitment to address 

vulnerable ecosystems and processes in this plan period, and potentially, additional standards and 

guidelines. The vulnerability assessment utilized the best available science to assess the impacts 

of changes in stream flows, stream temperatures, and disturbance regimes on water and aquatic 

resources. The map-based products summarized in the assessment will form the basis for 

characterizing the relative magnitude, spatial and temporal variability of these effects across the 

landscape.

Invasive Species

Climate change effects will be compounded by those associated with the distribution of aquatic 

and terrestrial invasive species, which are likely to intensify in the future. For example, in some 

large coastal rivers, nonnative species have come to dominate fish assemblages and have largely 

replaced native fishes within the river food web. The effects of invasive riparian plants on the 

water quality, nutrient cycling, and the physical habitat of streams and lakes are not fully 

understood. However, some species have been studied to the degree they raise concern. Japanese 

knotweed, for example, can displace other riparian vegetation chemically and physically 

(crowding and shading), but it dies back with the first frost, exposing stream banks to erosive 

winter stream flow forces until they emerge again in the spring (Urgenson 2009).

The magnitude of these effects will depend on the effectiveness of invasive species prevention 

and eradication programs, the reinvasion rate of invasive species after control actions are taken, 

and the speed with which native species reoccupy habitats previously dominated by the nonnative species. Effective control will also depend heavily on successful public awareness 

programs to prevent spread of new invasive species on both public and adjacent private lands. 

The Forests are committed as part of their management focus to detect, eradicate, control, or 

contain high priority aquatic invasive species occurrences, where feasible.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy addresses these issues through 

specific standards and guidelines focused on preventing or reducing the spread of invasive 

species. In addition, invasive species will be addressed through watershed protection and 

restoration, via implementation of Watershed Condition Framework and other treatments outside 

of priority watersheds.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

19

5. Management Areas

• 36 CFR 219.19 (2012) (d) Management areas or geographic areas. Every plan must have 

management areas or geographic areas or both. The plan may identify designated or 

recommended designated areas as management areas or geographic areas.

• 36 CFR 219.19 (2012) Definitions. Management areas. A land area identified within the 

planning area that has the same set of applicable plan components. A management area 

does not have to be spatially contiguous.

Management areas are spatially distinct areas with a unique set of plan components. The 

management areas range along a continuum from little development by humans in Management 

Area 1A to extensive human development in Management Area 16. The types of uses and desired 

settings define the land use that would occur in them under the revised land management plans. 

They occur across districts, mountain ranges, and ecosystems but have commonalities that make 

their overarching land uses similar.

Riparian Management Areas

In the revised land management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests, there are separate management areas identified for riparian areas, emphasizing their 

importance on the landscape; referred to in the plan as Riparian Management Areas. Riparian 

management areas are portions of a watershed where riparian–dependent resources receive 

primary emphasis and management activities are subject to specific standards and guidelines.

Riparian management areas include portions of watersheds where water quality and aquatic and 

riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special management direction 

applies. They include traditional riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent headwater streams, and 

other areas where proper ecological functioning is crucial to maintenance of the streams’ water, 

sediment, woody debris, and nutrient delivery system. Riparian management areas are used to 

protect, maintain and restore the riparian structure and function of intermittent and perennial 

streams, confer benefits to aquatic and riparian-dependent plant and animal species, enhance 

habitat conservation for organisms that are dependent on the transition zone between upslope and 

riparian areas, and provide for greater connectivity within and between watersheds for both 

riparian and upland species. They are also critically important to maintaining and restoring water 

quality.

Riparian management areas are used as the primary framework (coarse filter) that provides for 

ecosystem diversity by conserving biophysical processes at the landscape and watershed scales. 

They provide travel and dispersal corridors for many riparian-dependent animals and plants and 

provide connectivity between geographically significant areas for both riparian and upland 

species. Management activities within these areas protect, maintain, or enhance existing 

functional conditions or restore degraded conditions for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Riparian management areas generally parallel the stream network and include areas necessary for 

maintaining hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes that influence riparian and aquatic 

systems. Unstable and potentially unstable areas in headwaters and along streams are primary 

source areas for coarse wood, fine and coarse particulate organic matter, and sediment (FEMAT 

1993). Riparian management areas occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, 

intermittent stream channels, and ephemeral ponds, springs, and wetlands.

Management of these areas focuses on ecological processes and conditions within and 

contributing to the value of these areas. Management activities within them contribute to moving 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

20

toward or meeting or maintaining desired conditions. The following riparian management areas 

widths were identified in these forest plans. The scientific basis for them was originally provided 

in FEMAT (1993) and later supported by a review by Everest and Reeves (2007). Riparian 

management area widths may only be adjusted based on a watershed analysis.

Fish-bearing streams - riparian management areas consist of the stream and the area on each 

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner 

gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian 

vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope 

distance (600 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. In 

degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should extend from the edge of the 

active channel to the outer extent of the former floodplain. Riparian management area widths 

along fish-bearing streams will not be less than described here.

Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams - riparian management areas consist of the 

stream and the area on each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream 

channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the 

outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree,

or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), 

whichever is greatest. In degraded or incised streams, the riparian management area should 

extend from the edge of the active channel to the outer extent of the former floodplain.

Constructed ponds and reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre – riparian management 

areas consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of the riparian 

vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or the extent of unstable and potentially 

unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope 

distance from the edge of the wetland greater than 1 acre or the maximum pool elevation of 

constructed ponds and reservoirs, whichever is greatest.

Lakes and natural ponds - riparian management areas consist of the body of water and the 

area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or 

to the extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of 

two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, seeps and springs less than 1 acre, 

and unstable and potentially unstable areas - This category applies to features with high 

variability in size and site-specific characteristics. At a minimum, the riparian management 

areas will include:

• The extent of unstable and potentially unstable areas (including earthflows).

• The stream channel and extend to the top of the inner gorge, or in incised streams, to the 

edge of the former floodplain.

• The stream channel or wetland and the area from the edges of the stream channel or 

wetland to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, extending from the edges of the 

stream channel to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope 

distance on either side of the stream, whichever is greatest. A site-potential tree height is 

the average maximum height of the tallest dominant trees for a given site class.

Intermittent streams are defined as any non-permanent flowing drainage feature having a 

definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. This includes what are 

sometimes referred to as ephemeral streams if they meet these two physical criteria. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

21

Including intermittent streams, springs, and wetlands within riparian management areas is 

important for full implementation of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy. Accurate identification of these features is critical to the correct 

implementation of the strategy and protection of the intermittent stream and wetland 

functions and processes. Identification of these features is difficult at times due to the lack 

of surface water or wet soils during dry periods. Fish-bearing intermittent streams are 

distinguished from non-fish-bearing intermittent streams by the presence of any species of 

fish for any duration. Many intermittent streams may be used as spawning and rearing 

streams, refuge areas during flood events in larger rivers and streams, or travel routes for 

fish emigrating from lakes. In these instances, the guidelines for fish-bearing streams would 

apply to those sections of the intermittent stream used by the fish.

Note: Riparian management area widths may only be adjusted based on a watershed analysis.

Key and Priority Watersheds

Definition and Purpose

Key watersheds are intended as areas that either provide, or are expected to provide, high-quality 

habitat or water for rare aquatic and riparian species, provide high-quality drinking water to 

communities that depend upon Forest Service watersheds as their municipal water sources, or 

both.

For the purpose of selecting key watersheds, rare species include threatened or endangered fish 

and wildlife species and species of conservation concern. Therefore, key watersheds may also be 

designated based upon the presence of high-quality habitat for these species. Key watersheds 

complement the management direction provided by other Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy elements and plan components because they are identified to support fish 

and water quality recovery plans but also because they are selected based on a ranking system 

that is in turn based on an assessment of watershed conditions, habitat conditions, population 

status, and restoration potential.

Key watersheds provide a network of refugia at the evolutionary significant unit, recovery unit, or 

population scale. A network of key watersheds, managed to serve as refugia, is crucial for 

maintaining and recovering habitat for at-risk stocks of anadromous salmonids and resident fish 

species (FEMAT 1993). Refugia include areas of high-quality habitat as well as areas of degraded 

habitat that have high potential to develop into productive habitat. The network is designed to 

provide species level conservation and restoration of habitat conditions to retain strong/anchor 

populations of fish species of interest and species of concern in the short term, and contribute to 

recovery in the long term. In the short term, key watersheds provide centers of fully functioning, 

high-quality, aquatic and riparian habitat and a starting point for longer-term expansion of such 

habitats. Key watersheds with high-quality habitat will serve as anchors for the potential, nearterm recovery of depressed stocks. The relative contribution to long-term conservation and 

recovery provided by the key watershed network will vary depending on species, habitat, life 

history requirements as well as the quality and extent of habitat existing within National Forest 

System lands. Watersheds containing lower quality habitat with high potential for restoration are 

expected to become future sources of high-quality habitat with the implementation of a 

comprehensive restoration.

Watersheds that act as sources of high quality water were considered in the selection of key 

watersheds. Among these are watersheds that are sources of cold water to downstream watersheds 

and watersheds that are sources of water for domestic use. In the revised forest plans, municipal 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

22

watersheds are designated as management areas in which the primary emphasis is the protection 

of water quality for human use and management actions are subject to the terms of the 

agreements that established each individual municipal watershed. Four cities in the Blue 

Mountains (Baker City, La Grande, Canyon City, and Walla Walla) have designated municipal 

watersheds. In addition, several cities (Richland, Long Creek, Sumpter, Joseph, Pendleton, and 

Prairie City) have water sources within watersheds on the national forests designated as public 

source watersheds by the State of Oregon, and several more have either surface or groundwater 

sources on National Forest System lands as their primary source of drinking water. Protection of 

all public water supplies is guided by both State and Federal law under the Safe Drinking Water 

and Clean Water Acts. While these watersheds generally have good water quality and watershed 

conditions, they may or may not possess the riparian and aquatic habitat, population criteria, or 

restoration potential that qualifies them as key watersheds. Table 1 displays municipal and public 

source watersheds identified in the forest plans and those that have been identified as key 

watersheds.

Table 1. Municipal and public source watersheds on National Forest System lands in the Blue 

Mountains

City Watershed

Key 

Watershed? Management

Baker City Salmon Creek No Roadless

La Grande Beaver Creek No Roadless

Canyon City Byrum Gulch No Strawberry Wilderness

Walla Walla Mill Creek Yes Roadless

Pendleton N. Fork Umatilla Yes N.F. Umatilla Wilderness

Sumpter McCully Creek No Public Source Watershed (OR)

Richland Eagle Creek No Public Source Watershed (OR)

Joseph Wallowa Lake Yes Public Source Watershed (OR)

Long Creek Upper Long Creek No Not designated

Prairie City Dixie Meadows No Public Source Watershed (OR)

While key watersheds are designed primarily to provide high-quality habitat for aquatic species, 

other aquatic or riparian and upland species also benefit from the key watershed network.

Management direction in key watersheds is intended to provide the highest relative level of 

protection and the lowest relative level of risk from activities threatening their integrity and 

resiliency. The location of key watersheds relative to one another is important. Key watersheds 

are intended to be positioned so they form the centers of broadly connected networks of highquality watersheds and restore currently fragmented habitats and core conservation fish 

populations. However, because key watersheds are only identified on National Forest System 

lands, the ability to connect adjacent habitats and watersheds is also dependent on the location of 

ownership boundaries, which were largely set at the time the national forests were established. In 

some cases, and depending on downstream land and water uses, this may result in limited ability 

to connect habitats for aquatic species, or that connection is still possible, but habitats 

downstream of the national forests may be in poor condition, have limited restoration potential, or 

both.

Key watersheds are complemented by other land conservation and restoration designations, such 

as wilderness, recommended wilderness areas, backcountry areas, inventoried roadless areas, and 

wild and scenic rivers, forming a network of areas with a passive management emphasis. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

23

Identifying key watersheds adjacent to or surrounding these areas often provides the most 

favorable opportunities for providing connected networks of high quality and/or restorable 

habitats. These networks can then provide for the resiliency of aquatic, terrestrial, and ripariandependent species to the maximum extent practicable within the capability of the national forests.

Research supports managing important watersheds more conservatively in terms of future risk 

and restoration. Conservation of meta-populations requires numerous patches of suitable habitat 

over time and the potential for dispersal among patches (Harrison 1994). Where there is currently 

an insufficient number of high-quality habitat patches, it is important to protect existing highquality patches in the near term (Frissell 1997). Minimizing or eliminating external threats 

increases the likelihood of persistence of high quality patches (Carroll and Meffe 1997). These 

areas will serve as sources of individuals to colonize new patches as they develop favorable 

habitat. Development of future patches of favorable habitat requires the protection or restoration 

of critical ecological processes creating favorable habitat over time (Carroll and Meffe 1997).

Key Watershed Network Identification

For the most part, the process for identifying key watersheds follows the methods outlined in 

Reiss, et al. 2008. The principal difference is that habitat conditions received more consideration 

in the selection process in the Blue Mountains than is described in Reiss et al. (2008). In the Blue 

Mountains, key watersheds have a combination of relative population strength for one of four 

aquatic surrogate species (Chinook salmon, steelhead, inland redband trout, and bull trout), good 

watershed conditions, and good aquatic and riparian habitat condition. Watersheds that represent 

various environmental gradients were part of the selection criteria, under the assumption that 

environmental variation is a useful surrogate for ecosystem and species diversity and 

sustainability. Key watersheds are less likely to be affected by past land uses and more likely to 

be important to the maintenance of water quality and quantity for a variety of downstream uses, 

including human uses. Key watersheds are expected to be managed so that risk to aquatic and 

riparian habitats is minimized. Key watersheds are identified at the subwatershed level and 

consist of areas averaging 20,000 acres in the Blue Mountains.

The four surrogate species selected for analysis in the Blue Mountains were selected in part 

because information on their status and distribution is available. As a group, these four species 

occupy habitats that encompass nearly the full extent of aquatic habitats on the three national 

forests in the Blue Mountains. Steelhead and Chinook salmon are extinct upstream of Hells 

Canyon Dam and thus are absent from their former range in the Powder, Burnt and Malheur 

rivers. Remnant populations of resident inland redband trout persist in these basins. Resident 

redband trout likely also exist within the present range of anadromous steelhead in the John Day, 

Umatilla, Walla Walla, Tucanannon, Grande Ronde and Imnaha rivers, but to our knowledge there 

aren’t data that would distinguish between anadromous and resident redband populations in these 

basins. None of the four selected surrogate species occupies the full extent of their former habitat 

in the Blue Mountains, based on available data.

Aquatic ecological condition within individual subwatersheds were assessed using a decision 

support model by analyzing surrogate species status and watershed conditions in combination 

(figure 7). Surrogate species status and condition were determined by assessing: 1) Species 

distribution, 2) population status, 3) connectivity, and 4) the effects of non-native species. 

Watershed conditions were assessed by a combination of roads and related effects, and the 

condition of terrestrial and riparian vegetation. Key watersheds are identified that have a 

combination of strong populations for one or more surrogate species and good habitat conditions. 

Key watersheds are identified at the subwatershed scale, and in some cases, may consist of 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

24

groups of subwatersheds. The selection process follows Reiss et al. (2008) with minor 

modifications.

Figure 7. Basic decision structure for determining aquatic ecological condition of watersheds in the 

Blue Mountains (modified from Reiss et al. 2008)

Model output scores for population status, watershed condition, and aquatic habitat condition 

were tabulated by subwatershed and combined to arrive at a total subwatershed score, then ranked 

in descending order. Subwatersheds were ranked by location: 1) for the Blue Mountains, 2) by 

national forest, and 3) by subbasin.

In watersheds with multiple species, subwatersheds were ranked based on the highest species 

score, as opposed to combining the scores of multiple species, based on the finding that 

combining multiple species scores de-emphasized habitat values in the ranking. Using the highest 

species score tended to level out the relative weights of habitat and population strength. 

Combining population scores for individual hydrologic unit code watersheds also tended to favor 

anadromous species (but in very few hydrologic unit code watersheds) over watersheds that 

provided habitat for a single, usually resident, fish species (inland redband). This adjustment did 

not eliminate watersheds providing habitat for anadromous fish as key watersheds, but served to 

extend the key watershed network to watersheds that are known to provide habitat only for 

resident fish. Key watersheds with multiple species were considered to have higher priority for 

restoration.

An initial model run, using forested vegetation departure, road density and surrogate species 

status was used in the initial selection of key watersheds. This method identified roughly two-
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

25

thirds of the restoration priorities identified by the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2001, 2002, 2005).

Subsequent iterations of key watershed selection were based on expectations of recovery plan 

goals, critical habitat designation, and expected partner agency interest in watershed-scale 

restoration. The first iteration of key watershed selection occurred in late 2008 and several 

modifications were made to the key watershed network between mid-2009 and March 2010. 

Restoration priorities were chosen between March and June 2010. Review and modification of 

the key and priority watersheds has occurred intermittently since 2010 as ongoing restoration 

work.

Population status by subwatershed was determined using a set of criteria, developed by the Inland 

West Watershed Initiative (IWWI) (USDA Forest Service 1997), which identified strong versus 

depressed population or metapopulation conditions in the subwatershed. Each stream segment 

was assigned one of eight categories, depending on the amount of data and information available. 

These categories were present strong, not strong but key habitat feature, present depressed, 

present migration corridor, present unknown status, absent, unknown, and extinct.

“Strong” populations were identified as having all of the following characteristics: (1) stable 

numbers or are increasing; (2) all major life history forms that historically occurred within the 

subwatershed are present; (3) the local population is likely to be half or more of its historic size or 

density; and (4) the local population in the subwatershed or the metapopulation in the larger 

region of which the local population is a part of is likely to be at least 5,000 individuals or 500 

adults. The local population is not isolated by distance or natural barriers from other local 

populations that would collectively exceed these numbers.

“Depressed” conditions were identified as depressed population for native species (defined for 

use in the Blue Mountains aquatic sustainability model) as having one or more of the following 

characteristics: (1) one or more life histories formerly present are absent (example migratory or 

resident form of bull trout); (2) population numbers are declining or less than half of historic 

numbers or the population occupies less than half of its historic habitat in the subwatershed; or (3) 

the local population in the subwatershed or the metapopulation in the larger region of which it is a 

part of is less than 5,000 individuals or 500 adults (the local population is isolated by distance or 

natural barriers from other populations which would collectively exceed these numbers). If 

historic information is not available, population densities are less than half of comparable 

undegraded subwatersheds where the surrogate species is well distributed. If numbers are strong 

but the surrogate population is seriously hybridized with non-native species, the pure native 

population of the surrogate species is considered depressed.

Additional categories identified the presence of migration corridors, whether species are 

considered extinct, absent, or their presence is unknown. Subwatersheds that did not have strong 

populations, but contained one or more key habitat characteristics important to the sustainability

of the species (spawning habitat, cold water refugia, critical habitat) on National Forest System 

lands were assigned the “not strong but key habitat feature”. Watersheds identified as having

important habitat features are also tagged for use in the habitat portion of the model. In some

cases, the identified habitat feature may be the only habitat available to a local population.

Based on available information, only 17 of 550 subwatersheds on the three national forests were 

identified as having strong populations using this definition. The only surrogate species for which 

strong populations are believed to be present are bull trout. However, there may be populations of 

other surrogate species that occupy areas larger than an individual subwatershed that might be 

considered “strong” using a different definition. The resulting maps display relative population 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

26

strength and distribution for each of the four surrogate species, based on a combination of local 

knowledge and available aquatic inventory data.

Watershed conditions were assessed as a function of the degree of: 1) alteration of terrestrial 

vegetation from reference conditions, including the resulting change in fire regime; 2) the extent 

of the road network and the resulting effects on hydrology, erosion and sedimentation, channel 

constriction; and 3) the status of riparian plant communities.

Watersheds identified as key watersheds within National Forest System lands, with few 

exceptions, possess the best remaining habitat and strongest fish populations in the Blue 

Mountains. One of the most notable exceptions occurs on the Umatilla River and results from 

efforts by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to restore habitat conditions 

for anadromous fish species and the reintroduction of coho salmon.

Watersheds with the highest potential for restoration were identified and ranked within each 

subbasin and on each national forest. These are watersheds having the highest potential to 

connect existing high-quality habitats or replace existing habitats as conditions change over time. 

They are generally located adjacent to or downstream from the watersheds identified above and 

serve to extend or connect existing high-quality habitats.

Watersheds were also identified in which watershed restoration is ongoing or being planned and 

where a substantial part of the work will be off-forest or where planned restoration is expected to 

be conducted by an agency or partner other than the Forest Service. A few watersheds in which 

active partnerships and investment in restoration has or will occur have not been identified as key 

watersheds but still recognize the interests of active partners in watershed and habitat restoration. 

In these watersheds, restoration actions on National Forest System lands will complement 

restoration activities outside National Forest System lands. In several cases, these watersheds are, 

or will be, the highest priorities for restoration on the national forests.

Priority Watersheds for Restoration

Using the process described above 209 subwatersheds are named as key watersheds, of which 70 

are considered priorities for restoration (figure 9). Priority watersheds identified here, are either 

sites where watershed and habitat restoration is ongoing, where restoration work is planned, but 

has not yet commenced, or is expected to occur in the next 10 to 15 years.

In 2011, the Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011) was instituted to 

provide a nationally consistent approach to 1) assess watershed conditions, 2) prioritize 

watersheds for restoration, 3) develop restoration plans, 4) implement needed restoration, 5) track 

restoration accomplishments, and 6) monitor and verify the effectiveness completed restoration 

(figure 8).

Under this approach, each national forest is expected to select two to three subwatersheds for 

restoration that can be completed in the next five years. The process is repeated at five-year 

intervals, resulting in a new set of priorities for restoration and the completion of restoration work 

following the six steps described above. The intent of the process is to accelerate the pace of 

needed watershed restoration while improving communications with partner agencies and

providing a mechanism for tracking implementation and the effectiveness of completed work.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

27

Definition and Purpose of

Watershed Condition Framework Priority Watersheds

The number of Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds will vary by national forest 

but is expected to range from one to five, given current funding levels. The framework, which 

includes identification of priority watersheds, is summarized in figure 8 and described in detail in 

section 10.

Figure 8. Watershed condition framework, a 6-step process for 

watershed restoration

Priority watersheds are the 12-digit hydrologic units (subwatersheds or hydrologic unit code 12) 

in which near-term (for example, 5 to 7 years) restoration programs and resources will be 

focused. Selection of these subwatersheds will be based on several criteria, as described in the 

following sections. Priority watersheds will generally be a subset of the broader, longer-term key 

watershed network and associated potential Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds.

Designating Watershed Condition Framework Priority Watersheds

The responsible official will continue to select Watershed Condition Framework priority 

watersheds based on an interdisciplinary analysis and evaluation. In addition, the responsible 

official will reach out to local, State, Tribal, other Federal agencies, and interest groups when 

identifying priority watersheds (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 20, section 22.31).

Criteria for selection include:

• the value of the watershed from a water/aquatic resource perspective

• existing watershed, water quality, and aquatic habitat conditions

• key watershed status

• alignment with other strategic objectives or priorities at national, regional, or local levels
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

28

• alignment with priorities of other agencies and potential partners 

• estimated costs and unit work capacity

• technical, financial, and social opportunities and constraints

Priorities will generally focus on those watersheds that are in good to fair condition but still 

require some restoration. This approach, consistent with principals of conservation biology 

(FEMAT 1993, Roni et al. 2002), will enable watersheds to be restored with reasonable 

investments of time and funding. As with key watersheds, the potential effects of climate change 

and the efficacy of restoration treatments in ameliorating those and other effects (for example, 

land use) should be considered in the selection of Watershed Condition Framework priority 

watersheds and subsequent identification of the scope and scale of needed restoration work.

Priority Watersheds

The present set of key and priority watersheds are displayed by national forest in attachment A, 

table 9 through table 11 and in figure 9. Watershed boundaries, unit codes, and names are from 

the current national hydrologic data set. There are 170 watersheds identified as key watersheds in 

the three National Forests. These key watersheds are located in 19 of the 22 subbasins that 

include National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. Key watersheds comprise 947,000

acres, or 57 percent of the area of the Malheur National Forest; 800,000 acres, or 57 percent of 

forest area in the Umatilla National Forest; and, 1,270,000 acres or 71 percent of national forest

area in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. From this set of key watersheds, 70 are identified 

as priorities for restoration, of which 27 are within the Malheur National Forest, 16 are within the 

Umatilla National Forest, and 27 are within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Priority 

Watersheds occupy 430,000 acres (25 percent) of the Malheur National Forest, 260,000 acres (19

percent) of the Umatilla National Forest and 325,500 acres (18 percent) of the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest.

The Watershed Condition Framework process has resulted in the selection of 10 subwatersheds as 

priorities for restoration over the 5-year period beginning in 2011. All 10 had been previously 

selected as key watersheds and 9 of 10 were identified as restoration priorities.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

29

Figure 9. Map of key watersheds on national forests of the Blue Mountains. KWS = Key Watershed, 

P= Priority Watersheds, WCF-P= Watershed Condition Framework Priority Watersheds. Stream lines 

display critical habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout (undifferentiated by species). 

Crosshatched areas are roadless or designated wilderness areas.

Relationship with Key Watershed Network

The key watershed network serves as a broad-scale, long-term (multiple decades or more) 

strategic network of watersheds focused on the conservation and restoration of aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems and water quality. Priority watersheds are a subset of the key watersheds with 

the intention of prioritizing restoration in the plan period (15 years). Priority watersheds are yet 

another subset of watersheds generally chosen from the set of priority watersheds, wherein nearterm (approximately 5 years) restoration actions are focused. The key watershed network and 

priority watersheds are expected to remain relatively unchanged during the life of the forest plan, 

whereas priority watersheds are expected to change fairly frequently (for example, perhaps as 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

30

frequently as every couple of years), depending on the scope of needed restoration work and the 

pace of implementation.

This approach will continue to be used by the national forests to achieve the long-term strategic 

goals (desired conditions) of the forest plans, while facilitating near-term restoration planning and 

implementation at a finer spatial scale.

Changing Priority Watersheds

Updates to the priority watersheds may be made by administrative change at any time. It is 

expected that restoration priorities will change over time, depending on changed conditions, 

disturbance (including fires and flood events), changes in available funding, or changes in the 

priorities of partner agencies. The Watershed Condition Framework process is expected to be 

repeated at roughly 5-year intervals so there are always near-term (approximately 5 years) and 

longer-term (10 to 15 year) restoration goals. The process allows restoration priorities outside of 

the key and priority watershed network if circumstances warrant and with public notification of 

the change (36 CFR 219.8(f)).

6. The Blue Mountains Aquatic

and Riparian Conservation Strategy and Forest Plans

During the length of time this planning effort has been underway (2003-Present), there have been 

several attempts to revise the Planning Rule. Presently, the 2012 Planning Rule is in place; 

however, in that Planning Rule there is transition language (36 CFR 219.17 (b) (3), that allows 

planning efforts already underway to use the prior planning regulation, which in this case is the 

1982 Planning Rule. Definitions for plan components and other plan content use in the Blue 

Mountains strategy, are derived from both the 1982 (36 CFR 219.3) and 2012 Planning Rules (36 

CFR 219.7). Some of the concepts were not in place in 1982; where there are not equivalent 

definitions in the 1982 Planning Rule, the 2012 Planning Rule has been included. Additionally, 

the 2012 Planning Rule requires all forest plans to comply with the new rule. Therefore, the 

structure of the monitoring plan and reference to requirements come directly from the 2012 

Planning Rule.

Elements of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy will be incorporated 

into a suite of plan components by:

• setting goals and desired conditions;

• identifying suitable uses or activities that are or are not generally appropriate in certain 

management areas;

• describing anticipated outputs in the form of objectives that are a means to measure 

progress towards achieving or maintaining desired conditions;

• constraining activities with standards or guidelines that ensure protection of physical and 

biological resources; and

• conducting monitoring and evaluation that will provide a basis for a periodic determination 

and evaluation of the effects of management practices.

Each part of the strategy and its means of implementation are important. However, these 

individual elements should not be viewed in isolation, as all parts of the strategy, the plan and 

other plan content work together to guide and constrain management to achieve the desired 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

31

conditions. Details regarding how they will be used to implement the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

and Riparian Conservation Strategy are provided in sections 6 through 11.

Multiple plan components will be used to implement the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy via forest plans, as described in this section. These plan components 

include desired conditions, management areas, suitability, objectives, and standards and 

guidelines, as defined in section 7. Other plan content (for example, watershed analysis, 

restoration, monitoring and adaptive management) will be equally important in implementing the 

Blue Mountains strategy.

Projects and activities authorized after approval of the revised forest plans must be consistent 

with the applicable plan components. A project or activity approval document must describe how 

the project or activity is consistent with applicable plan components and meets the following 

criteria:

• Goals, desired conditions, and objectives. The project or activity contributes to the 

maintenance or attainment of one or more goals, desired conditions, or objectives, and does 

not appreciably impede progress toward maintaining or achieving any goals, desired 

conditions, or objectives, over the life of the plan.

♦ Standards. The project or activity complies with applicable standards

♦ Guidelines. The project or activity:

 Complies with applicable guidelines as set out in the plan; or

 Is designed in a way that is as effective in achieving the purpose of the applicable 

guidelines (section 219.7(e)(1)(iv))

♦ Suitability. A project or activity would occur in an area:

 the plan identifies as suitable for that type of project or activity; or

 for which the plan is silent with respect to its suitability for that type of project or 

activity.

It is not expected that all projects or activities will contribute to all desired conditions and 

objectives. It should also be recognized that some projects designed to contribute to some desired 

conditions and objectives may have consequences considered adverse to the achievement of other 

desired conditions and objectives. In this situation, the responsible official needs to identify and 

disclose those effects and determine whether those effects will appreciably reduce the opportunity 

to maintain or achieve any goals, desired conditions, or objectives, over the life of the plan. If the 

project or activity is found to appreciably reduce opportunities to maintain or achieve any goals, 

desired conditions, or objectives over the long term, it is not consistent with the forest plan.

Where a project or activity is proposed that is not consistent with the plan, the responsible official 

has the following options:

• modify the proposal so that the project or activity will be consistent

• reject the proposal

• amend the plan simultaneously with the approval of the project or activity so that the 

project or activity is consistent with the plan as amended. The amendment may be limited 

to apply only to the project or activity.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

32

Goals and Desired Conditions 

Definitions: 

• 36 CFR 219.3 (1982) Definitions and terminology. Goal. A concise statement that describes 

a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It is normally expressed in 

broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific date by which it is to be 

completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from which objectives are developed.

• 36 CFR 219.7 (i) (2012) Desired conditions. A desired condition is a description of specific 

social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan 

area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired 

conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward 

their achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates.

Goal statements set forth a broad framework and theme for the plan and form the basis for desired 

conditions. For each goal, there are several desired condition statements that more specifically 

describe what conditions are needed for attaining goals. Desired conditions are at the heart of 

forest plans. They describe the aspirations or visions of what the plan area (or portions thereof) 

should look like in the future. Desired conditions essentially set forth the desired landscape of the 

future. They also provide the foundation and drive the development of most other plan 

components. For example, the forest plan includes objectives, standards, and guidelines that are 

designed to achieve or maintain desired conditions.

To be consistent with the desired conditions of the plan in assessing a project or activity, at the 

appropriate spatial scale described in the plan (for example, landscape scale), each project or 

activity must be designed to meet one or more of the following conditions:

• maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions of a plan without 

adversely affecting progress toward, or maintenance of, other desired conditions

• be neutral with regard to progress toward plan desired conditions, except as specified in 

standards or guidelines

• maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions over the long term, 

even if the project or activity would adversely affect progress toward or maintenance of one 

or more desired conditions in the short term

• maintain or make progress toward one or more of the desired conditions over the long term, 

even if the project or activity would adversely affect progress toward other desired 

conditions in a negligible way over the long term

The project documentation should explain how the project is consistent with desired conditions 

and describe any short-term or negligible long-term adverse effects the project may have on the 

maintenance or attainment of any desired condition.

Achieving desired conditions will vary in both time and space. Some desired conditions may not 

be achievable over the life of the plan and may take decades or sometimes longer due to past 

anthropogenic influences. In other cases, the desired condition already matches the current 

condition, and the desire is to maintain it. In addition, each desired condition has a scale. Some 

desired conditions apply at the forestwide scale, while others apply at a subbasin, watershed, 

subwatershed, or management area scales.

In the plan, a brief background description and a brief existing condition description of each 

desired condition are provided, followed by the desired condition and statement of scale. The
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

33

background and existing condition descriptions are provided for information only. They are not 

plan direction.

General Forestwide Desired Conditions

The general forestwide desired conditions described in this section apply at larger (for example, 

watershed) scales, not at particular sites. The national hydrologic unit is the basis for defining the 

specific scales at which the general forestwide desired conditions apply. The three watershed 

scales most relevant to implementation of the forest plan are subbasin (8-digit hydrologic unit), 

watershed (10-digit hydrologic unit), and subwatershed (12-digit hydrologic unit). Individual 

project assessments often use data collected at finer scales such as the subwatershed, drainage, 

valley segment, site, stream reach or scale.

Forestwide desired conditions pertaining to riparian areas, water, water quantity and quality are 

described below. The scale(s) at which these generally apply to forest planning and project 

planning are identified after each desired condition.

Watershed Function DC-1. The watershed-scale processes that control the routing of water, 

sediment, wood, and organic material operate at levels that support native aquatic species and the 

proper function of their habitat and do not require human intervention or restoration. 

Scale: watershed or subwatershed.

Watershed Function DC-2. The distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed features 

(submerged and overhanging large wood, logjams, and beaver dams, side channels, pools, undercut 

banks and embedded substrates) and natural processes provide aquatic and riparian ecosystems to 

which species, populations, and communities are uniquely adapted.

Scale: subbasin.

Watershed Function DC-3. Connectivity exists within and between watersheds. Lateral, 

longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, 

headwater tributaries, and intact habitat refugia. These network connections provide unobstructed 

routes to areas critical for fulfilling all life history requirements of aquatic, riparian-dependent, 

and upland species of plants and animals.

Scale: Connectivity is within and between watersheds at the subbasin scale for forestwide 

planning; between subwatersheds at the watershed scale for project planning.

Watershed Function DC-4. Aquatic and riparian ecosystems resilient to the effects of climate 

change and other major disturbances. 

Scale: subbasin for forest planning and watershed scale for project planning.

Hydrologic Function DC-1. Flow regimes, including water yield, timing, frequency, magnitude, 

and duration of runoff, are sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats 

and to retain patterns of movement of sediment, nutrients, and wood. The timing, magnitude, 

duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows are within the natural range of 

variability in which the system developed. 

Scale: watershed.

Hydrologic Function DC-2. The timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation, water 

table elevation in wetlands, seeps, and springs, and subsurface water connectivity are within the 

natural range of variability. 

Scale: watershed and subwatershed.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

34

Wetland DC-1. The extent and diversity of wetland types is maintained or increased. 

Scale: subbasin.

Wetland DC-2. The surface and subsurface flow paths that support wetland habitats are 

undisturbed. The timing and duration of inundation of wetlands are within natural ranges. Plant 

species composition in wetlands is characteristic of the biophysical setting in which they occur.

Scale: subwatershed.

Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem DC-1. The ecological structure and function of springs, 

peatlands and groundwater fed wetlands are maintained or restored.

Scale: subwatershed.

Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem DC-2. The aquifer supplying water to groundwaterdependent ecosystems is not being affected by groundwater withdrawal or loss of recharge. Soils

of groundwater dependent ecosystems are intact and functional; erosion and deposition are within

the natural range. Runout channels, if present, are functioning naturally and are not entrenched,

eroded, or substantially altered. Vegetation is composed of the anticipated cover of plant species

associated with the site environment; hydric species are present and are not replaced by upland

species. Livestock herbivory and trampling are not adversely affecting sites.

Scale: subwatershed.

Groundwater-dependent Ecosystem DC-3. Vegetation is composed of the expected cover of 

plant species associated with the site environment; hydric species are present and are not replaced 

by upland species. Livestock herbivory and trampling are not adversely affecting sites. 

Scale: subwatershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-1. The sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved

is maintained, including the timing, volume, rate and character of input, storage, and transport.

Scale: watershed.

Stream Channel Function-2. The physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations, are properly functioning and in dynamic equilibrium with the 

flow and sediment regimes under which aquatic systems have evolved. 

Scale: subwatershed to watershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-3. Channel morphology, structure, complexity, and diversity are 

in ranges that are characteristic of the local geology, climate, and geologic processes.

Scale: watershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-4. Channel-floodplain connections are intact. Channel bed and 

bank erosion rates are within natural ranges and do not result in degraded aquatic or riparian 

habitats or channel alteration.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Stream Channel Function DC-5. Measures of channel stability and morphology, including 

width/depth ratio, bank stability, and bank angle are within reference ranges and matches the 

frequency distribution of reference sites for a given channel type and channel size.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Stream Channel Function DC-6. Large wood frequency and volume are within the range of 

variation and potential for streams in individual watersheds. The spatial and temporal distribution 

of wood in individual streams varies depending on valley, riparian, and channel characteristics 

and the disturbance processes (fire, flood, debris flow) responsible for transferring material from 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

35

hillslopes to streams. The frequency distribution of large wood among individual streams is 

similar to the frequency distribution of reference sites.

Scale: watershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-7: In forested watersheds, the distribution and frequency of wood 

forced channel morphology (forced step pool and forced pool riffle streams), in which the 

majority of pools are formed by individual pieces or accumulations of large wood, and wood-rich 

pool riffle streams (Montgomery et al. 1995) is comparable to the distribution in reference 

watersheds.

Scale: watershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-8: The frequency distribution of stream channel and habitat 

conditions for any given attribute approaches the frequency distribution of reference conditions 

for the same attribute in similar channel types.

Scale: watershed to subbasin.

Stream Channel Function DC-9: Pool frequency, size, depth, and volume are within ranges 

expected of given channel and valley types.

Scale: subwatershed to watershed.

Stream Channel Function DC-10: Bank erosion is within a range that does not degrade aquatic 

or riparian habitats or that leads to channel alteration. 

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Aquatic Function DC-1. Aquatic habitats contribute to ecological conditions capable of 

supporting self-sustaining populations of native species and diverse plant, invertebrate, and 

vertebrate aquatic and riparian-dependent species. Aquatic habitats are key for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered fish species and provide important habitat components for all native 

aquatic species.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Aquatic Function DC-2. National Forest System lands contribute to the protection of population 

strongholds for state classified sensitive species, and narrow endemics, federally listed or 

proposed threatened and endangered species, and designated critical habitats. These strongholds 

provide high quality habitat (for example, spawning, rearing, and over-wintering areas and critical 

habitats, including migratory corridors) and support expansion and re-colonization of species to 

adjacent watersheds, and function in a manner that is resilient to natural disturbance regimes. 

These areas conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the persistence of 

populations or metapopulations. Areas adjacent to these high quality habitats are restored (as 

appropriate) and protected to help ensure adequate connectivity, species distribution, and the 

maintenance or restoration of fully functioning habitats for all life histories of aquatic species.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Aquatic Function DC-3. Aquatic habitat elements (e.g., substrate, pools, cover, food, water 

quality and quantity) are in properly functioning and are sufficiently distributed to ensure egg and 

embryo survival, fry emergence, and juvenile survival of aquatic species to support selfsustaining populations of native resident and anadromous fish. Spawning and rearing areas contain 

a minimal amount of fine sediment, ranging in size from silt to coarse sand.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Aquatic Function DC-4. Native fish species have access to historically occupied aquatic habitats 

and connectivity between habitats allows for the interaction of local populations. Migratory 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

36

habitats support juvenile and adult mobility and survival between spawning, rearing, 

overwintering, and foraging habitats that contain areas that:

• are free of obstruction and excessive levels of predators of federally listed aquatic species; 

• have minimal physical, biological, or water quality and quantity impediments (including 

permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal barriers); and

• contain natural cover such as large wood, aquatic vegetation, rocks and boulders, side 

channels, and undercut banks.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Aquatic Function DC-5. The transfer of wood, sediment, nutrients, and other material that 

occurs following fires, wind storms, floods, and other natural disturbances is capable of creating 

and maintaining the range and diversity of riparian and aquatic habitat conditions that occurs in 

reference watersheds. 

Scale: watershed.

Aquatic Function DC-6. The potential for large wood recruitment to streams from within 

forested riparian areas, and from low-order streams to higher-order streams, is similar to the 

potential in reference watersheds containing the same (riparian) forest vegetation types (this 

partly restates WF-1 but is more explicit).

Scale: watershed.

Aquatic Function DC-7. Aquatic habitats in which the distribution of conditions (e.g., bank 

stability, substrate size, pool depths, size and frequencies, channel morphology, large woody 

debris size and frequency) in the population of watersheds on the national forest is similar to the 

distribution of conditions in the population of similar, reference condition watersheds. The 

distribution of conditions in individual streams vary depending on valley, riparian, and channel 

characteristics.

Scale: reference conditions can be drawn from the national forest or provincial scales; conditions 

assessed at the subbasin scale for national forest and project planning.

Aquatic Function DC-8. Aquatic and riparian ecosystems are resilient to the effects of climate 

change and other major disturbances. 

Scale: subbasin scale for national forest planning and watershed scale for project planning.

Species Diversity DC-1. The natural range of habitats for native and desired nonnative fish, 

wildlife, and plant species, including threatened and endangered species, species identified as

regional forester’s sensitive species, and surrogate species, is of adequate quality, distribution, and

abundance to contribute to maintaining native and desired nonnative species diversity. This

includes the ability of species and individuals to interact, disperse, and find security within

habitats in the planning area. These habitat conditions are resilient and sustainable considering the

range of possible climate change scenarios.

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales 

(forestwide, watershed, and subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, this 

desired condition should be used concurrently with information outlined in the strategy and 

design criteria part of this plan and with consideration of the best available climate change 

projections.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

37

Species Diversity DC-2. Population strongholds for the fish surrogate species provide high 

quality habitat and support expansion and recolonization of species to adjacent unoccupied 

habitats. These areas conserve key demographic processes likely to influence the sustainability of 

aquatic species.

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales 

(forestwide, watershed, and subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, this 

desired condition should be used concurrently with information outlined in the strategy and 

design criteria part of this plan and with consideration of the best available climate change 

projections.

Species Diversity DC-3. An abundant food base, including terrestrial organisms of riparian 

origin, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish exist. Low levels of occurrence of nonnative 

predatory, interbreeding, or competing species exist, and if present, they are temporally and 

spatially isolated from federally listed species.

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales 

(forestwide, watershed, and subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, this 

desired condition should be used concurrently with information outlined in the strategy and 

design criteria part of this plan and with consideration of the best available climate change 

projections.

Species Diversity DC-4. Specialized habitat components, such as caves, standing dead trees, 

seeps, and springs, are found across the landscape in amounts and types commensurate with the 

natural communities in which they occur.

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales 

(forestwide, watershed, and subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, this 

desired condition should be used concurrently with information outlined in the strategy and 

design criteria part of this plan and with consideration of the best available climate change 

projections.

Species Diversity DC-5. Management activities improve the conservation status of species 

identified as being surrogate species or of local or regional conservation concern. Habitats and 

populations are managed in accordance with conservation planning documents, recovery plans, 

best available scientific information, and local knowledge.

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity can be applied at a variety of scales (forestwide, 

watershed, and subwatershed). During project analysis and implementation, this desired condition 

should be used concurrently with information outlined in the strategy and design criteria part of 

this plan and with consideration of the best available climate change projections.

Federally Listed Species DC-1. Federally listed species (aquatic and terrestrial) are recovered or

delisted. Management activities improve the conservation status of listed species and designated 

critical habitat. Habitats are managed in accordance with conservation planning documents,

recovery plans, best available scientific information, and local knowledge. Critical habitat 

components (primary constituent elements and primary biological features) are protected and 

restored to achieve species recovery.

• For listed aquatic species, on National Forest System lands spawning, rearing, and 

migratory habitat is widely available and inhabited. Listed aquatic species have access to 

historic habitat and appropriate life history strategies (resident, fluvial, adfluvial, and 

anadromy) are supported. Recovery is promoted through cooperation and coordination with 

tribes, state agencies, federal agencies, and other interested groups.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

38

• For listed terrestrial species, habitat that adequately provides ample resources for all life 

stages is available and inhabited. Recovery is promoted through cooperation and 

coordination with tribes, state agencies, federal agencies, and other interested groups.

• For listed plant species, threats such as invasions by aggressive, nonnative plants, adverse 

livestock grazing management, and changes in fire frequency and seasonality are 

addressed. Populations achieve recovery through cooperation and coordination with tribes, 

state agencies, federal agencies, and other interested groups.

Scale: A variety of spatial scales and hydrologic boundaries (ranging from individual projects to 

subwatersheds to areas as large as populations). Species recovery plans identify activities 

necessary for recovery at the project (reach), subwatershed and population scales. Species’ 

recovery plans further describe high-priority restoration actions at these scales that address 

identified limiting factors and threats to listed species and designated critical habitats.

Invasive Species DC-1. Healthy, native and desired nonnative animal communities, and native 

and desired nonnative plant communities dominate the landscape and are resilient given current

and projected climate conditions. Invasive species and other undesirable species (terrestrial and 

aquatic plants and animals) are absent or occur in small areas and have limited or no impacts on 

viability of native and desired nonnative species. Existing invasive and undesirable species do not

expand their current distributions over the life of the plan, and their current distributions will be 

reduced to the extent possible over that period of time. Invasive and undesirable species do not 

significantly diminish the ability of the national forests to provide the goods and services

communities expect or the habitat that plant and animal community diversity depends upon. New 

invasive species resulting from changes in plant and animal habitats due to changes in climate

occur only at low levels.

Scale: watershed.

Water Use DC-1. Water is available in sufficient quantity and quality to meet downstream human 

needs as well as the needs of aquatic species considering the range of possible climate change 

scenarios. 

Scale: watershed to subbasin.

Water Use DC-2. Water quality and quantity of groundwater resources, including seeps, springs, 

fens, and other groundwater-dependent ecosystems, is sufficient to provide for the extent and 

diversity of species associated with these habitats.

Scale: watershed to subbasin.

Water Quality DC-1. Water quality (for example, temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen) of 

surface and groundwater is sufficient to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland 

ecosystems. It is within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity 

of the system and is capable of benefiting the survival, growth, reproduction, and mobility of 

individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. 

Scale: watershed.

Water Quality DC-2. The quality of water within and emanating from the national forests is 

sufficient to provide for state-designated beneficial uses, including human uses and meets 

applicable local, state, and tribal water quality criteria.

Scale: subbasin.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

39

Desired Conditions for Key Watersheds and Subwatersheds with Endangered 

Species Act Critical Habitat for Aquatic Species

Key Watershed DC-1. Connected networks of watersheds with ecological form, function, and 

processes and functionally intact ecosystems contribute to and enhance conservation and recovery 

of specific threatened or endangered fish species and provide high water quality and quantity. The 

networks contribute to short-term conservation and long-term recovery at the major population 

group, core area or other appropriate population scale. 

Scale: watershed to subbasin.

Key Watershed DC-2. Roads in key watersheds present minimal risk to aquatic resources.

Scale: subwatershed.

Key Watershed DC-3. Key watersheds have high watershed integrity and provide resilient 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems. 

Scale: subwatershed.

Desired Conditions for Riparian Management Areas

Riparian Management Area DC-1. Riparian management areas within any given watershed 

reflect a natural composition of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, 

and biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting the area. 

Scale: subwatershed.

Riparian Management DC-2. The species composition and structural diversity of native plant

communities in riparian management areas, including wetlands, provides adequate side channels, 

pools, undercut banks and unembedded substrates. These conditions result in a variety of depths, 

gradients, velocities, and structure for seasonal thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate

rates of erosion, and channel migration and supplies amounts and distributions of coarse woody

debris and fine particulate organic matter sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Scale: Watershed scale for forestwide planning; subwatershed scale for project planning.

Riparian Management Area DC-3. Key riparian processes and conditions (including slope 

stability and associated vegetative root strength, bank stability, wood delivery to streams, and, 

within the riparian management areas, input of leafy and other organic matter to aquatic and 

terrestrial systems, solar shading, microclimate, and water quality) are operating consistent with 

natural disturbance regimes. 

Scale: subwatershed.

Riparian Management Area DC-4. Riparian vegetation has the species composition, structural 

diversity, age class diversity, and extent that is characteristic of the setting in which it occurs and 

the hydrologic and disturbance regimes in which it developed. The condition and composition of 

small habitat patches may change over small temporal and spatial scales but remains relatively 

constant at larger scales. Plant communities are similar in species composition, age class 

structure, canopy density, and ground cover to plant associations (Crowe and Clausnitzer 1997) 

that are representative of a particular setting.

Scale: subwatershed to subbasin.

Riparian Management Area DC-5. Riparian shrub communities occupy their historical range 

and extent. Individual plants are capable of reaching the full potential for a typical individual of a 

particular species, as defined by plant height, width, and growth form. Individual plants are able 

to propagate or reproduce vegetatively, sexually, or both. Plant communities are similar in species

composition, age class structure, canopy density, and ground cover to plant associations (Crowe
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

40

and Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a particular setting.

Scale: subwatershed.

Riparian Management Area DC-6. Riparian areas consist of native assemblages of ripariandependent plants and animals free of persistent non-native species and provide for dispersal and 

travel corridors, as well as connectivity, between geographically important areas for both 

terrestrial and aquatic animals and plant species within the planning area. 

Scale: subwatershed.

Riparian Management Area DC-7. The potential for large wood recruitment to streams from 

within forested riparian areas, and from low-order streams to higher order streams, is similar to 

the potential in reference watersheds with similar forest vegetation types.

Scale: watershed.

Objectives

Definition:

• 36 CFR 219.3 (1982) Objective. A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned 

results that respond to pre-established goals. An objective forms the basis for further 

planning to define the precise steps to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving 

identified goals.

The objectives represent some of the expected outcomes for the national forest to make progress 

towards desired conditions.

Objectives are projections of Forest Service activities and program outcomes that are measurable 

and time specific. Like goals and desired conditions, objectives are not commitments or final 

decisions approving projects or activities. They are an effort by the Forest Service to share with 

the public the way progress toward achieving or maintaining the desired conditions during the life 

of the plan will be measured. The objectives stated are only a partial list of the management 

activities expected to be accomplished to contribute to maintaining or achieving desired 

conditions.

Objectives are based on ecological needs, community capacity, and expected funding, including 

budgets, partnerships, and cooperative agreements. The actual accomplishments will be 

dependent on actual funding, staffing levels, and local infrastructure. The objectives are not 

intended to limit or guarantee the amount of work that will be accomplished. More work may be 

accomplished if additional infrastructure or funding, such as increased budget allocations, 

partnerships, or other external sources, becomes available. Less work could occur if funding is 

less than expected, additional infrastructure is not constructed, or existing infrastructure declines 

and becomes unusable.

Objectives are expected to be accomplished during the first decade of the plan period, unless 

otherwise indicated within the objective statement. The objectives reflect the activities and 

program outcomes necessary to achieve or maintain desired conditions. Objectives are displayed 

for each Blue Mountains national forest in table 2 through table 6. The tables display the portion 

of the Ochoco administered by the Malheur National Forest as part of the Malheur.

Watershed Restoration

The three national forests have identified watershed restoration objectives relevant to conditions 

that pose substantial risk and consequence to maintaining or attaining aquatic and riparian desired 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

41

conditions. The management actions to meet these objectives should be achievable within the life 

of the plan (15 years).

Objectives for individual restoration treatments were developed that outline the general scope and 

magnitude of projected treatments and their general locations. These could include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

• soil and water resource improvements

• fish passage improvements

• instream habitat improvements

• riparian and floodplain vegetation treatments

• road and trail improvements focused on watershed and aquatic resources

• road storage treatments and road decommissioning

In developing objectives, the highest priorities for restoration include the removal of major 

factors posing risks to the integrity and resiliency of watersheds and riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems. The watershed function objectives in table 2 are from the 2011 Watershed Condition 

Framework Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011b), subsequent versions of this guide,

comparable methods, or a combination of these references. Other broad-scale or local inventory, 

assessment and monitoring data and analysis can be used to refine initial classifications made per 

the Watershed Condition Framework.

The watershed condition class terminology for functioning properly, functioning-at-risk, and 

impaired function are equivalent to functioning appropriately, functioning-at-risk and functioning 

at unacceptable risk categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1998, and respectively equivalent to properly functioning or at risk or not 

properly functioning categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators used by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (1996).

Table 2. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve watershed function objectives 

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Improve riparian and wetland function

by:

Restoring floodplain connections,

channel morphology, channel structure,

and flow regime (flood flows and low

flows) (stream miles) (WR1)

80 miles 90 miles 90 miles

Restoring riparian/wetland species

composition (riparian acres) by 

increasing natural seedling

establishment, planting, fencing, or

modifying riparian management 

(riparian acres) (WR2)

300 acres 165 acres 225 acres

Increasing effective stream shade (WQ

objective 1) by increasing amount and

extent of woody riparian species and

increasing age-class structure of 

terrestrial vegetation in MA 4 (stream

miles) (WR3)

450 miles 225 miles 375 miles
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

42

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Improve riparian and wetland function

by:

Increasing extent and vegetative

species diversity of off-channel and

isolated wetlands by restoring

hydrologic pathways, modifying existing

water diversions, or fencing (number of 

sites) (WR4)

30 sites 40 sites 40 sites

Increasing the number and extent of 

beaver-created wetlands (sites)

12 sites 10 sites 12 sites

Improve stream channel and aquatic 

habitat function by:

Improving riparian habitat conditions

(riparian acres, WR1-3)

600 acres

(annually)

525 acres

(annually)

675 acres

(annually)

Restoring channel morphology to reflect

natural conditions (miles)

38 miles 45 miles 60 miles

Increasing habitat complexity through

channel reconstruction, placement of 

large wood or other structures, habitat

enhancement (miles)

75 miles 90 miles 113 miles

Increasing aquatic habitat connectivity

through culvert replacement (number of

culverts)

90 culverts

143 stream miles

75 culverts

68 stream miles

90 culverts

135 stream miles

(W1) Increase the number of

watersheds in condition class 1 (from

CC2) and 2 (from CC3) through active

restoration. Measure: number of

subwatersheds (HUC6) with improved

condition.

16 watersheds 14 watersheds 24 watersheds

Improve hydrologic function by:

Improving forest vegetative conditions

(acres) (WH1)

7,800 acres

(annually)

6,600 acres

(annually)

7,300 acres

(annually)

Improving soil hydrologic function in

areas of detrimental soil disturbance

(acres) (WH2)

600 acres 750 acres 950 acres

Reducing road-related sedimentation by 

reducing road density and reducing

hydrologic connectivity of the road

system (road miles) (WH3)

30-35 miles road

surface treated

(annually)

30-35 miles road

surface treated

(annually)

30-35 miles road

surface treated

(annually)

Table 3. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve species diversity objectives 

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

In cooperation with state fish and wildlife

agencies, expand bull trout occurrence

within 10 years into unoccupied suitable

stream segments within its historic

range.

1 segment 1 segment 1 segment

Restore habitat quality and connectivity 

within and between stronghold

watersheds for aquatic species, with 

emphasis on strongholds for federally 

listed aquatic species.

4-6

subwatersheds or 

80-120

stream miles

3-5

subwatersheds or 

60-100

stream miles

6-9

subwatersheds or 

120-180

stream miles
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

43

Table 4. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve plant species composition 

objectives 

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Develop habitat management plans for 

Spalding’s Catchfly key conservation 

areas.

N/A Lick Creek key 

conservation area 

(also called Blue 

Mtn. Foothills)

Lower Imnaha, 

Crow Creek, and 

Clear Lake Ridge

key conservation 

areas

Table 5. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve soil quality objectives 

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Implement erosion control and

stabilization measures on unstable

hillslopes. Possible activities include

road realignment and improving forest

vegetation conditions.

200-400 acres 200-400 acres 150-250 acres

Restore soil function (also see

objectives for 1.1 Watershed Function).

175-350 acres 175-350 acres 75-150 acres

Table 6. Amount of restoration on each national forest to achieve water quality objectives 

Objective Statements Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Improve water quality through

implementation of water quality

restoration plans.

4-6 watersheds 

160-240

stream miles

5-7 watersheds 

200-280

stream miles

5-7 watersheds 

200-280

stream miles

Standards and Guidelines

Definition:

• 36 CFR 219.7 (2012) (iii) Standards. A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and 

activity decision-making, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or 

conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal 

requirements.

• 36 CFR 219.7 (2012) (iv) Guidelines. A guideline is a constraint on project and activity 

decision-making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the 

guideline is met (section 219.15(d)(3)). Guidelines are established to help achieve or 

maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to 

meet applicable legal requirements.

General Riparian Management

Standard RMA-1S. Riparian management areas include portions of watersheds where aquatic 

and riparian-dependent resources receive primary management emphasis. When riparian 

management area desired conditions are functioning properly, projects shall protect or maintain 

those conditions. When riparian management area desired conditions are not yet achieved or 

riparian management areas have impaired function or are functioning-at-risk and to the degree 

that project activities would contribute to those conditions, projects or permitted activities shall 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

44

restore or not retard attainment of desired conditions.36 Short-term adverse effects from project 

activities may occur when they support long-term recovery of riparian management area desired 

conditions.37 Exceptions to this standard include situations where Forest Service authorities are 

limited (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), 1872 Mining Law, valid 

State water right, etc.). In those cases, project effects shall be minimized and not retard attainment 

of desired conditions to the extent possible within Forest Service authorities. Use Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy attachment B (for example, diagnostic indicators and 

riparian management area ecological process and function descriptions) to assist in determining 

compliance with this standard.

Standard RMA-2S. Herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and other toxicants, and other chemicals 

shall be applied only to maintain, protect, or enhance aquatic and riparian resources or to restore 

native plant communities in a manner that does not harm aquatic or riparian resources.

Standard RMA-3S. Trees felled for safety shall be retained onsite unless in excess of what is 

needed to achieve aquatic and riparian desired conditions. If the desired quantity and size 

distribution of large wood has been met on site, the wood can be transported to other aquatic and 

riparian restoration projects.

Guideline RMA-4G. Water drafting sites should be located and managed to minimize adverse 

effects on stream channel stability, sedimentation, and instream flows needed to maintain riparian 

resources, channel conditions, and fish habitat. To prevent the spread of invasive species, water 

should not be discharged into other waterbodies.

Standard RMA-5S. Pumps shall be screened at drafting sites to prevent entrainment of fish and 

shall have one-way valves to prevent back-flow into streams.

Guideline RMA-6G. Fish habitat and water quality should be protected when withdrawing water 

for administrative purposes.

Standard RMA-7S. Refueling shall occur with appropriate containment equipment and a spill 

response plan in place. Wherever possible, storage of petroleum products and refueling will occur 

outside of riparian management areas. The use of containment devices, absorbent pads, and a 

developed spill plan will help reduce the risk of fuel and petroleum products from getting into 

streams and other waterways if an accident were to occur. If refueling or storage of petroleum 

products is necessary within riparian management areas, these operations will be conducted no

closer than 100 feet from waterways.

Timber Management in Riparian Management Areas

Standard TM-1S. Silvicultural treatments shall occur in riparian management areas only as 

necessary to maintain, enhance, or restore desired conditions for aquatic and riparian resources. 

When conducted, these activities shall avoid or minimize adverse effects to aquatic and riparian 

 36 Per Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest Service (2011b), subsequent versions of this 

guide, other comparable methods, or a combination of these references. Other broad-scale or local inventory, 

assessment and monitoring data and analysis can be used to refine initial classifications made per the Watershed 

Condition Framework. The watershed condition class terminology for functioning properly, functioning-at-risk, and 

impaired function are equivalent to functioning appropriately, functioning-at-risk and functioning at unacceptable risk

categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, and respectively 

equivalent to properly functioning or at risk or not properly functioning categories within the matrix of pathways and 

indicators used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (1996). 37 The definitions and rationale for the terms maintain, restore, degrade, retard attainment, short-term, and long-term 

are included in forest plan standard WM-1S.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

45

resources. Vegetation in riparian management areas shall not be subject to regularly scheduled 

timber harvest because they are not part of the timber suitability landbase.

Standard TM-2S. Fuelwood cutting shall not be authorized in riparian management areas unless 

specifically designed to attain aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

Guideline TM-3G. Use of existing or construction of new landings, designated skid trails, 

staging, and decking should not occur in riparian management areas, unless they are associated 

with projects designed to improve riparian management areas conditions. These features should:

• be of minimum size;

• be located outside the active floodplain; and 

• avoid negative effects to large wood, bank integrity, temperature, and sediment levels.

Guideline TM-4G. Yarding activities should achieve full suspension over the active channel; 

unless other alternatives will have less damage to riparian areas and stream channels.38

Standard TM-5S. Silvicultural practices shall include provisions, as appropriate, to avoid 

detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses; including protection for 

streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water, and deposits of 

sediment.

Standard TM-6S. Silvicultural practices shall include provisions (for example, best management 

practices) for the maintenance or restoration of soil resources.

Standard TM-7S. Timber harvest on lands not suitable for timber production shall occur only to 

meet desired conditions for each management area other than timber production.

Guideline TM-8G. In watersheds in which stream channels and aquatic habitats are in properly 

functioning condition, forest vegetation within riparian management areas should be managed to 

maintain or increase large wood recruitment and delivery to streams.

Standard TM-9S. In watersheds in which stream channels and aquatic habitats are not in 

properly functioning condition, and where instream wood frequency and volume are below 

reference conditions, site potential, or both, manage forest vegetation within riparian management 

areas to maintain or increase large wood recruitment and delivery to streams.

Roads Management in Riparian Management Areas

Guideline RF-1G. New roads and trails should not be constructed within riparian management 

areas unless no other feasible alternative exists.

Guideline RF-2G. Temporary roads, including stream crossings, in riparian management areas 

should be minimized. Temporary roads, if constructed, should be managed to protect and restore 

aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

Standard RF-3S. Side-casting (placement of unconsolidated earthen waste materials resulting 

from road construction or maintenance) in riparian management areas shall be avoided.

Standard RF-4S. Fill material shall not be placed on organic debris in riparian management 

areas.

 38 Active channel is the bank full width of flowing perennial or intermittent streams.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

46

Standard RF-5S. Disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow 

and interception of surface and subsurface flow shall be avoided when constructing or 

reconstructing roads or landings either inside or outside of riparian management areas.

Guideline RF-6G. Wetlands and unstable areas should be avoided when reconstructing existing 

roads or constructing new roads and landings. Minimize impacts where avoidance is not practical.

Standard RF-7S. New or replaced permanent stream crossings shall be designed to allow for the 

100-year flood and its bedload and debris. One-hundred-year flood estimates will reflect the best 

available science regarding potential effects of climate change.

Standard RF-8S. Where physically feasible, construction or reconstruction of stream crossings 

will avoid diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of crossing 

failure.

Standard RF-9S. Construction or reconstruction of stream crossings shall provide and maintain 

passage for all life stages of all native and desired non-native aquatic and riparian-dependent 

organisms. Crossing designs shall reflect the best available science regarding potential effects of 

climate change on peak flows and low flows.

Guideline RF-10G. Fish passage barriers should be retained where they serve to restrict access 

by undesirable nonnative species and are consistent with restoration of habitat for native species.

Guideline RF-11G. Design roads to minimize delivery of water and sediment from roads to 

streams. Avoid or minimize disruption of hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of 

streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow when constructing, reconstructing, 

and maintenance of roads or landing.

Guideline RF-12G. Road drainage should be routed away from potentially unstable channels, 

fills, and hillslopes to the extent practicable.

Standard RF-13S. Road maintenance and new road construction shall be designed to minimize 

adverse effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate aquatic species and their 

habitat.

Grazing Management in Riparian Management Areas

Standard GM-1S. Manage livestock grazing to attain aquatic and riparian desired conditions. 

Where livestock grazing is found to prevent or retard attaining aquatic and riparian desired 

conditions, modify grazing practices (such as number of livestock, timing, and physical 

structures). If adjusting practices is not effective, remove livestock from that area using 

appropriate administrative authorities and procedures.

Standard GM-2S. New livestock handling facilities, management facilities, or both shall be 

located outside riparian management areas unless they do not prevent or retard attaining aquatic 

and riparian desired conditions.

Guideline GM-3G. The purpose of this guideline is to manage livestock grazing to help attain 

and maintain aquatic and riparian desired conditions over time. Specifically, it is intended to 

maintain or improve vegetative and stream conditions, help ensure the viability of aquatic 

species, provide important contributions to the recovery of federally listed species, and facilitate 

attainment of State water quality standards.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

47

The annual livestock use and disturbance indicators described below should be applied to help 

achieve, over longer timeframes, conditions at site and watershed scales that enable attainment 

and maintenance of desired conditions. The values specified below are starting points for 

management. Only those indicators and numeric values that are appropriate to the site and 

necessary for maintaining or moving towards desired conditions should be applied.39 Specific 

indicators and indicator values should be prescribed and adjusted, if needed, in a manner that 

reflects existing and desired conditions and the natural potential of the specific geoclimatic, 

hydrologic, and vegetative setting in which they are being applied.

40 Indicators and indicator 

values should be adapted over time based on long-term monitoring and evaluation of conditions 

and trends. Alternative use and disturbance indicators and values, including those in current 

Endangered Species Act consultation documents or non-Endangered-Species-Act allotment 

management plans or allotment National Environmental Policy Act decisions, may be used if they 

are based on best available science and monitoring data and meet the purpose of this guideline.

4. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and riparian vegetation have 

been attained41 and riparian vegetation is in late-seral conditions42, protect or maintain 

those conditions by managing annual livestock grazing use and disturbance as follows 43:

• maintain a minimum of 4-inch residual stubble height 44 of key herbaceous species on 

the greenline;

• utilize no more than 30-45 percent of deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation in the active 

floodplain45 and, as needed, in other critical portions of the riparian management 

area;

• limit streambank alteration46 to no more than 20-25 percent; and

 39 Not all indicators may apply to a particular site. For example, stubble height is a meaningful indicator for lower 

gradient streams where herbaceous vegetation plays an important role in stabilizing streambanks. It is generally less 

useful for steeper channels, where channel morphology is controlled by coarse substrates. Moreover, not all numeric 

values may apply to a particular site (for example, sites with short graminoids).

40 Indicator values for specific sites should be determined based on consideration of local conditions including, but not 

limited to, the degree of departure between existing and desired conditions, the current and desired rate of improvement, 

site sensitivity to grazing, grazing season, the presence of special status species (for example, Endangered-Species-Actlisted species, regional forester’s sensitive species) that are sensitive to grazing, whether or not water quality standards and 

related requirements (for example, total maximum daily loads for impaired waters) are being met, and the site’s importance 

in maintaining or attaining those standards and requirements. Consideration of these conditions is especially important in 

prescribing specific stubble height values within the 4-inch to 6-inch range and streambank alteration values within the 15 

to 20 percent range.

41 Assessment of conditions and trends should be based on best available information at a variety of spatial and 

temporal scales. Site-specific information is particularly important.

42 Late seral conditions means the existing riparian vegetation community is similar to the potential natural community 

composition (per Winward 2000).

43 Per PACFISH-INFISH Monitoring, Multiple Indicator Monitoring (BLM Technical Reference 1737-23) protocols or 

comparable methods for stubble height, streambank alteration, and use of woody species. Per Bureau of Land 

Management protocols (BLM/RS/ST-96/004+1730) or comparable methods for herbaceous utilization.

44 Stubble height criteria apply at the end of the grazing period, when that period ends after the growing season. When 

the grazing period ends before the growing season does, stubble height criteria can be applied at the end of the grazing 

period or the end of the growing season.

45 Active floodplain is defined as the area bordering a stream inundated by flows at a surface elevation that is two times 

the maximum bankfull depth (measured at the thalweg).

46 Streambank alteration criteria apply within 1-2 weeks of removal of livestock from each pasture.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

48

• limit use of woody species to no more than 30-40 percent of current year’s leaders 

along streambanks and, as needed, in other critical portions of the riparian 

management area.

5. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and/or riparian vegetation 

have not yet been attained, but conditions are moving towards those desired conditions,

7

enable continued recovery by managing annual livestock grazing use and disturbance as 

follows:

• maintain a minimum of 4-inches to 6-inches residual stubble height of key 

herbaceous species on the greenline;

6

• follow the criteria for utilization of deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation, streambank 

alteration, and use of woody species described in (1).

6. Where desired conditions for water quality, aquatic habitat, and/or riparian vegetation 

have not been attained and conditions are not moving towards those desired conditions,7

enable recovery by managing annual livestock grazing use and disturbance as follows:

• maintain a minimum of 6-inches residual stubble height of key herbaceous species on 

the greenline;

• utilize no more than 30-35 percent of deep-rooted herbaceous vegetation in the active 

floodplain and, as needed, in other critical portions of the riparian management area;

• limit streambank alteration to no more than 15-20 percent,

6 and

• limit use of woody species to no more than 20-30 percent of current year’s leaders 

along streambanks and, as needed, in other critical portions of the riparian 

management area.

Guideline GM-4G. During allotment management planning, existing livestock handling or 

management facilities that prevent or retard attaining aquatic and riparian desired conditions 

should be removed, as appropriate.

Guideline GM-5G. Livestock trailing, watering, loading, and other handling in riparian 

management areas should be avoided or minimized.

Standard GM-6S. Livestock grazing shall be managed and implemented to avoid trampling 

federally listed threatened or endangered fish redds.

Recreation Management

Guideline RM-1G. New facilities or infrastructure should not be placed within expected longterm channel migration zones if it has the potential to impact channel or floodplain function. If 

some facilities must occur in riparian management areas (for example, road stream crossings, 

boat ramps, docks, and interpretive trails), locate and design them to minimize impacts on 

floodplains and other riparian dependent resource conditions (for example, within geologically 

stable areas, avoiding major spawning sites).

Guideline RM-2G. Existing recreation facility components that are causing unacceptable 

impacts in riparian management areas should be removed or relocated. Site condition should be 

restored to improve riparian area function.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

49

Minerals Management 

Guideline MM-1G. For operations in riparian management areas, ensure operators take all 

practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate water quality and habitat for fish and 

wildlife and other riparian-dependent resources that may be affected by the operations. Ensure 

operations do not retard or prevent attaining aquatic and riparian desired conditions. Exceptions 

to this guideline include situations where Forest Service has limited discretional authorities. In 

those cases, project effects should be minimized and should not prevent or retard attaining aquatic 

and riparian desired conditions to the extent possible within those authorities.

Guideline MM-2G. To the maximum extent possible, construct and locate new structures, 

support facilities, and roads outside of riparian management areas. If new structures, support 

facilities and roads cannot be constructed outside riparian management areas because of site 

limitations, then construct and manage them to minimize adverse effects to aquatic and riparian 

dependent resources. Existing roads and facilities should be maintained to minimize damage to 

aquatic and riparian dependent resources, and should be removed or relocated if roads and 

facilities are causing unacceptable impacts in riparian management areas. When structures, 

support facilities, and roads are no longer required for mineral activities, they should be restored 

or reclaimed to achieve aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

Standard MM-3S. Mine waste with the potential to generate hazardous material (as defined by 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: CERCLA) shall 

not be authorized within riparian management areas where groundwater contamination is 

possible, or both. The exception is temporary staging of waste during abandoned mine cleanup.

Guideline MM-4G. Mineral operations should minimize adverse effects to aquatic and ripariandependent resources in riparian management areas. Require best management practices and other 

appropriate conservation measures to mitigate potential mine operation effects.

Standard MM-5S. Mineral activities on National Forest System lands shall avoid or minimize 

adverse effects to aquatic threatened or endangered species and populations or their designated 

critical habitat.

• All suction dredge mining activities in habitat for aquatic threatened or endangered species

and populations or in their designated critical habitat shall be evaluated by the district 

ranger to determine if the mining activity is causing or “will likely cause significant 

disturbance of surface resources.”47 A likelihood that a threatened or endangered species 

"take" (defined in Section 3[18] of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended) 

incidental to the mining activity is an example of a significant resource disturbance. Other 

significant disturbances that do not involve incidental take might involve effects on channel 

stability or stream hydraulics.

• If the district ranger determines that placer mining operations are causing or will likely 

cause significant disturbance to surface resources, the district ranger shall contact and 

inform the operator to seek voluntary compliance with 36 CFR 228 mining regulations and 

to cease operations until compliance.

 47 The phrase ‘‘will likely cause significant disturbance of surface resources’’ means that, based on past experience, 

direct evidence, or sound scientific projection, the district ranger reasonably expects that the proposed operations would 

result in impacts to National Forest System lands and resources which more probably than not need to be avoided or 

ameliorated by means such as reclamation, bonding, timing restrictions, and other mitigation measures to minimize 

adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System resources. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

50

Wildland Fire Management Activities and Fuels Management within Riparian 

Management Areas

Guideline FM-1G. Locate temporary firefighting facilities (for example, incident bases, camps, 

helibases, staging areas, helispots, and other centers) for incident activities outside riparian 

management areas. When no practical alternative exists, all appropriate measures to protect, 

maintain, restore, or enhance aquatic and riparian dependent resources should be used. If the only 

suitable location for such activities is within a riparian management area, use may be granted 

following review by a resource advisor and discussion with the agency administrator. The 

resource advisor will work the incident management team to prescribe the location, use 

conditions, and rehabilitation requirements. Use an interdisciplinary team to predetermine 

suitable incident base and helibase locations.

Guideline FM-2G. Aerial application of chemical retardant, foam, or other fire chemicals is 

prohibited within 300 feet (slope distance) of perennial and intermittent waterways. Waterways 

are defined as any body of water (including lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds) whether or not it 

contains aquatic life except in cases where human life or public safety is threatened and chemical 

use could be reasonably expected to alleviate that threat. This includes open water that may not 

be mapped as such on avoidance area maps and intermittent streams that are running or holding 

surface water at the time of retardant use.

Standard FM-3S. Portable pump set-ups shall include containment provisions for fuel spills and 

fuel containers shall have appropriate containment provisions. Vehicles shall be parked in 

locations that avoid entry of spilled fuel into streams. When drafting, pumps shall be screened at 

drafting sites to prevent entrainment of aquatic species, screen area shall be sized to prevent 

impingement on the screens, and shall have one-way valves to prevent backflow into streams. 

Use National Marine Fisheries Service-approved screening criteria where listed fish or critical 

habitat are present.

Guideline FM-4G. Locate and configure firelines to minimize sedimentation to waterbodies, 

capture of overland and stream flows, and development of unauthorized roads and trails. Restore 

firelines following suppression or prescribed fire activities.

Standard FM-5S. To minimize soil damage when chipping fuels within riparian management 

areas, chip bed depths on dry soils shall be limited to 7.5 centimeters or less (Busse et al. 2006).

Guideline FM-6G. Disturbed areas, such as firelines, drop-points, camps, roads, and trails, 

should be restored by actions such as scattering slash piles, replacing logs and boulders, 

scarifying soils, recontouring terrain, and reseeding with native species.

Guideline FM-7G. Pumping directly from a stream channel should be avoided if chemical 

products are to be injected directly into the system. When chemicals are used, pumping should be 

conducted from a fold-a-tank that is located outside the riparian area.

Guideline FM-8G. Minimum impact suppression tactics should be utilized in sensitive areas, 

such as designated wilderness areas, designated wild and scenic river corridors, research natural 

areas, botanical areas, riparian management areas, cultural and historic sites, developed recreation 

areas, special use permit areas that have structures, and historic and recreational trails. Minimum 

impact suppression tactics should also be used for post-fire restoration activities.

Guideline FM-9G. Prescribed burn direct ignition in riparian management areas should not be 

used unless site and project scale effects analysis demonstrates that it would not retard attaining 

aquatic and riparian desired conditions.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

51

Standard FM-10S. Ensure prescribed burn projects contribute to and do not retard the attainment 

of the aquatic and riparian desired conditions.

Guideline FM-11G. Chemicals or retardant should not be used for suppression or mop-up within 

riparian areas.

Standard FM-12S. Pumps and charged hoses shall not be back flushed into stream channels, 

wetlands, or surface water.

Lands and Special Uses, including Hydropower in Riparian Management Areas

Standard LH-1S. Authorizations for all new and existing special uses, including, but not limited 

to water diversion or transmission facilities (for example, pipelines and ditches), energy 

transmission lines, roads, hydroelectric, and other surface water development proposals, shall 

result in the reestablishment, restoration, or mitigation of habitat conditions and ecological 

processes identified as being essential for the maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions 

for fish, water and other riparian dependent species and resources. These processes include instream flow regimes, physical and biological connectivity, water quality, and integrity and 

complexity of riparian and aquatic habitat.

Standard LH-2S. New support facilities shall be located outside of riparian management areas. 

Support facilities include any facilities or improvements (for example, workshops, housing, 

switchyards, staging areas, and transmission lines) not directly integral to the production of 

hydroelectric power or necessary for the implementation of prescribed protection, mitigation or 

enhancement measures.

Guideline LH-3G. If existing support facilities are located within the riparian management areas, 

they should be operated and maintained to restore or enhance aquatic and riparian dependent 

resources. At time of permit re-issuance, consider removing support facilities, where practical.

Guideline LH-4G. Land exchanges should avoid the disposition of occupied habitat of 

threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, or sensitive species.

Watershed (Forestwide)

Standard WM-1S. When watershed function48 desired conditions are being achieved and 

watersheds are functioning properly49, projects shall maintain those conditions. When watershed 

function desired conditions are not yet achieved or watersheds have impaired function or are 

functioning-at-risk and to the degree that project activities would contribute to those conditions, 

projects shall restore or not retard attainment of desired conditions. Short-term adverse effects

from project activities may occur when they support or do not diminish long-term recovery of 

watershed function desired conditions and federally listed species. Exceptions to this standard 

include situations where Forest Service authorities are limited (Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), 1872 Mining Law, valid State water right, etc.). In those cases, 

 48 Per revised land management plan watershed function desired conditions (watershed function, hydrologic, riparian, 

wetland, stream channel, groundwater dependent ecosystem, and aquatic habitat).

15 Per Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service, 2011b), subsequent versions of the 

guide, comparable methods, or a combination of these references. Other broad-scale or local inventory, assessment and 

monitoring data and analysis can be used to refine initial classifications made per Watershed Condition Framework. 

The Watershed Condition Framework categories of terminology for “functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and 

impaired function are equivalent to the “functioning appropriately” “functioning-at-risk” and “functioning at 

unacceptable risk” categories within the matrix of pathways and indicators (USFWS 1998), and to the respectively 

equivalent to “properly functioning” or “at risk” or “not properly functioning” categories within the matrix of pathways 

and indicators used by National Marine Fisheries Service (1996).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

52

project effects shall be minimized and not retard attainment of desired conditions for watershed 

function, to the extent possible within Forest Service authorities. Use Blue Mountains Aquatic 

and Riparian Conservation Strategy attachment B to assist in determining compliance with this 

standard. See the glossary for definitions of maintain, degrade, restore, retard attainment, shortterm adverse effects, and long-term recovery.

Standard WM-2S. All projects shall be implemented in accordance with best management 

practices, as described in national and regional technical guides.

Key Watershed and Subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act Critical 

Habitat for Aquatic Species (Forestwide)

Standard KW-1S. In key watersheds or subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical 

habitat for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species that are functioning 

properly,

50 there shall be no net increase (1 mile of road-related risk reduction for every new mile 

of road construction), where they are functioning at risk,

51 there shall be a net decrease (1.5 miles 

of road-related risk reduction for every new mile of road construction), and where they are 

impaired function, there shall be a net decrease (2.0 miles of road-related risk reduction for every 

new mile of road construction) in system roads that affect hydrologic function. Priority for roadrelated risk reduction shall be given to roads that pose the greatest relative ecological risks to 

riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Road-related risk reduction will occur prior to new road 

construction unless logistical restrictions require post-construction risk reduction. This standard 

shall apply to the affected subwatershed when new system road construction is proposed in that 

subwatershed, and shall not be offset by reductions in open-road densities in other subwatersheds.

Standard KW-2S. In key watersheds and subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical 

habitat for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species, hydroelectric and 

other surface water development authorizations shall include requirements for instream flows and 

habitat conditions that maintain or restore native fish and other desired aquatic species 

populations, riparian dependent resources, favorable channel conditions, and aquatic connectivity.

Standard KW-3S. In key watersheds and in subwatersheds with Endangered Species Act critical 

habitat for aquatic species or subwatersheds containing listed aquatic species, new hydroelectric 

facilities and water developments shall not be located in a key watershed unless it can be 

demonstrated that there are minimal risks, no adverse effects, or both to the fish and water 

resources for which the key watershed was established.

Watershed Restoration (Forestwide)

Guideline RE-1G. Watershed restoration projects should be designed to utilize or emulate natural 

ecological processes to the extent practicable, for meeting and maintaining restoration objectives.

Guideline RE-2G. Watershed restoration projects should be designed to minimize the need for 

long-term maintenance.

 50 “Functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and “impaired function” for the roads and trails indicator of 

Watershed Condition Framework are defined in Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest 

Service, 2011b. Local inventory, assessment and monitoring data and information can be used to refine initial 

classifications made per Watershed Condition Framework. 51 “Functioning properly”, “functioning-at-risk”, and “impaired function” for the roads and trails indicator of 

Watershed Condition Framework are defined in Watershed Condition Framework Technical Guide, USDA Forest 

Service, 2011b
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

53

Standard RE-3S. Except where Forest Service authorities are limited, mitigation or planned 

restoration shall not be used as a substitute for preventing long-term watershed or habitat 

degradation.

Standard RE-4S. Minimize water and sediment delivery from roads and trails to streams. This 

includes roads, or road segments, whether inside and outside of riparian management areas, that 

deliver sediment to streams.

Standard RE-5S. Minimize adverse effects to federally listed, proposed, and candidate species 

and their designated and proposed critical habitat in accordance with Forest Service authorities. 

Management activities shall not retard recovery52 of listed, and proposed, and candidate species 

and their designated and proposed critical habitat in the long-term in accordance with Forest 

Service authorities. Federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their designated and 

proposed critical habitats shall be managed in accordance with their recovery or other 

conservation plans, in accordance with Forest Service authorities.

Invasive Species (Forestwide)

Guideline IS-1G. Avoid cross contamination between streams, reservoirs and lakes from pumps, 

suction and dipping devices or any other equipment. Avoid dumping water directly from one 

stream or lake into another. Disinfect water storage and conveyance equipment including 

sampling equipment, water tenders, pumps, engines, and aircraft prior to use on the national 

forest.

Suitability of Areas 

Definition:

36 CFR 219.3 (1982) Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource 

management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the 

economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit 

of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management 

practices.

Specific lands within a plan area will be identified as suitable for various multiple uses or 

activities based on the desired conditions applicable to those lands. Suitability describes the 

appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices (uses) to a particular area of 

land. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined uses.

The plan will also identify lands within the plan area as not suitable for uses that are not 

compatible with desired conditions for those lands. The suitability of lands need not be identified 

for every use or activity. Suitability identifications may be made after consideration of historic 

uses and of issues that have arisen in the planning process. Every plan must identify those lands 

that are not suitable for timber production (36 CFR 219.11).

For example, a project with the purpose of timber production (see glossary) may only occur in an 

area identified as suitable for timber production [16 U.S.C. 1604(k)] (see Suitability discussion). 

The documentation for the project should confirm the project area meets the suitability 

requirements.

 52 Retard recovery - management action effects that, individually or in combination with other management actions or 

natural disturbances, measurably slow the natural rate of recovery.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

54

Except for projects with a purpose of timber production, a project or activity can be consistent 

with plan suitability determinations in either of two ways:

• The project or activity is a use identified in the plan as suitable for the location where the 

project or activity is to occur; or

• The project or activity is not a use identified in the plan as suitable for the location (the plan 

is silent on the use or the plan identifies the use as not suitable), but the responsible official 

determines that the use is appropriate for that location’s desired conditions and objectives.

An area may be identified as generally suitable for uses that are compatible with desired 

conditions and objectives for that area. An area may be identified as generally not suitable for 

uses that are not compatible with desired conditions and objectives for that area. Identification of 

an area as generally suitable or generally not suitable for a use is guidance for project and activity 

decisionmaking and not a commitment nor a final decision approving projects and activities.

Uses or activities in specific areas are approved through project and activity decisionmaking.

Suitable uses are identified for each management areas in the forest plans to help further refine 

suitable uses and guide management. Suitable activities or uses in riparian management areas 

maybe adjusted based on watershed analysis.

Suitability for Riparian Management Areas

Riparian management areas are generally unsuitable for: 

• new road or trail construction

• salable mineral activities, such as gravel and sand

• energy development (for example, wind farms, utility corridors, pipelines, etc.)

Riparian management areas are unsuitable for: 

• regularly scheduled timber production (regularly scheduled timber harvest on suitable 

lands); since they are not part of our timber suitability landbase

• grazing management that degrades aquatic habitat conditions or impedes attainment of 

aquatic and riparian-dependent resources

Riparian management areas are generally suitable for: 

• silvicultural treatments necessary to maintain, enhance or restore conditions for aquatic and 

riparian resources. When conducted, these activities shall avoid or minimize adverse effects 

to aquatic and riparian resources and not degrade or retard attainment of aquatic and 

riparian-dependent resources

• timber harvest and mechanical fuel treatment may be allowed under certain circumstance to 

meet riparian management area desired conditions

• grazing management that does not degrade or retard attainment of aquatic and ripariandependent resources

• motor vehicle use consistent with 36 CFR 212 of the Travel Management Rule
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

55

Monitoring

Section 219.12 Monitoring. (a) Plan monitoring program.

• The responsible official shall develop a monitoring program for the plan area and include it 

in the plan. Monitoring information should enable the responsible official to determine if a 

change in plan components or other plan content that guide management of resources on 

the plan area may be needed. [...]

• The plan monitoring program sets out the plan monitoring questions and associated 

indicators. Monitoring questions and associated indicators must be designed to inform the 

management of resources on the plan area, including by testing relevant assumptions, 

tracking relevant changes, and measuring management effectiveness and progress toward

achieving or maintaining the plan’s desired conditions or objectives. Questions and 

indicators should be based on one or more desired conditions, objectives, or other plan 

components in the plan, but not every plan component needs to have a corresponding 

monitoring question.

• The plan monitoring program should be coordinated and integrated with relevant broaderscale monitoring strategies (paragraph (b) of this section) to ensure that monitoring is 

complementary and efficient, and that information is gathered at scales appropriate to the 

monitoring questions. For more information, see the 2012 Planning Rule.

Monitoring and evaluation consists of key element monitoring that will occur as implementation 

of the forest plan progresses (future site-specific actions). Monitoring is part of an adaptive 

management process that measures the performance of plan implementation against the goals, 

desired conditions and objectives to which it aspires. It also evaluates whether implementation of 

standards and guidelines are producing the desired results.

Variation in achieving objectives may occur during the life of the plans because of changes in 

environmental conditions, available budgets, and other factors. Influences on objectives include 

recent trends, past experiences, anticipated staffing levels, and budget projections.

Objectives are projections of Forest Service activities and program outcomes that are measurable 

and time specific. Like goals and desired conditions, objectives are not commitments or final 

decisions approving projects or activities. They are an effort by the Forest Service to share with 

the public how progress toward achieving or maintaining the desired conditions during the life of 

the plans will be measured. The objectives stated are only a partial list of the management 

activities expected to be accomplished to contribute to maintaining or achieving desired 

conditions.

Objectives are based on ecological needs, community capacity, and expected funding, including 

budgets, partnerships, and cooperative agreements. The actual accomplishments will be 

dependent on actual funding, staffing levels, and local infrastructure. The objectives are not 

intended to limit or guarantee the amount of work that will be accomplished. More work may be 

accomplished if additional infrastructure or funding, such as increased budget allocations, 

partnerships, or other external sources, becomes available. Less work could occur if funding is 

less than expected, additional infrastructure is not constructed, or existing infrastructure declines 

and becomes unusable.

Objectives are expected to be accomplished during the first decade of the plan period, unless 

otherwise indicated within the objective statement. The objectives reflect the activities and 

program outcomes necessary to achieve or maintain desired conditions.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

56

7. Watershed Analysis 

Watershed analysis is an essential component of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy. The content of this section is included in Blue Mountains forest plans as 

other plan content.

Background

Assessments, which covered the three national forests in the Blue Mountains, were conducted 

before the forest plans were revised to identify the need to change plan direction and to inform 

the development of plan components. This section pertains to watershed analysis, which is 

conducted at finer spatial scales (generally subbasins to subwatersheds, 8-12 digit hydrologic 

units) as historically used to inform plan implementation, after they have been developed, 

amended, or revised.

Through implementation of the existing aquatic strategies in the 1990s and early 2000s, 

watershed analyses have been completed for the majority of National Forest System lands within 

the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy area. Consequently, future work will largely 

focus on efficiently updating, as needed, a portion of those existing analyses to better reflect 

current watershed conditions and trends, new issues (for example, climate change, invasive 

species), latest science and policy, and current opportunities.

Purpose

Watershed analysis is an interdisciplinary analysis of the status and trends of watershed and 

aquatic ecosystem conditions, including key State-designated beneficial uses of water (for 

example, municipal water supply), and the hydrologic, geomorphic, and biological processes that 

strongly influence them. This information serves as a foundation for plan implementation through 

the development of strategic and integrated programs and projects that protect and restore aquatic 

resources, while enabling informed and sustainable resource use and management. These 

analyses combined with monitoring and evaluation (see section 9), provide the context and 

foundation to adaptively execute the other components of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy, including management of riparian management areas and key 

watersheds, implementation of watershed restoration, and compliance with plan components.

Watershed analysis is intended to guide plan implementation by providing decision-makers and 

others: (1) information to identify activities that would maintain watershed and aquatic and 

riparian ecological conditions or move them towards desired conditions; and (2) the context for 

developing projects and evaluating their consistency, via the National Environmental Policy Act 

process, with plan direction (desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines associated 

with watershed and aquatic resources). This includes ensuring that management activities in key 

watersheds and riparian management areas maintain, restore, or enhance aquatic and riparian 

resources.

Through identification of actions needed to avoid or minimize adverse effects and/or restore 

ecosystem conditions and processes, watershed analysis is also intended to enable protection and 

recovery of listed species and their habitats and to facilitate efficient project-level conferencing 

and consulting under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Similarly, it should enable 

protection and restoration of water quality and the full range of beneficial uses of water identified 

by the States and Tribes under the Clean Water Act.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

57

Watersheds to be Analyzed

The Blue Mountains national forests estimated the number of new or updated watershed analyses 

expected to be completed during the life of the forest plans and identified a set of potential 

watersheds for which this work will be a priority. Criteria for selecting potential watersheds for 

analysis included: (1) key watersheds; (2) watersheds that have been identified as priority 

watersheds during the life of the plan; (3) watersheds that support listed species or contains 

designated critical habitat; and (4) watersheds wherein management activities are likely to occur 

that may substantially affect aquatic resources (for example, due to their inherent nature, location, 

timing or scale).

Watershed analyses should generally be conducted or updated prior to developing and 

implementing watershed restoration action plans for priority watersheds.

In addition, watershed analyses shall be conducted or updated prior to:

• proposing changes to riparian management area widths; 

• timber salvage or construction of facilities in riparian management areas; and 

• construction of permanent system roads in riparian management areas.

Line Officer Role

The desired outcome is an efficient, effective analysis that provides a better understanding of 

watershed structure and function and a set of recommendations that help inform future 

management actions within and around the watershed. To achieve this goal, line officers should 

guide analysis teams throughout the analysis process, ensuring that the analysis focuses on the 

most critical issues and questions and that the scope, type and level of analysis is aligned with 

management needs and available financial resources and staff. This is critical to avoiding 

common pitfalls observed in previous analyses, which included unconstrained scope and level of 

detail.

Analysis Process

The watershed analysis process, as described in the Federal guide to watershed analysis (Regional 

Ecosystem Office 1995), includes 6 steps to be conducted in an interdisciplinary process: 

1. characterizing the study watershed; 

2. identifying important water and aquatic resources and key management issues and questions 

associated with them;

3. describing current resource conditions and trends and the dominant biophysical processes 

(natural and human caused) responsible for them; 

4. comparing and contrasting those conditions with applicable reference conditions; 

5. synthesizing and interpreting that information; and 

6. identifying opportunities and making management recommendations to maintain or restore 

watershed and aquatic resources when those conditions are consistent with or trending 

towards desired conditions or otherwise to improve those resource conditions.

This process involves characterizing the study watershed, describing past and current conditions, 

assessing trends, synthesizing information, and making management recommendations. The 

result is a better understanding of watershed structure and function and a set of recommendations 

that help inform future management actions within and around the watershed.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

58

The watershed (10-digit hydrologic unit) is the primary scale of the analysis. However, since 

relevant issues, ecological conditions, and dominant biophysical processes often occur at both 

broader and finer scales, components of the analysis may need to be conducted at a subbasin 

scale, while others may need to be addressed at a subwatershed or finer scale. Still others (for 

example, habitat connectivity between and within watersheds) may need to be evaluated at 

multiple scales. The challenge is to efficiently analyze the interaction of multiple processes 

operating at multiple spatial and temporal scales and incorporate relevant findings into a concrete 

watershed conservation and management strategy.

The topics to be covered in a watershed analysis generally include (1) hydrologic and geomorphic 

processes; (2) vegetation; (3) disturbance regimes; (4) transportation systems; (5) water quality; 

(6) aquatic and riparian species and habitats; and (7) human uses.

Updating Existing Watershed Analyses

As previously described, most future work will involve updating existing analyses rather than 

conducting entirely new ones. The process for updates is similar to the analysis process described 

above, except that updates should be narrowly focused on refreshing, refining, or augmenting 

only those critical components of the existing documents that do not reasonably address current 

issues and questions, adequately characterize current resource conditions and trends, align with 

current science and policy, or reflect contemporary management opportunities.

Line officers should define the scope of these updates and the financial and staff resources available 

to support them, after considering the recommendations of an interdisciplinary team that has 

critically reviewed the existing analyses.

General Products

The products of a watershed analysis generally include all or a subset of the following, depending 

on the scope of the analysis:

• a summary of the current status and trajectory of watershed conditions, aquatic and 

riparian-dependent resources and their habitat, water quality, and key State-designated 

beneficial uses of water

• a description of the key historic and ongoing processes (natural and human caused) 

responsible for those conditions and trends 

• an assessment of the status and trends of the watershed with respect to general forestwide 

desired conditions at applicable scales (subbasin , watershed, or both) and any specific 

desired conditions for key watersheds, riparian management areas, or both

• any recommended adjustments to the default, forestwide widths for riparian management 

areas as necessary

• a recommendation for retaining or changing the status of the watershed with respect to the 

key watershed network (for example, adding or removing the watershed from the network) 

• identification, validation, or refinement of restoration actions including instream, aquatic 

and terrestrial vegetation treatments, and road related treatments.

• any issues that should be considered when designing projects to comply with standards,

guidelines, or both for the analysis watershed(s)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

59

• any recommended project design criteria that might be applicable in the analysis 

watershed(s)

• specific opportunities for managing, protecting, and restoring the watershed and its key 

resource values. This includes identification of areas within the watershed that are 

particularly important and activities that could be taken or avoided to protect and restore 

watershed conditions while achieving other socioeconomic objectives 

• a strategic framework for implementing restoration opportunities. This includes a ranked 

list of Candidate priority subwatersheds (12-digit hydrologic unit) to consider restoring via 

the National Watershed Condition Framework process, the general type and scope of 

critical restoration treatments, their general location and priority, and any major 

considerations for timing/completion of restoration work

• a completed watershed restoration action plan for Watershed Condition Framework priority 

subwatersheds per the national template (optional) 

• significant information gaps and the inventories, monitoring, and/or analyses needed to 

address those gaps, and their relative priority 

• a list of key monitoring questions and indicators.

These products should be informed by and aligned with the major goals, objectives, strategies, 

and tactics included in other relevant restoration and recovery plans (for example, Endangered 

Species Act recovery plans, State restoration plans for impaired waters).

Specific map and tabular products may include all or a subset of the following, depending on the 

scope of the analysis:

• perennial and intermittent streams, fish habitats (including key spawning and rearing areas, 

critical habitat, etc.), and any major barriers to fish passage

• other special aquatic habitats (side channels, ponds, associated wetlands, etc.) of particular 

importance 

• groundwater-dependent ecosystems (including springs) and important groundwater 

recharge zones 

• key beneficial uses of water 

• major water rights and uses

• the quality, quantity, and timing of stream flows and areas and processes that strongly 

influence them 

• any water-quality limited stream segments

• available stream and water quality inventory and monitoring results, including those from 

the PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion, applicable stream temperature monitoring and 

assessment programs, the regional stream survey program, and other relevant programs

• key watersheds, priority watersheds, or both in the analysis area

• riparian management areas, including unstable areas

• key geomorphic features and processes strongly influencing watershed conditions and 

resources

• current and historic forest and rangeland vegetative conditions

• wildfire risks relevant to aquatic and riparian resources
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

60

• potential impacts and risks that the road network poses to watershed conditions and aquatic 

resources

• known and high-risk sites for aquatic and riparian invasive species

• projected climatic changes (for example, stream flows, stream temperatures, aquatic biota, 

vegetative conditions) relevant to aquatic resources

• a listing of priority restoration treatments, including the location or general area and 

relative priority and any major considerations for timing and completion of restoration 

work.

Relationship with Project and Watershed Planning and Landscape 

Analysis 

Watershed analysis is best conducted separate from project-level planning and the National 

Environmental Policy Act process. Its results are used to identify projects ripe for implementation 

and its analysis can be used to prepare National Environmental Policy Act analyses, particularly 

purpose and need statements and existing conditions. A watershed analysis more thoroughly 

informs decisions. It may also be appropriate for new analyses or significant updates, when a unit 

is contemplating complex projects covering a wide range of activities over large areas and 

multiple years, a new watershed analysis or a significant update to an existing analysis should be 

considered.

Sometimes contemplated large-scale vegetation management projects spanning multiple 

watersheds require an analysis that helps to understand resources and their interaction with a 

broader perspective. The watershed analysis approach described here can be applied at broader 

scales if needed.

Where feasible, watershed analysis should inform the watershed restoration process, as specified 

in section 8. Specifically, these analyses can guide selection of priority watersheds and 

development of watershed restoration action plans via the Watershed Condition Framework 

process (figure 8).

Documentation

Watershed analyses should be a concise synthesis of key information about resource conditions 

and trends and the recommended management strategies and actions to address them. Line 

officers should define their scope and review and approve final products. These analyses should 

be kept in the record and be readily available for use. Supporting geospatial data should also be 

retained as part of the record. Watershed analyses are not federal actions leading to a decision and 

do not require National Environmental Policy Act analysis and documentation.

Analysis Resources

Many resources, as described below, are available to support watershed analysis.

Existing Analyses

Much of the watershed analysis process involves the integration and synthesis of existing 

information. Therefore, identification and review of existing analyses is a critical step in the 

process. Similar to the assessment phase of plan development or revision (section 6), information 

from the following documents should be reviewed and synthesized during the analysis process 

and be used to guide other components of the analysis, as appropriate given the scope of the 

analysis: 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

61

1. results of step A (assessment) of the National Watershed Condition Framework, 

2. existing watershed analyses, 

3. status reviews and assessments and recovery plans for threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species, 

4. State assessments and management plans associated with water quantity and quality, 

5. results of broad-scale status and trend monitoring programs (for example, PACFISH-INFISH 

biological opinion), 

6. transportation analyses, and 

7. climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies. In addition, relevant 

broad-scale environmental analyses for the area may be useful.

Watershed analyses are intended to address issues at finer scales, primarily at the watershed scale. 

However, some of the existing information may only provide context for how conditions in a 

subbasin or watershed compare with other subbasins or watersheds. Other existing data and 

reports, however, may provide information about specific conditions within the analysis 

watershed. Some other sources may do both.

PACFISH (1995) and INFISH (1995) require watershed analysis prior to management actions, 

including timber harvest and road construction, in priority watersheds or riparian habitat 

conservation areas. Watershed analysis is required prior to salvage logging within riparian habitat 

conservation areas or adjusting the widths of riparian habitat conservation areas boundaries. The

watershed analyses that have been completed since implementation of PACFISH and INFISH are 

displayed in attachment A.

Attachment A, table 12 lists the 47 watershed analyses that have been completed by the Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests between 1994 and 2006 covering 56 individual 

watersheds (hydrologic unit code 10). Figure 10 displays watersheds with completed analyses and 

the year each analysis was completed. Not shown in attachment A, table 12 or figure 10 are 

watersheds with completed Watershed Action Plans (for example, Camp Creek – Middle Fork 

John Day River, 2008).

Completed watershed analyses encompass 3.6 million acres of 5.5 million acres of National 

Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. Of approximately 1.8 million acres, or 33 percent of 

the area of National Forest System lands with no completed watershed analysis, 859,500 acres 

(47 percent) are within wilderness or inventoried roadless areas. After accounting for wilderness 

and roadless areas, 83 percent of National Forest System acres have completed watershed 

analyses.

Parts of 64 watersheds in the Blue Mountains are without a completed watershed analysis. Of 

these, 23 have less than 10,000 acres of National Forest System lands. Of the 41 watersheds with 

more than 10,000 National Forest System acres, 16 have 50 percent or more of National Forest 

System area in wilderness or roadless areas. Including the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area, only 17 percent of National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains within existing 

roadless or wilderness areas have been the subject of a watershed analysis.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

62

Figure 10. Map showing completed watershed analyses (green) on National Forest System lands in 

the Blue Mountains. Numbers are year analysis was completed. Wilderness and inventoried roadless 

areas outside of watersheds with completed watershed analysis are displayed in magenta.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

63

In addition to the listed watershed analyses, at least four broad-scale analyses of watershed and 

aquatic and riparian habitat conditions have been conducted for areas encompassing watersheds

on National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. The Pacific Northwest Region (Region 

6) assessed basin-scale watershed and habitat conditions in identifying region-wide restoration 

priorities (Heller et al. 2002, USDA Forest Service 2005). Separate analyses were conducted by 

individual national forests, to assess watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions and 

establish priorities for restoration (Malheur National Forest 2005, Umatilla National Forest 2002, 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 2002). Watershed, riparian, and habitat conditions were reassessed, along with population status and distribution of four selected surrogate species (bull 

trout, steelhead, chinook salmon and, redband trout) in order to determine watersheds with the 

greatest restoration potential and best remaining aquatic habitat conditions for use in naming key 

watersheds and prioritizing watersheds for restoration. Most recently, watershed conditions were 

assessed on each national forest using the nationally mandated watershed condition framework, 

or Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Analysis Guides

Existing guidebooks, such as “Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for 

Watershed Analysis” (Regional Ecosystem Office 1995), provide a logical, structured and 

organized approach to conducting watershed analyses. Analysis teams are thus encouraged to use 

relevant components of this guidebook to direct their work. Components of these guidebooks that 

are beyond the scope or level of detail decided by the line officer should be disregarded.

Datasets and Analysis Tools

Numerous datasets, models, and other analysis tools are available to assist in conducting 

watershed analysis. Each has different capabilities and strengths and limitations, which need to be 

critically evaluated prior to their application. Use of these tools should be focused on filling 

important information gaps needed to address the key management questions identified early in 

the analysis process.

Available models can simulate a variety of watershed processes, including surface erosion and 

mass wasting; stream shade, heat loading, or both to streams; large woody debris recruitment; and 

fluvial and floodplain processes. In addition, existing models can be used to characterize a variety 

of road-related impacts to watersheds and aquatic ecosystems.

The following datasets are generally available across the region and should be considered for use 

in the analysis, as needed.

• National Hydrography Dataset and Watershed Boundary Dataset

• Regional fish distribution and fish passage databases

• USGS streamflow monitoring

• streamflow modeling (for example, variable infiltration capacity model)

• Region 6 physical and biological stream survey data and reports

• historic surveys and photos

• National Watershed Condition Assessment

• PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion data and analyses

• stream temperature monitoring and modeling (for example, NorWeST products)

• State and Federal habitat and population monitoring programs

• Recovery plans and status reviews and assessments
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

64

• State and Federal water quality monitoring

• State lists of water-quality limited streams (303-d list)

• water rights and uses database

• surface water diversion database

• terrestrial ecological unit inventory

• topographic data (for example, digital elevation models)

• aerial photographs

• existing and potential vegetation

• fire regime condition class maps

• national forest transportation systems

• rangeland condition assessments and monitoring

• regional aquatic and riparian invasive species database 

• climate change datasets (snow, flow regimes, stream temperatures, soil-drought)

Typically, these data sources can and should be complemented with local information for the 

analysis area (for example, localized road condition inventory).

The products of broad-scale status and trend monitoring (section 12), in particular the PACFISHINFISH biological opinion datasets, can be used to inform analysis of specific watersheds. For 

example, as a starting point for watershed analysis, analysis teams can consider how upslope and 

in-channel conditions and trends for a particular watershed fit within the distribution of 

conditions and trends across all reference (least disturbed) and managed watersheds on Federal 

lands throughout the Pacific Northwest and Interior Columbia River Basin. Data from reference 

sites can be used to characterize the range of potential "reference conditions" and assess how 

existing conditions in a particular watershed compare with them (figure 11).

Figure 11. The distribution of stream habitat condition index scores for sites on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

65

Distributions are provided for streams in managed watersheds (blue histogram) and for expected 

reference conditions determined from data from minimally managed watersheds (brown line). 

The habitat index is an integrated score comprised of scores from multiple habitat parameters, 

such as substrate composition, fine sediment in pools, large wood frequency, percent pool habitat, 

and macroinvertebrate community composition (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2010). Scores are also 

available for individual habitat parameters. Reference conditions can be used to help assess how 

habitat conditions in a particular watershed or watersheds compare with those in the least 

disturbed watersheds. Consideration of natural watershed processes and human alterations of 

those processes is necessary to understand the reasons that those habitat conditions exist and 

what, if any, management actions are needed to address them.

This, together with the watershed-specific information described below, can enable analysis 

teams to more completely and accurately assess watershed and aquatic habitat conditions, their 

likely trajectories, the reasons those conditions exist (for example, natural disturbance or human 

impacts), what actions might be warranted in the watershed, and generally how and where they 

should be implemented. This two-tiered approach, involving broad-scale status and trend 

assessment and monitoring across many watersheds to identify spatial and temporal patterns, 

coupled with more detailed, process-based analysis of specific watersheds to identify the causes 

of these patterns and management needs and opportunities, is consistent with the 

recommendations of Lisle et al. (2014).

It is important to recognize that while “reference conditions” are quite useful in describing 

potential environmental conditions and providing a tool for diagnosing current status and trends, 

they may not always equate to desired conditions. First, while they may characterize the best 

available and perhaps the best attainable conditions based on current data and information, they 

do not necessarily represent natural or pristine conditions because all watersheds have been 

impacted by human activities to some degree (for example, fire suppression). As such, our 

understanding of true natural conditions is limited and may not necessarily represent natural 

conditions in space and in time, or those conditions may not always be desirable. Moreover, even 

if these natural conditions were fully understood, those conditions may not always be desirable. 

In addition, these conditions need to be assessed in the context of the species, issue, or process of 

interest to holistically understand whether deviation from reference condition is ecologically 

meaningful. For example, high levels of fine sediments may adversely affect developing salmonid 

eggs, but may support spawning lamprey.

As described by Montgomery and MacDonald (2002), in-channel data are best viewed as one set 

of diagnostic indicators of watershed and aquatic habitat condition. To inform management 

decisions, it is important to understand the reasons for these conditions and what, if any, 

management actions are needed to address them. This is a challenge because channel conditions 

are highly variable over space and time and can result from multiple pathways and processes 

influenced by both natural conditions and human impacts (Lisle et al. 2014). Thus, evaluation of 

reach-level channel data requires more than simple comparisons with data from reference sites. 

Such evaluations should use qualitative and quantitative data and information to characterize the 

current state of the system and the dominant natural and human-caused processes that control key 

variables of interest. This will generally involve consideration of the location of the reaches in the 

channel network, regional and local biogeomorphic context, controlling influences such as 

sediment supply and transport capacity, riparian vegetation, the supply of in-channel flow 

obstructions, and disturbance history (MacDonald and Montgomery 2002).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

66

Watersheds to be Analyzed

Watershed analysis, which can be conducted at several spatial scales (subbasin to subwatershed), 

will be used to inform plan implementation.

In the “Management Focus” section of the forest plans, the specific subbasins (hydrologic unit 

code 5) are identified where the national forests have committed to updating the watershed 

analyses for these subbasins during the life of the forest plans.

Other candidates for watershed analysis, in addition to the potential Watershed Condition 

Framework priority watersheds, would be those where: 

1. watersheds wherein management activities are likely to occur that may substantially affect 

aquatic resources (for example, due to their inherent nature, location, timing or scale), 

watersheds wherein upslope and/or in-channel conditions (for example, per PACFISH-INFISH 

biological opinion data and models, Watershed Condition Framework assessment, other 

applicable information, or a combination of these things) are outside or at the extremes of the 

distribution of reference sites/watersheds, and 

watersheds wherein the rates of change in condition (trajectories) differ substantially from the 

rates in the rest of the watersheds on the national forest.

The goal is to use the results of existing monitoring and assessment programs to stratify the 

landscape based on broad-scale, coarse-grained evaluations of watershed condition; select 

watersheds from that landscape for further, finer-scale, more detailed analysis of watershed 

conditions and processes; and use the results of those finer-scale analyses to inform management 

of those specific watersheds. In addition, as more analyses are completed and updated over time, 

results will collectively be used to further understand conditions and trends in the entire 

population of watersheds on the national forest. One focus of these analyses will be to determine, 

where applicable, why instream conditions are outside or near the tails of the distribution of 

reference conditions. Are these natural conditions or were they caused by past or ongoing 

management actions? If management-driven, what actions are needed to facilitate recovery or 

maintain or improve desired conditions?

Timing

As applicable, watershed analysis will be updated or conducted prior to:

• implementation of watershed restoration action plans in Watershed Condition Framework 

priority watersheds; 

• proposed changes to riparian management area widths must be supported by a watershed 

analysis. It is expected that riparian management area widths will not be less than described 

in the designating riparian management areas section; and 

• proposed timber salvage or construction of facilities in riparian management areas.

Watershed analysis is generally conducted prior to project-level National Environmental Policy 

Act analysis. However, watershed analyses can be conducted concurrent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act process in some situations. This approach may be most appropriate 

where watershed analyses have been completed in the past but need modest updates. It may also 

be appropriate for new analyses or significant updates, when the projects being planned and 

evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act cover a wide range of activities over large 

areas and multiple years.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

67

8. Watershed Restoration Strategy

Background

Watershed protection and restoration to benefit aquatic and riparian-dependent resources and 

water quality is an integral element of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategy. Restoration, in concert with other Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy elements, 

contributes to protection and recovery of those resources. Collectively, the goal of restoration and 

the strategy as a whole is to provide for ecologically healthy watershed, riparian, and aquatic 

ecosystems, as defined by the aquatic and riparian desired conditions. The phrase ecologically 

healthy refers to functions affecting biodiversity, productivity, biochemical, and evolutionary 

processes that are adapted to the environmental conditions in a given region (Karr et al. 1986; 

Karr 1991).

Watershed protection and restoration is designed to facilitate the recovery of watershed functions 

and related physical, biological, and chemical processes to promote recovery of riparian and 

aquatic composition, structure, and ecosystem function. Restoring the health and resiliency of 

selected watersheds will help ensure that the network of key watersheds remains well represented 

and distributed over time.

Watershed protection and restoration is a catalyst for initiating ecological recovery (FEMAT 

1993). Restoration efforts will be comprehensive, addressing both protection of existing 

functioning aspects of a watershed and restoration of degraded or compromised aspects. It may 

not be possible to restore every watershed and some restoration actions may only have limited 

success because of an extensive level of degradation. The effectiveness of restoration efforts is 

not likely to be extensive or immediately visible for some time. At the watershed scale, it may 

take an extended period (decades or longer) to observe the full effects of treatments. Even longer 

timeframes may be necessary to see changes at the regional scale.

Effective restoration at the watershed scale is a complex undertaking. Restoration programs 

require diagnosing watershed conditions and processes, identifying primary disturbance regimes 

(past, present, and future), and the ability to locate, design, and implement integrated treatments 

to achieve the desired, watershed-scale response. To be effective, these programs need to (1) 

target root causes of water quality, habitat and ecosystem change; (2) tailor restoration actions to 

local potential of the systems; (3) match the scale of restoration to the scale of the problem; and 

(4) be explicit about expected outcomes (Beechie et al. 2010). The region accomplishes 

restoration through a whole watershed approach including internal and external partners, passive 

and active restoration, and prioritization, documentation of restoration needs, monitoring, and 

adaptive management.

Whole Watershed Approach and Partnerships

Water resources such as clean, cold water and healthy fish populations know no jurisdictional 

boundaries. To successfully fulfill agency responsibilities to maintain and restore these resources, 

work should be implemented across boundaries with willing neighbors and other partners in 

restoration. Restoration should be designed and implemented at the watershed scale. Treatment 

objectives and activities on National Forest System lands should be coordinated with other 

resource programs and with restoration on other ownerships. Watershed-scale restoration is an 

interdisciplinary effort requiring close coordination and working partnerships among multiple 

resource programs, other agencies, Tribal governments, watershed councils, adjacent landowners, 

collaborative groups, and other stakeholders and partners. Interdisciplinary skills provide both 

operational and technical capacity for implementing comprehensive watershed protection and 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

68

restoration programs. Coordination and partnerships are essential to effectively address 

community and watershed-scale restoration needs and opportunities. Coordination also enhances 

skill and funding sources needed to sustain multi-year programs.

Types of Restoration

Watershed restoration programs include passive and active approaches. Both are needed for a 

successful restoration program (Roni et al. 2002).

Passive restoration involves the protection, natural recovery, or both of watersheds and aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems. It is applied at the landscape scale as intended to enable ecosystems to

resist and recover from large-scale disturbances, such as fire, floods, and debris flows as well as 

chronic disturbances. Passive restoration involves planning and implementing various resource 

management programs and activities (for example, fuels and timber management, recreation) in a 

way that maintains watershed and habitat conditions when they are in good condition and 

facilitates their recovery when they are not. The passive restoration is embodied in the standards 

and guidelines, which are design criteria that constrain management activities in an effort to 

maintain or improve the desired conditions.

Active restoration is active intervention with integrated project activities. It focuses on reestablishment or modification of specific ecosystem processes. Active restoration is generally 

applied using integrated treatments (for example, fish passage, road decommissioning and 

stabilization, riparian and upslope vegetation treatment, instream habitat improvement, restoration 

of stream flows) that are strategically applied at multiple, priority sites within a watershed. It is 

focused and applied on a more limited scale (for example, specific sites in key and candidate 

priority watersheds) than passive restoration.

Active restoration should be prioritized to emphasize the protection and/or retention of existing 

high-quality habitat and water and naturally functioning watersheds and ecosystems. This is 

accomplished by identifying and treating major risk factors (for example, unstable roads or poorly 

located and drained roads, certain invasive plants and animals, major obstructions to physical and 

biological connectivity) threatening ecosystem integrity and likely to adversely influence existing 

conditions. Identification, prioritization, and integrated treatment of watersheds with limited loss 

of function and condition are also a priority. These watersheds will likely serve as the next 

generation of refugia for fish and provide high-quality water in the future. Their selection should 

consider the extent of habitat degradation and the degree to which their natural diversity and 

ecological processes are retained (Reeves et al. 1995). Active restoration programs should 

consider and complement recovery plans for fish, water quality, and other riparian-dependent 

species. Watershed analyses will be critical to identify key ecological processes influencing 

watershed condition and function and will be important in identifying specific protection,

treatment objectives, or both.

In cases where the full recovery of watershed functions and processes is not possible (for 

example, mixed ownerships without coordinated restoration opportunities, major dams and 

diversions for hydropower or other developments that influence large, important, or both portions 

of the floodplain or stream channel), mitigation treatments may be needed. These should 

incorporate design features to benefit aquatic and riparian-dependent resources.

Programmatic Framework

In 2005, the Pacific Northwest Region began implementing a regional aquatic restoration strategy 

(USDA Forest Service 2005), providing a framework for the organization and implementation of 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

69

restoration activities for the region. The goal of the aquatic restoration strategy is to improve 

watershed and aquatic and riparian habitat conditions at the regional scale, through both passive 

and active restoration. The aquatic restoration strategy consists of three parts: 1) goals and 

objectives and actions, 2) program framework, and 3) restoration components. The goals, 

objectives, and actions section identifies restoration goals and actions needed to achieve them. 

The program framework is the foundation of the strategy. It is a comprehensive, integrated 

restoration plan for the region, enhancing teamwork, coordination, and consistency across the 

program. The restoration components are groups of activities used to implement various program 

elements, including resource support activities, aquatic and riparian resource assessment, 

cooperation between State and Federal salmon and watershed recovery programs, and technical 

support to the field.

Implementation of the Regional aquatic restoration strategy has since been refined through the 

National Watershed Condition Framework. As shown in figure 8, the Watershed Condition 

Framework is a 6-step process for restoration, including:

1. Classifying watershed condition at the subwatershed scale; 

Prioritizing watersheds for restoration;

Developing watershed restoration action plans; 

Implementing integrated projects;

Tracking restoration accomplishments; and 

Monitoring and verifying the Watershed Condition Framework process and its outcomes.

Classifying Watershed Condition

Classification of watershed condition is the first step of the Watershed Condition Framework 

process. This classification is based on a standardized assessment of subwatersheds (12-digit 

hydrologic unit) across an entire national forest, using 12 different condition indicators.

Additional details are provided in the Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide 

(USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Prioritizing Watersheds for Restoration

The next step in the restoration framework is prioritization. The purpose of prioritization is to 

maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the restoration program by focusing resources 

towards work in the most important watersheds. As described in section 6, prioritization is done 

in two phases. First, through the forest planning process, national forests will identify a long-term 

key watershed network. This network is comprised of watersheds with the highest quality aquatic 

habitats and water and watersheds that can be most readily protected, restored, or both. These 

watersheds, generally 10-digit hydrologic units, are the priorities for aquatic conservation and 

restoration over long-timeframes (multiple decades).

Due to capacity limitations, however, watershed-scale restoration work cannot be implemented 

across the entire key watershed network at one time or not even during the life of a forest plan.

Thus, through the forest planning process (see section 6), national forests will identify a smaller 

number of Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds as the focus for near-term (5- to 

7-year timeframe) restoration. Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds are specified 

at the subwatershed (12-hydrologic unit) scale. In general, they are a subset of the broader, 

longer-term key watershed network. Exceptions include situations where unique issues and 

restoration opportunities occur in areas outside of the key watershed network. Watershed 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

70

Condition Framework and potential Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds are 

expected to change during the life of the forest plan as restoration objectives and actions are 

completed. Details about how to change the candidate priority status of a watershed are provided 

in section 6.

Figure 12. Twelve-indicator watershed condition model used in Watershed Condition Framework. This 

model is used to classify watershed conditions across all subwatersheds on each national forest. 

Each indicator is classified as functioning properly, functioning-at-risk, or having impaired function 

based on standardized rulesets. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

71

Figure 13. Overall watershed condition and the condition of three selected indicators, per the Watershed Condition Framework assessment process

Indicator 1:

Water 

Quality

Indicator 3:

Aquatic 

Habitat

Overall Condition 

(All Indicators)

Indicator 6:

Roads & 

Trails

 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

72

Developing Watershed Restoration Action Plans

Watershed restoration in the late 1980s and 1990s often focused on site-scale actions scattered 

across the landscape. As the practice evolved over the last several decades, it has become 

increasingly clear that, to be effective, restoration programs must implement a wide range of 

projects that address multiple impacts and threats at a watershed scale. This needs to be done in a 

phased and coordinated manner (Roni et al. 2002). Thus, after identifying potential Watershed 

Condition Framework priority watersheds, national forests will use watershed analyses (Section 

10), other assessments and monitoring to identify the full-suite of essential restoration projects 

needed to restore the ecological conditions and processes in those areas at a whole watershed 

scale. This could include restoration of fish passage barriers, road improvements or 

decommissioning, stream and floodplain reconstruction, dam removal, restoration of instream 

flows, invasive species control, vegetation management and many other actions. This suite of 

essential projects should be designed to achieve specific and explicit restoration goals and 

objectives for the watershed, address the root causes (rather than symptoms) of degradation, be fit 

to the local ecological potential of the watershed and ecosystem, and be of sufficient scope and 

scale to address these problems (Beechie et al. 2010). Moreover, identified essential restoration 

projects should be based on a consideration of the potential effects of climate change and the 

ability of restoration actions to minimize them. In particular, water availability, stream flows and 

stream temperature should be considered. Identified restoration project should also be informed 

by and generally consistent with any applicable recovery plans for federally listed aquatic species,

State water quality restoration plans, or both.

Per the Watershed Condition Framework, these projects, their general location, estimated costs, 

interested partners, and other information will be documented in a watershed restoration action 

plan for each Watershed Condition Framework priority watershed. In the preparation of 

watershed restoration action plans, consideration shall be given to restoration actions located off 

National Forest System lands when those projects are essential to the restoration of the watershed 

and benefits national forest resources (for example, facilitating the upstream passage of rare fish 

species from private land onto National Forest System lands by implementing a passage project 

on downstream private lands).

Tracking Restoration Accomplishments

Implementation of restoration actions will be tracked for individual essential restoration projects, 

as identified in a watershed restoration action plan for each Watershed Condition Framework 

priority watershed. These will be recorded in corporate databases. In addition, once all essential 

projects are completed, per the Watershed Condition Framework, the watershed is considered to 

have been improved or restored. Similarly, this status is tracked in agency databases. Restoration 

project areas not specified as priority watersheds are also recorded in agency databases.

Implementing Integrated Projects

that Restore and Maintain Watershed Conditions

The overall strategy is to accelerate improvement of watershed and aquatic/riparian conditions 

across the landscape by: (1) conducting new and ongoing management activities in a manner that, 

across broad scales, protects areas in good condition and allows for passive recovery of those that 

are degraded; and (2) actively restoring conditions at watershed scales in high-priority areas by 

implementing integrated, strategically-focused sets of restoration treatments that facilitate 

recovery of critical watershed processes.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

73

As previously described, there are five essential elements to the Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy: riparian management areas, key watersheds, watershed analysis, 

watershed protection and restoration, and monitoring. These elements work together to achieve a 

distribution of watershed conditions that are resilient to natural disturbance, that maintain, restore, 

and enhance habitat for resident and anadromous fish and other aquatic and riparian-dependent 

organisms:

• riparian management areas are areas bordering perennial and intermittent streams in 

which the management emphasis is to maintain, restore, or enhance the ecological health of 

aquatic and riparian ecosystems

• key watersheds are subwatersheds, or groups of subwatersheds, selected to serve as 

strongholds for important aquatic resources or that have the potential to do so

• watershed analysis is a procedure used within the Pacific Northwest for evaluating the 

geomorphic and ecological processes operating within watersheds and is used to assess the 

condition and trend of watershed, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems and provide the basis 

for watershed-scale restoration

• watershed protection and restoration is an integrated set of both passive and active 

actions intended to facilitate the recovery of the physical, biological, and chemical 

processes that promote the maintenance or recovery of riparian and aquatic ecosystem 

structure and function

• monitoring is a strategic assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 

management actions and a means of determining whether or not progress toward achieving 

desired conditions is being made

Implementation of the watershed protection and restoration element is tiered to the regional 

aquatic restoration strategy, which uses a strategic, integrated, multi-scale approach to prioritizing 

watershed restoration treatments. The highest priority is to first restore critical watershed 

processes in those areas in which the structure and function of the aquatic ecosystem are largely 

intact, but are threatened by existing or projected watershed conditions. Watersheds with highly 

degraded aquatic ecosystems are a lower priority for restoration until threats to existing 

strongholds (for example, key watersheds) are mitigated.

Watershed conditions in the Blue Mountains have been altered by a series of human uses during 

the last 150 years, including mining, logging, agriculture, water diversions, flood control, wildfire 

suppression, grazing, road construction and maintenance, and hydroelectric development. The 

ability of watersheds to function has been affected by the alteration of vegetation conditions, 

increased erosion, and changes in the rates and magnitude of watershed runoff (McIntosh et al. 

1994). The resulting degradation and fragmentation of aquatic and riparian habitats has led to 

widespread decline or outright extinction of many resident and anadromous fish stocks and the 

listing of several fish stocks under the Endangered Species Act in the early 1990s. Of the 214 

remaining salmonid stocks identified by Nehlsen et al. (1991) in the Columbia and Klamath 

basins, 101 are considered at high risk of extinction. Only 2 percent of salmon, steelhead, and 

cutthroat trout populations in the Columbia Basin are classified as strong (Thurow et al. 2000). In 

the Blue Mountains, Nehlsen et al. (1991) identified 17 extinct salmonid populations:

• spring and summer Chinook salmon from the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Malheur Rivers. 

Recent efforts by The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Umatilla Indian Reservation 

have returned spring-run Chinook salmon to the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

74

• fall Chinook salmon from the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers

• coho salmon from the Grande Ronde, Wallowa, Tucannon, Walla Walla, Snake, and 

Umatilla Rivers

• chum salmon from the Umatilla and Walla Walla Rivers

• sockeye salmon from the Wallowa River

• steelhead trout from the Malheur, Powder, and Burnt Rivers

In addition, Snake River Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act and mid-Columbia Basin steelhead are listed as threatened. Bull trout are 

listed as threatened within their entire range in the western United States.

In the Blue Mountains, as elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, remaining high-quality aquatic 

habitats are largely located on Federal lands but are often fragmented or disconnected from other 

high-quality habitats, resulting in reduced ability of aquatic species to access or move between 

habitats. The quality and types of available habitats may no longer encompass the range of 

habitats that existed historically and may not be sufficient to support the full range of life histories 

of affected aquatic species in some cases.

Aquatic habitats on National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains once supported 

culturally and economically important populations of freshwater species, including anadromous 

and resident fishes (Chinook salmon, steelhead, redband trout, and bull trout), lamprey, and 

mussels. In most cases, declines in the populations of these species can be traced to habitat 

degradation (Gregory and Bisson 1997).

It is generally recognized that preservation of existing high-quality habitats and remaining strong 

populations is critical to the continued survival of anadromous and resident fish populations 

(Reeves et al. 1995). In addition, restoration efforts should focus on restoring the key ecological 

functions responsible for the creation and maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitats in order to 

make those ecosystems self-sustaining (Beechie and Bolton 1999, Naiman et al. 1992).

The focus of watershed restoration is to complete needed restoration work from ridgetop to valley 

bottom in order to have healthy watersheds. It should be recognized that not all watersheds will 

be in good condition at the same time and that the condition of some existing high-quality 

watersheds will eventually be degraded by future disturbance and that replacement habitats will 

be needed for some populations of aquatic and riparian species (Reeves et al. 1995).

Because of the extent of decline in populations of some aquatic species and the degradation of 

their habitats, protection of remaining strong populations and their habitats is crucial to their 

recovery (Sedell et al. 1997). A network of key watersheds is identified in order to meet this need. 

Key watersheds have a combination of relative population strength for one of four aquatic species 

(Chinook salmon, steelhead, inland redband trout, and bull trout), good watershed conditions, and 

good aquatic and riparian habitat condition (Reiss et al. 2008). Key watersheds are identified at 

the subwatershed level (U.S. Geological Survey, HUC 6; Federal Geographic Data Committee 

2009).

Some of the attributes of key watersheds that make them important for aquatic species may also 

make Key Watersheds important habitats for terrestrial wildlife species. Key watersheds may 

encompass a variety of habitats important to various wildlife species, including source habitats, 

summer range, winter range, refugia, and migration corridors. In addition, key watersheds are 

likely to be less affected by past land uses and are therefore more likely to be important to the 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

75

maintenance of water quality and quantity for a variety of downstream uses, including human 

uses.

The overall strategy is to protect and restore whole watersheds, while reducing risk to remaining 

populations of aquatic species and increasing the availability and connectivity of high quality 

aquatic and riparian habitats. Watersheds in good condition should be preserved by reducing 

existing impacts, implementing best management practices, and through more comprehensive 

project design. Watershed protection and restoration activities will be prioritized so that 

investments are made in areas that have the highest restoration potential while providing the 

greatest benefit to multiple resources and the least risk to existing populations. These areas are 

identified as potential Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds in the project record. 

Restoration actions may take place in areas of lower priority as circumstances warrant and as 

opportunities are presented.

Land managers should recognize and seek to restore the processes responsible for creating and 

maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats, as well as the diversity of those habitats. This may 

include, but is not limited to:

• altering the structure and composition of upland vegetation in order to make progress 

toward achieving desired conditions

• managing vegetation to reduce wildfire risk and restore stand structure and resiliency

• reducing road-related erosion and sediment delivery to streams through road closure, road 

obliteration, improved maintenance, improved erosion control, or a combination of these 

things

• removing barriers that block or restrict access to historically occupied habitats or restrict 

connectivity between habitats

• altering riparian habitats to favor deciduous trees and shrubs as appropriate where such 

species were formerly abundant

• reintroducing keystone species, such as beaver, into suitable habitats within their former 

range

• Increasing the diversity and complexity of aquatic and riparian habitats by promoting 

natural establishment and succession of riparian plant communities

• Restoring the natural range of stream flows to the extent possible

• Managing invasive species to maintain the composition and diversity of native species

• Restoring complexity and aquatic and riparian habitat

• Adapting management actions to account for the expected effects of climate change

Key watersheds are located in each of the 15 subbasins with streams originating on National 

Forest System lands. Sixty-seven subwatersheds that are considered the highest priority for

restoration have restoration work that either is ongoing or is expected to begin within the next 15 

years. The full list of key watersheds, including maps, is available from the project record.

Once a watershed restoration action plan is developed, essential restoration projects are 

implemented in a logical, phased, and coordinated way. For example, restoration of habitat 

connectivity is often one of the first restoration actions that should be completed in a watershed 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

76

(Roni et al. 2002). Conversely, if road decommissioning is needed in a watershed, it should be 

conducted after any other critical work that is dependent on those particular roads is complete.

As described previously, restoration projects will be done in an interdisciplinary manner in close 

coordination with other agencies, Tribal governments, watershed councils, adjacent landowners, 

collaborative workgroups, other stakeholders and partners.

9. Monitoring

This section outlines a consistent monitoring framework for the Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy, at the broad scale and the forest plan level. This framework is 

focused on enabling managers to make informed, sound decisions by addressing key questions 

and reducing uncertainties at multiple scales. It is composed of an ongoing cycle of planning and 

implementing activities, monitoring through collection of data by observation or measurement, 

evaluation of those data, and subsequent adjustments in the overall process. Some components of 

broad-scale monitoring will be implemented by the regional office, whereas others will involve 

both regional and national forest-level activities. Importantly, as described below, the broad-scale 

and forest plan guidance of this framework are intended to efficiently work together and inform 

one another. Moreover, this monitoring is strongly linked with watershed analysis components of 

the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (section 10).

Reflecting the principles of the RIEC Framework (2011) and Interior Columbia Basin Strategy 

(2014), this monitoring framework focuses on using monitoring to answer the following key 

questions: 

• Are plans being implemented correctly?

• Are plans and activities effective in achieving desired results?

• What is the status and trend of watersheds, water quality, aquatic and riparian resources?

• Are underlying assumptions of the plans valid?

In addition, this monitoring framework provides a mechanism for accountability and oversight

and provides a feedback loop, so that management direction, activities, or both can be evaluated 

and modified at multiple spatial (project-level to regional) and temporal scales (years to decades 

or more) by decisionmakers at different levels of the agency (district ranger to regional forester).

This framework uses a multi-scale approach because: 

1. the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy and forest plan components (for example, 

desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines) cover a broad range of spatial and 

temporal scales, 

2. the condition of watersheds and aquatic and riparian habitats is influenced by numerous 

processes operating at a similarly large range of scales, 

3. the sensitivity to disturbance of different ecosystem components varies widely across those 

scales, and 4) monitoring feedback needs to be taken by different people at different 

administrative levels over varying timeframes.

Monitoring, Verification, and Feedback in Restoration

Monitoring and verification coupled with feedback loops are essential to ensuring the success of 

restoration. As such, national forests will actively respond to monitoring by course adjusting the 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

77

approach to restoration and other actions as foundational components of their restoration 

programs, as described in this section. The monitoring plans incorporate combination of 

implementation, effectiveness, and validation monitoring. Specifically, there will be both 

Watershed Condition Framework monitoring and broad-scale monitoring that will feed into the 

monitoring plans directly. Information gained from monitoring will be shared to facilitate mutual 

learning.

Watershed protection and restoration is founded in science. As such, there is a continuous stream 

of contributions to the body of knowledge. Restoration techniques should be implemented, 

monitored, and subsequently modified to reflect what was learned through monitoring. 

Information from monitoring enters a feedback loop, improving future restoration actions (Roni 

et al. 2002). Reporting, publishing, and disseminating the success or failure of restoration projects

will not only help a particular ranger district or national forest personnel learn but will assist 

others within and outside the agency, adding to the restoration community’s knowledgebase.

Implementation, Effectiveness and Validation Monitoring

There are three types of monitoring: implementation, effectiveness and validation monitoring. 

The following defines those terms as they are referred to in the revised forest plans.

Implementation monitoring is simply documenting that a project has been conducted and/or 

conducted according to specific design criteria (for example, best management practices). For 

example, when an aquatic organism project is implemented, the action would be documented in 

the regional barrier database, so the national forest and regional personnel can track 

accomplishments.

Effectiveness monitoring evaluates how effectively a project met its intended goal. For example, 

when an aquatic organism project is implemented, effectiveness monitoring would evaluate 

whether previous impacts to stream channel structure and function have been eliminated or 

reduced (for example, does the crossing simulate a natural stream channel?). Costs for 

effectiveness monitoring should be included in project budgets.

Validation monitoring, generally the most expensive form of the three monitoring approaches, 

validates assumptions made in effectiveness monitoring. Because of its generally higher cost, 

validation monitoring is usually performed on a small subset of the overall number of projects. 

This level of experimental design would generally be conducted with Forest Service research, 

universities, or other research organizations.

Validation monitoring is intended to verify the following question: “Are correctly implemented 

projects yielding the effectiveness monitoring we anticipated?” If the answer is “no”, then the 

agency is committed to validation monitoring as a way to rigorously assess the validity of our 

assumptions. Validation monitoring would be an outcome of our implementation and associated 

effectiveness monitoring. Validation monitoring would only be developed as needed to address 

specific concerns. It would be conducted the least frequently of all monitoring activities, given 

the relatively large cost and long timeframes to address these types of questions. Currently, no 

specific validation monitoring questions have been identified as priorities to address via broadscale or regional monitoring.

Potential adaptive management actions would usually be taken by the regional forester. They 

would generally focus on significant issues occurring over broad areas (for example, millions of 

acres). Actions could include changes to this strategy, direction to national forest personnel to 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

78

develop new plan direction or adjust approaches to implementing current plan direction, and 

adapting or replacing inaccurate analysis models.

Broad-scale and Forest Plan Implementation-scale Monitoring

Monitoring under this planning effort will occur at both broad and plan implementation scales.

Broad-scale Monitoring

Broad-scale monitoring would generally be authorized and funded by the regional forester. This 

type of monitoring would generally focus on significant issues occurring over broad areas (many 

national forests). Actions could include development or refinement of regional policies and 

procedures, training and functional assistance trips to national forests, and direction to national 

forest personnel to focus additional resources towards certain activities. These actions would 

generally occur over short to medium time-scales (for example, one to 5 years).

Additional effectiveness monitoring will be conducted on a prioritized ad-hoc basis. Current 

broad-scale effectiveness monitoring activities are focused on evaluating the effectiveness of road 

restoration in reducing the hydrologic and geomorphic impacts of roads and improving habitat 

connectivity at road-stream crossings.

The following regional monitoring programs will be used to address this question:

• Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP), in western Oregon and 

Washington and northern California

• PACFISH/INFISH biological opinion monitoring program in the Interior Columbia River 

Basin

While the precise methods used by these programs differ somewhat, they generally involve the 

collection, gathering, and evaluation of data regarding upslope watershed conditions and instream 

aquatic habitat conditions.

The PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion monitoring is a long-term monitoring program 

designed to support implementation and effectiveness monitoring in the Interior Columbia Basin 

particularly with regards to instream habitat and riparian condition (figure 14) and (figure 15).

Figure 14 shows the current status of stream habitat conditions via an overall habitat index 

(Archer and Ojala, 2016 using the approach of Al-Chockhachy et al. 2010). Table 7 shows trends 

in the overall habitat overall index as well as for individual habitat metrics. Cells highlighted in 

grey show metrics that have statistically significant changes in the desired direction (+ or -). 

Metrics in the unshaded cells have changed in the desired direction, but the changes are not 

statistically significant. Metrics shown in green have changed in the direction opposite of what is 

desired, but those changes are not significant. Metrics shown in light red have changed in the 

direction opposite of what is desired, but those changes are not significant. Future monitoring will 

continue to evaluate status and trends in managed and reference condition watersheds.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

79

Figure 14. Status and trends of stream habitat conditions on the Malheur National 

Forest, 2001-2012

Table 7. Desired and actual changes in overall and individual habitat 

Metric Desired Change Actual Change (%)

Overall habitat index + +8.8

Macroinvertebrates + +3.3

Streambank stability + +5.2

% undercut streambanks + +16.4

Large wood frequency + +34.1

Bank angle - -2.6

% fines in pool tails - +1.8

Median substrate size (D50) + +9.3

Residual pool depth + +10.2

% pools + -4.7

Use of long-term monitoring, such as that in the PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion, support 

adaptive management actions that would generally be taken by local line officers (district rangers 

or forest supervisors). Use of these datasets could include increasing or decreasing the type, 

scope, scale or location of different activities (for example, watershed restoration, timber harvest, 

road building or decommissioning, fuels treatment, livestock grazing) or the implementation of 

other plan components (for example, standards and guidelines). These actions would generally 

occur over moderate to long time-scales (for example, a decade or more).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

80

Figure 15. Trends in habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on Federal lands in 

the interior Columbia Basin, 2001-2012 (Roper et al. 2016). Arrows point to the direction of desired 

conditions based on PACFISH-INFISH riparian management objectives (black) or the literature 

(grey).
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

81

Figure 16. Spatial distribution of average August stream temperatures for the 1993-2001 baseline 

period. Ongoing monitoring by National Forests, other Federal agencies, States, Tribes and nongovernmental organizations will enable similar products to be developed in the future, so that 

temporal trends can be characterized.

Forest Plan Implementation Monitoring

Implementation monitoring is intended to comply with the 2012 Planning Rule. The forest plan 

monitoring that correlates most directly to the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy is also responsive to the 2012 Planning Rule 219.12.a.5, elements i 

through iv, vi, and vii (attachment A):

i. status of watershed conditions.

ii. status of select ecological conditions

iii. status of ecological conditions (see 219.9) related to threatened and endangered, 

candidate, and conservation concern species

iv. status of surrogate species (related to 219.9 Diversity)

v. changes due to climate change and other stressors 

vi. progress toward meeting desired conditions and objectives, including multiple use 

opportunities.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

82

Implementation may happen at the ranger district scale, national forest scale, or both. 

Implementation monitoring would measure the effects of various activities such as, watershed 

restoration, timber harvest, grazing, road building, decommissioning, or fuels treatment.

Linkage between Monitoring, Watershed Analysis and Restoration

The products of broad-scale status and trend monitoring will be used as part of watershed analysis 

for specific watersheds. Analysis teams will, for example, use those data to characterize how 

upslope and instream conditions and trends for a particular watershed fit within the distribution of 

conditions and trends across all reference and managed watersheds within a larger area (for 

example, subbasin, basin, national forest). From there, they will identify and use other 

information for the watershed of interest to more completely and accurately assess watershed and 

aquatic habitat conditions, the reasons (cause and effect) those conditions exist (for example, 

natural disturbance or human impacts), what actions might be warranted in the watershed and 

generally how and where they should be implemented. They may also choose to develop 

attributes of watershed-specific desired conditions based, in part, on products from broad-scale 

monitoring.

Second, the watershed condition assessment, associated with the watershed condition framework, 

serve as a coarse form of long-term monitoring. These assessments will be completed on a regular 

timeframe and before each plan revision, for use by analysis teams to determine changes in 

watershed condition and species viability between plan revisions. This information can be used to 

inform future plan development, revisions or amendments, as well as specific watershed 

restoration planning.

10. Coordination and Cooperation

Internal and external coordination and cooperation is essential to ensure successful management 

of waters and their associated riparian areas and biota. As such, Forest Service personnel 

collaborated with representatives from other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal Nations, 

and organizations to develop the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy. 

Additionally, Forest Service watershed and fisheries professionals collaborate with each other and 

with colleagues within and outside the agency to accomplish management goals for aquatic and 

riparian habitat. Forest Service professionals work with neighboring landowners, representatives 

of other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal Nations, organizations, and individuals to 

cooperatively manage watersheds across ownership boundaries. Sharing personnel and resources 

is essential to successful borderless whole watershed management.

Considering limited personnel and funding, collaboration between agencies with a role in the 

management of fish and wildlife resources is necessary for any of the agencies to fulfill their 

mission. This has always been true, but has become a necessity today as science continues to 

illuminate the complexities of the management of water quality and fish and wildlife species 

within the ecosystems in which they occur. Management actions such as rare species 

management, habitat restoration, stocking, harvest, and invasive species control and eradication 

require collaboration. As such, Forest Service personnel will continue to collaborate with other 

agencies, organizations, and Tribal Nations with the development and implementation of 

conservation agreements and strategies. Forest Service personnel will continue to cooperate with 

Federal, Tribal, and State fish management agencies to identify and eliminate impacts associated 

with habitat manipulation, fish stocking, harvest, and poaching that may threaten the continued 

existence and distribution of native fish stocks occurring on Federal lands. Forest Service 

personnel will cooperate with State and Tribal agencies when aquatic invasive species eradication 

projects are proposed. Forest Service personnel will also coordinate and cooperate with State 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

83

water and water quality management agencies to better align and integrate programs and ensure 

compliances with applicable laws and regulations.

11. Risks and Uncertainties

As with any strategy designed to protect and restore ecosystems, it is uncertain whether either the 

Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy or the Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy will achieve the outlined goals. There are risks that it may not. 

These risks and uncertainties stem from several key factors. First, the knowledge base is 

incomplete regarding these highly complex systems. These knowledge gaps mean that the 

strategies may be missing key components. Moreover, the effectiveness of some existing aspects 

of the strategy has not been fully demonstrated. For instance, there are few examples of 

successful restoration at the scales of interest (typically watershed or subbasin, over long 

timeframes). At the same time, new threats, such as climate change and invasive species, have 

emerged and substantially increased risks to and uncertainties associated with aquatic ecosystems.

Besides risks and uncertainties associated with the composition of the Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy, full implementation of the strategy is not guaranteed. For example, 

implementation is strongly dependent on budgets and a robust, highly skilled workforce with 

access to extensive resource information. Capacity in the region has declined substantially in the 

past 20 years and future declines are possible. Another key source of risk and uncertainty is the 

fact that the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy pertains only to National Forest System

lands in the Pacific Northwest Region and portions of the Pacific Southwest Region. It does not 

apply to habitat impacts (including dam operations) and biological impacts (including the 

introduction of non-native fish) off national forests or activities on other Federal lands and State 

and private lands. These activities have had, and will continue to have, a large influence on the 

maintenance and recovery of aquatic ecosystems and water quality.

12. Conclusion

This strategy is designed to maintain and restore the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems on National Forest System lands throughout the Blue Mountains national 

forests. It is part of a single, unified strategy that synthesizes, integrates, and refines the existing 

strategies in the region: PACFISH and INFISH. Consistent with these existing strategies, the goal 

of the Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy is to develop networks of 

properly functioning watersheds supporting populations of fish, other aquatic and ripariandependent organisms, and State-designated beneficial uses of water across the Region while 

enabling provision of ecosystem services for multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, and wildlife.

This strategy adopts and builds upon the basic structure and elements of existing strategies 

because science supports their general framework and assumptions; they appear to be working; 

and there is general public support for them. However, it includes some specific refinements to

provide better alignment with recent science and information and new policy direction, 

particularly the 2012 Planning Rule as pertains to monitoring. It also incorporates lessons learned 

during 20-years of implementing those strategies. The Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy provides the plan components (for example, desired conditions, suitability, 

objectives, and standards and guidelines) and other plan content to guide watershed, aquatic and 

riparian resource management.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

84

11. References

Al-Chokhachy, R., T. A. Black, C. Thomas, C. H. Luce, B. Rieman, R. Cissel, A. Carlson, S. 

Hendrickson, E. K. Archer and J. L. Kershner. 2016. Linkages between unpaved forest 

roads and streambed sediment: why context matters in directing road restoration. 

Restoration Ecology. 24 (5): 589-598.

Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B. Roper and E. K. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the status and trends of 

physical stream habitat in headwater streams within the Interior Columbia River and 

upper Missouri River basins using an index approach. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 139 (4): 1041-1059.

Allen, T. F. H. and T. W. Hoekstra. 1992. Towards a unified ecology. Columbia University Press, 

New York.

Archer, E., R. Al-Chokhachy, J. Heitke, P. Ebertowski, R. Leary, T. Romano and B. B. Roper. 

2009. PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring program for 

streams and riparian areas 2009 Annual Summary Report. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fish and Aquatic Ecology 

Unit, Logan, UT. 48 p.

Archer, E. and J. Ojala. 2016a. Stream habitat condition for sites in the Malheur National Forest. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

(PIBO) Monitoring Program, Logan, UT. 114 p.

Archer, E. and J. Ojala. 2016b. Stream habitat condition for sites in the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion (PIBO) Monitoring Program, Logan, UT. 121 p.

Archer, E., J. Ojala and A. Van Wagenen. 2016. Stream habitat condition for sites in the Umatilla 

National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion (PIBO) Monitoring Program, Logan, UT. 84 p.

Archer, E. K. and M. Coles-Ritchie. 2007. Trend in physical stream habitat variables in the 

Interior Columbia River Basin, from 2001 to 2006. Attachment and Memorandum to 

Forest Supervisors in Regions 1, 4, 6 and BLM District Managers in Montana, Idaho, 

Oregon, Washington. Logan, UT. 9 p.

Battin, J., M. W. Wiley, M. H. Ruckelshaus, R. N. Palmer, E. Korb, K. K. Bartz and H. Imaki. 

2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (16): 6720-6725.

Beechie, T. and S. Bolton. 1999. An approach to restoring salmonid habitat forming processes in 

Pacific Northwest watersheds. Fisheries. 24 (4): 6-15.

Beechie, T. J., D. A. Sear, J. D. Olden, G. R. Pess, J. M. Buffington, H. J. Moir, P. Roni and M. 

M. Pollock. 2010. Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience. 

60 (3): 209-222.

Benda, L., N. L. Poff, D. Miller, T. Dunne, G. Reeves, G. Pess and M. Pollock. 2004. The 

network dynamics hypothesis: how channel networks structure riverine habitats. 

BioScience. 54 (5): 413-427.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

85

Benda, L. E., S. E. Litschert, G. Reeves and R. Pabst. 2016. Thinning and in-stream wood 

recruitment in riparian second growth forests in coastal Oregon and the use of buffers and 

tree tipping as mitigation. Journal of Forestry Research. 27 (4): 821-836.

Benda, L. E., D. J. Miller, T. Dunne, G. H. Reeves and J. K. Agee. 1998. Dynamic landscape 

systems. In: River ecology and management, Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby, eds. 

Springer-Verlag, New York. 261-288.

Bisson, P. A., G. H. Reeves, R. E. Bilby and R. J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and 

Pacific salmon: desired future conditions. In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: 

Status and Future Options, Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. Chapman 

& Hall, New York. 447-474.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their 

Habitats, Meehan, W. R., ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 83-138.

Burton, T. A., S. J. Smith and E. C. Cowley. 2011. Multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream 

channels and streamside vegetation. Technical Reference 1737-23 (Revised). U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, 

Denver, CO. 155 p.

Caraher, D. L., A. C. Zack and A. R. Stage. 1999. Scales and ecosystem management. In: 

Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management, volume 2, 

Szaro, R. C., N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton and A. J. Malick, eds. Elsevier, Oxford, UK.

Carroll, C. R. and G. K. Meffe. 1997. Management to meet conservation goals: general 

principles. In: Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd Ed., Meffe, G. K. and C. R. 

Carroll, eds. Sinauer & Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Concannon, J. A., C. L. Shafer, R. L. DeVelice, R. M. Sauvajot, S. L. Boudreau, T. E. Demeo and 

J. Dryden. 1999. Describing landscape diversity: a fundamental tool for landscape 

management. In: Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem 

management, Vol. 2, Szaro, R. C., N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton and A. J. Malick, eds. 

Elsevier, Oxford, UK. 195-218.

Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetlands classification of the Malheur, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Baker City, OR, 299 p.

Crozier, L. G. and R. W. Zabel. 2006. Climate impacts at multiple scales: evidence for differential 

population responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75: 1100-

1109.

Crozier, L. G., R. W. Zabel and A. F. Hamlet. 2008. Predicting differential effects of climate 

change at the population level with life-cycle models of spring Chinook salmon. Global 

Change Biology. 14: 236-249.

Dale, V. H., L. A. Joyce, S. McNulty and R. P. Neilson. 2000. The interplay between climate

change, forests, and disturbances. The Science of the Total Environment. 262 (3): 201-

204.

Everest, F. H. and G. H. Reeves. 2007. Riparian and aquatic habitats of the Pacific Northwest and 

southeast Alaska: ecology, management history, and potential management strategies. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

86

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-692. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 130 p.

Fausch, F. D., C. E. Torgersen, C. V. Baxter and H. W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: 

bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience. 52 (6): 

483-498.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2009. Watershed boundary dataset. GIS Data Published by US 

Forest Service to data center in February 2009. Online Linkage: 

\\ds.fs.fed.us\EFS\\FS\Reference\GIS\r06_csa4\Data\NHD_Hydro.gdb

Forest Ecosystem Management Team, [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management; U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR. 1039 p.

Franklin, J. F. and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2009. Importance of matrix habitats in maintaining 

biological diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (2): 349-350.

Frissell, C.A. and D. Bayles. 1996. Ecosystem management and the conservation of aquatic 

biodiversity and ecological integrity. Water Resources Bulletin. 32 (2): 229-240.

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren and M. D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for 

stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental 

Management. 10 (2): 199-214.

Furniss, M. J. and C. J. Colby. 2005. An annotated bibliography of small streams. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, 

OR. 234 p.

Furniss, M. J., B. P. Staab, S. Hazelhurst, C. F. Clifton, K. B. Roby, B. L. Ilhadrt, E. B. Larry, A. 

H. Todd, L. M. Reid, S. J. Hines, K. A. Bennett, C. H. Luce and P. J. Edwards. 2010. 

Water, climate change, and forests: watershed stewardship for a changing climate. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-812. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 75 p.

Gallo, K., S. H. Lanigan, P. Eldred, S. N. Gordon and C. Moyer. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-647. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 133 p.

Gomi, T., R. C. Sidle and J. S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream 

linkages of headwater systems. BioScience. 52 (10): 905-916.

Goode, J. R., J. M. Buffington, D. Tonina, D. J. Isaak, R. F. Thurow, S. Wenger, D. Nagel, C. 

Luce, D. Tetzlaff and C. Soulsby. 2013. Potential effects of climate change on streambed 

scour and risks to salmonid survival in snow-dominated mountain basins. Hydrologic 

Processes. 27 (5): 750-765.

Gosz, J. R., J. Asher, B. Holder, R. Knight, R. Naiman, G. Raines, P. Stine and T. B. Wigley. 

1999. An ecosystem approach for understanding landscape diversity. In: Ecological 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

87

stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem management, Vol. 2, Szaro, R. C., N. C. 

Johnson, W. T. Sexton and A. J. Malick, eds. Elsevier, Oxford, UK. 157-194.

Gregory, S. V. and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of salmonid habitat in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, 

Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. Chapman & Hall, New York. 277-314.

Halofsky, J. E. and D. E. Peterson, eds. 2017. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in 

the Blue Mountains Region, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-939. U.S. Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 331 p.

Hansen, A. J. and D. L. Urban. 1992. Avian response to landscape patterns: the role of species life 

histories. Landscape Ecology. 7: 163-180.

Harrison, S. and J. F. Quinn. 1989. Correlated environments and the persistence of 

metapopulations. Oikos. 56: 293-298.

Haufler, J. B., C. A. Mehl and G. J. Roloff. 1996. Using a coarse filter approach with a species 

assessment for ecosystem management. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 24 (2): 200-208.

Heller, D. 2002. A new paradigm for salmon and watershed restoration, Proceedings of the 13th 

International Salmonid Enhancement Workshop, Westport County, Ireland, 

Hobbs, R. J. and L. F. Huenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for 

conservation. Conservation Biology. 6 (3): 324-337.

Holling, C. S. and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural 

resource management. Conservation Biology. 10 (2): 328-337.

Hunter, M. L. 1991. Coping with ignorance: The coarse filter strategy for maintaining 

biodiversity. In: Balancing on the Brink of Extinction, Kohm, K. A., ed. Island Press, 

Washington, DC. 266-281.

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, [IMST]. 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in 

western Oregon forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act rules and the measures in the 

Oregon Plan for salmon and watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1. Governor's Natural 

Resource Office, Salem, OR.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board, [ISAB]. 2007. Climate change impacts on Columbia 

River Basin fish and wildlife. ISAB 2007-2. Independent Scientific Advisory Board for 

the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, OR. 146 p.

Isaak, D. J., M. K. Young, C. H. Luce, S. W. Hostetler, S. J. Wenger, E. E. Peterson, J. M. Ver 

Hoef, M. C. Groce, D. L. Horan and D. E. Nagel. 2016. Slow climate velocities of 

mountain streams portend their role as refugia for cold-water biodiversity. Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences. 113 (16): 4374-4379.

Karr, J. R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. 

Ecological Applications. 1 (1): 66-84.

Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing 

biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History 

Survey Special Publication 5. 27 p.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

88

Kauffman, J. B., M. Mahrt, L. A. Mahrt and W. D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. In: 

Wildlife -Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington, Johnson, D. H. and T. A. 

O'Neil, eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 361-388.

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, J. E. Williams, D. Burns, J. Clayton, L. 

Decker, R. Gresswell, R. House, P. Howell, K. M. Lee, K. MacDonald, J. McIntyre, S. 

McKinney, T. Noel, J. E. O'Connor, C. K. Overton, D. Perkinson, K. Tu and P. Van 

Eimeren. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats, Chapter 4. In: An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins, Volume III, Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. 1057-1496.

Lee, P., C. Smyth and S. Boutin. 2004. Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines 

from Canada and the United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 70 (2): 165-

180.

Levin, S. 1974. Dispersion and population interactions. American Naturalist. 108: 207-228.

Lindenmayer, D. B. and J. F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive

multiscale approach. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Lisle, T. E., J. M. Buffington, P. R. Wilcock and K. Bunte. 2014. Can rapid assessment protocols 

be used to judge sediment impairment in gravel-bed streams? A commentary. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association. 51 (2): 373-387.

Lugo, A. E., J. S. Baron, T. P. Frost, T. W. Cundy and P. Dittberner. 1999. Ecosystem processes 

and functioning. In: Ecological stewardship: a common reference for ecosystem 

management, Volume 2, Szaro, R. C., N. C. Johnson, W. T. Sexton and A. J. Malick, eds. 

Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford. 219-254.

Martin, J. and P. Glick. 2008. A great wave rising: Solutions for Columbia and Snake River 

salmon in the age of global warming. Light in the River, 

Meredith, C., E. K. Archer, R. Scully, A. V. Wagenen, J. Ojala, N. Hough-Snee and B. B. Roper. 

2012. PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas USDA 

Forest Service: 2011 Annual Summary Report.

Meredith, C., E. K. Archer, R. Scully, A. V. Wagenen, J. V. Ojala, R. Lokteff and B. B. Roper. 

2013. PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas USDA 

Forest Service 2012 Annual Summary Report. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

effectiveness monitoring staff, Logan, UT. 49 p.

Meyer, J. L., L. A. Kaplan, D. Newbold, D. L. Strayer, C. A. Woltemand, J. B. Zedler, R. 

Beilfuss, Q. Carpenter, R. Semlitsch, M. C. Watzin and P. H. Zedler. 2003. Where rivers 

are born: the scientific imperative for defending small streams and wetlands. Fact Sheet. 

American Rivers and the Sierra Club, 24 p.

Meyer, J. L. and J. B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small 

streams. In: Ecology: achievement and challenge, Press, M. C., N. J. Huntley and S. 

Levins, eds. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. 295-317.

Miller, D., C. Luce and L. Benda. 2003. Time, space, and episodicity of physical disturbance in 

streams. Forest Ecology and Management. 178 (1-2): 121-140.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

89

Miller, S. A., S. N. Gordon, P. Eldred, R. M. Beloin, S. Wilcox, M. Raggon, H. E. Andersen and 

A. Muldoon. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994-2013): watershed 

condition status and trend - Draft. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-932. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 90 p.

Montgomery, D. R. and J. M. Buffington. 1998. Channel processes, classification, and response. 

In: River ecology and management, Naiman, R. J. and R. E. Bilby, eds. Springer-Verlag, 

New York. 13-42.

Montgomery, D. R., J. M. Buffington, R. D. Smith, K. M. Schmidt and G. Pess. 1995. Pool 

spacing in forest channels. Water Resources Research. 31 (4): 1097-1105.

Montgomery, D. R. and L. H. MacDonald. 2002. Diagnostic approach to stream channel 

assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38 

(1): 1-16.

Mote, P. W. 2003a. Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Pacific Northwest during the 

twentieth century. Northwest Science. 77 (4): 271-282.

Mote, P. W. 2003b. Trends in snow water equivalent in the Pacific Northwest and their climatic 

causes. Geophysical Research Letters. 30 (12): 1601, doi:10.1029/2003GL017258.

Naiman, R. J. 1998. Biotic stream classification. In: River ecology and management, Naiman, R. 

J. and R. E. Bilby, eds. Springer-Verlag, New York. 97-119.

Naiman, R. J., T. J. Beechie, L. E. Benda, D. R. Berg, P. A. Bisson, L. H. MacDonald, M. D. 

O'Connor, P. L. Olson and E. A. Steel. 1992a. Fundamental elements of ecologically 

healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal ecoregion. In: Watershed 

Management, Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change, Naiman, R., ed. 

McGraw-Hill, New York. 127-188.

Naiman, R. J. and J. J. Latterell. 2005. Principles for linking fish habitat to fisheries management 

and conservation. Journal of Fish Biology. 67 (Supplement B): 166-185.

Naiman, R. J., D. G. Lonzarich, J. T, Beechie and S. C. Ralph. 1992b. General principles of 

classification and the conservation potential of rivers. In: River Conservation and 

Management, Boon, P. J., P. Calow and G. E. Petts, eds. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

93-123.

Naiman, R. J., J. J. Magnuson, D. M. McKnight and J. A. Stanford, eds. 1995. The freshwater 

imperative: a research agenda. Island Press, Washington, DC. 165 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service, [NMFS]. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act 

determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. 

Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, Seattle, 

WA. 32 p.

National Research Council, [NRC]. 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific 

Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

National Research Council, [NRC]. 2008. Hydrologic effects of a changing forest landscape. 

Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, Water Science and 

Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. 

National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 180 p.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

90

Nehlsen, W., J. E. Williams and J. A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks 

at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries. 16 (2): 4-21.

Noss, R. F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at the 

Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation. 41: 11-37.

Olson, D. H. and J. I. Burton. 2014. Near-term effects of repeated-thinning with riparian buffers 

on headwater stream vertebrates and habitats in Oregon, USA. Forests. 5 (11): 2703-

2729.

Olson, D. H., J. B. Leirness, P. G. Cunningham and E. A. Steel. 2014. Riparian buffers and forest 

thinning: Effects on headwater vertebrates 10 years after thinning. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 321 (1 June): 81-93.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2012. Water Quality Assessment - Oregon's 2012 

Integrated Report Assessment Database and 303(d) List (submitted to U.S. EPA 2014). 

GIS database accessed October 19, 2015, available at: 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/assessment/rpt2012/search.asp. Salem, OR.

Pearcy, W. G. 1997. Salmon production in changing ocean domains. In: Pacific salmon and their 

ecosystems: status and future options, Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. 

Chapman & Hall, New York. 331-352.

Perry, L. G., L. V. Reynolds, T. J. Beechie, M. J. Collins and P. B. Shafroth. 2015. Incorporating 

climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design. Ecohydrology. 8 

(5): 863-879.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestergaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks and 

J. C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and 

restoration. BioScience. 47 (11): 769-784.

Poole, W. R., D. T. Nolan, T. Wevers, M. Dillane, D. Cotter and O. Tully. 2003. An 

ecophysiological comparison of wild and hatchery-raised Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar

L.) smolts from the Burrishoole system, western Ireland. Aquaculture. 222: 301-314.

Quigley, T. M., K. M. Lee and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. 1997. Evaluation of EIS alternatives by the 

science integration team, volume I. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-406. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. 1063 p.

Reeves, G. 1999. Declaration of Gordon Reeves, Ph.D., to the United States District Court, 

Western District at Seattle, May 27, 1999, Civil No. C 99-0067 R. U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC. 11 p.

Reeves, G. H. 2006. The aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan: An 

assessment after 10 years, Chapter 9. In: Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years 

(1994-2003): Synthesis of Monitoring and Research Results, Haynes, R. W., B. T. 

Bormann, D. C. Lee and J. R. Martin, eds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 181-217.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of 

evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334-349.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

91

Reeves, G. H., F. H. Everest and J. D. Hall. 1987. Interactions between redside shiners 

(Richardsonius balteatus) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri) in western Oregon: the 

influence of water temperature. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 43: 

1521-1533.

Reeves, G. H., J. E. Williams, K. M. Burnett and K. Gallo. 2006. The aquatic conservation 

strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20 (2): 319-329.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale, Federal guide for 

watershed analysis. Portland, OR. 29 p.

Regional Interagency Executive Committee (RIEC). 2011. Framework to guide Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management land use plan revisions and amendments (Western 

Oregon, Western Washington, and Northern California).

Reiss, K. Y., P. Dawson, K. Gallo, D. Konnoff and L. Croft. 2008. Process for determining Forest 

Service contribution to sustainability and determining key watersheds. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 150 p.

Richardson, J. S., R. J. Naiman and P. A. Bisson. 2012. How did fixed-width buffers become 

standard practice for protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from forest harvest 

practices? Freshwater Science. 31 (1): 232-238.

Rieman, B., J. Dunham and J. Clayton. 2006. Emerging concepts for management of river 

ecosystems and challenges to applied integration of physical and biological sciences in 

the Pacific Northwest, USA. International Journal of River Basin Management. 4 (2): 85-

97.

Rieman, B. E. and D. J. Isaak. 2010. Climate change, aquatic ecosystems, and fishes in the Rocky 

Mountain West: implications and alternatives for management. General Technical Report 

RMRS-GTR-250. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 46 p.

Rieman, B. E. and J. D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

of Bull trout. General Technical Report INT-302. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, Ogden, UT. 38 p.

Rieman, B. E. and D. L. Myers. 1997. Use of redd counts to detect trends in bull trout 

populations. Conservation Biology. 1 (4): 1015-1018.

Rieman, B. E., C. L. Smith, R. J. Naiman, G. T. Ruggerone, C. C. Wood, N. Huntly, E. N. Merrill, 

J. R. Alldredge, P. A. Bisson, J. Congleton, K. D. Fausch, C. Levings, W. Pearcy, D. 

Scarnecchia and P. Smouse. 2015. A comprehensive approach for habitat restoration in 

the Columbia Basin. Fisheries. 40 (3): 124-135.

Roni, P., T. J. Beechie, R. E. Bilby, F. E. Leonetti, M. M. Pollock and G. R. Pess. 2002. A review 

of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in 

Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 22 (1): 

1-20.

Roper, B., E. Archer, R. Al-Chokhachy, J. Kershner and C. Meredith. 2016. Monitoring policy 

relevant stream habitat conditions: A thirteen year perspective from the Interior Columbia 

River Basin. Unpublished, manuscript in preparation. Logan, UT.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

92

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 22 (3): 169-199.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Seavy, N. E., T. Gardali, G. H. Golet, F. T. Griggs, C. A. Howell, R. Kelsey, S. L. Small, J. H. 

Viers and J. F. Weigand. 2009. Why climate change makes riparian restoration more 

important than ever: recommendations for practice and research. Ecological Restoration. 

27 (3): 330-338.

Sedell, J. R., G. H. Reeves and P. A. Bisson. 1997. Habitat policy for salmon in the Pacific 

Northwest. In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, 

Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. Chapman & Hall, New York. 375-387.

Sidle, R. C., Y. Tsuboyama, S. Noguchi, I. Hosoda, M. Fujieda and T. Shimizu. 2000. Stormflow 

generation in steep forested headwaters: a linked hydrogeomorphic paradigm. 

Hydrological Processes. 14 (2): 369-385.

Stanford, J. A. and J. V. Ward. 1992. Management of aquatic resources in large catchments: 

recognizing interactions between ecosystem connectivity and environmental disturbance. 

In: Watershed management, balancing sustainability and environmental change, Naiman, 

R. J., ed. Springer-Verlag, New York. 91-124.

The Nature Conservancy, [TNC]. 1982. Natural heritage program operations manual. The 

Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Thurow, R. F., D. C. Lee and B. E. Rieman. 2000. Status and distribution of chinook salmon and 

steelhead in the Interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath River basin 

[Chapter 12]. In: Sustainable Fisheries Management: Pacific Salmon, Knudsen, E. E., C. 

R. Steward, D. MacDonald, J. E. Williams and D. W. Reiser, eds. CRC Press, Boca 

Raton, Florida. 133-160.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Watershed prioritization. Umatilla National 

Forest, Pendleton, OR. 75 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2002. Watershed restoration and prioritization 

process. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker City, OR. 22 p. and appendices.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Aquatic/watershed restoration strategy. 

Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR. 35 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Aquatic and riparian conservation strategy 

(ARCS). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland, OR. 49 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Decision notice and finding of no 

significant impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy [INFISH]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions, 

Missoula, MT; Ogden, UT; Portland, OR. July 28, 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008. Camp Creek Watershed Action Plan, 

Middle Fork John Day River: A necessary step in implementing the Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Recovery Plan and John Day Subbasin Plan. Publication Number MAL09-01. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

93

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed condition framework. FS-977. 

Washington, D. C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service]. 2011b. Watershed condition classification

technical guide. Potyondy, J. P. and T. W. Geier. FS-978. Washington, D. C. 41 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Proposed Revised Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests, Volume 1. Chapter 3, Watershed Function, Water Quality, and 

Water Uses. Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 254-321.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 25 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015a. Forest Planning Directives (FSH 1909.12 

and FSM 1920).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015b. Plan Wording Style Guide. Washington, 

DC. 18 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994a. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of 

Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994b. Standards and Guidelines for Management of 

Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl: Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range 

of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of land 

Management, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. 

Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. Memorandum to the 

Interagency Regional Executives from Interagency Coordinators Subgroup (ICS) of the 

Streamlined Consultation Procedures for section 7 of the endangered Species Act. 

Subject: ICS guidelines and Science review reports on tree thinning in Riparian Reserves 

of the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior [USDA and USDI]. 1995. 

Decision notice and record of decision: interim strategies for managing anadromous fishproducing watersheds on federal lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and 

portions of California [PACFISH]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Plants Database. 

http://plants.usda.gov/.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Biological Opinion for the effects to bull trout from 

continued implementation of land and resource management plans and resource 

management plans as amended by the interim strategy for managing fish-producing 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

94

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, western Montana, and portions of 

Nevada (INFISH), and the interim strategy for managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

(PACFISH). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A framework to assist in making endangered species act 

determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation 

watershed scale. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 30 p.

Urgenson, L. S., S. H. Reichard and C. B. Halpern. 2009. Community and ecosystem 

consequences of giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) invasion into riparian forests 

of western Washington, USA. Biological Conservation. 142 (7): 1536-1541.

Wallington, T. J., R. J. Hobbs and S. A. Moore. 2005. Implications of current ecological thinking 

for biodiversity conservation: a review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society. 10 (1): 

[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art15/.

Waples, R. S., T. Beechie and G. R. Pess. 2009. Evolutionary history, habitat disturbance regimes, 

and anthropogenic changes: What do these mean for resilience of Pacific salmon 

populations? Ecology and Society. 14 (1): 3.

Washington Department of Ecology. 2016. 305(b) report and 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

Approved by EPA July 22, 2016, available at: https://www.ecology.wa.gov/WaterShorelines/Water-quality/Water-improvement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d/EPAapproved-assessment. GIS data accessed October 11. 2016.

Whitesel, T. A., J. Brostrom, T. Cummings, J. Delavergne, H. Schaller, P. Wilson and G.

Zdlewski. 2004. Bull Trout Recovery Planning: A review of the science associated with 

population structure and size. #2004-01. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 58 

p.

Wild Salmon Center. 2012. Approved and Pending Wild Salmon Strongholds for North America. 

http://www.wildsalmoncenter.org/i/maps/Western-US-Strongholds.jpg.

Williams, J. E., J. E. Johnson, D. A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J. D. Williams, M. 

Navarro-Mendoza, D. E. McAllister and J. E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America—

endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Fisheries. 14 (6): 2-20.

Winward, A. H. 2000. Monitoring the vegetation resources in riparian areas. USDA Forest 

Service, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-47. Rocky Mountain Research Station, 

Ogden, UT. 49 p.

Wipfli, M. S., J. S. Richardson and R. J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological linkages between headwaters 

and downstream ecosystems: transport of organic matter, invertebrates, and wood down 

headwater channels. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43 (1): 72-85.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

95

12. Acronyms

ARCS Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 

AREMP Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DC Desired Condition 

FACTS Forest Service Activity Tracking System

FEMAT Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GTR General Technical Report

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

ICS Interagency Coordinators Subgroup 

INFISH Inland Native Fish Strategy

INFRA Infrastructure Database

ISAB Independent Scientific Advisory Board 

KWS Key Watersheds 

MAL Malheur National Forest

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NHD National Hydrologic Data Set 

NRIS National Resource Information System

OR DEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

PACFISH Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy

PIBO PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Monitoring Program

PNW Pacific Northwest Region

RIEC Regional Interagency Executive Committee

RMA Riparian Management Area 

RMO: Riparian Management Objective 

UMA Umatilla National Forest

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDI U.S. Department of Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WA DOE Washington Department of the Environment

WCF Watershed Condition Framework 

W-W Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

96

13. Glossary

Anadromous fish: Fish that spend their early life in freshwater, move to the ocean to mature, and 

then return to freshwater to reproduce.

Anchor population: Population stronghold, source for supplementing or refounding smaller, 

more vulnerable surrounding populations.

Active floodplain: Active floodplain is defined as the area bordering a stream inundated by flows 

at a surface elevation defined by two times the maximum bankfull depth (measured at the 

thalweg).

Active Restoration: The deliberate activities related to restoration. As an example, this might 

include seeding native grasses and planting native scrubs and trees.

Assessment: The identification and evaluation of existing information to support land 

management planning. Assessments are not decision-making documents, but provide current 

information on select topics relevant to the plan area, in the context of the broader landscape

(2012 Planning Rule).

Aquatic (and riparian) health: Aquatic and riparian habitats that support animal and plant 

communities that can adapt to environmental changes and follow natural evolutionary and 

biogeographic processes. Healthy aquatic and riparian systems are resilient and recover rapidly 

from natural and human disturbance. They are stable and sustainable, maintaining their 

organization and autonomy over time, and are resilient to stress. In a healthy aquatic/riparian 

system, there is a high degree of connectivity from headwaters to downstream reaches, from 

streams to floodplains, and from subsurface to surface. Floods can spread into floodplains, and 

fish and wildlife populations can move freely throughout the watershed. Healthy aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems also maintain long-term soil productivity. Mineral and energy cycles continue 

without loss of efficiency. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp) [section 1]

Aquatic ecosystem: Any body of water, such as a stream, lake or estuary, and all organisms and 

nonliving components within it, functioning as a natural system. 

(https://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/exrmp/coosbay/glossary.html)

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (1980).

Channel migration zone: The area along a river within which the channel(s) can be reasonably 

predicted to migrate over time as a result of natural and normally occurring hydrological and 

related processes when considered with the characteristics of the river and its surroundings.

Channel migration zones are those areas with a high probability of being subject to channel 

movement based on the historic record, geologic character and evidence of past migration. It 

should also be recognized that past action is not a perfect predictor of the future and that human 

and natural changes may alter migration patterns. Consideration should be given to such changes 

that may have occurred and their effect on future migration patterns.

Coarse filter management: Land management that addresses the needs of all associated species, 

communities, environments and ecological processes in a land area (see fine filter management.) 

(FS People's Glossary of Eco Mgmt Terms).

Connectivity: The arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape. Patches of similar habitats either are close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation. The opposite of fragmentation. 

(https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp) [p. 33]
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

97

Connectivity (of habitats): The degree in which habitat patches are connected.

Decommission: To remove those elements of a road that reroute hillslope drainage and present 

slope stability hazards. Another term for this is "hydrologic obliteration." FEMAT glossary

Desired Conditions: Descriptions of specific social, economic, and ecological characteristics of 

the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources 

should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to 

allow progress toward their achievement to be determined but do not include completion dates.

Ecological health: The state of an ecosystem in which processes and functions are adequate to 

maintain diversity of biotic communities commensurate with those initially found there. FEMAT 

glossary

Ecosystem health: A condition where the parts and functions of an ecosystem are sustained over 

time and where its capacity for self-repair is maintained, such that goals for uses, values, and 

services of the ecosystem are met. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Evolutionary significant unit (ESU): a group of salmon or trout populations that is a distinct 

population segment. Scientists established two criteria for evolutionary significant units: 1) the 

population must show substantial reproductive isolation; and 2) there must be an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species as a whole.

Facultative plants: Plants that occur usually (estimated probability more than 67 percent to 99 

percent) in wetlands, but also occur (estimated probability 1 percent to 33 percent) in 

nonwetlands (USCOE Wetlands Delineation Manual).

Federally listed species: species listed by a Federal agency as threatened or endangered as per 

the requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Fine-filter management: Management that focuses on the welfare of a single or only a few 

species rather than the broader habitat or ecosystem (see coarse filter management). (FS People's 

Glossary of Eco Mgmt Terms)

Forest road or trail: A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the 

National Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, 

administration, and utilization (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 212—Administration 

of the Forest Transportation System, section 212.1.)

Fresh water: Water that generally contains less than 1,000 milligrams-per-liter of dissolved 

solids (EPA glossary).

Geographic areas: Spatially contiguous land areas identified within the planning area. A 

geographic area may overlap with a management area.

Guidelines: Constraints on project and activity decision-making that allows for departure from its 

terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met (36 CFR 219.15(d)(3)). Guidelines are 

established to help achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate 

undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses (EPA 

glossary).

Hyporheic zone: The hyporheic zone is a region beneath and lateral to a streambed, where there 

is mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water. The flow dynamics and behavior in this zone 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

98

(termed hyporheic flow) is recognized to be important for surface water/groundwater interactions, 

as well as fish spawning, among other processes.

INFISH: Interim Inland Native Fish Strategy for the Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific 

Northwest Regions (Forest Service). (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Insecticide: A pesticide compound specifically used to kill or prevent the growth of insects (EPA 

glossary).

Landscape: A collection of biophysical elements and ecosystem types that occupy relatively 

large (100,000 to 10,000,000 acres) contiguous areas (Hunter 1996, Concannon et al. 1999).

Leasable minerals: Minerals that may be leased to private interests by the Federal government. 

Leasable minerals include oil, gas, geothermal resources, and coal. FEMAT glossary

Long-term recovery: Amount of time needed to achieve desired conditions for watershed 

function (overall properly functioning watershed conditions), through natural processes, in the 

absence of management. This maximum timeframe at minimum shall not be slowed by 

management action, and may be accelerated as a consequence of management action. Overall, 

positive effects of a project on watershed function would be projected to last as long, or longer, 

than the duration of short-term adverse effects and continue to promote recovery of natural 

watershed function and processes overall once short-term adverse effects are no longer occurring.

Maintain: To produce no change in the existing conditions of a resource relative to their 

condition status; that is, properly functioning, functioning at risk, or not functioning properly. 

Conditions that are maintained are neither restored nor degraded, but remain essentially the same 

as the existing condition. The term “maintain” can apply to any condition indicator at the 

appropriate scale, but those scales need to be identified. Degrade applies when actions change the 

existing condition to one that is measurably worse.

Management areas: Land areas identified within the planning area that has the same set of 

applicable plan components. A management area does not have to be spatially contiguous.

Meta-population: A population comprising local populations that are linked by migrants, 

allowing for recolonization of unoccupied habitat patches after local extinction events. FEMAT 

glossary

Mitigation: Modifications of actions taken to:

• avoid impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;

• minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

• rectify impacts by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;

• reduce or eliminate impacts over time by preservation and maintenance operations during 

the life of the action; or,

• compensate for impacts by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Municipal supply watershed: A watershed that serves a public water system as defined in the 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. section 300f, et seq.); or as defined in 

state safe drinking water statutes or regulations.

Natural range of variation: The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over scales 

of time and space that are appropriate for a given management application. In contrast to the 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

99

generality of historical ecology, the natural range of variation concept focuses on a distilled 

subset of past ecological knowledge developed for use by resource managers; it represents an 

explicit effort to incorporate a past perspective into management and conservation decisions 

(adapted from Weins et al. 2012). The pre-European influenced reference period considered 

should be sufficiently long, often several centuries, to include the full range of variation produced 

by dominant natural disturbance regimes such as fire and flooding and should also include shortterm variation and cycles in climate. The natural range of variation is a tool for assessing the 

ecological integrity and does not necessarily constitute a management target or desired condition. 

The natural range of variation can help identify key structural, functional, compositional, and 

connectivity characteristics, for which plan components may be important for either maintenance 

or restoration of such ecological conditions.

Objectives: Concise, measurable, and time-specific statements of a desired rate of progress 

toward a desired condition or conditions. Objectives should be based on reasonably foreseeable 

budgets.

Obligate species: A plant or animal that occurs only in a narrowly defined habitat such as tree 

cavity, rock cave, or wet meadow. FEMAT glossary

PACFISH: Interim Strategies for Managing Pacific Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California.

Passive Restoration: Allowing a site to self-restore through natural processes

Pesticide: Substances or mixture there of intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or 

mitigating any pest. Also, any substance or mixture intended for use as a plant regulator, 

defoliant, or desiccant (EPA glossary).

Priority watershed: A subset of key watersheds. There are two types of priority watersheds, one 

that applies to the Watershed Condition Framework and the other that applies to the plan period, 

known as potential Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds, both are 12-digit 

hydrologic unit watersheds. The watersheds have been established under the agency’s Watershed 

Condition Framework process as the focus for investments in the short term (5 to 7 years) for 

maintenance or improvement of watershed conditions (soil and hydrologic functions supporting 

aquatic ecosystems). An overview of the framework and reference materials can be found here: 

Watershed Condition Framework overview. The potential priority watersheds were identified 

with regards to those areas that will receive restoration emphasis during the plan period (15 

years).

Recovery unit: A management subunit of a Federal Endangered-Species-Act-listed entity, 

geographically or otherwise identifiable, that is essential to the recovery of the entire listed entity. 

It conserves genetic or demographic robustness, important life history stages, or other feature for 

long-term sustainability of the entire listed entity. Recovery criteria for the listed entity should 

address each identified recovery unit. Every recovery unit must be recovered before the species 

can be delisted.

Recovery plans: Plans describing the steps needed to restore a species to ecological health.

Reference condition: A set of selected measurements or conditions of unimpaired or minimally 

impaired waterbodies characteristic of a water body type in a region. A standard or benchmark for 

a river monitoring program that measures physical and/or biological integrity.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

100

Refugia: Locations and habitats that support populations of organisms that may be limited to 

small fragments of their previous geographic range (i.e., endemic populations). FEMAT glossary

Resilience: The ability of an ecosystem to maintain diversity, integrity, and ecological processes 

following a disturbance. (FS People's Glossary of Eco Mgmt Terms)

Resiliency: The degree to which the system can be disturbed and recover to a state where 

processes and interaction function as before (Holling 1973 in Reeves et al. 1995).

Resilient: (1) The ability of a system to respond to disturbances. Resiliency is one of the 

properties that enable the system to persist in many different states or successional stages. (2) In 

human communities, refers to the ability of a community to respond to externally induced 

changes such as larger economic or social forces. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Restore: Generally applies when the existing conditions are outside the range of desired 

conditions and actions are specifically designed and implemented to move toward desired 

conditions for one or more at-risk or impaired resources in a watershed.

Retard attainment: Applies when management action effects, individually or in combination 

with other management actions or natural disturbances, measurably slows the natural rate of 

recovery towards the desired conditions.

Riparian-dependent resources: Resources that are dependent upon the habitat conditions (cool, 

shady, moist) that occur in riparian areas. See 2526.05 – Definitions.

Riparian ecosystem: An ecosystem that is a transition between terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems. It includes the vegetation communities associated with rivers, streams, lakes, wet 

areas and their associated soils that have free water at or near the surface. An ecosystem whose 

components are directly or indirectly attributed to the influence of water 

(https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp).

Riparian habitat: Areas adjacent to rivers and streams with a differing density, diversity, and 

productivity of plant and animal species relative to nearby uplands.

Salable minerals: High volume, low value mineral resources, including common varieties of 

rock, clay, decorative stone, sand, and gravel. FEMAT glossary

Short-term adverse effects: Duration and spatial extent of adverse effects to individual 

parameters and overall watershed condition, relative to natural rates at which desired conditions 

for watershed function in the watershed would otherwise be achieved, would be determined by 

the project hydrologist or fish biologist. Short-term adverse effects may occur when their 

implementation would either immediately or eventually help create improved watershed functions 

and conditions that would inherently last longer than the duration of the short-term adverse 

effects and become relatively self-sustaining through natural processes in the absence of 

continued management activity. Determining short-term effects to individual parameters for the 

sake of long-term recovery of overall watershed function will need to be determined project-byproject based on best-available science and professional judgement by hydrology and fisheries 

specialists.

An example of short-term adverse effects that would not be detrimental to longer-duration 

watershed function would be when elevated sediment inputs and accumulation associated with a 

project site would be expected to fully flush out during the first fall, winter, or spring high flows 

after project completion, and site restoration conservation measures would be expected to prevent 

future project related sediment inputs into the stream (National Marine Fisheries Service 2013). 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

101

Clean Water Act total maximum daily loads for temperature and sediment, where they exist, also 

help define short-term adverse effects for specific watersheds in the planning area. As an 

additional example, fish passage projects may have block fish passage for up to a few weeks 

during removal and upgrade of a structure that seasonally blocks passage, with the goal of 

improving fish passage for many years to come (National Marine Fisheries Service 2013).

As a last example, for streams listed for temperature under the Clean Water Act, where total 

maximum daily loads for temperature do not exist yet, short-term project effects in streams listed 

as 303d for temperature would not be allowed to exceed temperature levels established as 

beneficial uses for salmonid species, specifically temperature levels that support the life histories 

and habitat usage by bull trout. Salmon and steelhead where they are present, short-term effects 

from invasive plant control were defined in the National Marine Fisheries Service regional 

biological opinion for aquatic restoration (NMFS 2013) as being no more than 10 percent of the 

acres in an riparian habitat conservation area in any one 6th hydrologic unit code watershed in a 

given year.

Site potential: A measure of resource availability based on interactions among soils, climate, 

hydrology, and vegetation. Site potential represents the highest ecological status an area can attain 

given no political, social, or economic constraints. It defines the capability of an area, its 

potential, and how it functions. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Site-potential tree: A tree that has attained the average maximum height possible given site 

conditions where it occurs. FEMAT glossary

Site potential tree height: The average maximum height of the tallest trees (200 years or older) 

for a given site class.

Spatial: Related to or having the nature of space. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Standards: Mandatory constraints on project and activity decision-making, established to help 

achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, 

or to meet applicable legal requirements.

Temporal: Related to time. (https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Temporary road: A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, 

permit, lease, or other written authorization that is not a forest road or a forest trail and that is not 

included in a forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1).

Unstable and potentially unstable lands: The unstable land component includes lands that are 

prone to mass failure under natural conditions (unroaded, unharvested), and where human 

activities such as road construction and timber harvest are likely to increase landslide distribution 

in time and space to the point where this change is likely to modify natural geomorphic and 

hydrologic processes (such as the delivery of sediment and wood to channels), which in turn will 

affect aquatic ecosystems, including streams, seeps, wetlands, and marshes. 

(https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/icbemp)

Watercourse: A watercourse is any flowing body of water. These include rivers and streams. A 

natural stream of water fed from permanent or periodical natural sources and usually flowing in a 

particular direction in a defined channel, having abed and banks or sides, and usually discharging 

itself Into some other stream or body of water.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

102

Watershed: The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More 

specifically, a watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water 

to the streamflow at that point.

• The drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to 

a stream or lake. (FEMAT, IX-39) 

• Any area of land that drains to a common point. A watershed is smaller than a river basin or 

subbasin, but it is larger than a drainage or site. The term generally describes areas that 

result from the first subdivision of a subbasin, often referred to as a "fifth-field watershed." 

(Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale v 2.2, p. 25)

• The entire region drained by a waterway (or into a lake or reservoir). More specifically, a 

watershed is an area of land above a given point on a stream that contributes water to the 

stream flow at that point.

Watershed condition classes: Watersheds are rated as Class 1, 2, or 3.

• Class 1 Condition: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. Drainage network is generally stable. Physical, 

chemical, and biological] conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are 

predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.

• Class 2 Condition: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic 

integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit 

an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that 

soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses.

• Class 3 Condition: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity 

relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be 

unstable. Physical, chemical, and biological conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and 

riparian systems do not support beneficial uses.

Water development: A water transmission, storage, or diversion facility.

Wetlands: Those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

103

Attachment A. Document Tables

Table 8. Excerpt of aquatic and fish related monitoring from the Blue Mountains forest plans

Proposed 

Monitoring 

Question

Proposed Indicator

Plan 

Parameter Component

Related 

Programs/ 

Indicators

Monitoring 

Frequency, 

Evaluation 

Frequency Monitoring Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why? 

L: legal 

requirement 

S: strategic

C: consultation

1. Status of select watershed conditions. Key ecosystem characteristics related to water resources and watershed conditions, such as water quality, quantity, 

timing and distribution provide the basis for monitoring watershed conditions.

What is the status 

and trend of water 

quality?

Miles of statelisted impaired 

waters

State 303d-list 5 years Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate L, S, C 1.11 Water 

Quality

What is the status 

and trend of 

stream 

temperature?

Stream 

temperature

NRIS-AqS 

temperature 

data, other 

agency 

databases, 

RMRS stream 

temperature 

models

Annual, 

10 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate L, S, C FOR-6 G-38

What is the status 

and trend of 

stream flows? 

Streamflow Federal and state 

agency 

databases and 

Forest Service 

databases

Annual, 

10 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate S, C 1.1.1 Hydrologic 

Function

Are watershed/

aquatics 

standards and 

guidelines and 

BMPs being 

implemented at 

project sites (e.g., 

range, roads, 

recreation, and 

vegetation 

management)?

Multiple Project files, field 

observations

Annual, 

2 years

Implementation High L, S, C 1.1 Watershed 

Function
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

104

Proposed 

Monitoring 

Question

Proposed Indicator

Plan 

Parameter Component

Related 

Programs/ 

Indicators

Monitoring 

Frequency, 

Evaluation 

Frequency Monitoring Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why? 

L: legal 

requirement 

S: strategic

C: consultation

Are watershed/

aquatics 

standards and 

guidelines and 

BMPs effective at 

achieving desired 

on-site conditions 

at project sites 

(e.g., range, 

roads, recreation, 

and vegetation 

management)?

Multiple Field 

observations

Annual, 

2 years

Effectiveness Moderate L, S, C 1.1 Watershed 

Function

What is the status 

and trend of 

watershed 

condition in all 

watersheds and in 

key watersheds?

Multiple 

watershed 

condition 

indicators and 

attributes

Forest Service 

and other agency 

databases

5 years Effectiveness Moderate S, C 1.1 Watershed 

Function

What is the status 

and trend of 

riparian vegetation 

condition?

PIBO 

effectiveness

PIBO and forest 

datasets

Annual, 

5 years

Effectiveness Moderate L,S, C 1.1.2 Riparian 

Function

What is the 

change in the 

distribution of 

known sites for 

selected aquatic 

and riparian 

invasive species?

Presence of 

selected invasive 

species

Federal and state 

agency 

databases and 

Forest Service 

databases

Annual, 

5 years

Implementation, 

Effectiveness

High S, C 1.5 Invasive 

Species

What is the status 

and trend of 

aquatic habitat?

Miles of stream 

habitat improved, 

PIBO 

effectiveness

Forest Service 

databases, PIBO 

datasets

Annual, 

5 years

Effectiveness Moderate L,S, C 1.1.6 Aquatic 

Habitat
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

105

Proposed 

Monitoring 

Question

Proposed Indicator

Plan 

Parameter Component

Related 

Programs/ 

Indicators

Monitoring 

Frequency, 

Evaluation 

Frequency Monitoring Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why? 

L: legal 

requirement 

S: strategic

C: consultation

What is the status 

and trend of 

aquatic habitat 

connectivity?

Miles of stream 

reconnected

Forest Service 

databases

Annual, 

5 years

Effectiveness High L,S, C 1.1.6 Aquatic 

Habitat

3. Status of select set of the ecological conditions required under §219.9 to contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, 

conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern.

What is the 

condition, trend 

and distribution in 

habitats for 

aquatic surrogate

species 

(steelhead, spring 

Chinook salmon, 

bull trout, and 

redband trout

See Status and 

Trend-Aquatic 

habitat, Status 

and Trend-Aquatic 

Habitat 

Connectivity

Forest Service 

databases, PIBO 

datasets

Annual, 

5 years

Implementation, 

Effectiveness

Moderate L, S, C 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What is the 

condition and 

trend of white bark 

pine

Acres infected/

uninfected

Forest Service 

databases, 

Annual, 

5 years

Implementation, 

Effectiveness

Moderate L, S, C 1.13 Special 

Habitat

4. Status of surrogate species to assess the ecological conditions required under§ 219.9.

What are the 

trends in source 

habitat and risk 

factors for boreal 

owl (UMA only), 

western bluebird, 

and fox sparrow?

Changes due to 

management or 

disturbance 

events

Accomplishment 

reports, FACTS, 

Fire GIS layer, 

open route 

density (boreal 

owl and western 

bluebird only)

2 years, 

5 years

Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate S 1.2 Species 

Diversity
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

106

Proposed 

Monitoring 

Question

Proposed Indicator

Plan 

Parameter Component

Related 

Programs/ 

Indicators

Monitoring 

Frequency, 

Evaluation 

Frequency Monitoring Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why? 

L: legal 

requirement 

S: strategic

C: consultation

What are the 

trends in source 

habitat and risk 

factors for 

Cassin's finch?

Changes due to 

management or 

disturbance 

events

Accomplishment 

reports, FACTS, 

Fire GIS layer

2 years, 

2 years (5 years 

for alternatives 

B, C, and F, 

UMA only)

Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate S 1.2 Species 

Diversity

What is the trend 

of northern 

goshawk 

(alternative C 

only)?

Follow established 

protocols

None None Implementation, 

effectiveness

Moderate S WLD-HAB-9

What are the 

trends in 

whitebark pine 

survival and 

recruitment?

Whitebark pine 

survival and 

recruitment

Whitebark pine 

transects and 

plots

5 years, 

5 years

NA Moderate S 1.13 Special 

Habitats

6. Measurable changes on other plan area related to climate change and other stressors that may be affecting the plan area. 

Does new 

scientific 

information 

related to climate 

change indicate a 

need to change 

plan components?

New scientific 

findings

Best available 

scientific 

information

5 years 5 years Low S 1.2 Species 

Diversity, 2.11 

Community 

Resiliency

7. Progress toward meeting the desired conditions and objectives in the plan, including for providing multiple use opportunities. 

Are hydrologically 

connected roads 

being addressed 

consistent with 

plan direction?

Miles treated of 

hydrologically 

connected roads

GIS, INFRA, 

MVUM

Annual, 

5 years

Implementation High S WR-3, 

RMA-RD-10 G123 

RMA-RD-3, 

Objective 

Improve 

hydrologic 

function
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

107

Proposed 

Monitoring 

Question

Proposed Indicator

Plan 

Parameter Component

Related 

Programs/ 

Indicators

Monitoring 

Frequency, 

Evaluation 

Frequency Monitoring Type

Precision/ 

Reliability

Why? 

L: legal 

requirement 

S: strategic

C: consultation

Are 

watershed/aquatic 

restoration 

projects (e.g., 

road 

decommissioning, 

passage 

improvements, 

riparian stream 

habitat 

improvements, 

etc.) being 

implemented at a 

rate consistent 

with forest plan 

objectives?

Annual 

accomplishment 

metrics (e.g., road 

miles 

decommissioned)

Forest Service 

databases

Annual Implementation High S, C 1.1 Watershed 

Function
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

108

Table 9. Key and priority watersheds for the Malheur National Forest. Acres are total National 

Forest System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests.

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170501160101 Upper Big Creek P 12,632

170501160102 Lake Creek P 19,944

170501160103 Bosonberg Creek-Malheur River P 14,749

170501160104 Summit Creek P 23,261

170501160105 Cliff Creek-Malheur River KWS 29,342

170501160201 Headwaters Wolf Creek P 11,428

170501160202 East Fork Wolf Creek P 12,553

170501160203 Squaw Creek-Wolf Creek P 11,540

170501160204 Calamity Creek P 31,400

170501160301 Upper Pine Creek P 26,562

170501161101 Swamp Creek-North Fork Malheur River P 25,560

170501161102 Elk Creek-North Fork Malheur River P 13,523

170501161103 Crane Creek P 28,734

170501161105 Skagway Creek-North Fork Malheur River P 11,005

170501161201 Upper Little Malheur River KWS 31,513

170702010104 Utley Creek KWS 9,264

170702010205 Upper Deer Creek KWS 16,061

170702010206 Lower Deer Creek KWS 12,237

170702010301 Headwaters Murderers Creek KWS 28,960

170702010303 Upper Murderers Creek KWS 10,087

170702010305 Lower Murderers Creek KWS 3,157

170702010501 Headwaters John Day River P 24,554

170702010502 Deardorff Creek KWS 10,861

170702010503 Reynolds Creek KWS 16,382

170702010505 Dads Creek-John Day River KWS 7,093

170702010601 Strawberry Creek-John Day River KWS 9,644

170702010605 Indian Creek KWS 12,236

170702010606 Castle Creek-John Day River KWS 6,347

170702010701 Upper Canyon Creek KWS 22,753

170702010702 East Fork Canyon Creek KWS 15,433

170702010906 Dry Creek-John Day River KWS 6,344

170702011002 Fields Creek KWS 10,801

170702030101 Squaw Creek P 11,145

170702030102 Summit Creek P 13,246

170702030103 Dry Fork P 11,242

170702030104 Clear Creek P 12,145

170702030105 Bridge Creek P 11,468

170702030106 Mill Creek-Middle Fork John Day River P 16,661

170702030201 Vinegar Creek-Middle Fork John Day River P 18,360

170702030202 Little Boulder Creek-Middle Fork John Day River P 17,431

170702030203 Granite Boulder Creek-Middle Fork John Day 

River

P 22,594
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

109

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170702030204 Big Boulder Creek P 11,460

170702030205 Upper Camp Creek P/WCF 18,800

170702030206 Lick Creek P/WCF 10,470

170702030207 Lower Camp Creek P/WCF 10,569

170702030208 Balance Creek-Middle Fork John Day River P 11,172

170702030301 Bear Creek-Middle Fork John Day River P 18,273

170702030302 Big Creek P 17,737

171200020103 Upper Scotty Creek KWS 10,160

171200020201 Upper Bear Creek KWS 19,161

171200020302 Camp Creek KWS 24,626

171200020403 Myrtle Creek KWS 26,910

171200020501 Crowsfoot Creek-Emigrant Creek KWS 13,680

171200020502 Whiskey Creek-Emigrant Creek KWS 19,060

171200020503 Bear Canyon Creek KWS 11,470

171200020504 Little Emigrant Creek-Emigrant Creek KWS 23,039

171200020505 Cricket Creek KWS 22,792

171200020506 Sawtooth Creek KWS 12,453

171200040201 Still Spring Creek-Silver Creek P 14,922

171200040202 Delintment Creek-Silver Creek P 17,606

171200040203 Dodson Creek P 11,679

171200040204 Sawmill Creek P 14,371

NA Number of Priority Watersheds/Total Acres: 34 558,796

NA Number of Key Watersheds/Total Acres: 28 441,866

Table 10. Key and priority watersheds for the Umatilla National Forest. Acres are total National 

Forest System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests.

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170601030201 North Fork Asotin Creek KWS 25,012

170601030202 Lick Creek KWS 8,218

170601030203 South Fork Asotin Creek KWS 11,910

170601030204 Charley Creek KWS 9,241

170601030206 Upper George Creek KWS 8,735

170601041002 Little Lookingglass Creek KWS 20,648

170601060301 Upper South Fork Wenaha River KWS 20,250

170601060302 Lower South Fork Wenaha River KWS 14,760

170601060303 North Fork Wenaha River KWS 17,586

170601060304 Beaver Creek KWS 12,485

170601060305 Rock Creek-Wenaha River KWS 14,389

170601060306 Upper Butte Creek KWS 16,822

170601060307 Lower Butte Creek KWS 11,800

170601060308 Cross Canyon-Wenaha River KWS 19,482

170601060309 Upper Crooked Creek KWS 18,987

170601060310 First Creek KWS 13,576
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

110

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170601060311 Lower Crooked Creek KWS 16,585

170601060312 Dry Gulch-Wenaha River KWS 6,148

170601070601 Headwaters Tucannon River P 24,508

170601070602 Panjab Creek P 16,265

170601070603 Little Tucannon River-Tucannon River P 16,221

170601070604 Cummings Creek P/WCF 8,696

170701020101 Upper South Fork Walla Walla River KWS 17,595

170701020102 Middle South Fork Walla Walla River KWS 14,068

170701020201 Upper Mill Creek KWS 19,456

170701020301 Upper North Fork Touchet River KWS 15,587

170701030104 North Fork Umatilla River KWS 17,476

170701030202 East Meacham Creek KWS 11,949

170701030203 Butcher Creek-Meacham Creek KWS 9,892

170701030204 North Fork Meacham Creek KWS 30,287

170701030205 Camp Creek-Meacham Creek KWS 15,740

170701030206 Boston Canyon-Meacham Creek KWS 8,084

170702020204 Clear Creek P/WCF 19,411

170702020205 Lake Creek P 11,884

170702020206 Lower Granite Creek P 19,012

170702020301 Glade Creek-North Fork John Day River KWS 12,970

170702020302 Meadow Creek KWS 20,649

170702020303 Big Creek KWS 17,744

170702020304 Corral Creek-North Fork John Day River KWS 18,342

170702020401 Headwaters Desolation Creek P 15,054

170702020402 Upper Desolation Creek P 21,076

170702020403 Middle Desolation Creek KWS 13,325

170702020404 Lower Desolation Creek KWS 6,750

170702020702 West Fork Meadow Brook KWS 8,529

170702020706 Ellis Creek-Potamus Creek KWS 14,938

170702020707 Potamus Creek KWS 13,871

170702020801 Swale Creek P 13,147

170702020802 Little Wall Creek P 19,656

170702020803 Skookum Creek-Little Wall Creek P 20,546

170702020804 Wilson Creek P 14,886

170702020805 Upper Big Wall Creek P/WCF 15,631

170702020806 Lower Big Wall Creek P 11,567

Number of Priority Watersheds/Total Acres: 15 247,560

Number of Key Watersheds/Total Acres: 37 553,886
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

111

Table 11. Key and priority watersheds for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Acres are total 

National Forest System acres and may include parts of adjacent national forests

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170502010601 Upper Pine Creek P 18,011

170502010603 Clear Creek P 14,895

170502010605 East Pine Creek P 15,921

170502010606 Fish Creek-Pine Creek P 5,434

170502010608 Lake Fork Creek KWS 19,969

170502010609 Lower North Pine Creek KWS 13,890

170502020101 Upper North Fork Burnt River KWS 16,088

170502020102 Camp Creek KWS 17,075

170502020103 Patrick Creek-North Fork Burnt River KWS 8,099

170502020104 Trout Creek KWS 19,150

170502020105 Petticoat Creek-North Fork Burnt River KWS 12,718

170502020106 West Fork Burnt River KWS 8,694

170502020107 Middle Fork Burnt River KWS 11,406

170502020201 Upper South Fork Burnt River KWS 20,136

170502020202 Middle South Fork Burnt River KWS 19,754

170502020301 Higgins Reservoir-Camp Creek KWS 11,976

170502020302 Higgins Reservoir-Camp Creek KWS 10,056

170502030101 Cracker Creek KWS 18,141

170502030105 Deer Creek KWS 19,267

170502030404 Rock Creek KWS 12,026

170502030501 Upper North Powder River KWS 12,061

170502031002 West Eagle Creek KWS 12,526

170502031004 East Fork Eagle Creek KWS 26,345

170601020101 North Fork Imnaha River KWS 13,303

170601020102 South Fork Imnaha River KWS 17,779

170601020103 Rock Creek-Imnaha River KWS 11,136

170601020301 Salt Creek-Big Sheep Creek P 13,626

170601020302 Lick Creek P 10,235

170601020303 Tyee Creek-Big Sheep Creek P/WCF 11,865

170601020304 Carrol Creek-Big Sheep Creek P 8,553

170601020306 Steer Creek-Big Sheep Creek KWS 14,922

170601020407 Lower Little Sheep Creek-Big Sheep Creek KWS 4,354

170601040101 Tanner Gulch-Grande Ronde River P 15,245

170601040102 Limber Jim Creek P 11,945

170601040103 Meadowbrook Creek-Grande Ronde River P 12,780

170601040104 Chicken Creek P 10,965

170601040105 Sheep Creek P/WCF 18,996

170601040106 Little Fly Creek P 10,583

170601040107 Upper Fly Creek P 10,324

170601040108 Lower Fly Creek P 8,912

170601040109 Warm Springs Creek-Grande Ronde River P 17,119

170601040201 Upper Meadow Creek KWS 16,907
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

112

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

170601040202 Middle Meadow Creek KWS 21,400

170601040203 Upper McCoy Creek KWS 12,145

170601040204 Lower McCoy Creek KWS 5,585

170601040205 Dark Canyon Creek KWS 9,988

170601040206 Lower Meadow Creek KWS 18,165

170601040304 Spring Creek KWS 13,325

170601040306 Rock Creek KWS 5,823

170601040401 Upper Five Points Creek KWS 13,159

170601040402 Pelican Creek KWS 11,637

170601040403 Lower Five Points Creek KWS 11,806

170601040501 North Fork Catherine Creek P 21,581

170601040502 South Fork Catherine Creek P 15,175

170601040503 Milk Creek-Catherine Creek P 4,777

170601040504 Little Catherine Creek P 6,902

170601040506 Little Creek P 3,175

170601040702 Mill Creek P 5,663

170601050101 West Fork Wallowa River-Wallowa River KWS 26,925

170601050102 Upper Prairie Creek KWS 1,745

170601050106 Hurricane Creek KWS 18,530

170601050108 Spring Creek KWS 4,743

170601050109 Wallowa Lake-Wallowa River KWS 4,396

170601050201 Upper Lostine River KWS 11,207

170601050202 Lake Creek-Lostine River KWS 17,070

170601050203 Silver Creek-Lostine River KWS 13,859

170601050204 Lower Lostine River KWS 1,611

170601050401 Upper Bear Creek KWS 21,670

170601050402 Lower Bear Creek KWS 14,789

170601050501 Upper Minam River KWS 22,571

170601050502 China Cap Creek-Minam River KWS 21,845

170601050503 North Minam River KWS 13,983

170601050504 Chaparral Creek-Minam River KWS 22,479

170601050505 Little Minam River KWS 29,036

170601050506 Trout Creek-Minam River KWS 22,806

170601050507 Lower Minam River KWS 4,239

170601060401 Upper Chesnimnus Creek KWS 14,807

170601060402 Devils Run Creek KWS 12,902

170601060403 Middle Chesnimnus Creek KWS 17,814

170601060407 Peavine Creek KWS 15,115

170601060502 Elk Creek KWS 9,719

170601060504 Sumac Creek-Joseph Creek KWS 9,623

170601060506 Davis Creek KWS 7,968

170601060507 Lower Swamp Creek KWS 14,902

170601060508 Cougar Creek-Joseph Creek KWS 12,983
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

113

HUC12 Watershed Name Category Acres

17060106wah0601 Peavine Creek-Joseph Creek KWS 11,242

170601060602 Rush Creek-Joseph Creek KWS 5,670

170601060604 Broady Creek KWS 10,270

170702020101 Baldy Creek-North Fork John Day River KWS 17,096

170702020102 Trail Creek KWS 12,320

170702020103 Onion Creek-North Fork John Day River KWS 9,771

170702020201 Upper Granite Creek P 9,140

170702020202 Bull Run Creek P/WCF 18,767

170702020203 Beaver Creek P 12,119

Number of Priority Watersheds/Total Acres 26 312,708

Number of Key Watersheds/Total Acres 69 946,517 

The following tables show the watersheds with analyses and assessment name and year.

Table 12. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on 

the Malheur National Forest (17/17)

NHD HUC10 NHD HUC Name Assessment Name Year

1705011601 Headwaters Malheur River Malheur Headwaters 2000

1705011602 Wolf Creek Wolf Cr. (L. Malheur) 1996

1705011603 Pine Creek Pine Creek (L. Malheur) 1996

1705011605 Griffin Creek-Upper Malheur River Muddy Creek (L. Malheur) 1996

1705011611 Upper North Fork Malheur River Upper North Fork Malheur 1995

1707020101 Upper South Fork John Day River Upper South Fork John Day 

River

1995

1707020102 Middle South Fork John Day River Deer Creek 2000

1707020103 Murderers Creek Murderers Creek 1997

1707020106 Grub Creek-John Day River Prairie City/Strawberry 1997

1707020107 Canyon Creek Canyon Creek 2004

1707020301 Bridge Creek-Middle Fork John Day 

River

Upper Middle Fork John Day 1998

1707020302 Camp Creek -Middle Fork John Day 

River

Galena 2002

1712000203 Upper Silvies River Upper Silvies 2000

1712000204 Middle Silvies River Silvies Canyon 2000

1712000205 Emigrant Creek Emigrant 1997

1712000401 Claw Creek Wickiup 1998

1712000402 Upper Silver Creek Silver Creek 1998
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

114

Table 13. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on the 

Umatilla National Forest (14/10)

NHD HUC10 NHD HUC Name Assessment Name Year

1706010302 George Creek-Asotin Creek Asotin 1996

1706010408 Willow Creek Phillips Gordon/Willow 2001

1706010411 Cabin Creek-Grande Ronde River Phillips Gordon/Willow 2001

1706010601 Grossman Creek-Grande Ronde River Grande Ronde - Rondawa 2004

1706010705 Pataha Creek Tucannon 2002

1706010706 Upper Tucannon River Tucannon 2002

1707010301 Headwaters Umatilla River Umatilla 2001

1707010302 Meacham Creek Meacham 2001

1707020201 Headwaters North Fork John Day River Upper North Fork John Day 1996

1707020204 Desolation Creek Desolation 1999

1707020205 Upper Camas Creek Camas Creek 1995

1707020206 Lower Camas Creek Camas Creek 1995

1707020207 Potamus Creek-North Fork John Day River Potamus 2006

1707020208 Wall Creek Wall 1995

Table 14. List of watersheds with watershed analysis, assessment name and year of assessment on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (25/19)

NHD HUC10 NHD HUC Name Assessment Name Year

1705020106 Pine Creek Pine Creek 1998

1705020201 North Fork Burnt River North Fork Burnt River 1995

1705020202 South Fork Burnt River South Fork Burnt River 1999

1705020203 Camp Creek South Fork Burnt River 1999

1705020301 Upper Powder River Upper Powder 1998

1705020305 North Powder River North Powder - Wolf Cr. 1999

1705020306 Wolf Creek-Powder River North Powder - Wolf Cr. 1996

1705020310 Eagle Creek Eagle Creek 1997

1706010201 Upper Imnaha River Upper and Lower Imnaha 1998

1706010202 Middle Imnaha River Upper and Lower Imnaha 1998

1706010203 Upper Big Sheep Creek Big Sheep 1995

1706010204 Lower Big Sheep Creek Big Sheep 1995

1706010205 Lower Imnaha River Upper and Lower Imnaha 1998

1706010401 Upper Grande Ronde River Upper Grande Ronde River 1994

1706010402 Meadow Creek Meadow Creek 2002

1706010403 Beaver Creek-Grande Ronde River Beaver Creek 1998

1706010404 Five Points Creek-Grande Ronde River Spring Cr. - Five Points 1995

1706010405 Upper Catherine Creek Catherine Creek 1999

1706010502 Lostine River Lostine 1997

1706010505 Minam River Minam 1999

1706010604 Chesnimnus Creek Upper Joseph 1995

1706010605 Upper Joseph Creek Upper Joseph 1995

1706010606 Lower Joseph Creek Lower Joseph 2002

1707020202 Granite Creek Granite Creek 1997

1707020301 Bridge Creek-Middle Fork John Day River Upper Middle Fork John Day 1998
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

115

Attachment B. Use of the Matrix of Pathways and Watershed 

Indicators and Watershed Condition Framework to Replace 

Riparian Management Objectives

Riparian Management Areas – Functions and Ecological Processes

Introduction

The PACFISH and INFISH strategies adopted riparian management objectives for stream and streamside 

conditions to provide criteria against which attainment or progress toward attainment of the riparian goals 

would be measured. Interim riparian management objectives provided conditions which land managers 

would strive to achieve as they conducted management activities across the landscape in the absence of 

ecosystem analysis. It was not expected that the objectives would be met instantaneously, but rather 

would be achieved over time. The intent of interim riparian management objectives was also not to 

establish a ceiling for what constitutes good habitat conditions. However, measurable riparian 

management objectives did provide a benchmark so management actions would not reduce habitat quality 

and a way to gage inconsistency with the purpose of the interim direction.

The revised land management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

build upon and refine the concepts and components of the interim aquatic strategies by developing a 

comprehensive Aquatic Riparian Conservation Strategy that replaces direction within existing land 

management plans, as amended by PACFISH/INFISH, and the 1995 and 1998 biological opinions for 

listed fish species. The revised land management plans will use watershed condition indicators within the 

1996 National Marine Fisheries Service and 1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service matrix of pathways and 

indicators in drainages that support listed and proposed fish, their designated and proposed critical habitat, 

or both. The revised plans will also use either the 12 core indicators within the Forest Service Watershed 

Condition Framework or the matrix of pathways and indicators within drainages that do not support listed 

and proposed fish species. The use of these approaches will replace INFISH and PACFISH interim 

riparian management objectives. This approach is consistent with the 2014 Interior Columbia Basin 

Strategy that states, “Future conditions/objectives should be based on indicators that are reliably 

measurable and relevant to the conditions described.”

The watershed condition indicators values within the matrix of pathways and indicators were taken from 

the original matrices developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (1996) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (1998). The analysis that led to development of default values involved managed and 

unmanaged watersheds in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho that included both inland native fish and 

anadromous fish. Like riparian management objectives, watershed condition indicators do not to establish 

a ceiling for what constitutes good watershed and aquatic conditions. However, they do provide 

quantitative and qualitative diagnostic criteria to assist in evaluating attainment or progress towards 

attainment of multiple aquatic and riparian desired conditions and compliance with key standards and 

guidelines. Crosswalks are provided in table 15 through table 21 to clarify how certain matrix and 

Watershed Condition Framework indicators tie to specific land management plan desired conditions. 

Measurable watershed condition indicators provide a benchmark by which changes to landscape 

conditions resulting from management activities and natural processes can be measured over time. It is 

not expected that aquatic and riparian desired conditions will be met instantaneously, but rather they will 

be moved toward, or achieved, over time. Attainment of these desired conditions is expected to result in 

diverse and complex habitats capable of providing the combination of habitat features important for the 

life-history requirements of the native fish communities, including federally listed fish, and the dynamic 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

116

ecological processes that sustain them over time. It will also facilitate compliance with the water quality 

standards and other requirements of the Clean Water Act.

The use of watershed condition indicators is to provide a diagnostic tool to assist land managers and level 

1 teams in assessing how well their management actions are designed to implement the land management

plan and move toward related resource goals and desired conditions. Specifically, watershed condition 

indicators in this attachment will assist in:

1. Identifying how management actions may potentially influence the condition and trend of water, 

riparian, and aquatic resources, including native and nonnative fish habitat and a variety of other 

beneficial uses of water designated by the States via the Clean Water Act; and

Making Endangered Species Act effects determinations to listed and proposed fish species and their 

designated and proposed important to assessing Endangered Species Act compliance.

Note: Information explained for footnotes throughout the tables can be found on page 138.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

117

Table 15. Crosswalk between riparian management objectives (RMOs), matrix of pathways and indicators (MPI) watershed condition indicators (WCIs), 

Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) indicators and Blue Mountains land management plan desired conditions for bull trout local population 

characteristics within core areas

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Subpopulation Size

Bull trout: Mean total subpopulation size or 

local habitat capacity more than several 

thousand individuals. All life stages evenly 

represented in the subpopulation.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Not applicable FLS-1 Federally listed species (aquatic and 

terrestrial) are recovered or delisted. Management 

activities improve the conservation status of listed 

species and designated critical habitat. Habitats are 

managed in accordance with conservation planning 

documents, recovery plans, best available scientific 

information, and local knowledge. Critical habitat 

components (i.e., primary constituent elements and 

primary biological features) are protected and 

restored to achieve species recovery.

For listed aquatic species, on National Forest 

System lands spawning, rearing, and migratory 

habitat is widely available and inhabited. Listed 

aquatic species have access to historic habitat and 

appropriate life history strategies (resident, fluvial, 

adfluvial and anadromy) are supported. Recovery is 

promoted through cooperation and coordination with 

tribes, state agencies, federal agencies, and other 

interested groups.

For listed terrestrial species, habitat that adequately 

provides ample resources for all life stages is 

available and inhabited. Recovery is promoted 

through cooperation and coordination with Tribes, 

State agencies, Federal agencies, and other 

interested groups.

For listed plant species, threats such as invasions 

by aggressive, nonnative plants, adverse livestock 

grazing management, and changes in fire frequency 

and seasonality are addressed. Populations achieve 

recovery through cooperation and coordination with 

Tribes, State agencies, Federal agencies, and other 

interested groups.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

118

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Subpopulation Size, continued Not applicable AQ-1 Aquatic habitats contribute to ecological 

conditions capable of supporting self-sustaining 

populations of native species and diverse plant, 

invertebrate, and vertebrate aquatic and ripariandependent species. Aquatic habitats are key for the 

recovery of threatened and endangered fish species 

and provide important habitat components for all 

native aquatic species.

Not applicable Growth and Survival 

Bull trout: Subpopulation has the resilience to 

recover from short-term disturbances (e.g. 

catastrophic events, etc.) or subpopulation 

declines within one to two generations (5 to 10 

years)1. The subpopulation is characterized as 

increasing or stable. At least 10 plus years of 

data support this estimate.2

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Not applicable SD-1 The natural range of habitats for native and 

desired nonnative fish, wildlife, and plant species, 

including threatened and endangered species, 

species identified as regional forester’s sensitive 

species, and surrogate species, is of adequate 

quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to 

maintaining native and desired nonnative species 

diversity. This includes the ability of species and 

individuals to interact, disperse, and find security 

within habitats in the planning area. These habitat 

conditions are resilient and sustainable considering 

the range of possible climate change scenarios. 

Scale: The desired condition for species diversity 

can be applied at a variety of scales (i.e., forestwide, 

watershed, and subwatershed). During project 

analysis and implementation, this desired condition 

should be used concurrently with information 

outlined in the strategy and design criteria part of 

this plan and with consideration of the best available 

climate change projections.

SD-2 Population strongholds for the fish surrogate 

species provide high quality habitat and support 

expansion and recolonization of species to adjacent 

unoccupied habitats. These areas conserve key 

demographic processes likely to influence the 

sustainability of aquatic species.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

119

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Life History Diversity and Isolation 

Bull trout: The migratory form is present and 

the subpopulation exists in close proximity to 

other spawning and rearing groups. Migratory 

corridors and rearing habitat (lake or larger 

river) are in good to excellent condition for the 

species. Neighboring subpopulations are large 

with high likelihood of producing surplus 

individuals or straying adults that will mix with 

other subpopulation groups. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Aquatic Biota

1. Life Form Presence

2. Native Species

SD-1 see above

SD-2 see above

Not applicable Persistence and Genetic Integrity 

Bull trout: Connectivity is high among multiple 

(5 or more) subpopulations with at least 

several thousand fish each. Each of the 

relevant subpopulations has a low risk of 

extinction. 1 The probability of hybridization or 

displacement by competitive species is low to 

nonexistent.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Aquatic Biota

2. Native Species

3. Exotic species, 

invasive species, or 

both

AQ-4 Native fish species have access to historically 

occupied aquatic habitats and connectivity between 

habitats allows for the interaction of local 

populations. Migratory habitats support juvenile and 

adult mobility and survival between spawning, 

rearing, overwintering, and foraging habitats that 

contain areas that are free of obstruction and 

excessive levels of predators of federally listed 

aquatic species; have minimal physical, biological, 

or water quality and quantity impediments (including 

permanent, partial, intermittent, or seasonal 

barriers); and contain natural cover such as large 

wood, aquatic vegetation, rocks and boulders, side 

channels, and undercut banks.

WF-3 Connectivity exists within and between 

watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage 

network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact 

habitat refugia. These network connections provide 

unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling all 

life history requirements of aquatic, ripariandependent, and upland species of plants and 

animals.

Blue Mountains land management plan abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

120

Table 16. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for water quality

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Water Temperature

No measureable increase in 

maximum water temperature (7-

day moving average of daily 

maximum temperature 

measured as the average of the 

maximum daily temperature of 

the warmest consecutive 7-day 

period). Maximum water 

temperature below 59oF within 

adult holding habitat and below 

48oF within spawning and 

rearing habitats.

Temperature 

Bull trout: 7 day average maximum 

temperature in a reach during the following life 

history stages: 1,3

Incubation 2 - 5° C

Rearing 4 - 12° C

Spawning 4 - 9° C

Also, temperatures do not exceed 15° C in 

areas used by adults during migration (no 

thermal barriers).

Steelhead and Chinook: 50 to 57° F16

Water Quality

1. Impaired Waters

(303d Listed)

AQ-1 see above

AQ-3 Aquatic habitat elements (e.g., substrate, 

pools, cover, food, water quality and quantity) are 

in properly functioning and are sufficiently 

distributed to ensure egg and embryo survival, fry 

emergence, and juvenile survival of aquatic 

species to support self-sustaining populations of 

native resident and anadromous fish. Spawning 

and rearing areas contain a minimal amount of fine 

sediment, ranging in size from silt to coarse sand.

WQ-1 Water quality (e.g., temperature, turbidity, 

and dissolved oxygen) of surface and groundwater 

is sufficient to support healthy riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland ecosystems. It is within the range that 

maintains the biological, physical, and chemical 

integrity of the system and is capable of benefiting 

the survival, growth, reproduction, and mobility of 

individuals composing aquatic and riparian 

communities. WQ-2 The quality of water within 

and emanating from the national forests is 

sufficient to provide for state-designated beneficial 

uses, including human uses and meets applicable 

local, state, and tribal water quality criteria.

WQ-3 Water quality in streams within the national 

forests is sufficient to meet applicable state, local, 

and tribal water quality criteria.

RMA-2 The species composition and structural 

diversity of native plant communities in riparian 

management areas, including wetlands, provides 

adequate side channels, pools, undercut banks 

and unembedded substrates. These conditions 

result in a variety of depths, gradients, velocities, 

and structure for seasonal thermal regulation, 

nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of erosion, and 

channel migration and supplies amounts and 

distributions of coarse woody debris and fine 

particulate organic matter sufficient to sustain 

physical complexity and stability.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

121

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Sediment (in areas of spawning and 

incubation; rearing areas will be addressed 

under the indicator “Substrate Embeddedness”

Bull trout: Similar to chinook salmon1: for 

example:

< 12% fines (< 0.85 mm) in gravel; 4

(< 20% surface fines of < 6 mm. 5,6

Steelhead and Chinook: <12% fines 

(<0.85mm) in gravel, 4, turbidity low

Not applicable AQ-1 see above

AQ-3 see above

WQ-1 see above

WQ-2 see above

WQ-3 see above

Not applicable Chemical Contamination/Nutrients 

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Low levels 

of chemical contamination from agricultural, 

industrial and other sources, no excess 

nutrients, no Clean Water Act 303(d) 

designated reaches. 8

Water Quality

1. Impaired Waters

(303d Listed)

2. Water Quality

Problems (Not Listed)

AQ-1 see above

AQ-3 see above

WQ-1 see above

WQ-2 see above

WQ-3 see above

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)

Table 17. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for habitat access

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Physical Barriers

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Man-made 

barriers present in watershed allow upstream 

and downstream fish passage at all flows.

Aquatic Habitat

1. Habitat

Fragmentation

AQ-1 see above

AQ-3 see above

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

122

Table 18. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for habitat

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Substrate Embeddedness 

Bull trout: Reach embeddedness <20% 9,10

Steelhead and Chinook: dominant substrate is 

gravel or cobble (interstitial spaces clear) or 

embeddedness <20%4

Not applicable AQ-1 see above

AQ-3 see above

SC-1 The sediment regime under which aquatic 

ecosystems evolved is maintained, including the 

timing, volume, rate and character of input, storage, 

and transport.

Large Woody Debris

East of Cascade Crest in 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, 

Nevada, and western Montana

>20 pieces per mile; >12” 

diameter; >35’ length

Large Woody Debris

Bull trout: Current Eastside values are being 

maintained at >20 pieces/mile >12 inches 

diameter >35 feet length; 11, also adequate 

sources of woody debris available for both 

long and short-term recruitment.

Steelhead and Chinook: >20 pieces/mile >12 

inches diameter > 35 feet length;7 and 

adequate sources of woody debris 

recruitment in riparian areas.

Aquatic Habitat

3. Channel Shape and 

Function

AQ-3 see above

AQ-7 Aquatic habitats in which the distribution of 

conditions (e.g., bank stability, substrate size, pool 

depths, size and frequencies, channel morphology, 

large woody debris size and frequency) in the 

population of watersheds on the national forest is 

similar to the distribution of conditions in the 

population of similar, reference condition 

watersheds. The distribution of conditions in 

individual streams vary depending on valley, 

riparian, and channel characteristics.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

123

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Pool Frequency

Channel

Width (ft.) No. Pools/Mile

10 96

20 56

25 47

50 26

75 23

100 18

125 14

150 12

200 9

Pool Frequency and Quality:

Bull trout: Pool frequency in a reach closely 

approximates: 

Wetted width (ft) # pools/mile

 0-5 feet 39

 5-10 feet 60

10-15 feet 48

15- 20 feet 39

20-30 feet 23

30-35 feet 18

35-40 feet 10

40-65 feet 9

65-100 feet 4 

(Can also use formula: pools/mi= 

5280/wetted channel width; (pool spacing = 

#channel widths per pool.). Also, pools have 

good cover and cool water4 and only minor 

reduction of pool volume by fine sediment.

Steelhead and Chinook: 

Channel width (ft) # pools/mile17

 5 feet 184

 10 feet 96

 15 feet 70

 20 feet 56

 25 feet 47

 50 feet 26

 75 feet 23

100 feet 18

Also meets pool frequency standards and 

large woody debris recruitment standards for 

properly functioning habitat

Not applicable AQ-7 see above
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

124

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Large Pools and Pool Quality 

Bull trout: Each reach has many large pools > 

than 1 meter deep.

Steelhead and Chinook: pools >1 meter deep 

(holding pools) with good cover and cool 

water, minor reduction of pool volume by fine 

sediment.

Not applicable AQ-7 see above

Not applicable Off-channel Habitat

Bull trout: Watershed has many ponds, 

oxbows, backwaters, and other off-channel 

areas with cover; side- channels are low 

energy areas.4

Steelhead and Chinook: backwaters with 

cover, and low energy off-channel areas 

(ponds, oxbows, etc.) 4

Not applicable AQ-3 see above

Not applicable Refugia 

Bull trout: Habitats capable of supporting 

strong and significant populations are 

protected and are well distributed and 

connected for all life stages and forms of the 

species.12,13

Steelhead and Chinook: Habitat refugia exist 

and are adequately buffered (e.g. by intact 

riparian reserves); existing refugia are 

sufficient in size, number and connectivity to 

maintain viable populations or 

subpopulations12

Not applicable AQ-3 see above

WF-2 see above

WF-3 see above

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

125

Table 19. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for channel conditions 

and dynamics

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Width-to-Depth Ratio

<10, mean wetted width divided 

by mean depth

Average Wetted Width and Maximum Depth 

Ratio in scour pools in a stream reach.

Bull trout: < or equal to 107,5

Steelhead and Chinook: <10 7,9

Aquatic Habitat

3. Channel Shape and 

Function

SC-3 Channel morphology, structure, complexity, 

and diversity are in ranges that are characteristic of 

the local geology, climate, and geologic processes.

Bank Stability

>80% stable

Streambank Condition 

Bull trout: >80% of any stream reach has > or 

equal to 90% stability.5

Steelhead and Chinook: >90% stable; i.e., on 

average less than 10% of banks are actively 

eroding7

Not applicable SC-2 The physical integrity of the aquatic system, 

including shorelines, banks, and bottom 

configurations, are properly functioning and in 

dynamic equilibrium with the flow and sediment 

regimes under which aquatic systems have 

evolved.

Not applicable Floodplain Connectivity

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Offchannel areas are frequently hydrologically 

linked to main channel; overbank flows occur 

and maintain wetland functions, riparian 

vegetation and succession.

Aquatic Habitat

3. Channel Shape and 

Function

SC-4 Channel-floodplain connections are intact. 

Channel bed and bank erosion rates are within 

natural ranges and do not result in degraded 

aquatic or riparian habitats or channel alteration.

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

126

Table 20. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for flow and hydrology

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Change in Peak and Base Flows 

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Watershed 

hydrograph indicates peak flow, base flow and 

flow timing characteristics comparable to an 

undisturbed watershed of similar size, geology 

and geography.

Water Quantity

1. Flow Characteristics

HF-1 Flow regimes, including water yield, timing, 

frequency, magnitude, and duration of runoff, are 

sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of 

movement of sediment, nutrients, and wood. The 

timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution 

of peak, high, and low flows are within the natural 

range of variability in which the system developed.

Not applicable Change in Drainage Network

Bull trout: Zero or minimum increases in active 

channel length correlated with human caused 

disturbance.

Steelhead and Chinook: zero or minimum 

increases in drainage network density due to 

roads18,19

Not applicable HF-1 see above

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)

Table 21. Crosswalk between RMOs, MPI WCIs, WFC Indicators and Blue Mountains land management plans desired conditions for watershed conditions

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Road Density and Location

Bull trout: <1 miles per square mile, no valley 

bottom roads13

Steelhead and Chinook: <2 miles per square 

mile, no valley bottom roads 20

Roads and Trails

1. Open Road Density

2. Road Maintenance

3. Proximity to Water

KWS-2 Roads in key watersheds present minimal 

risk to aquatic resources.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

127

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Disturbance History

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: <15% 

Equivalent Clear-cut Area (ECA) of entire 

watershed with no concentration of 

disturbance in unstable or potentially unstable 

areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area. 14

Roads and Trails

2. Road Maintenance

3. Proximity to Water

4. Mass Wasting

Fire Regime or Wildfire

1. Fire Condition Class 

or

2. Wildfire Effects

Forest Cover

1. Loss of Forest 

Cover

SS-1 The distribution and abundance of forested 

structural stages creates conditions that are 

ecologically resilient sustainable and compatible 

with natural levels of disturbance processes. Table 

12-Table 15 in the land management plans display 

the range of conditions representing the desired 

proportion of each upland forest potential 

vegetation group existing in each of the forested 

structural stages. The range of desired conditions 

reflects the natural variations in the mix of structural 

stage combinations that would be expected to 

occur across the landscape over time and also 

allows for flexibility with regards to addressing other 

desired conditions.

DP-1 Fire adapted and fire resilient landscapes are 

restored and maintained. Wildland fire (planned 

and unplanned ignitions) plays a characteristic 

ecological role in creating forest and rangeland 

conditions that are resilient to disturbances and 

climate changes. Table 5 in the land management 

plans displays the natural fire regimes and their 

associated desired condition ranges for fire severity 

and frequency by potential vegetation group. 

Wildland fire may be suitable on all acres, 

depending on expected fire effects and resource 

objectives.

DP-2 In landscapes that are currently in FRCC 2 or 

3, or exhibit a moderate or high vegetation 

departure score, the FRCC or departure score is 

decreased to FRCC 1 or a low-level departure 

score. In landscapes that are currently in FRCC 1 

or are exhibiting a low vegetation departure score, 

these conditions are maintained over time. Wildland 

fire disturbances and their associated effects occur 

within natural fire regimes similar to those that 

occurred prior to the modern fire exclusion 

(suppression) era. Composition and structure of 

vegetation and fuels characteristics are similar to 

the conditions that existed under the historical fire 

regime.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

128

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Riparian Management Areas 

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Riparian 

management areas provide adequate shade, 

large woody debris recruitment, and habitat 

protection and connectivity in subwatersheds, 

and buffers or includes known refugia for 

sensitive aquatic species (>80% intact), and 

adequately buffer impacts on rangelands: 

percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the 

potential natural community /composition 

>50%. 15

Riparian and Wetland

Vegetation

1. Vegetation 

Condition

WF-1 The watershed-scale processes that control 

the routing of water, sediment, wood, and organic 

material operate at levels that support native 

aquatic species and the proper function of their 

habitat and do not require human intervention or 

restoration.

RMA-1 Riparian management areas (RMAs) within 

any given watershed reflect a natural composition 

of native flora and fauna and a distribution of 

physical, chemical, and biological conditions 

appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting 

the area.

RMA-4 Riparian vegetation has the species 

composition, structural diversity, age class 

diversity, and extent that is characteristic of the 

setting in which it occurs and the hydrologic and 

disturbance regimes in which it developed. The 

condition and composition of small habitat patches 

may change over small temporal and spatial scales 

but remains relatively constant at larger scales. 

Plant communities are similar in species 

composition, age class structure, canopy density, 

and ground cover to plant associations (Crowe and 

Clausnitzer 1997) that are representative of a 

particular setting.

Not applicable Disturbance Regime

Bull trout: Environmental disturbance is short 

lived; predictable hydrograph, high quality 

habitat and watershed complexity providing 

refuge and rearing space for all life stages or 

multiple life history forms. 1 Natural processes 

are stable.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Fire Regime or Wildfire

1. Fire Condition Class 

or

2. Wildfire Effects

Forest Cover

1. Loss of Forest 

Cover

WF-1 see above

WF-2 see above

WF-3 see above

DP-1 see above
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

129

RMOs

MPI Appropriately (bull trout) /Properly 

Functioning Appropriately WCIs

Watershed Condition 

Framework Indicator Blue Mountains Desired Conditions

Not applicable Integration of Pathways 

Bull trout: Habitat quality and connectivity 

among subpopulations is high. The migratory 

form is present. Disturbance has not altered 

channel equilibrium. Fine sediments and other 

habitat characteristics influencing survival or 

growth are consistent with pristine habitat. 

The subpopulation has the resilience to 

recover from short-term disturbance within 

one to two generations (5 to 10 years.) The 

subpopulation is fluctuating around 

equilibrium or is growing. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Not applicable WF-1 see above

WF-2 see above

WF-3 see above

Blue Mountains land management plans abbreviations for desired condition labels are: Watershed Function (WF), Riparian Management Area and Riparian Function (RF), Stream 

Channel (SC), Aquatic Habitat (AQ), Species Diversity (SD), Structural Stage (SS), Federally Listed Species (FLS), Water Quality (WQ), Water Uses (WU), Key Watersheds (KWS), 

Forest Vegetation (VEG) and Disturbance Processes (DP)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

130

Land Management Plan Direction

Guidance in this appendix is specifically tied to standards WM-1S and RMA-1S within the 

revised plan. Making this tie to key management direction is consistent with the INFISH, 

PACFISH, and the 2014 updated Interior Columbia Basin Strategy that states, “Plans should 

provide direction to assure that projects balance short-term risks and long-term benefits to aquatic 

and riparian resources in managing toward desired conditions.” Standards and guidelines, along 

with other components of the land management plan, are intended to collectively improve aquatic 

and riparian functions and processes over the life of the plan. For example, an action that 

proposes to revise an allotment management plan would need to comply with all applicable 

forestwide standards and guidelines. To comply with standard WM-1S the action would need to 

ensure baselines within desired conditions are maintained before the action could proceed. If the 

baseline were outside desired conditions then the action would need to restore or not retard 

attainment of desired conditions before it could proceed. To assist in determining consistency 

with this standard, the land manager would use matrix of pathways and indicators, Watershed 

Condition Framework indicators, or both in this appendix.

Not every project, even in a degraded baseline, will be restorative. Some management actions 

will be proposed in a watershed with a “functioning at unacceptable risk” (impaired function 

according to the Watershed Condition Framework) baseline that will result in short-term 

“degrade” determination. These management actions are appropriate as long as they do not retard 

the attainment of aquatic and riparian desired conditions. If riparian and watershed processes are 

to be restored over time within watersheds that have impaired baselines, it is critical that 

management actions individually and collectively do not further degrade or retard attainment of 

desired conditions, as evaluated using watershed condition indicators. It is also critical that 

management actions in Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy priority 

subwatersheds provide some degree of restoration to watershed condition indicators (Watershed 

Condition Framework indicators) at the appropriate temporal and spatial scales if desired 

conditions are to be achieved. For example, if after ten years management actions in an priority 

subwatershed have only maintained impaired conditions, then restoration would not be realized, 

nor the intent of the long-term Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy.

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators

Pathways and Watershed Condition Framework Criteria

The eight pathways described in table 22 represent a suite of ecological indicators identified as 

watershed condition indicators. The ecological indicators values, or watershed condition 

indicators, found in the matrix of pathways and indicators are diagnostic tools to assist in 

comparing and evaluating current soil, water, riparian, and aquatic watershed conditions. The 

habitat indicators correspond to the physical and biological features, formerly known as essential 

features or primary constituent elements, of designated critical habitat for steelhead and bull trout.

Units of measure specific to each watershed condition indicator are provided, followed by 

functionality definitions for each watershed condition indicator that are represented as ranges 

within their respective units of measurement. There are three functional condition levels 

identified for each indicator: 

(1) functioning appropriately, (2) functioning at risk, and (3) not properly functioning.

The quantitative and qualitative default watershed condition indicator values provided are not 

intended to be standards nor absolute values that precisely define desired conditions. Instead, the 

values and descriptions comprise a diagnostic tool to promote discussions and evaluations of the 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

131

environmental functional relationships specific to the watershed being considered for 

management actions. Watershed condition indicators are criteria to assist in evaluating progress 

towards an attainment of soil, water, riparian, and aquatic goals. They do not replace state and 

federal water quality standards under the Clean Water Act or State laws, nor do they make 

determination of effects to listed fish from proposed management actions considered through the 

section 7 consultation process.

It is critical that watershed condition indicators be refined, as needed, to better reflect conditions 

that are functionally attainable in a specific area based on the geoclimatic setting, which includes 

local geology, land and channel form, climate, potential vegetation, historic and recoverable fish 

habitat. If default watershed condition indicator values are not functionally attainable given the 

inherent characteristics of the watershed being considered or if better local data are available to 

help define a more site- or watershed-specific watershed condition indicator value, follow 

procedures in the “Indicator Adaptation” section in this appendix to document the basis for the 

change. If local data relating to a specific watershed condition indicator are not available for 

comparison and verification, then appropriate default watershed condition indicator values can be 

used.

The suite of relevant watershed condition indicators, considered together, encompasses the 

environmental baseline or current condition for the analysis area (for example, subwatershed) and 

associated aquatic resources. The user must realize not every indicator may be relevant to every 

area assessed. For example, indicators specific to only bull trout subpopulation characteristics (for 

example, life history, genetic characteristics, etc.) would not be completed if bull trout were 

absent (for example, currently or historically) in the assessment area. In these situations, a “not 

applicable” should be recorded under the desired and existing condition columns.

Note: Information explained for footnotes throughout the tables can be found on page 138.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

132

Table 22. Matrix of pathways and indicators 

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Species Population characteristics: 

Bull trout only: subpopulation characteristics within subpopulation watersheds (occupied habitat only)

Steelhead/Chinook only: MSA population characteristics

Subpopulation size Bull trout: Mean total subpopulation size 

or local habitat capacity more than 

several thousand individuals. All life 

stages evenly represented in the 

subpopulation.1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Adults in subpopulation are less than 

500 but greater than 50.1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Adults in subpopulation has 

less than 50.1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Growth and Survival Bull trout: Subpopulation has the 

resilience to recover from short-term 

disturbances (e.g. catastrophic events, 

etc.) or subpopulation declines within 

one to two generations (5 to 10 years)1. 

The subpopulation is characterized as 

increasing or stable. At least 10 plus 

years of data support this estimate.2

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: When disturbed, the subpopulation 

will not recover to pre-disturbance conditions 

within one generation (5 years). Survival or 

growth rates have been reduced from those in 

the best habitats. The subpopulation is reduced 

in size, but the reduction does not represent a 

long-term trend1. At lead 10 plus years of data 

support this characterization. 2 If less data is 

available and a trend cannot be confirmed a 

subpopulation will be considered at risk until 

enough data is available to accurately 

determine its trend.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: The subpopulation is 

characterized as in rapid decline or is 

maintaining at alarmingly low numbers. 

Under current management, the 

subpopulation condition will not improve 

within two generations (5 to 10 years.)1

This is supported by a minimum of 5 plus 

years of data.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Life History Diversity 

and Isolation

Bull trout: The migratory form is present 

and the subpopulation exists in close 

proximity to other spawning and rearing 

groups. Migratory corridors and rearing 

habitat (lake or larger river) are in good 

to excellent condition for the species. 

Neighboring subpopulations are large 

with high likelihood of producing surplus 

individuals or straying adults that will mix 

with other subpopulation groups. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: The migratory form is present but the 

subpopulation is not close to other 

subpopulations or habitat disruption has 

produced a strong correlation among 

subpopulations that do exist in proximity to each

other. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: The migratory form is absent 

and the subpopulation is isolated to the 

local stream or a small watershed not 

likely to support more than 2,000 fish. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

133

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Persistence and 

Genetic Integrity

Bull trout: Connectivity is high among 

multiple (5 or more) subpopulations with 

at least several thousand fish each. 

Each of the relevant subpopulations has 

a low risk of extinction. 1 The probability 

of hybridization or displacement by 

competitive species is low to 

nonexistent.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Connectivity among multiple 

subpopulations does occur, but habitats are 

more fragmented. Only one or two of the 

subpopulations represent most of the fish 

production. 1 The probability of hybridization or 

displacement by competitive species is 

imminent, although few documented cases 

have occurred.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Little or no connectivity 

remains for refounding subpopulations in 

low numbers, in decline, or nearing 

extinction. Only a single subpopulation or 

several local populations that are very 

small or that otherwise are at high risk 

remain. 1 Competitive species readily 

displace bull trout. The probability of 

hybridization is high and documented 

cases have occurred.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

HABITAT

Water Quality:

Temperature Bull trout: 7 day average maximum 

temperature in a reach during the 

following life history stages: 1,3

Incubation 2 - 5° C

Rearing 4 - 12° C

Spawning 4 - 9° C

Also temperatures do not exceed 15° C 

in areas used by adults during migration 

(no thermal barriers).

Steelhead and Chinook: 50-57° F16

Bull trout: 7 day average maximum temperature 

in a reach during the following life history

stages: 1,3

Incubation < 2° C or 6° C

Rearing < 4° C or 13 - 15° C

Spawning < 4° C or 10° C

Also temperatures in areas used by adults 

during migration sometimes exceed 15 ° C.

Steelhead and Chinook: 57-60° F (spawning)

57-64° F (migration & rearing)7

Bull trout: 7 day average maximum 

temperature in a reach during the 

following life history stages: 1,3

Incubation < 1° C or > 6° C

Rearing > 15° C

Spawning < 4° C or > 10° C

Also temperatures in areas used by 

adults during migration regularly exceed 

15° C (thermal barriers present).

Steelhead and Chinook: > 60° F 

(spawning)

> 64° F (migration & rearing) 7

Sediment (in areas 

of spawning and 

incubation; rearing 

areas will be 

addressed under the 

indicator “Substrate 

Embeddedness”

Bull trout: Similar to chinook salmon1: for 

example:(e.g.,):

< 12% fines (< 0.85 mm) in gravel; 4

(< 20% surface fines of < 6 mm. 5,6

Steelhead and Chinook: <12% fines 

(<0.85mm) in gravel 4, turbidity low

Bull trout: Similar to chinook salmon1: e.g.

< 12-17% fines (< 0.85 mm) in gravel4; (e.g.) 

2-20% surface fines. 7

Steelhead and Chinook: <12-20% fines, 

turbidity moderate 7

Bull trout: Similar to chinook salmon1 e.g. 

>17% fines (< 0.85 mm) in gravel; 4 e.g. 

>20% fines at surface or depth in 

spawning habitat.7

Steelhead and Chinook: >20% fines at 

surface or depth in spawning habitat, 

turbidity high

Chemical

Contamination/ 

Nutrients

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Low 

levels of chemical contamination from 

agricultural, industrial and other sources, 

no excess nutrients, no Clean Water Act 

303(d) designated reaches. 8

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Moderate 

levels of chemical contamination from 

agricultural, industrial and other sources, some 

excess nutrients, one Clean Water Act 303(d) 

designated reach. 8

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: High 

levels of chemical contamination from 

agricultural, industrial and other sources, 

high excess nutrients, more than one 

Clean Water Act 303(d) designated 

reaches. 8
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

134

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Habitat Access:

Physical Barriers Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Manmade barriers present in watershed 

allow upstream and downstream fish 

passage at all flows.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Man-made 

barriers present in watershed do not allow 

upstream and/or downstream fish passage at 

base/low flows.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Manmade barriers present in watershed do 

not allow upstream and/or downstream 

fish passage at a range of flows.

Habitat Elements:

Bull trout: Substrate 

Embeddedness in 

rearing areas 

(spawning and 

incubation areas 

were addressed 

under the indicator 

“Sediment”

Steelhead and 

Chinook:

Substrate (fine 

sediment was 

addressed under the 

indicator “Sediment/

Turbidity”)

Bull trout: Reach embeddedness <20%

9,10

Steelhead and Chinook: dominant 

substrate is gravel or cobble (interstitial 

spaces clear) or embeddedness <20%4

Bull trout: Reach embeddedness 20-30% 9,10

Steelhead and Chinook: gravel or cobble is 

subdominant, or if dominant, embeddedness 

20-30%4

Bull trout: Reach embeddedness >30% 

9,10

Steelhead and Chinook: bedrock, sand, 

silt or small gravel dominant, or if gravel 

and cobble dominant, embeddedness 

>30%7

Large Woody Debris Bull trout: Current Eastside values are 

being maintained at >20 pieces/mile >12 

inches diameter >35 feet length; 11, also 

adequate sources of woody debris 

available for both long and short-term 

recruitment.

Steelhead and Chinook: >20 pieces/mile 

>12 inches diameter > 35 feet length; 7

and adequate sources of woody debris 

recruitment in riparian areas

Bull trout: Current Eastside levels are being 

maintained at minimum levels desired for 

"functioning appropriately," 11 but potential 

sources for long term woody debris recruitment 

is lacking to maintain these minimum values.

Steelhead and Chinook: Currently meets 

standards for properly functioning, but lacks 

potential sources from riparian areas of woody 

debris recruitment to maintain that standard.

Bull trout: Current Eastside levels are not 

at those desired values for "functioning 

appropriately", 11 and potential sources of

woody debris for short and/or long-term 

recruitment are lacking.

Steelhead and Chinook: Does not meet 

standards for properly functioning and 

lacks potential large woody debris 

recruitment.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

135

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Pool Frequency and 

Quality

Bull trout: Pool frequency in a reach 

closely approximates: 

Wetted width (ft) # pools/mile

 0-5 feet 39

 5-10 feet 60

10-15 feet 48

15- 20 feet 39

20-30 feet 23

30-35 feet 18

35-40 feet 10

40-65 feet 9

65-100 feet 4 

(Can also use formula: pools/mi= 

5280/wetted channel width; (i.e., pool 

spacing= #channel widths per pool.)

Also, pools have good cover and cool 

water4 and only minor reduction of pool 

volume by fine sediment.

Steelhead and Chinook: 

Channel width (ft) # pools/mile17

 5 feet 184

 10 feet 96

 15 feet 70

 20 feet 56

 25 feet 47

 50 feet 26

 75 feet 23

100 feet 18

Also meets pool frequency standards 

and large woody debris recruitment 

standards for properly functioning 

habitat

Bull trout: Pool frequency is similar to values in 

"functioning appropriately", but pools have 

inadequate cover/ temperature, 4and/or there 

has been a moderate reduction of pool volume 

by fine sediment.

Steelhead and Chinook: meets pool frequency 

standards but large woody debris recruitment 

inadequate to maintain pools over time

Bull trout: Pool frequency is considerably 

lower than values desired for "functioning 

appropriately"; also cover/temperature is 

inadequate, 4 and there has been a major 

reduction of pool volume by fine 

sediment.

Steelhead and Chinook: does not meet 

pool frequency standards
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

136

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Bull trout: Large 

Pools (adult holding, 

juvenile rearing, and 

overwintering 

reaches where 

streams are >3m in 

wetted width at 

baseflow)

Steelhead and 

Chinook: Pool 

Quality 

Bull trout: Each reach has many large 

pools > than 1 meter deep.

Steelhead and Chinook: pools >1 meter 

deep (holding pools) with good cover 

and cool water, minor reduction of pool 

volume by fine sediment.

Bull trout: Reaches have few large pools (>1 

meter) present.

Steelhead and Chinook: few deeper pools (> 1 

meter) present or inadequate 

cover/temperature, moderate reduction of pool 

volume by fine sediment

Bull trout: Reaches have no deep pool 

(>1 meter).

Steelhead and Chinook: no deep pools 

(> 1 meter) and inadequate cover/ 

temperature, major reduction of pool 

volume by fine sediment

Off-channel Habitat Bull trout: Watershed has many ponds, 

oxbows, backwaters, and other offchannel areas with cover; side- channels 

are low energy areas.4

Steelhead and Chinook: backwaters with 

cover, and low energy off-channel areas 

(ponds, oxbows, etc.) 4

Bull trout: Watershed has some ponds, oxbows, 

backwaters, and other off-channel areas with 

cover; but side- channels are generally highenergy areas.4

Steelhead and Chinook: some backwaters and 

high energy side channels4

Bull trout: Watershed has few or no 

ponds, oxbows, backwaters, or other offchannel areas.4

Steelhead and Chinook: few or no 

backwaters, no off-channel ponds4

Refugia: 

bull trout: see 

checklist footnotes 

for definition of this 

indicator/

Steelhead/Chinook:

Important remnant 

habitat for sensitive 

aquatic species

Bull trout: Habitats capable of supporting 

strong and significant populations are 

protected and are well distributed and 

connected for all life stages and forms of 

the species.12,13

Steelhead and Chinook: Habitat refugia 

exist and are adequately buffered (e.g.,

by intact riparian reserves); existing 

refugia are sufficient in size, number and 

connectivity to maintain viable 

populations or subpopulations12

Bull trout: Habitats capable of supporting strong 

and significant populations are insufficient in 

size, number and connectivity to maintain all life 

stages and forms of the species. 12,13

Steelhead and Chinook: Habitat refugia exist 

but are not adequately buffered (e.g., by intact 

riparian reserves); existing refugia are 

insufficient in size, number and connectivity to 

maintain viable populations or subpopulations12

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Adequate habitat refugia do not exist.12

Channel Condition and Dynamics:

Bull trout: Average 

Wetted 

Width/Maximum 

Depth Ratio in scour 

pools in a reach

Steelhead and 

Chinook: 

Width/Depth ratio

Bull trout: < or equal to 107,5

Steelhead and Chinook: <10 7,9

Bull trout: 11-205

Steelhead and Chinook: 10-12 (NMFS unaware 

of any criteria to reference)

Bull trout: >205

Steelhead and Chinook: >12 (NMFS 

unaware of any criteria to reference)
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

137

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Streambank

Condition

Bull trout: >80% of any stream reach has 

> or equal to 90% stability.5

Steelhead and Chinook: >90% stable; 

i.e., on average less than 10% of banks 

are actively eroding7

Bull trout: 50-80% of any stream reach has > or 

equal to 90% stability. 5

Steelhead and Chinook: 80-90% stable7

Bull trout: <50% of any stream reach has 

> or equal to 90% stability. 5

Steelhead and Chinook: <80% stable7

Floodplain 

Connectivity

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Offchannel areas are frequently 

hydrologically linked to main channel; 

overbank flows occur and maintain 

wetland functions, riparian vegetation 

and succession.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Reduced 

linkage of wetland, floodplains and riparian 

areas to main channel; overbank flows are 

reduced relative to historic frequency, as 

evidenced by moderate degradation of wetland 

function, riparian vegetation and succession.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Severe reduction in hydrologic 

connectivity between off-channel, 

wetland, floodplain and riparian areas; 

wetland extent is drastically reduced and 

riparian vegetation and succession is 

altered significantly.

Flow/Hydrology:

Change in 

Peak/Base Flows

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Watershed hydrograph indicates peak 

flow, base flow and flow timing 

characteristics comparable to an 

undisturbed watershed of similar size, 

geology and geography.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Some 

evidence of altered peak flow, base flow and/or 

flow timing relative to an undisturbed watershed 

of similar size, geology and geography.

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Pronounced changes in peak flow, base 

flow and/or flow timing relative to an 

undisturbed watershed of similar size, 

geology and geography.

Increase in Drainage 

Network

Bull trout: Zero or minimum increases in 

active channel length correlated with 

human caused disturbance.

Steelhead and Chinook: zero or 

minimum increases in drainage network 

density due to roads18,19

Bull trout: Zero or minimum increases in active 

channel length correlated with human caused 

disturbance.

Steelhead and Chinook: moderate increases in 

drainage network density due to roads (e.g., 

~5%)18,19

Bull trout: Greater than moderate 

increases in active channel length 

correlated with human caused 

disturbance.

Steelhead and Chinook: significant 

increases in drainage network density 

due to roads (e.g., ~20-25%)18,19

Watershed Conditions

Road Density and 

Location

Bull trout: <1 miles per square mile, no 

valley bottom roads13

Steelhead and Chinook: <2 miles per 

square mile, no valley bottom roads 20

Bull trout: 1-2.4 miles per square mile, some 

valley bottom roads13

Steelhead and Chinook: 2-3 miles per square 

mile, some valley bottom roads 7

Bull trout: > 2.4 miles per square mile, 

many valley bottom roads.13

Steelhead and Chinook: >3 miles per 

square mile, many valley bottom roads7

Disturbance History Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

<15% Equivalent Clear-cut Area (ECA) 

of entire watershed with no 

concentration of disturbance in unstable 

or potentially unstable areas, and/or 

refugia, and/or riparian area. 14

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: <15% ECA 

of entire watershed but disturbance is

concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable 

areas, and/or refugia, and/or riparian area. 14

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: >15% 

ECA of entire watershed and disturbance 

is concentrated in unstable or potentially 

unstable areas, and/or refugia, and/or 

riparian area. 14
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

138

Diagnostic or 

Pathway Functioning Appropriately Functioning at Risk Not Properly Functioning

Riparian 

Management Areas 

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Riparian management areas provide 

adequate shade, large woody debris 

recruitment, and habitat protection and 

connectivity in subwatersheds, and 

buffers or includes known refugia for 

sensitive aquatic species (>80% intact), 

and adequately buffer impacts on 

rangelands: percent similarity of riparian 

vegetation to the potential natural 

community and composition >50%. 15

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: Moderate 

loss of connectivity or function (shade, large 

woody debris recruitment, etc.) of riparian 

management areas, or incomplete protection of 

habitats and refugia for sensitive aquatic 

species (70-80% intact), and adequately buffer 

impacts on rangelands: percent similarity of 

riparian vegetation to the potential natural 

community and composition 25-50% or better. 15

Bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook: 

Riparian management areas are 

fragmented, poorly connected, or provide 

inadequate protection of habitats for 

sensitive aquatic species (<70% intact, 

refugia does not occur), and adequately 

buffer impacts on rangelands: percent

similarity of riparian vegetation to the 

potential natural community and 

composition <25%. 15

Disturbance Regime 

(bull trout only)

Bull trout: Environmental disturbance is 

short lived; predictable hydrograph, high 

quality habitat and watershed complexity

providing refuge and rearing space for 

all life stages or multiple life history 

forms. 1 Natural processes are stable.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Scour events, debris torrents, or 

catastrophic fire are localized events that occur 

in several minor parts of the watershed. 

Resiliency of habitat to recover from 

environmental disturbances is moderate.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Frequent flood or drought 

producing highly variable and 

unpredictable flows, scour events, debris 

torrents, or high probability of 

catastrophic fire exists throughout a 

major part of the watershed. The channel 

is simplified, providing little hydraulic 

complexity in the form of pools or side 

channels. 1 Natural processes are 

unstable.

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Species and Habitat:

Integration of 

Species and Habitat 

Conditions 

(bull trout only)

Bull trout: Habitat quality and 

connectivity among subpopulations is 

high. The migratory form is present. 

Disturbance has not altered channel 

equilibrium. Fine sediments and other 

habitat characteristics influencing 

survival or growth are consistent with 

pristine habitat. The subpopulation has 

the resilience to recover from short-term 

disturbance within one to two 

generations (5 to 10 years.) The 

subpopulation is fluctuating around 

equilibrium or is growing. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Fine sediments, stream temperatures, 

or the availability of suitable habitats have been 

altered and will not recover to pre-disturbance 

conditions within one generation (5 years.) 

Survival or growth rates have been reduced 

from those in the best habitats. The 

subpopulation is reduced in size, but the 

reduction does not represent a long-term trend. 

The subpopulation is stable or fluctuating in a

downward trend. Connectivity among 

subpopulations occurs but habitats are more 

fragmented. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

Bull trout: Cumulative disruption of 

habitat has resulted in a clear declining 

trend in the subpopulation size. Under 

current management, habitat conditions 

will not improve within two generations (5 

to 10 years.) Little or no connectivity 

remains among subpopulations. The 

subpopulation survival and recruitment 

responds sharply to normal 

environmental events. 1

Steelhead and Chinook: no indicator

1. Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Boise, ID.

2. Rieman, B.E. and D.L. Meyers. 1997. Use of redd counts to detect trends in bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) populations. Conservation Biology 11(4): 1015-1018.

3. Buchanan, D.V. and S.V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to protect and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon. In W.C. 

Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference Proceedings. P8.

4. Washington Timber/Fish Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research Committee, 1993. Watershed Analysis Manual (Version 2.0). Washington Department of Natural 

Resources.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

139

5. Overton, C.K., J.D. McIntyre, R. Armstrong, S.L. Whitewell, and K.A. Duncan. 1995. User’s guide to fish habitat: descriptions that represent natural conditions in the Salmon River 

Basin, Idaho. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-322.

6. Overton, C.K., S.P. Wollrab, B.C. Roberts, and M.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northern/Intermountain Regions) Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Gen Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-346.

7. Biological Opinion on Land and Resource Management Plans for the: Boise, Challis, Nez Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. 

March 1, 1995.

8. A Federal Agency Guide for Pilot Watershed Analysis (Version 1.2), 1994.

9. Biological Opinion on Implementation of Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of 

California (PACFISH). National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, January 23, 1995.

10. Shepard, B.B., K.L. Pratt, and P.J. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the Upper Flathead River Basin, MT. Environmental Protection Agency Rep. 

Contract No. R008224-01-5.

11. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Appendices.

12. Frissell, C.A., Liss, W.J., and David Bayles. 1993. An Integrated Biophysical Strategy for Ecological Restoration of Large Watersheds. Proceedings from the Symposium on 

Changing Roles in Water Resources Management and Policy, June 27-30, 1993 (American Water Resources Association), p. 449-456.

13. Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell, B.E. Rieman, R.F. Thurow, J.E. Williams and others. 1997. Chapter 4: Broadscale Assessment of Aquatic Species and Habitats. In T.M. Quigley and S. J. 

Arbelbide eds “An Assessment of Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin and Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins Volume III. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-405.

14. Northwest Forest Plan. 1994. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

15. Winward, A.H. 1989 Ecological Status of Vegetation as a base for Multiple Product Management. Abstracts 42nd annual meeting, Society for Range Management, Billings MT, 

Denver CO: Society for Range Management: p. 277.

16. Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in Streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138. Meehan, W.R., ed.

17. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Section 7 Fish Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin.

18. Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic Integration of Forest Roads with Stream Networks in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Geosciences Department, Oregon

State University.

19. For example, see Elk River Watershed Analysis Report, 1995. Siskiyou National Forest, Oregon.

20. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Determining the Risk of Cumulative Watershed Effects Resulting from Multiple Activities.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

140

Matrix “Environmental Baseline”

The environmental baseline section of the matrix in table 23 is similar to “Step 3: Description of 

Current Conditions” section for soil, water, riparian and aquatic resources described in version 

2.2 of the Federal Guide for Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (1995). Completion of 

this part of the matrix provides the supporting documentation and rationale for the evaluations 

and determinations of the environmental baseline condition included in a watershed or projectspecific National Environmental Policy Act analysis. The matrix was intended to characterize 

environmental baselines at the watershed scale (5th field hydrologic unit). However, baselines can 

be assessed at multiple spatial scales (for example, 4th to 7th field hydrologic units) with caution 

that at very fine scales some indicators (for example, disturbance history) may not be applicable. 

When evaluating the baseline condition, all land ownerships should be included at the relevant 

spatial scale for which the matrix is completed.

The current condition of each watershed condition indicator is represented as falling within its 

respective functionality class as described in table 22, including any refinements to the default 

values with a footnote listing what process was used to modify them. Thus, this evaluation 

documents whether an analysis area (for example, subwatershed) is “functioning appropriately”, 

“functioning at risk” or “functioning at unacceptable risk” with respect to the conditions 

evaluated by a particular watershed condition indicator. The units of measure for watershed 

condition indicators are generally reported in one of two ways: (1) quantitative metrics that have 

associated numeric values (for example, “large woody debris: more than 20 pieces per mile”); or 

(2) qualitative descriptions based on field reviews, professional judgment, etc. (for example, 

“physical barriers: man-made barriers present”). Different approaches are needed because 

numeric data are not always readily available for every watershed condition indicator or there are 

no reliable numeric values. In such cases, a qualitative description of overall functionality may be 

the only appropriate method to describe the value. When documenting the baseline condition in 

the matrix, the rationale for that condition must be supported with a narrative description in the 

project analysis.

Ideally, the baseline condition determination is based on field measurements: habitat inventories, 

the status and trend of stream habitat and riparian areas from PACFISH-INFISH biological 

opinion monitoring program data, etc. If data are not available, another form of measurement,

professional judgment, or both must be applied. Those projects that have a greater chance of 

causing adverse effects in areas with no to little baseline information should conduct the 

appropriate level of field surveys to support the decision. The level of information collected 

should be commensurate with the scope and scale of project being proposed.

The suite of relevant watershed condition indicators, considered together, encompasses the 

environmental baseline for the relevant spatial scale and associated aquatic resources. The user 

must realize not every indicator may be relevant to every area assessed. For example, indicators 

specific to only bull trout subpopulation characteristics (for example, life history, genetic 

characteristics, etc.) would not be completed if bull trout were currently or historically absent in 

the assessment area. In these situations, a “not applicable” should be recorded under the desired 

and existing condition columns.

Matrix “Effects of the Management Action” 

The matrix provides a synthesis of the collective effects of a proposed or ongoing action(s) on 

watershed and aquatic habitat conditions and processes, as measured by watershed condition 

indicators. This evaluation will assist the land manager in determining compliance with important 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

141

land management plan standards and guidelines, and if water and aquatic resources will be 

sustained.

The effects of management actions described in table 23 are represented as a change in the 

functionality of the conditions and processes evaluated by the watershed condition indicator or 

indicators that would likely result from proposed or ongoing management actions. Effects are 

identified based on the amount of restoration or degradation for each watershed condition 

indicator. Table 23 is designed to be used in conjunction with reference conditions (table 22) and 

environmental baseline conditions. Together they document the effects on watershed and aquatic 

habitat conditions and processes in terms of being “restored”, “maintained”, “degraded”, or “not 

applicable”. As with baseline conditions, each action impact in the matrix must be supported with 

a quantitative description, a narrative description, or both in the project analysis.

The suite of watershed condition indicators must be considered together, both those affected by a 

proposed action and those not affected, in order to fully describe the condition and trend of the 

subwatershed and associated aquatic resources and designated beneficial uses that would result 

from implementation of a proposed management action or continuation of ongoing actions. Table 

23 provides supporting documentation for the evaluations and determinations of effects included 

in biological assessments, project-specific National Environmental Policy Act analyses, or both.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

142

Table 23. Baseline and project effects matrix 

Diagnostic or Pathway

Properly 

Functioning/

Functioning 

Appropriately

Functioning At 

Risk

Not Properly 

Functioning/

Functioning At 

Unacceptable Risk Project Effects

Bull Trout Subpopulation Characteristics within Subpopulation Watersheds: Restore Maintain Degrade

Subpopulation Size

Growth and Survival

Life History Diversity & Isolation

Persistence & Genetic Integrity

Water Quality:

Temperature 

Sediment/Turbidity 

Substrate Embeddedness

Chem. Contamination Nutrients

Habitat Access:

Physical Barriers

Habitat Elements:

Large Woody Material

Pool Frequency

Pool Quality/Large Pools

Off-channel Habitat

Refugia

Channel Condition and Dynamics:

Width/Depth Ratio

Streambank Condition

Floodplain Connectivity

Watershed Conditions:

Road Density/Location

Drainage

Disturbance History Peak Base Flows

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Disturbance Regime

*Integration of Species and Habitat 

Conditions
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

143

Local Modification of Matrix Indicators 

Previous Modifications for Pool Frequency Standard (applied by Umatilla National 

Forest)

The research conducted for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) was used to determine whether a stream or reach is functioning appropriately or 

functioning at risk. Summaries from this research were described by Shaun McKinney, et al. 

(1996) in Aqua-Talk R-6 Fish Habitat Relationship Technical Bulletin Number 11 “A 

Characterization of Inventoried Streams in the Columbia River Basin.” A stream or reach would 

be considered functioning appropriately if it was equal to or greater than the median value of 

unmanaged streams in the Blue Mountain Provinces based on McKinney et al. (1996) summary.

The median pools per channel width in unmanaged streams in the Blue Mountains Province were 

0.028. This value was compared to the median value for unmanaged streams in the John Day 

Basin (which has a much smaller sample size and is a subset of the Blue Mountains Province). 

The median value for the John Day Basin was 0.027. Due to the larger sample size, the value for 

the entire Blue Mountain Province was used.

Values for pools per mile are listed below along with standards stated in the February 1998 Draft 

of “A Framework to Assist in Making Endangered Species Act Determinations of Effect for 

Individual or Grouped Actions at the Bull Trout Subpopulation Watershed Scale” prepared by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetted width categories are the same as those presented in the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft paper. The midpoint of the width category was used to 

calculate the pools per mile using the ICBEMP value. The values listed below are for comparison 

and the specific standard will be calculated based on the wetted width of each reach. 

Table 24. Wetted width and pools per mile from McKinney and others and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Wetted Width (ft.)

ICBEMP (McKinney et al. 

1996) pools per mile USFWS pools per mile

0-5 59* 39

5-10 20 60

10-15 12 48

15-20 8.4 39

20-30 5.9 23

30-35 4.5 18

35-40 3.9 10

40-65 2.8 9 

65-100 1.8 4 

For streams less than 5 feet wide, reaches would be expected to have a lower density of pools, 

there is no available way to calculate an appropriate value, so the standard would defer to the 

value of 39 pools per mile selected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To calculate the 

standard pools per mile using the ICBEMP value of 0.028 for specific channel widths use the 

following formula (all units in parentheses): 5,280(feet per mile) × 0.028(pools) ÷ channel width 

(feet) = standard (pools per mile) or 147.8 ÷ channel width = standard pools per mile. 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

144

Watershed Condition Framework 

As described previously the revised plan will use the Watershed Condition Framework process or 

the matrix of pathways and indicators within drainages that do not support listed and proposed 

fish species. The Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011) is a 

comprehensive approach for implementing integrated restoration on priority watersheds on 

national forests and grasslands. Similar to the matrix of pathways and indicators, the Watershed 

Condition Framework establishes an approach for classifying watershed condition, using a 

comprehensive set of 12 indicators (figure 17 and table 25 through table 28) that are surrogate 

variables representing the underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions and 

processes that affect watershed condition. Indicators are grouped according to four major process 

categories: (1) aquatic physical, (2) aquatic biological, (3) terrestrial physical, and (4) terrestrial 

biological (figure 17). These categories represent terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystem 

processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of watersheds 

and associated resources.

Figure 17. Core national watershed condition framework indicators
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

145

Each of the four process categories is represented by a set of indicators (table 25 through table 

28). Each indicator is evaluated using a defined set of attributes. For example, the aquatic 

physical processes category contains an indicator for aquatic habitat condition. Aquatic habitat 

condition is evaluated using three attributes: (1) habitat fragmentation, (2) large woody debris, 

and (3) channel shape and function. Indicators can have as few as one attribute or as many as four 

attributes. Each indicator attribute receives a condition rating according to criteria in the 

watershed classification guide53. Attributes are categorized into one of three conditions 

“functioning properly” “functioning at risk” and “impaired Function.” Ratings are expressions of 

the “best-fit” descriptor of the attribute for the entire 6th-level watershed being classified.

Actual on-the-ground conditions in any particular subwatershed may be consistent with or differ 

from these initial classification results. Therefore, when implementing WM-1S, initial Watershed 

Condition Framework results for a given subwatershed need to be critically evaluated to 

determine whether they accurately reflect actual conditions and, if not, refined accordingly.

For example, Watershed Condition Framework evaluation criteria consider subwatersheds as 

functioning properly if they have road densities less than 1 miles per square mile (0.625 

kilometers per square kilometer), functioning-at-risk if road densities are more than 1 miles per 

square mile (0.625 kilometers per square kilometer) but less than less than 2.4 miles per square 

mile (1.5 kilometers per square kilometer), and impaired function when road densities are more 

than 2.4 miles per square mile (1.5 kilometers per square kilometer). Recently published data 

from roads on national forests in Montana (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2016) suggests that these may be 

reasonable thresholds for coarsely characterizing fine-sediment delivery risks to aquatic habitats 

associated with surface erosion from road templates. For example, when road densities exceed 1.5 

kilometers per square kilometer, sediment delivery is generally higher and median streambed 

substrate size finer. Nonetheless, actual road conditions in a particular watershed may differ from 

the initial road-density-based rankings. Recent assessment and monitoring of roads throughout 

the Pacific Northwest (Black et al. 2017), for example, indicates that a relatively small portion 

(1.5 to 9 percent) of the road network delivers the majority (90 percent) of the sediment to 

streams. If the small portion of roads that cause the majority of problems in a particular 

subwatershed have been identified and addressed, then for the purposes of applying WM-1S, the 

subwatershed could be considered to be functioning properly for roads, even if the road densities 

exceed 1.5 kilometers per square kilometer. Conversely, a subwatershed could be considered to be 

functioning-at-risk or impaired function even if road density is less than 0.625 kilometers per 

square kilometer, but the majority of those roads are poorly located, built, maintained, or a 

combination of these things.

Importantly, roads can adversely affect aquatic habitat in many other ways in addition to 

delivering fine sediments from surface erosion on the road template. Thus, any refinements of 

initial road rankings should consider the full suite of applicable impacts and risks that roads pose

in a particular subwatershed. These could include aquatic habitat fragmentation, effects on runoff 

efficiency and peak flows, reductions in shade and large wood delivery, stream-floodplain 

interactions, invasive species, and poaching. The fine sediment and road density discussion above 

is intended only to provide an example of how these adjustments could be done for a variety of 

effects using more refined impact measures than simple road density.

Maintenance and restoration of critical watershed and aquatic habitat conditions and processes are

expected to result in diverse and complex habitats capable of providing the combination of habitat 

features important for the life history requirements of the fish community in the watershed and 

 53 Watershed Condition Framework
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

146

supporting other beneficial uses of water associated with aquatic species and watershed function.

The following tables list the 12 national core watershed condition indicators separated into 

aquatic and terrestrial biological and physical categories.

Table 25. Description of the aquatic physical indicators

Indicator Description

1. Water Quality This indicator addresses the expressed alteration of physical, chemical, 

and biological components of water quality.

2. Water Quantity This indicator addresses changes to the natural flow regime with 

respect to the magnitude, duration, or timing of the natural streamflow 

hydrograph.

3. Aquatic Habitat This indicator addresses aquatic habitat condition with respect to habitat 

fragmentation, large woody debris, and channel shape and function.

Table 26. Description of the aquatic biological indicators

Indicator Description

4. Aquatic Biota This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density of 

native and introduced aquatic fauna.

5. Riparian/Wetland Vegetation This indicator addresses the function and condition of riparian 

vegetation along streams, water bodies, and wetlands.

Table 27. Description of the terrestrial physical indicators

Indicator Description

6. Roads and Trails This indicator addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment 

regimes because of the density, location, distribution, and maintenance 

of the road and trail network.

7. Soils This indicator addresses alteration to natural soil condition, including 

productivity, erosion, and chemical contamination.

Table 28. Description of the terrestrial biological indicators

Indicator Description

8. Fire Regime or Wildfire This indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and 

sediment regimes because of departures from historical ranges of 

variability in vegetation, fuel composition, fire frequency, fire severity, 

and fire pattern.

9. Forest Cover This indicator addresses the potential for altered hydrologic and 

sediment regimes because of the loss of forest cover on forest lands.

10. Rangeland Vegetation This indicator addresses effects on soil and water because of the 

vegetative health of rangelands.

11. Terrestrial Invasive 

Species

This indicator addresses potential effects on soil, vegetation, and water 

resources because of terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants).

12. Forest Health This indicator addresses forest mortality effects on hydrologic and soil 

function because of major invasive and native forest insect and disease 

outbreaks and air pollution.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

147

Examples of Project Application of Matrix of Pathways and 

Indicators and Watershed Condition Framework Indicators 

Example 1 - Thinning and prescribed fire vegetation treatments are proposed over a large area 

including riparian management areas to reduce wildfire risks. Current inchannel large woody 

debris frequency is “functioning at risk” based on an evaluation of large woody debris matrix of 

pathways and indicators (in areas with listed species, critical habitat, or both) or Watershed 

Condition Framework (areas without listed species, critical habitat, or both) indicators over most 

of the analysis area due to past riparian harvest and stream clearing. The proposed activity should 

be designed in a way that moves ecosystem processes toward desired conditions, leading toward 

attainment of functioning appropriately (matrix of pathways and indicators) and functioning 

properly (Watershed Condition Framework) conditions over the long term, without retarding 

attainment (for example, measurably slows the natural rate of recovery) of those desired 

conditions.

Example 2 - The action is to replace a damaged culvert in a 6th field hydrologic unit with 

federally listed fish with a functioning at risk baseline. Currently, surface fines are between 12 

and 20 percent, and embeddedness is between 20 and 30 percent. This action will cause shortterm adverse effects to turbidity and embeddedness indicators downstream, but impacts will not 

go beyond the 6th field hydrologic unit. The action will also restore the fish passage indicator, 

and will maintain all remaining indicators. This action will be appropriate because it does not 

retard the attainment of riparian processes and functions, and has measurable long-term 

ecological benefits by restoring fish passage.

Example 3 - A new placer mine, timber sale, and road restoration project on Forest Service 

administered lands are planned over several 6th field hydrologic units in the same 5th field 

watershed. The placer mine occurs in a 6th field hydrologic unit where most indicators are 

functioning appropriately (matrix of pathways and indicators) or properly (Watershed Condition 

Framework). The timber sale and road projects occur in hydrologic units where many baseline 

indicators are functioning at risk (matrix of pathways and indicators) or poor (Watershed 

Condition Framework). Even though the placer mine will have short- and long-term adverse 

effects to pool quality and streambank indicators, it is allowed to proceed due to the 1872 Mining 

Law. However, the national forest personnel works with the permittee to avoid and minimize 

effects to watershed condition indicators functioning appropriately and to not retard attainment of 

desired conditions where functioning at risk or not properly functioning, to the extent possible 

within its authorities. The other two projects are designed to restore watershed condition 

indicators in the long term, but will cause degradation in the short term to sediment and peak 

flows at the 6th field scale.

Cumulative effects (as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act) from these actions are 

expected to occur in a low-gradient reach downstream of each project. If cumulative effects are 

determined not to degrade or retard indicator functions, the actions can proceed. If cumulative 

effects degrade indicators at the subwatershed scale, then projects are modified to reduce effects 

or delayed until baseline conditions improve to be consistent with the land management plan.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

148

Indicator Adaptation (How to Modify the Matrix of Pathways and 

Indicators and Watershed Condition Framework Indicators) 

Background

The original matrix values were based on the state of knowledge as of 1995 and used a data set 

that is less well documented, but consisted of data from stream surveys conducted during the 

period 1987-1992 located across the Columbia River basin (Chen et al. 1994). Riparian 

management objectives developed from these surveys have been described as “broad averages” of 

streams believed to possess good habitat for anadromous fish.

An outcome of implementing PACFISH (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 1995) and INFISH (USDA FS 1995), and subsequent biological opinions (NMFS 

1995, 1998; USFWS 1998) was the establishment of a broad scale monitoring network 

encompassing the interior Columbia River basin and headwaters of the Missouri River basin that 

includes more than 200 reference (19 in the Blue Mountains) and well over 500 managed sites, 

including approximately 300 sites in the Blue Mountains (Kershner et al. 2004; Kershner and 

Roper 2010). Based on PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion monitoring results it has become 

apparent that some of the metrics currently used as riparian management objectives were not 

attainable for the majority of reference or managed sites (Henderson et al. 2005; Kershner and 

Roper 2010).

The PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion monitoring program has provided broad scale 

information of the status and trend of habitat and riparian conditions (Henderson et al. 2005; 

Meredith et al. 2013) and more recently has been also used to determine the status and trend of 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions for individual forests and hydrologic subbasins (Archer 

and Meredith 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). The Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

(FEMAT) (1993) recognized that “no target or threshold level of (stream) habitat variables can be 

uniformly applied to all streams” based on the wide range and variability of stream channel 

characteristics that exists in the Pacific Northwest, and suggested instead that habitat objectives 

should be developed for individual watersheds.

Existing PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion monitoring data offers the ability to compare 

habitat attributes for reference conditions from different biophysical settings across broad areas of 

the Pacific Northwest and to compare streams with similar physical habitat characteristics. The 

data and methods exist to describe in more detail what streams are capable of in a given 

environmental setting as well as describe the range of habitat attributes and conditions that may 

exist within individual watersheds or subbasins (Buffington et al. 2004).

As described in National Marine Fisheries Service (1996) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(1998), there will be circumstances where the numeric values or descriptions in the matrix simply 

do not apply to a specific watershed or stream, data are unavailable to support an assessment of 

existing conditions, and/or those data exist in a different format. The PACFISH (USDA FS and 

USDI BLM 1995) and INFISH (USDA FS 1995) strategies also recognize this issue. Specifically, 

those strategies note that the interim RMOs, which are comparable to some of the Matrix indices, 

do not apply in all situations and need to be refined based on local conditions. Kershner and 

Roper (2010) affirmed this conclusion, as they found even in the least disturbed watersheds, none 

of 726 reference or managed reaches evaluated met all of interim the riparian management 

objective values.

Habitat standards have often failed as to protect salmon because they are taken as fixed and do

not focus on the dynamic process that create and maintain ecologically complex and resilient 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

149

watersheds (Reeves et al. 1995; Bisson et al. 1997). Further, because channel and habitat 

attributes vary, the ranges of values of some attributes for different channel types may overlap 

making it difficult to define categories of functional, functional at risk, or functional at 

unacceptable risk. This is why it is critical to focus on the ecological functions and processes that 

must be maintained and restored rather than fixed values that are intended to be general

diagnostic indicators of these processes.

Reference Condition Approach

Ideally, when modifying the matrix of pathways and indicators, functionally attainable indicator 

values should be based on suitable reference conditions based on the capability of streams in a

given biophysical environment. Reference conditions should be as representative as possible of 

the range of conditions expected in the absence of management (Kershner and Roper 2010). 

Reference values may be derived from a number of possible sources, including surveys, historical 

data, inferences from literature, and local landscape conditions.

Due to their importance and variability, there may be particular interest in modifying the stream 

channel indicators in the matrix. The following provides an example of how those indicators may 

be modified at the broad-scale or project scale. This approach builds upon the recommendations 

of Kershner and Roper (2010) and Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010), who recommended selecting 

habitat objectives based on (1) consistently collected data from the area of interest; (2) metrics 

that show a demonstrated response to management; and (3) methods that account for landscape 

characteristics that may influence the value of the objective. The approach uses “reference” or 

minimally managed watersheds to describe the range of stream habitat and watershed condition 

attributes that may be expected under natural conditions in a given biophysical environment. 

These “reference” channel conditions, together with an understanding of key watershed (for 

example, mass wasting) and channel (for example, sediment transport) processes and disturbance 

histories, can be used to established meaningful management criteria against which the health or 

condition of particular stream channels in the watershed of interest can be assessed.

It is intended that habitat indicators not be used strictly as standards as this often has diverted 

attention away from the dynamic processes responsible for the creation and maintenance of 

ecologically complex and resilient watersheds (Reeves et al. 1995; Bisson et al. 1997). The use of 

any set of values as standards could result in reduced variability and diversity of habitat 

conditions rather than promoting the desired diversity and complexity of habitat conditions across 

large landscapes (ISAB 2003).

Examples

As shown in table 29, some indicators, indicator values, or both in the matrix may need to be 

refined, dropped, or replaced. For example, pool frequency is currently evaluated based on habitat 

type and channel width. Specifically, the matrix indicates that stream channels are ‘functioning 

properly’ when pool frequency ranges from 18–184 pools per mile in Steelhead and Chinook 

habitat and from 4–60 pools per mile in bull trout habitat, depending on channel width. As an 

alternative, evaluators could use data from streams in minimally managed “reference” watersheds 

to refine these indicator values. The PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion “reference” data for 

the Columbia Basin, for example, indicates that the expected range of pool frequency values 

varies by channel type. Specifically, it ranges from about 7–160 pools per mile in plane bed 

channels and from 8–295 pools per mile in Rosgen E channels (figure 18). For instance, an 

evaluator could choose to use the 25th percentile of these distributions as an indicator value for 

this matrix of pathways and indicators. In that case, plane bed channels would not be rated as 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

150

functioning properly if pool frequencies in the channels of interest were less than 20 pools per 

mile in plane bed channels or 70 pools per mile in Rosgen E channels.

Figure 18. Distribution of pool frequency (pools per mile) values for streams in 

minimally managed “reference condition” watersheds of the Columbia River Basin: 

plane-bed channels, Rosgen E channels. Data are from the PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion (PIBO) Monitoring Program.

A similar approach could also be used for matrix of pathways and indicators, such as sediment

and turbidity, where available metrics are similar to, but somewhat different from, those specified 

in the matrix. For example, the matrix uses percent fines (less than 0.85 millimeters) in gravel and 

percent surface fines (less than 6 millimeters) to assess this indicator. In contrast, the PACFISHINFISH biological opinion collects data on the median particle size (D50, millimeters) and pool 

tail fines (percent). Similar to pool frequency, PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion data for 

these metrics at reference sites could be analyzed and used to develop specific criteria by which 

stream channels in a particular area could be evaluated where relevant data exists. The same is 

true for the streambank condition matrix of pathways and indicators. In some cases, percent 

undercut banks and/or bank angle (percent) may be more meaningful indicators than streambank 

stability.

In addition to using data from reference sites, evaluators could also use empirically derived 

relationships between channel conditions in reference condition watersheds and various 

geoclimatic variables. Al-Chokhachy et al. (2010), for example, used data from PACFISHINFISH biological opinion reference sites and environment variables to develop regression 

estimates of eight habitat variables (table 29). The regression estimates are converted to scores 

from zero to 10 for each metric, then combined to an overall index of habitat condition for each 

PACFISH-INFISH biological opinion site scaled from zero to 100. The habitat index that is 

currently in use uses only 6 of the original 8 habitat values displayed in table 29. This method 

could be used to predict reference values for any reach for which the specified input data is 

available, allowing a comparison of observed and expected values for any reach of interest.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

151

Table 29. Empirical (multiple regression) estimates of stream channel metrics in reference 

watersheds using selected biophysical variables, Columbia River Basin (Al-Chokhachy et al. 2010).

Biophysical Variables Estimates of Stream Channel Metrics

Percent undercut banks 0.98 - 0.06(grad) - 0.15(precip) - 0.002(area) + 0.08(ign) - 0.18(sed)

Bank angle 58.1 + 6.7(grad) + 14.8(precip) + 0.29(area) + 0.2(segment slope) -

8.9(ign) + 11.7(sed)

D50 (meter) - 5.5 + 0.63(grad) + 0.65(precip) + 0.02(area) - 0.43(drainage den) -

0.32(ign) + 0.0003(elev)

Percent fine sediment (<6 

millimeters)

0.76 - 0.004(area) - 0.11(grad) - 0.19(precip) + 0.12(drainage den) + 

0.09(ign)

LWD volume (cubic meters 

per kilometer)

5.1 + 0.02(% segment forested) - 0.02(segment slope) - 0.001(elev)

LWD frequency (pieces per 

kilometer)

4.1 + 0.02(% segment forested) - 0.02(segment slope) + 0.48(drainage 

den)

Residual pool depth (meter) - 1.1 - 0.24(grad) + 0.004(area) + 0.25(precip)

Percent pools 1.6 - 0.2(grad) - 0.003(area) - 0.0001(elev) - 0.20(precip)

Area=catchment area, square kilometers; precip = average annual precipitation, meters; drainage den = the density of 

streams within the catchment, kilometers per square kilometer; ign = a categorical variable denoting whether the dominant 

geology is igneous; grad = reach gradient, percent; elev = elevation of the bottom of the reach, meters; percent segment 

forested = percentage of the riparian buffer (90 meters on each side of stream) that is forested 1 kilometer upstream from 

the bottom of reach; sed = a categorical variable denoting whether the dominant geology is sedimentary.

Caveats

While this reference condition approach is a viable method for refining matrix of pathways and 

indicators, evaluators should recognize that not all channels are expected to attain these values 

even in the absence of disturbance. Natural biophysical differences (for example, geology, 

precipitation, vegetation) between watersheds results in substantial variability between stream 

channels so that no single set of indicator values can be applied equally to all streams (Bisson et 

al. 1997) and attaining these values would not ensure that the processes responsible for habitat 

formation are functioning or protected (FEMAT 1993). In addition, as noted in Reeves et al 

(1995), natural stream and aquatic habitat conditions are a function of disturbance such as fires 

and floods and will exhibit a range of conditions over time. Therefore, not all aquatic habitats are 

expected to be in a “good” or “desired” condition at all times. Moreover, by definition, if an 

evaluator uses the 25th percentile as an indicator value, then even 25 percent of streams in 

reference condition would not be rated as functioning properly.

Finally, it is critically important that conclusions regarding the status of stream channels be 

determined based on more than just instream conditions. For example, Lisle et al. (2014) noted 

channel conditions can result from multiple pathways and processes, as influenced by both 

natural conditions and human impacts. They therefore concluded that understanding those 

pathways and processes is critical to assessing whether channels have been or are being affected 

by current or past management activities and what, if any, management action is needed. In 

addition, Montgomery and MacDonald (2002), suggested that in-channel metrics should be used 

only as one component of a diagnostic procedure for assessing and monitoring stream channel 

conditions. Specifically they proposed that reach-level channel conditions should be assessed as a 

function of location in the channel network, regional and local biogeomorphic context, 

controlling influences such as sediment supply and transport capacity, riparian vegetation, the 

supply of in-channel flow obstructions, and disturbance history.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

152

Indicator Modification

Given the limitations described above, when a matrix of pathways and indicators or Watershed 

Condition Framework indicator value is not physically or biologically appropriate, given the 

inherent characteristics (geoclimatic setting) of the area, the value should be modified. Indicator 

values should be refined to better reflect conditions that are functionally attainable in a specific 

watershed or stream reach based on local geology, land and channel form, climate, historic and 

potentially recoverable fish species habitat, and potential vegetation. Modification of default 

indicator values may be completed through a variety of methods such as watershed and project 

analysis. It can be done using results of broad-scale and forestwide monitoring and collection and 

evaluation of watershed-specific data, stream-reach-specific data, or both.

It may be appropriate to evaluate habitat and riparian attributes at scales larger than an individual 

watershed but it should be recognized that watersheds of any size or scale will contain a finite 

range of channel, habitat, or riparian attributes and that these attributes may vary between 

watersheds. Because there are a number of ways to modify the default matrix of pathways and 

indicators, each with strengths and weaknesses, the specific methods and data to be used need to 

be defined and agreed upon by the Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in watersheds with federally listed fish and their critical habitat. 

Regardless of what methods are used, written documentation of the methods and procedures, 

quality and source of data, and rationale supporting the modifications should be included in 

record documentation. In watersheds with federally listed fish, critical habitat, or both, 

modification of matrix of pathways and indicators will be coordinated with National Marine

Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through Section 7 consultations, or both.

Riparian Management Areas

As described in the ARCS, riparian management areas are areas where aquatic and ripariandependent resources receive primary emphasis and management activities must be designed to 

benefit those resources. Riparian function and ecological processes descriptions below are 

intended to:

• Ensure interdisciplinary teams consider and understand the appropriate riparian ecological 

processes when planning management actions within or affecting riparian management 

areas designed to maintain or improve these processes.

• Provide additional information to help describe desired conditions. For example, desired 

condition RMA-1 states: “Riparian management areas within any given watershed reflect a 

natural composition of native flora and fauna and a distribution of physical, chemical, and 

biological conditions appropriate to natural disturbance regimes affecting the area.” The 

riparian function and ecological processes can help articulate relevant physical (for 

example, bank stabilization), chemical (for example, nutrients), and biological conditions to 

consider.

• Provide additional information to help interpret RMA-1S. RMA-1S is intended to maintain 

riparian areas when at desired conditions and restore/not retard attainment of desired 

conditions when riparian management areas are impaired. To fully implement this standard 

interdisciplinary teams must identify important ecological processes within the analysis 

area, the status (at desired condition or impaired) of these processes, and evaluate impacts 

to see how an action maintains, restores, and does not retard attainment of these processes. 

Descriptions below can help frame the type of processes to consider, the spatial scale they 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

153

operate, and the important interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that need 

to be considered when defining desired conditions and describing project effects.

Riparian Functions and Ecological Processes: Considerations

Megahan and Hornbeck (2000) state that a properly designed and managed riparian area can 

provide a variety of amenities, while protecting riparian functions and ecological processes and 

diversity of species composition. They further state that a properly designed and managed 

riparian area includes careful management of forests both within, and outside of the riparian area.

Spence et al. (1996) and Quigley and Arbelbide (1997) identify several important considerations 

when designing management activities within or affecting riparian management areas. These are 

as follows:

• A stream requires predictable and near-natural energy and nutrient inputs.

• Many plant and animal communities rely on streamside or wetland forests and vegetation 

for migratory or dispersion habitat.

• Small streams are generally more affected by hillslope activities than are larger streams.

• As adjacent slopes become steeper, the likelihood of disturbance resulting in discernable 

instream effects increases.

• Riparian vegetation: 1) provides shade to stream channels; 2) contributes large woody 

debris; 3) adds small organic matter; 4) stabilizes streambanks; 5) controls sediment inputs 

from surface erosion; 6) and regulates nutrient and pollutant inputs to streams.

Taking a functional approach to delineating a riparian management area by looking at “zones of 

influence” (Spence et al. 1996) allows the qualified specialist to focus on specific riparian 

functions where a relationship between those functions and riparian management area widths are 

known. The ‘zone of influence’ approach provides the qualified specialist a means to distinguish 

between those riparian functions and ecological processes potentially affected by the proposed 

actions and those that, regardless of the riparian management area delineation, the proposed 

actions will not impair.

In general, the riparian functions and ecological processes that should be considered during 

project analysis should include (taken primarily from Spence et al. 1996):

• stream shading

• large woody debris recruitment

• fine organic litter

• bank stabilization

• sediment control

• nutrients and other dissolved materials

• riparian microclimate and productivity

• wildlife habitat

• windthrow

• importance of small streams

• importance of hillslope steepness

The following are brief discussions on some of the riparian functions and ecological processes 

that are intended to assist the practitioner in project analysis.

Stream Shading (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

The ability of riparian forests to provide shade to stream channels is a function of numerous sitespecific factors including vegetation composition, stand height, stand density, latitude (which 

determines solar angle), topography, stream width, and orientation of the stream channel. These 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

154

factors influence how much incident solar radiation reaches the forest canopy and what fraction 

passes through to the water surface. The shading influence of an individual tree can be expressed 

geometrically as a function of tree height, slope, and solar angle. In natural forests, stand density 

and composition may moderate the shading influence of trees within this zone, with trees closer 

to the stream channel and understory shrubs providing the majority of stream shade.

Large Woody Debris Recruitment (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Large wood enters stream channels by a variety of mechanisms, including toppling of dead trees, 

windthrow, debris avalanches, deep-seated mass soil movements, undercutting of streambanks, 

and redistribution from upstream. In some systems, wood delivered from upslope areas (via landsliding) or upstream reaches (via floods or debris torrents) may constitute a significant fraction of 

the total wood present in a stream reach. When evaluating riparian management areas, 

consideration should be given to potential recruitment of wood from upslope areas and non-fishbearing channel in addition to wood delivered by toppling, windthrow, and bank undercutting.

The potential for a tree or portions of a tree to enter the stream channel by toppling, windthrow, or 

undercutting is primarily a function of slope distance from the stream channel in relation to tree 

height and slope angle. Consequently, the zone of influence for large wood recruitment is defined 

by the particular stand characteristics rather than an absolute distance from the stream channel or 

floodplain. Other factors, including slope and prevailing wind direction, may influence the 

proportion of trees that fall in the direction of the stream channel.

Fine Organic Litter (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Smaller pieces of organic litter (leaves, needles, branches, treetops, and other wood) enter the 

stream primarily by direct leaf or debris fall, although organic material may also enter the stream 

channel by overland flow of water, mass soil movements, or shifting of stream channels in 

unconstrained reaches. Little research has been done relating litter contributions to streams as a 

function of distance from the stream channel; however, it is assumed that most fine organic litter 

originates within 30 meters, or 0.5 potential tree heights from the channel.

Bank Stabilization (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Roots of riparian vegetation help to bind soil particles together, making streambanks less 

susceptible to erosion. In addition, riparian vegetation provides hydraulic roughness elements that 

dissipate stream energy during high or overbank flows, further reducing bank erosion. In most 

instances, vegetation immediately adjacent to the stream channel is most important in maintaining 

bank integrity; however, in wide valleys with shifting stream channels, vegetation throughout the 

floodplain may be important over longer time periods. Although data quantifying the effective 

zone of influence relative to root strength is scarce, most of the stabilizing influence of riparian 

root structure is probably provided by trees within 0.5 potential tree heights of the stream 

channel. In addition, consideration should be given to the composition of riparian species within 

the area of influence because of differences in the root morphology of conifers, deciduous trees, 

and shrubs. Specific relationships between root types and bank stabilization have not been 

documented; however, if the purpose of riparian protection is to restore natural bank 

characteristics, then retaining natural species composition is a reasonable target for maintaining 

bank stabilization function of riparian vegetation.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

155

Sediment Control and Importance of Hillslope Steepness (excerpted from Quigley and 

Arbelbide 1997)

The ability of riparian management areas to control sediment input from surface erosion depends

on several site characteristics including the presence of vegetation or organic litter, slope 

steepness and slope roughness, soil type, and drainage characteristics. These factors influence the 

ability of vegetation to trap sediments by determining the infiltration rate of water and the 

velocity (and hence the erosive energy) of overland flow. The likelihood of disturbance resulting 

in discernible instream effects increases as adjacent slopes become steeper. Thus, greater 

preventive measures to avert negative effects to streams, or restore riparian function and 

ecological processes on steeper slopes may be required to prevent or reduce instream effects.

Prior research on a variety of wildland and agricultural settings has demonstrated that surface 

erosion increases with increasing slope steepness, although the increase is not linear. The effect of 

slope has generally been modeled empirically, and has taken the shape of a power function where 

the exponent is less than 1, so that slope effects are large for gentle slopes and decline, as slopes 

get steeper. Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) found that sediment travel distances from road cross 

drains in the Idaho Batholith are proportional to slope gradient (in percent) raised to the 0.5 

power.

Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) present equations for estimating sediment travel distance below 

road fills (non-channelized flow) and cross drains (channelized flow) that incorporate sediment 

volume, obstructions, slope angle, and source area as significant explanatory variables. The 

strongest single variable affecting sediment travel distance from soil disturbing activities is the 

volume of material displaced, or delivered to a point on a slope from a culvert, drain, etc. Over 78 

percent of the variance in sediment travel distance is explained by volume in the culvert model 

(channelized flow) of Megahan and Ketcheson (1996).

They suggest that, except on steep slopes, riparian management areas designed to protect other 

riparian functions will generally control sediments to the degree that they can be controlled by 

riparian vegetation. It is essential, however, that riparian protection be complemented with 

practices for minimizing sediment contributions from outside the riparian area, particularly those 

from roads and associated drainage structures, where large quantities of sediment are often 

produced. In addition, activities within the riparian management areas that disturb or compact 

soils, destroy organic litter, remove large down wood, or otherwise reduce the effectiveness of 

riparian management areas as sediment filters should be avoided.

Nutrients and Other Dissolved Materials (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Riparian vegetation takes up nutrients and other dissolved materials as they are transported 

through the riparian zone by surface or near-surface water movement. However, the relationship 

between riparian management area width and filtering capacity is less well understood than other 

riparian functions and ecological processes. Those studies that have been published indicate 

substantial variability in the effectiveness of riparian management areas in controlling nutrient 

inputs. Identifying an appropriate riparian management area width that can function as a filter for 

nutrients and other dissolved materials depends on the specific type and intensity of land use, type 

of vegetation, quantity of organic litter, infiltration rate of soils, slopes, and other site-specific 

characteristics.

Because of the variability observed in the effectiveness of riparian management areas in 

controlling input of nutrients and other dissolved materials, it is difficult to recommend specific 

criteria for this function. Spence (1996) suggests that for most forestlands, riparian management 

areas designed to protect other riparian functions (for example, large woody debris recruitment, 
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

156

shading) are probably adequate for controlling nutrient inputs to the degree that such increases 

can be controlled by riparian management areas. Exceptions may occur when fertilizer or other 

chemical applications result in high concentrations of nutrients in surface runoff.

Riparian management area widths for nutrient and pollution control on rangelands should be 

tailored to specific site conditions, including slope, degree of soil compaction, vegetation 

characteristics, and intensity of land use. In many instances, riparian management area widths 

designed to protect large woody debris recruitment and shading may be adequate to prevent 

excessive nutrient or pollution concentrations. However, where land use activity is especially 

intense, riparian management areas for protecting nutrient and pollutant inputs may need to be 

wider than those designed to protect other riparian functions and ecological processes, 

particularly when land-use activities may exacerbate existing water quality problems.

Riparian Microclimate and Productivity (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Changes in micro-climatic conditions within the riparian zone resulting from removal of adjacent 

vegetation can influence a variety of riparian functions and ecological processes that may affect 

the long-term integrity of riparian ecosystems. However, the relationship between riparian 

management area width and riparian microclimate has not been documented in the literature. 

FEMAT (1993) and Spence (1996) suggest using the generalized curves in FEMAT 1993, relating 

protection of microclimatic variables relative to distance from stand edges into forests.

Wildlife Habitat (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

The importance of riparian areas to many wildlife species is well documented. However, generic 

recommendations for riparian management areas to protect wildlife are not justifiable because 

each species has unique habitat requirements. Some terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal 

communities rely on the forest and shrubs adjacent to streams and wetlands for all or parts of 

their life cycles. Animals such as beavers, otters, dippers, and some amphibians are obligate 

stream and riparian vegetation dependent organisms. Other bird and mammal species and many 

bat species need the riparian management areas at crucial life history periods or seasonally for 

feeding or breeding. Wildlife has a disproportionally high use of riparian areas and streamside 

forests compared with the overall landscape. Riparian management areas provide habitat needs 

such as water; cover; food; plant community structure, composition, and diversity; increased 

humidity; high edge-to-area ratios; and migration routes. When identifying riparian management 

areas, it is important to also consider the needs of wildlife species.

Windthrow (excerpted from Spence et al. 1996)

Trees within riparian management areas that are immediately adjacent to clearcuts have a greater 

tendency to topple during windstorms than trees in undisturbed forests. Extensive blowdown can 

potentially affect aquatic ecosystems in a number of ways, both positive and negative. In stream 

systems that lack wood because of past management practices, blowdown may immediately 

benefit salmonids by providing structure to the channel. Over the long term, however, blowdown 

of smaller trees may hinder the recruitment of large wood pieces that are key to maintaining 

channel stability and that provide habitats for vegetation and wildlife within the riparian zone. In 

addition, soil exposed at the root wads of fallen trees may be transported to the stream channel, 

increasing sedimentation. Other riparian functions, including shading, bank stabilization, and 

maintenance of riparian microclimates may also be affected.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

157

Importance of Small Streams

Small streams are more affected by hillslope activities than are larger streams because there are 

more smaller than larger streams within watersheds (actual area and extent); smaller channels 

respond more quickly to changes in hydrologic and sediment regimes; and streamside vegetation 

is a more dominant factor in terms of woody debris inputs and leaf litter and shading. Small 

perennial and intermittent non-fish-bearing streams are especially important in routing water, 

sediment, and nutrients to downstream fish habitats.

Channelized flow from intermittent and small streams into fish-bearing streams is a primary 

source of sediment in mountainous regions. In steep, highly dissected areas, intermittent streams 

can move large amounts of sediment hundreds of meters, through riparian management areas, and 

into fish-bearing streams. In-channel sediment flows are limited primarily by the amount and 

frequency of flow and by the storage capacity of the channel. Flows in forested, intermittent 

streams are generally insufficient to move the average-sized wood piece, allowing large wood to

accumulate in small channels. These accumulations increase the channel storage capacity and 

reduce the likelihood of normal flows moving sediment downstream.
158

References Cited for Attachment B

Al-Chokhachy, R., T. A. Black, C. Thomas, C. H. Luce, B. Rieman, R. Cissel, A. Carlson, S. 

Hendrickson, E. K. Archer and J. L. Kershner. 2016. Linkages between unpaved forest 

roads and streambed sediment: why context matters in directing road restoration. 

Restoration Ecology. 24 (5): 589-598.

Al-Chokhachy, R., B. B. Roper and E. K. Archer. 2010. Evaluating the status and trends of 

physical stream habitat in headwater streams within the Interior Columbia River and 

upper Missouri River basins using an index approach. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society. 139 (4): 1041-1059.

Archer, E., R. Al-Chokhachy, J. Heitke, P. Ebertowski, R. Leary, T. Romano and B. B. Roper. 

2009. PACFISH INFISH biological opinion effectiveness monitoring program for 

streams and riparian areas 2009 Annual Summary Report. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fish and Aquatic Ecology 

Unit, Logan, UT. 48 p.

Archer, E. K. and M. Coles-Ritchie. 2007. Trend in physical stream habitat variables in the 

Interior Columbia River Basin, from 2001 to 2006. Attachment and Memorandum to 

Forest Supervisors in Regions 1, 4, 6 and BLM District Managers in Montana, Idaho, 

Oregon, Washington. Logan, UT. 9 p.

Archer, E. K. and C. Meredith. 2015a. Habitat conditions for sites on the Malheur National 

Forest. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion effectiveness monitoring staff, Logan, UT.

Archer, E. K. and C. Meredith. 2015b. Habitat conditions for sites on the Umatilla National 

Forest. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion effectiveness monitoring staff, Logan, UT.

Archer, E. K. and C. Meredith. 2015c. Habitat conditions for sites on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion effectiveness monitoring staff, 

Logan, UT.

Bisson, P. A., G. H. Reeves, R. E. Bilby and R. J. Naiman. 1997. Watershed management and 

Pacific salmon: desired future conditions. In: Pacific Salmon and Their Ecosystems: 

Status and Future Options, Stouder, D. J., P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, eds. Chapman 

& Hall, New York. 447-474.

Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their 

Habitats, Meehan, W. R., ed. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 83-138.

Black, T., C. Luce, R. Cissel, N. Nelson and B. Staab. 2017. Legacy Roads Monitoring Project: 

GRAIP Multi-site Synthesis, Annual Watershed-Aquatics Program Managers Meeting, 

The Dalles, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region.

Buchanan, D. V. and S. V. Gregory. 1997. Development of water temperature standards to protect 

and restore habitat for bull trout and other cold water species in Oregon, In: W.C. 

Mackay, M. K. Brewin, and M. Monita, eds. Friends of the Bull Trout Conference 

Proceedings, 8 p.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

159

Buffington, J. M., D. R. Montgomery and H. M. Greenberg. 2004. Basin-scale availability of 

salmonid spawning gravel as influenced by channel type and hydraulic roughness in 

mountain catchments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 61 (11): 2085-

2096.

Chen, G., D. Konnoff, G. Reeves, B. House, A. Thomas, R. Wiley and G. Haugen. 1994. Section 

7 Habitat Monitoring Protocol for the Upper Columbia River Basin. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest, Intermountain, and Northern Regions, 

Portland, OR. 59 p. + appendices.

Crowe, E. A. and R. R. Clausnitzer. 1997. Mid-montane wetlands classification of the Malheur, 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Baker City, OR, 299 p.

Dale, V. H., L. A. Joyce, S. McNulty and R. P. Neilson. 2000. The interplay between climate 

change, forests, and disturbances. The Science of the Total Environment. 262 (3): 201-

204.

Forest Ecosystem Management Team, [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management; U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Portland, OR. 1039 p.

Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss and D. Bayles. 1993. An integrated biophysical strategy for ecological 

restoration of large watersheds, Proceedings from the Symposium on Changing Roles in 

Water Resources Management and Policy, American Water Resources Association, 449-

456.

Henderson, R. C., E. K. Archer, B. A. Bouwes, M. S. Coles-Ritchie and J. L. Kershner. 2005. 

PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion (PIBO): Effectiveness Monitoring Program sevenyear status report 1998 through 2004. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-162. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 24 p.

Independent Scientific Advisory Board, [ISAB]. 2003. A review of strategies for recovering 

tributary habitat. Bilby, R. E., P. A. Bisson, D. Goodman, R. Gramling, S. Hanna, E. 

Loudenslager, L. McDonald, D. Phillip and B. Riddell. ISAB 2003-2. Independent 

Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power Planning Council, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and the Columbia River Basin Indian Tribes, Portland, OR. 54 

p.

Kershner, J. L. and B. B. Roper. 2010. An evaluation of management objectives used to assess 

stream habitat conditions on federal lands within the Interior Columbia Basin. Fisheries. 

35 (6): 269-278.

Kershner, J. L., B. B. Roper, N. Bouwes, R. Henderson and E. Archer. 2004. An analysis of 

stream habitat conditions in reference and managed watersheds on some Federal lands 

within the Columbia River basin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 24 

(4): 1363-1375.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

160

King, J. G. 1989. Streamflow response to roadbuilding and harvesting: a comparison with the 

equivalent clearcut area procedure. Research Paper INT-401. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 13 p.

Lee, D. C., J. R. Sedell, B. E. Rieman, R. F. Thurow, J. E. Williams, D. Burns, J. Clayton, L. 

Decker, R. Gresswell, R. House, P. Howell, K. M. Lee, K. MacDonald, J. McIntyre, S. 

McKinney, T. Noel, J. E. O'Connor, C. K. Overton, D. Perkinson, K. Tu and P. Van 

Eimeren. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats, Chapter 4. In: An 

assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the 

Klamath and Great Basins, Volume III, Quigley, T. M. and S. J. Arbelbide, eds. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. 1057-1496.

McCammon, B. 1993. Determining the risk of cumulative watershed effects resulting from 

multiple activities. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR.

McKinney, S. P., J. O'Connor, C. K. Overton, K. MacDonald, K. Tu and S. Whitwell. 1996. A 

characterization of inventoried streams in the Columbia River basin. Aqua-Talk R-6 Fish 

Habitat Relationship Technical Bulletin Number 11. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 119 p.

Megahan, W. F. and J. Hornbeck. 2000. Lessons learned in watershed management: A 

retrospective view, Ffolliott, P. F., M. B. Baker, C. B. Edminster, M. C. Dillon and K. L. 

Mora, eds. Land Stewardship in the 21st Century, The Contributions of Watershed 

Management, Proceedings RMRS-P-13, Tucson, AZ, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 177-188.

Megahan, W. F. and G. L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediment 

from forest roads in Idaho. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 32 (2): 

371-382.

Meredith, C., E. K. Archer, R. Scully, A. V. Wagenen, J. V. Ojala, R. Lokteff and B. B. Roper. 

2013. PIBO Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Streams and Riparian Areas USDA 

Forest Service 2012 Annual Summary Report. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

effectiveness monitoring staff, Logan, UT. 49 p.

Montgomery, D. R. and L. H. MacDonald. 2002. Diagnostic approach to stream channel 

assessment and monitoring. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 38 

(1): 1-16.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation -

Biological Opinion. Land and Resource Management Plans for the: Boise, Challis, Nez 

Perce, Payette, Salmon, Sawtooth, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, 

March 1, 1995. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington. 138 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1995. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation. 

Implementation of interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California 

(PACFISH), January 23, 1995. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 53 p.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

161

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of 

effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and 

Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch, Seattle, WA. 32 p.

Reeves, G. H., L. E. Benda, K. M. Burnett, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1995. A disturbancebased ecosystem approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater habitats of 

evolutionarily significant units of anadromous salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. 

American Fisheries Society Symposium. 17: 334-349.

Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale, Federal guide for 

watershed analysis. Portland, OR. 29 p.

Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena. 22 (3): 169-199.

Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes and R. P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach 

to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Environmental Research Services 

Corp., Corvallis, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Elk River Watershed Analysis Report. 

Siskiyou National Forest, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Decision notice and finding of no 

significant impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy [INFISH]. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions,

Missoula, MT; Ogden, UT; Portland, OR. July 28, 1995.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service]. 2011a. Watershed condition framework. FS-977. 

Washington, D. C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. The Interior Columbia Basin Strategy. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. 25 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994a. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of Northern Spotted Owl. 

Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest 

Forest Plan). Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 1994b. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl: Attachment A to the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl.

U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior. 1995. Decision notice and 

record of decision: interim strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing 

watersheds on federal lands in eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of 

California [PACFISH]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department 

of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.
Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy

162

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 1997. Eastside Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Interior 

Columbia River Ecosystem Management Project. BLM-OR-WA-PL-96-037+1792.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 1997. Upper Columbia River Basin Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. BLM-ID-PT-96-

021+1610.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. A framework to assist in making endangered species act 

determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation 

watershed scale. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 30 p.

Washington Timber/Fish Wildlife Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research Committee, 

[TFW]. 1993. Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. Olympia, WA.

Wemple, B. C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, 

western Cascades, Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Winward, A. H. 1989. Ecological status of vegetation as a base for multiple-product management, 

Proceedings, 42nd annual meeting, Society for Range Management, Billings, MT, 

Society for Range Management.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

1

Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance for Malheur 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Relevant desired conditions, standards, and guidelines should be incorporated as project design 

features into management actions and activities in preliminary priority habitat, preliminary 

general habitat and sagebrush focal areas.

General Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

GRSG-GEN-DC-001-Desired Condition – The landscape for greater sage-grouse encompasses 

large contiguous areas of native vegetation, approximately 6 to 62 square miles in area, to provide 

for multiple aspects of species life requirements. Within these landscapes, a variety of sagebrushcommunity compositions exist without invasive species, which have variations in subspecies 

composition, co-dominant vegetation, shrub cover, herbaceous cover, and stand structure, to meet 

seasonal requirements for food, cover, and nesting for greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-GEN-DC-002-Desired Condition – Anthropogenic disturbance is focused in non-habitat 

areas outside of priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas.

54

Disturbance in general habitat management areas are limited, and there is little to no disturbance 

in priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas except for valid existing rights 

and existing authorized uses.

GRSG-GEN-DC-003-Desired Condition – In all greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats, 70

percent of lands capable of producing sagebrush will have 10 to 30 percent sagebrush canopy 

cover and less than 10 percent conifer canopy cover (more restrictive conifer canopy cover 

requirements would occur in breeding and nesting habitat). In addition, within breeding and 

nesting habitat, sufficient herbaceous vegetation structure and height provides overhead and 

lateral concealment for nesting and early brood-rearing life stages. Within brood-rearing habitat, 

wet meadows and riparian areas sustain a rich diversity of perennial forb species relative to site 

potential. Within winter habitat, sufficient sagebrush height and density provides food and cover 

for greater sage-grouse during this seasonal period. Specific desired conditions for greater sagegrouse based on seasonal habitat requirements are in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. Footnote 

references for all three tables are listed below Table 3.

 54 Priority management areas and general management areas may contain non-habitat, but management direction would not apply to 

those areas of non-habitat. However, management direction would apply to all areas within sagebrush focal areas including nonhabitat.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

2

Table 1. Breeding and nesting1,2,3 desired conditions for greater sage-grouse habitat on National 

Forest System lands (seasonal use period March 1–June 30). Apply 4.0 miles from active leks4

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

Lek security Proximity of trees5

Trees or other tall structures are absent 

to uncommon within 1.0 mile of lek 

center, and conifer cover less than 5 

percent within 4.0 miles of lek, excluding 

old trees, culturally significant, actively 

used by special status species, and old 

growth juniper stands7,16,17,18

Lek security Proximity of sagebrush to leks6 Adjacent protective sagebrush cover of 

lek7

Cover

Seasonal habitat extent7 

(percentage of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired conditions)

More than 80 percent of the breeding 

and nesting habitat

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover6,7,8 10 to 25 percent19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Cover

Sagebrush height7

Arid sites (warm-dry)6,7,9

Mesic sites (cool-moist)6,7,10

12 to 32 inches

16 to 32 inches

Cover Predominant sagebrush shape6 More than 50 percent in spreading11

Cover

Perennial grass canopy cover6,7

Arid sites7,9

Mesic sites7,10

At least 10 percent

At least 20 percent20, 23, 24

Cover

Perennial grass height—most 

important and appropriately 

measured in nest area6,7,8

Provide overhead and lateral 

concealment from predators7, 15

Cover

Perennial forb canopy cover 6,7,8

Arid sites9

Mesic sites10

2 to 10 percent24,26, 27, 28

6 to 12 percent24,26, 27, 28

Available suitable 

habitat 

(landscape context)

Seasonal habitat within 4.0 miles of 

leks meeting a majority of the 

desired conditions7, 28, 29, 30

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 percent (55-85)

85 percent (68-100)
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

3

Table 2. Brood-rearing and summer1 desired conditions for greater sage-grouse habitat on National 

Forest System lands (seasonal use period July 1–October 31)

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

Cover

Seasonal habitat extent7 

(percentage of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired conditions)

More than 40 percent of the broodrearing and summer habitat

Cover Sagebrush canopy cover6,7,8 10 to 25 percent

Cover Sagebrush height

7,8 16 to 32 inches 

Cover

Perennial grass canopy cover and 

forbs7,8, 27, 28

Arid sites (warm-dry)

Mesic sites (cool-moist)

More than 15 percent

More than 20 percent

Cover Riparian areas and mesic meadows Proper functioning condition12

Cover Upland and riparian perennial forb 

availability6,7

Preferred forbs are common with several 

preferred species present13

Available suitable 

habitat 

(landscape context)

Seasonal habitat within 4.0 miles of 

leks meeting a majority of the 

desired conditions7, 28, 29

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 percent (55-85)

85 percent (68-100)

Table 3. Winter1 desired conditions for greater sage-grouse habitat on National Forest System lands

(seasonal use period November 1–February 28)

Attribute Indicators Desired Condition

Cover and food

Seasonal habitat extent6,7,8

(percentage of seasonal habitat 

meeting desired conditions)

More than 80 percent of the winter 

habitat

Cover and food Sagebrush canopy cover above 

snow6,7,8 More than 10 percent

Cover and food Sagebrush height above snow6,7,8 More than 10 inches14

Available suitable 

habitat 

(landscape context)

Seasonal habitat within 4.0 miles of 

leks meeting a majority of the 

desired conditions7, 28, 29

Arid sagebrush

Mesic sagebrush

70 percent (55-85)

85 percent (68-100)

1. Seasonal dates can be adjusted; that is, start and end dates may be shifted either earlier or later, but the amount of 

days cannot be shortened or lengthened by the local unit.

2. Doherty, K. 2008. Sage-grouse and Energy Development: Integrating Science with Conservation Planning to Reduce 

Impacts. University of Montana. Missoula, MT.

3. Holloran and Anderson. 2005. Spatial Distribution of Greater Sage-grouse nests in relatively contiguous sagebrush 

habitats. Condor 107: 742-752.

4. Buffer distance may be changed only if 3 out of 5 years of telemetry studies indicate the 6.2 miles is not appropriate.

5. Baruch-Mordo, S. J.S. Evans, J.P Severson, D.E. Naugle, J. D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesecker, M.J. Falkowski. C.A. Hagen, 

and K.P. Reese. . 2013. Saving sage-grouse from trees: A proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a candidate 

species. Biological Conservation 167: 233-241.

6. Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. [In press]. Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management 

and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, CO.

7. Connelly, J. M. A. Schroweder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun.2000. Guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations and 

their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(4): 967-985.

8. Connelly, J. K. Reese, and M. Schroder. 2003. Monitoring of Greater sage-grouse habitats and populations. Station 

Bulletin 80, Contribution 979. University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources Experiment Station. Moscow, ID.

9. 10- to 12-inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this 

type site (Stiver et al, 2015).
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

4

10. At least 12-inch precipitation zone; Artemisia tridentata vaseyana is a common big sagebrush sub-species for this type 

site (Stiver et al, 2015).

11. Sagebrush plants with a spreading shape provide more protective cover than sagebrush plants that are more tree- or 

columnar-shaped (Stiver et al. 2015).

12. Existing land management plan desired conditions for riparian areas and wet meadows (spring seeps) may be used in 

place of properly functioning conditions, if appropriate for meeting greater sage-grouse habitat requirements.

13. Preferred forbs are listed in Table III-2 (Stiver et al. 2015). Overall total forb cover may be greater than that of 

preferred forb cover since not all forb species are listed as preferred in Table III-2.

14. The height of sagebrush remaining above the snow depends upon snow depth in a particular year. Intent is to manage 

for tall, healthy, sagebrush stands.

15. Projects will be designed to provide overhead and lateral concealment of nests on a site-specific basis.

16. Freese, M. T. 2009. Linking greater sage-grouse habitat use and suitability across spatiotemporal scales in Central 

Oregon. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, O.

17. Baruch--Mordo, S., J.S. Evans, J.P. Severson, D.E. Naugle, J.D. Maestas, J.M. Kiesaecker, M.J. Falkowski, C.A. 

Hagan, and K.P. Reese. 2013. Saving sage-grouse from the trees: a proactive solution to reducing a key threat to a 

candidate species. Biological Conservation 167: 233–241.

18. Knick, S., S.E. Hanser, and M. Leu. 2013. Ecological scale of bird community response to pinyon-juniper removal. 

Rangeland Ecology & Management.

19. P.S. Doescher, R.F. Miller, A.H. Winward Soil chemical patterns under eastern Oregon plant communities dominated 

by big sagebrush Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:(1984): 659–663.

20. Gregg, M. A., J. A. Crawford, M. S. Drut, and A. K. Delong. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation of sage-grouse 

nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 162-166.

21. Hanf, J.M, P.A. Schmidt, and E.B. Groshens. 1994. Sage grouse in the high desert of central Oregon: Results of a 

study 1988-1993. United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Series P-SG-01, Prineville, 

Oregon USA.

22. Coggins, K. A. 1998. Relationship between habitat changes and productivity of sage-grouse at Hart Mountain National 

Antelope Refuge, Oregon. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.

23. Crawford, J. A., and L. A. Carver. 2000. Habitat use by sage-grouse on the Beatys Butte allotment. Oregon State 

University. Final Report. Corvallis, USA.

24. Bates, J.D., Davies, K.W. 2014. Cattle grazing and vegetation succession on burned sagebrush steppe. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 67: 412-422

25. Hagen, C. A., J. W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus

urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology (Supplement 1): 42–50.

26. Drut, M. S. 1992. Habitat use and selection by sage-grouse broods in southeastern Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, USA.

27. Drut, M. S., W. H. Pyle, and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Diets and food selection of sage-grouse chicks in Oregon. Journal 

of Range Management 47: 90-93

28. Karl, M. and J. Sadowski. 2005. Assessing big sagebrush at multiple scales: an example in southeast Oregon. 

Technical Note 417. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

29. Evers 2010; Modeling sage-grouse habitat using a state-and-transition model. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 

Ph.D. dissertation. 180 p.

GRSG-GEN-ST-004-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, do not issue new discretionary written authorizations unless all existing discrete 

anthropogenic disturbances cover less than 3 percent of the total greater sage-grouse habitat 

within the Oregon priority area for conservation and the proposed project area, regardless of 

ownership, and the new use will not cause exceedance of the 3 percent cap. Methodology for 

calculating anthropogenic disturbance will utilize consistent approaches with those used by the 

State of Oregon and Oregon Bureau of Land Management. Discretionary activities that might 

result in disturbance above 3 percent at the Oregon priority area for conservation and proposed 

project area would be prohibited unless approved by the forest supervisor with concurrence from 

the regional forester after review of new or site-specific information that indicates the project 

would result in a net conservation gain at the Oregon priority area for conservation and proposed 

project area scale. Within existing designated utility corridors, the 3 percent disturbance cap may 

be exceeded at the project scale if the site-specific environmental analysis indicates that a net 

conservation gain to the species will be achieved. This exception is limited to projects that fulfill 

the use for which the corridors were designated (for example, transmission lines, pipelines) and 

the designated width of a corridor will not be exceeded as a result of any project co-location. 
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

5

Consider the likelihood of surface disturbing activities as a result of development of valid existing 

rights when authorizing new projects in priority habitat management areas.

GRSG-GEN-ST-005-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, only allow new authorized land uses if the residual impacts to greater sage-grouse or their 

habitats are fully offset by compensatory mitigation projects that provide a net conservation gain 

to the species, which will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts by 

applying beneficial mitigation actions. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and 

in addition to what would have resulted without the compensatory mitigation as addressed in the 

greater sage-grouse mitigation framework (see attachment 1). Project impact and mitigation 

assessments will utilize consistent approaches with the State of Oregon and Oregon Bureau of 

Land Management (for example, Oregon habitat quantification tool).

GRSG-GEN-ST-006-Standard – During lekking (March 1 to April 30), restrict surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities, including noise at 10 dB above ambient (not to exceed 20 to 

24 dB) measured at the perimeter of an occupied lek, to lekking birds from 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. within 

a buffer distance of 3.1 miles.

GRSG-GEN-GL-007-Guideline – During breeding and nesting (March 1 to June 15), surfacedisturbing and disruptive activities to nesting birds should be avoided.

GRSG-GEN-GL-008-Guideline – When breeding and nesting habitat overlaps with other 

seasonal habitats, habitat should be managed for breeding and nesting desired conditions 

presented in Table 1.

GRSG-GEN-GL-009-Guideline – Development of tall structures within 2.0 miles from the 

perimeter of occupied leks, as determined by local conditions (for example, vegetation or 

topography), with the potential to disrupt breeding or nesting by creating new perching/nesting 

opportunities for avian predators or by decreasing the use of an area, should be restricted within 

nesting habitat.

Lands and Realty

Special Use Authorizations (Non-recreation)

GRSG-LR-SUA-O-010-Objective – In brood-rearing and nesting habitats, retrofit existing tall 

structures (for example, power poles, cellular towers) with perch deterrents or other anti-perching 

devices within 2 years of signing the record of decision.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-011-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, restrict issuance of new lands special use authorizations for infrastructure, such as highvoltage transmission lines, major pipelines, hydropower, distribution lines, and cellular towers. 

Exceptions must be limited and based on rationale (for example, monitoring, modeling, or best 

available science) that explicitly demonstrates that adverse impacts to greater sage-grouse will be 

avoided by the exception. Existing authorized uses will continue to be recognized.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-012-Standard – In general habitat management areas, new lands special 

use authorizations may be issued for infrastructure, such as high-voltage transmission lines, 

major pipelines, hydropower, distribution lines, and cellular towers, if they can be located within 

existing designated corridors or rights-of-way and the authorization includes stipulations to 

protect greater sage-grouse and their habitats. Existing authorized uses will continue to be 

recognized.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

6

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-013-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, do not authorize temporary lands special uses (facilities or activities) that result in loss of 

habitat or would have long-term (greater than 5 years) negative impact on greater sage-grouse or 

their habitats.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-014-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, require protective stipulations (for example, noise, tall structure, guy wire 

removal, perch deterrent installation) when issuing new authorizations or during renewal, 

amendment, or reissuance of existing authorizations that authorize infrastructure (for example, 

high-voltage transmission lines, major pipelines, roads, distribution lines, and cellular towers).

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-015-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, locate upgrades to existing transmission lines within the existing 

designated corridors or rights-of-way unless an alternate route would benefit greater sage-grouse 

or their habitats.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-016-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when a lands special use authorization is revoked or terminated and no 

future use is contemplated, require the authorization holder to remove overhead lines and other 

infrastructure in compliance with 36 CFR 251.60(i).

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-017-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, if the potential long-term (greater than 5 years) impacts of mitigation (for 

example, relocating or burying transmission lines and pipelines) to greater sage-grouse or their 

habitats are greater than the potential impacts from infrastructure associated with a new lands 

special use authorization, do not pursue the mitigation. If mitigation is not feasible or would 

result in short-term (less than 5 years) or long-term impacts, incorporate additional terms and 

conditions in the special use authorization for protection of greater sage-grouse or their habitats.

GRSG-LR-SUA-ST-018-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, co-locate new infrastructure (for example, high-voltage transmission lines, 

major pipelines, roads, distribution lines, and cellular towers) with existing infrastructure to limit 

disturbance to the smallest footprint, or where it best limits impacts to greater sage-grouse or their 

habitats. If co-location of new infrastructure cannot be accomplished, locate it adjacent to existing 

infrastructure, roads, or already disturbed areas.

GRSG-LR-SUA-GL-019-Guideline – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

outside of existing designated corridors and rights-of-way, new transmission lines and pipelines 

should be buried to limit disturbance to the smallest footprint unless explicit rationale is provided 

that the biological impacts to greater sage-grouse and its habitat are being avoided. When new 

transmission lines and pipelines are not buried, locate them adjacent to existing transmission lines 

and pipelines.

Land Ownership Adjustments

GRSG-LR-LOA-ST-020-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, do not approve landownership adjustments unless the action results in a net 

conservation gain to greater sage-grouse or it will not directly or indirectly adversely impact 

greater sage-grouse conservation.

GRSG-LR-LOA-GL-021-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas with minority Federal ownership, consider landownership adjustments to 
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

7

achieve a landownership pattern (for example, consolidation, reducing fragmentation) that 

supports improved greater sage-grouse population trends and habitats.

Land Withdrawal

GRSG-LR-LW-GL-022-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, use land withdrawals as a tool, where appropriate, to prevent activities that will be 

detrimental to greater sage-grouse or their habitats.

Wind and Solar

GRSG-WS-ST-023-Standard – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do not 

authorize new solar and wind utility-scale, commercial energy development, or both except for 

on-site power generation associated with existing industrial infrastructure (for example, mine 

site).

Greater Sage-grouse Habitat

GRSG-GRSGH-O-024-Objective – Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sagegrouse habitat by removing invading conifers and other undesirable species.

GRSG-GRSGH-ST-025-Standard – Design habitat restoration projects to move towards desired 

conditions (Table 1 through Table 3) using resistance and resilience concepts to reduce impacts of 

invasive annual grasses and altered fire regimes on the sagebrush ecosystem and greater sagegrouse.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-026-Guideline – Sagebrush removal in greater sage-grouse breeding and 

nesting and wintering habitats should be avoided unless necessary to support attainment of 

desired habitat conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-027-Guideline – When removing conifers that are encroaching into greater 

sage-grouse habitat, avoid removing persistent woodlands (old growth relative to the site or more 

than 100 years old).

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-028-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, actions and authorizations should include design features to limit the 

spread and effect of undesirable non‐native plant species.

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-029-Guideline – To facilitate safe and effective fire management actions, 

in priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, fuel treatments in 

high-risk areas (areas likely to experience wildfire at an intensity level that might result in 

movement away from the greater sage-grouse desired conditions in Table 1 through Table 3) 

should be designed to reduce the spread, intensity, or both of wildfire or the susceptibility of 

greater sage-grouse values to move away from desired conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-030-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, native plant species should be used, when possible, to restore, enhance, or 

maintain desired conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-GRSGH-GL-031-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, vegetation treatment projects should only be conducted if they restore, enhance, or 

maintain desired conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

8

Livestock Grazing

GRSG-LG-DC-032-Desired Condition – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, livestock grazing is managed to ensure adequate nesting cover and does not conflict with 

the attainment of other vegetation attributes (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-LG-ST-033-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

do not approve construction of water developments unless beneficial to greater sage-grouse 

habitat.

GRSG-LG-GL-034-Guideline – Grazing guidelines should be applied in each of the seasonal 

habitats in Table 4. If values in Table 4 guidelines cannot be achieved based upon a site-specific 

analysis using ecological site descriptions, long-term ecological site capability analysis, or other 

similar analysis, adjust grazing management to move towards desired habitat conditions in Table 

1 consistent with the ecological site capability. Do not use drought and degraded habitat condition 

to adjust values. Grazing guidelines in Table 4 would not apply to isolated parcels of National 

Forest System lands that have less than 200 acres of greater sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-LG-GL-035-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, consider closure of grazing allotments, pastures, or portions of pastures, or managing 

the allotment as a forage reserve as opportunities arise under applicable regulations, where 

removal of livestock grazing would enhance the ability to achieve desired habitat conditions 

(Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-LG-GL-036-Guideline – Bedding sheep and placing camps within 1.2 miles from the 

perimeter of a lek during lekking (March 1 to April 30) should be restricted.

GRSG-LG-GL-037-Guideline – During the breeding and nesting season (March 1 to June 15), 

trailing livestock through breeding and nesting habitat should be minimized. Specific routes 

should be identified, existing trails should be used, and stopovers on active leks should be 

avoided.

GRSG-LG-GL-038-Guideline – Fences should not be constructed or reconstructed within 1.2 

miles from the perimeter of occupied leks, unless the collision risk can be mitigated through 

design features or markings (for example, mark, laydown fences, or other design features).

GRSG-LG-GL-039-Guideline – New permanent livestock facilities (for example, windmills, 

water tanks, corrals) should not be constructed within 1.2 miles from the perimeter of occupied 

leks.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

9

Table 4. Grazing guidelines for greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat

Seasonal Habitat Grazing Guidelines

Breeding and nesting1 

within 4.0 miles of 

occupied leks

Perennial grass height:2

When grazing occurs during breeding and nesting season (March 1–June 30) 

manage for upland perennial grass height of 7 inches3,4,5

When grazing occurs post breeding and nesting season (July 1–October 31) 

manage for 4 inches4,5,6 of perennial grass height

Brood rearing and 

summer1 

Retain an average stubble height of 4 inches for herbaceous riparian/mesic 

meadow vegetation7,8

Winter1 35 percent or less use utilization of sagebrush

1. For descriptions of seasonal habitat and seasonal periods of greater sage-grouse see Table 1 through Table 3.

2. Grass heights only apply in breeding and nesting habitat with at least 10 percent sagebrush cover to support nesting.

3. Holloran et al. 2005. Greater sage-grouse nesting habitat selection and success in Wyoming.

4. Average droop height, assuming current vegetation composition has the capability to achieve these heights. Heights 

will be measured at the end of the nesting period (Connelly et al., 2000).

5. Hagen C., J.W. Connelly, and M.A. Schroeder. 2007. A meta-analysis of greater sage-grouse Centrocercus 

urophasianus nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Wildlife Biology 13(1): 42-50.

6. Stubble height to be measured at the end of the growing season.

7. In riparian brood-rearing habitat, sage-grouse prefer the lower vegetation (5 to 15 cm versus 30 to 50 cm; Oakleaf 

1971, Neel 1980, Klebenow 1982, Evans 1986) and succulent forb growth stimulated by moderate livestock grazing 

(Neel 1980, Evans 1986); moderate use equates to a 10-cm residual stubble height for most grasses and sedges and 

5-cm for Kentucky bluegrass (Mosley et al. 1997, Clary and Leininger 2000) (Crawford et al. 2004. Ecology and 

Management of sage-grouse grouse habitat).

8. Stubble height to be measured in the meadow areas used by greater sage-grouse for brood-rearing (not on the hydric 

greenline).

Fire Management

GRSG-FM-DC-040-Desired Condition – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, firefighter and public safety are the top priority. Minimize the extent and 

spread of wildfire resulting in loss of sagebrush while considering other high priority values.

GRSG-FM-ST-041-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, do not use prescribed fire, except for pile burning in 12 inches or less precipitation 

zones unless necessary to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater sage-grouse habitat 

consistent with desired conditions in (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-FM-ST-042-Standard – In priority, sagebrush focal, and general management areas, if it 

is necessary to use prescribed fire to facilitate site preparation for restoration of greater sagegrouse habitat consistent with desired conditions in Table 1, the associated environmental analysis 

must identify how the project would move towards greater sage-grouse desired conditions, why 

alternative techniques were not selected, and how potential threats to greater sage-grouse habitat 

would be minimized.

GRSG-FM-GL-043-Guideline – In wintering or breeding and nesting habitat, sagebrush 

removal or manipulation, including prescribed fire, should be restricted unless the removal 

strategically reduces the potential impacts from wildfire.

GRSG-FM-GL-044-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when reseeding in fuel breaks, fire-resistant native plant species should be 

used if available, or consider using fire resistant non-native species to meet resource objectives, if 

analysis demonstrates that non-native plants will not damage greater sage-grouse habitat in the 

long-term.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

10

GRSG-FM-GL-045-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, fuel treatments should be designed to restore, enhance, or maintain greater 

sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-FM-GL-046-Guideline – Avoid locating temporary wildfire suppression facilities (for 

example, incident command posts, spike camps, helibases, and mobile retardant plants) in priority 

and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas.

GRSG-FM-GL-047-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations should be restricted, 

whenever safe and practical to do so, as determined by fireline leadership and incident 

commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-048-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, use fire management tactics and strategies that seek to minimize loss of 

existing sagebrush habitat. The safest and most practical means to do so will be determined by 

fireline leadership and incident commanders.

GRSG-FM-GL-049-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, prescribed fire prescriptions should minimize undesirable effects on 

vegetation, soils, or both (for example, minimize mortality of desirable perennial plant species 

and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

GRSG-FM-GL-050-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, roads and natural fuel breaks should be incorporated into fuel break design 

to improve effectiveness and minimize loss of existing sagebrush habitat.

GRSG-FM-GL-051-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, all fire-associated vehicles and equipment should be inspected and cleaned 

using standardized protocols and procedures and approved vehicle and equipment 

decontamination systems before entering and exiting the area to minimize the introduction of 

invasive annual grasses and other invasive plant species and noxious weeds.

GRSG-FM-GL-052-Guideline – Unit-specific greater sage-grouse fire management toolboxes 

containing maps, lists, contact information for qualified resource advisors, local guidance, and 

relevant information should be developed and used.

GRSG-FM-GL-053-Guideline – Localized maps of priority and general habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas should be provided to dispatch officers and extended attack 

incident commanders to use when prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing 

suppression tactics.

GRSG-FM-GL-054-Guideline – In or near priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, a greater sage‐grouse resource advisor should be assigned to all extended 

attack fires.

GRSG-FM-GL-055-Guideline – On critical fire weather days, protection of greater sage-grouse 

habitat should receive high consideration, along with other high values, when positioning 

resources.

GRSG-FM-GL-056-Guideline – Line officers should be involved in setting pre-season wildfire 

response priorities and, during periods of multiple fires, prioritizing protection of priority and 

general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

11

GRSG-FM-GL-057-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, consider using fire retardant and mechanized equipment if it is likely to 

result in minimizing burned acreage.

GRSG-FM-GL-058-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas, to minimize 

sagebrush loss, limit burnouts to areas where they are deemed necessary for firefighter and public 

safety and control of the fire. When safe to do so, conduct mop-up where the burned areas adjoin 

unburned islands, doglegs, or other habitat features in order to retain as much sagebrush as 

possible within and adjacent to burned areas.

Wild Horse and Burro

GRSG-HB-GL-059-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, wild horse and burro populations should be managed within established appropriate 

management levels to restore, enhance, or maintain greater sage-grouse desired habitat conditions 

(Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-HB-GL-060-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, appropriate management levels should be adjusted if greater sage-grouse management 

standards are not met due to degradation that can be at least partially be attributed to wild horse or 

burro populations.

Recreation

GRSG-R-DC-061-Desired Condition – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, recreation activities are balanced with the ability of the land to support 

them, while meeting greater sage-grouse seasonal habitat desired conditions (Table 1 through 

Table 3) and creating minimal user conflicts.

GRSG-R-ST-062-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do 

not authorize temporary recreation uses (facilities or activities) that result in loss of habitat or 

would have long-term (greater than 5 years) negative impacts on greater sage-grouse or their 

habitats.

GRSG-R-GL-063-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, terms and conditions that protect and/or restore greater sage-grouse habitat within the 

permit area should be included in new recreation special use authorizations. During renewal, 

amendment, or reauthorization, terms and conditions in existing permits and operating plans 

should be modified to protect, restore, or both greater sage-grouse habitat.

GRSG-R-GL-064-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

new recreational facilities or expansion of existing recreational facilities (for example, roads, 

trails, campgrounds), including special use authorizations for facilities and activities, should not 

be approved unless the development results in a net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse 

and/or their habitats or the development is required for visitor safety.

Roads and Transportation

GRSG-RT-DC-065-Desired Condition – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, within the travel management system, greater sage-grouse experience 

minimal disturbance during breeding and nesting (March 1 to June 15) and wintering (November 

1 to February 28) periods.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

12

GRSG-RT-ST-066-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, do not conduct or allow new road or trail construction (does not apply to realignments 

for resource protection) except when necessary for administrative access, public safety, or to 

access valid existing rights. If necessary to construct new roads and trails for one of these 

purposes, construct them to the minimum standard, length, and number and avoid, minimize, and 

mitigate impacts.

GRSG-RT-ST-067-Standard – Do not conduct or allow road and trail maintenance activities 

within 2 miles from the perimeter of active leks during lekking (March 1 to April 30) from 6 p.m.

to 9 a.m.

GRSG-RT-ST-068-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

prohibit public access on temporary energy development roads, unless consistent with all other 

terms and conditions included in the Forest Plan.

GRSG-RT-GL-069-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

new roads and road realignments should be designed and administered to reduce collisions with 

greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-070-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

road construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows should be restricted. If not possible to 

restrict construction within riparian areas and mesic meadows, roads should be designed and 

constructed at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings, unless topography 

prevents doing so.

GRSG-RT-GL-071-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, when decommissioning roads and unauthorized routes, restoration activity should be 

designed to move habitat towards desired conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).

GRSG-RT-GL-072-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, dust abatement terms and conditions should be included in road use permits when 

dust has the potential to impact greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-RT-GL-073-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush 

focal areas, road and road-way maintenance activities should be designed and implemented to 

reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive plants. Such 

activities include, but are not limited to, the removal or mowing of vegetation a car width off the 

edge of roads; use of weed-free earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other materials; and 

blading or pulling roadsides and ditches that are infested with noxious weeds only if required for 

public safety or protection of the roadway.

Minerals

Fluid Minerals – Unleased

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-074-Standard – In priority habitat management areas, any new 

geothermal, oil, and gas leases must include a no surface occupancy stipulation. There will be no 

waivers or modifications. An exception could be granted by the authorized officer with 

unanimous concurrence from a team of agency greater sage-grouse experts from the Forest 

Service and State wildlife agency if:

• there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to greater sage-grouse or their 

habitats; or
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

13

• granting the exception provides an alternative to a similar action occurring on a nearby 

parcel; and

• the exception provides a clear net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse.

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-075-Standard – In general habitat management areas, any new leases 

must include appropriate controlled surface use and timing limitation stipulations to protect 

greater sage-grouse and their habitat.

GRSG-M-FMUL-ST-076-Standard – In sagebrush focal areas, there will be no surface 

occupancy and no waivers, exceptions, or modifications for fluid mineral leasing.

Fluid Minerals – Leased

GRSG-M-FML-ST-077-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when approving the surface use plan of operation portion of the application for permit to 

drill on existing leases that are not yet developed, require that leaseholders avoid and minimize 

surface disturbing and disruptive activities consistent with the rights granted in the lease.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-078-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when facilities are no longer needed or leases are relinquished, require reclamation plans to 

include terms and conditions to restore habitat to desired conditions as described in (Table 1

through Table 3).

GRSG-M-FML-ST-079-Standard – In general habitat management areas, authorize new 

transmission line corridors, transmission line right-of-ways, transmission line construction, or 

transmission line-facility construction associated with fluid mineral leases with stipulations 

necessary to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitats, consistent with the terms and 

conditions of the permit.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-080-Standard – Locate compressor stations on portions of a lease that are 

non-habitat and are not used by greater sage-grouse, and if there would be no direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects on sage-grouse or their habitat. If this is not possible, work with the operator to 

use mufflers, sound insulation, or other features to reduce noise consistent with GRSG-GEN-ST006-Standard.

GRSG-M-FML-ST-081-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when authorizing development of fluid mineral resources, work with the 

operator to minimize impacts to greater sage-grouse and their habitat, such as locating facilities in 

non-habitat areas first and then in the least suitable habitat.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-082-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, operators should be encouraged to reduce disturbance to greater sagegrouse habitat. At the time of approval of the surface use plan of operation portion of the 

application for permit to drill, terms and conditions should be included to reduce disturbance to 

greater sage-grouse habitat, where appropriate and feasible and consistent with the rights granted 

to the lessee.

GRSG-M-FML-GL-083-Guideline – On existing Federal leases in priority habitat management 

areas and sagebrush focal areas, when surface occupancy cannot be restricted due to valid 

existing rights or development requirements, disturbance and surface occupancy should be 

limited to areas least harmful to greater sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other 

habitat features.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

14

GRSG-M-FML-GL-084-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, where the Federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in 

non-Federal ownership, coordinate with the mineral estate owner or lessee to apply appropriate 

stipulations, conditions of approval, conservation measures and required design features to the 

appropriate surface management instruments to the maximum extent permissible under existing 

authorities.

Fluid Minerals – Operations

GRSG-M-FMO-ST-085-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, do not authorize employee camps.

GRSG-M-FMO-ST-086-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, when feasible, do not locate tanks or other structures that may be used as raptor perches. If 

this is not feasible, use perch deterrents.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-087-Guideline – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, closed‐loop systems should be used for drilling operations with no reserve pits, where 

feasible.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-088-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, during drilling operations, soil compaction should be minimized and soil 

structure should be maintained using the best available techniques to improve vegetation 

reestablishment.

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-089-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, dams, impoundments and ponds for mineral development should be 

constructed to reduce potential for West Nile virus. Examples of methods to accomplish this 

include:

• increase the depth of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged

• build steep shorelines (greater than 2 feet) to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation 

around the perimeter of impoundments to reduce breeding habitat for mosquitoes

• maintain the water level below that of rooted aquatic and upland vegetation. Avoid flooding 

terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas

• construct dams or impoundments that restrict down-slope seepage or overflow by digging 

ponds in flat areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining 

constructed ponds in areas where seepage is anticipated

• line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock or use a 

horizontal pipe to discharge inflow directly into existing open water

• line the overflow spillway with crushed rock and construct the spillway with steep sides

• fence pond sites to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates

• remove or re‐inject produced water

• treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the 

surface

GRSG-M-FMO-GL-090-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, to keep habitat disturbance at a minimum, a phased development approach 
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

15

should be applied to fluid mineral operations, wherever possible, consistent with the rights 

granted under the lease. Disturbed areas should be reclaimed as soon as they are no longer needed 

for mineral operations.

Coal Mines - Unleased

GRSG-M-CMUL-ST-091-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, do not authorize surface disturbances (for example, appurtenant facilities) for new 

underground coalmines.

Coal Mines – Leased

GRSG-M-CML-ST-092-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, do not authorize new appurtenant facilities for existing underground mines unless no 

technically feasible alternative exists. If new appurtenant facilities associated with existing mine 

leases cannot be located outside of priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas, 

co-locate them with any existing disturbed areas, if possible. If co-location is not possible, then 

construct new facilities to minimize disturbed areas while meeting mine safety standards and 

requirements as identified by Mine Safety and Health Administration mine-plan approval process, 

and locate the facilities in an area least harmful to greater sage-grouse habitats based on 

vegetation, topography, or other habitat features.

GRSG-M-CML-GL-093-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, when coal leases are subject to readjustment, additional requirements 

should be included in the readjusted lease to conserve, enhance, and restore greater sage-grouse 

and their habitat for long-term viability.

Locatable Minerals

GRSG-M-LM-ST-094-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, only approve plans of operation if they include mitigation to protect greater sage-grouse 

and their habitats, consistent with the rights of the mining claimant as granted by the General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended.

GRSG-M-LM-GL-095-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, to keep habitat disturbance at a minimum, a phased development approach 

should be applied to operations consistent with the rights granted under the General Mining Act 

of 1872, as amended. Disturbed areas should be reclaimed as soon as they are no longer needed 

for mineral operations.

GRSG-M-LM-GL-096-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, abandoned mine sites should be closed or mitigated to reduce predation of 

greater sage-grouse by eliminating tall structures that could provide nesting opportunities and 

perching sites for predators.

Non-energy Leasable Minerals

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-097-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, at the time of issuance of prospecting permits, exploration licenses and 

leases, or readjustment of leases, the Forest Service should provide recommendations to the 

Bureau of Land Management for the protection of greater sage-grouse and their habitats.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

16

GRSG-M-NEL-GL-098-Guideline – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, the Forest Service should recommend to the Bureau of Land Management 

that expansion or readjustment of existing leases avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects to 

greater sage-grouse and their habitat.

Mineral Materials

GRSG-M-MM-ST-099-Standard – In priority management areas and sagebrush focal areas, do 

not authorize new mineral material disposal or development.

GRSG-M-MM-ST-100-Standard – In priority habitat management areas and sagebrush focal 

areas, free-use mineral material collection permits may be issued and expansion of existing active 

pits may be allowed, except from March 1 to April 30 between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. within 2 miles 

from the perimeter of occupied leks, within the Oregon priority area for conservation and 

proposed project area if doing so does not exceed the disturbance cap.

GRSG-M-MM-ST-101-Standard – In priority and general habitat management areas and 

sagebrush focal areas, any permit for existing mineral material operations must include 

appropriate requirements for operation and reclamation of the site to restore, enhance, or maintain 

desired habitat conditions (Table 1 through Table 3).

Glossary of Terms as Used in Appendix B

active lek – Any lek that has been attended by male greater sage-grouse during the most recent 

strutting season.

adjacent – Installation of new linear improvements parallel, near, or next to existing linear 

improvements.

administrative access – Access for resource management and administrative purposes such as 

wildfire suppression, cadastral surveys, permit compliance, law enforcement, and military in the 

performance of their official duty, or other access needed to manage National Forest System lands 

or uses.

allotment – A designated area of land in which one or more livestock operators graze their 

livestock. An allotment may include one or more separate pastures. Livestock numbers and 

periods of use are specified for each allotment.

ambient (noise level) – Sometimes called background noise level, reference sound level, or room 

noise level is the background sound pressure level at a given location, normally specified as a 

reference level to study a new intrusive sound source.

anthropogenic disturbances – Human-created features including but are not limited to paved 

highways, graded gravel roads, transmission lines, substations, wind turbines, oil and gas wells 

and associated facilities, geothermal wells and associated facilities, pipelines, landfills, 

agricultural conversion, homes, grazing-related facilities and structures, and mines.

appurtenant (minerals) – A piece of equipment (for example, pump jack, separator, storage 

tank, compressor station, metering equipment) necessary for production.

authorized uses – An activity (resource use) occurring on the Forest Service lands that is 

explicitly or implicitly recognized and legalized by law or regulation. The term may refer to 

activities occurring on the Forest Service lands for which the Forest Service has issued a formal 

authorization document (for example, livestock grazing permit, special use authorization, 
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

17

approved plan of operation, etc.). Formal authorized uses can involve commercial and 

noncommercial activities, facility placement, or events. These authorized uses are often spatially 

or temporally limited. Unless constrained or bounded by statute, regulation, or an approved forest 

plan decision, legal activities involving public enjoyment and use of the Forest Service (for 

example, hiking, camping, hunting, etc.) require no formal Forest Service authorization.

baseline condition – The pre-existing condition of a defined area, resource, or both that can be 

quantified by an appropriate metric(s). During environmental reviews, the baseline is considered 

the affected environment that exists at the time of the review's initiation, and is used to compare 

predictions of the effects of the proposed action or a reasonable range of alternatives.

biological diversity – The number and distribution of plant and animal species within a specified 

geographic area. For purpose of the National Forest Management Act, the geographic area is a 

national forest or grassland unit.

biologically significant unit – A geographic unit of priority habitat management area within 

greater sage-grouse habitat that contains relevant and important habitats. In Oregon, biologically 

significant units are synonymous with Oregon priority area for conservation, which is used in 

calculating the human disturbance threshold.

co-locate – Installation of new linear improvements in or on existing linear improvements.

communication tower site – Sites that include broadcast types of uses (for example, television, 

AM/FM radio, cable television, broadcast translator) and non-broadcast uses (for example, 

commercial or private mobile radio service, cellular telephone, microwave, local exchange 

network, passive reflector).

compensatory mitigation – Compensating for the residual impact of a certain action or parts of 

an action by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments(s).

compensatory mitigation projects – The restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of 

impacted resources or a combination of these things, such as on-the-ground actions to improve 

habitats, protect habitats, or both (for example, chemical vegetation treatments, land acquisitions, 

conservation easements).

conservation area – Areas determined to be necessary to monitor population objectives to 

evaluate the disturbance density and engage adaptive management responses. Conservation Areas 

may contain priority and general habitat management areas and sagebrush focal areas.

controlled surface use – A category of moderate constraint stipulations that allows some use and 

occupancy of public land while protecting identified resources or values and is applicable to fluid 

mineral leasing and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (for example, truckmounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of 

wells, pads, or both).

disruptive activities – Land resource uses and activities that are likely to alter the behavior, 

displace, or cause excessive stress to greater sage-grouse populations occurring at a specific 

location, time, or both. Actions that alter behavior or cause the displacement of individuals such 

that reproductive success is negatively affected, or an individual's physiological ability to cope 

with environmental stress is compromised.

corridor – A tract of land varying in width forming passageway through which various 

commodities such as oil, gas, and electricity are transported.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

18

distribution line – An electrical utility line with a capacity of less than 100 kilovolts or a natural 

gas, hydrogen, or water pipeline less than 24 inches in diameter.

durable (protective and ecological) – The administrative, legal, and financial assurances that 

secure and protect the conservation status of a compensatory mitigation site, and the ecological 

benefits of a compensatory mitigation project, for at least as long as the associated impacts 

persist.

enhance – The improvement of habitat by increasing missing or modifying unsatisfactory 

components, attributes, or both of the habitat (for example, road commissioning) to meet greater 

sage-grouse objectives.

exception (minerals) – A case-by-case exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation 

continues to apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria apply. The 

authorized officer (any employee of the Forest Service to whom has been delegated the authority 

to perform the duties described in the applicable Forest Service manual or handbook) may grant 

an exception if an environmental record of review determines that the action, as proposed or 

conditioned, would not impair the function or utility of the site for the current or subsequent 

seasonal habitat, life-history, or behavioral needs of greater sage-grouse.

feasible – Refer to technically and economically feasible.

fluid minerals – Oil, gas, coal bed natural gas, and geothermal resources.

general habitat management areas – Areas identified by the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management, in coordination with respective State wildlife agencies, as those areas outside 

of priority and sagebrush focal management areas and occupied by greater sage-grouse seasonally 

or year-round.

grazing system – Scheduled grazing use and non-use of an allotment to reach identified goals or 

objectives by improving the quality and quantity of vegetation. Systems include, but are not 

limited to, developing pastures, utilization levels, grazing rotations, timing and duration of use 

periods, and necessary range improvements.

habitat – An environment that meets a specific set of physical, biological, temporal, or spatial 

characteristics that satisfy the requirements of a plant or animal species or group of species for 

part or all of their life cycle.

high-voltage transmission line – An electrical power line that is 100 kilovolts or larger.

holder – An individual or entity that holds a valid special use authorization.

impact – The effect, influence, alteration, or imprint caused by an action.

indicators – Factors that describe resource condition and change and can help the Forest Service 

determine trends over time.

isolated parcel – An individual parcel of land that may share a corner, but does not have a 

common border with another parcel.

invasive species (invasive plant species, invasives) – An alien species whose introduction does 

or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. The species must 

cause, or be likely to cause, harm, and be exotic to the ecosystem it has infested before considered 

invasive.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

19

landownership adjustment – Land adjustments to National Forest System lands by purchase, 

exchange, interchange, or conveyance under authority delegated by law to the Secretary of 

Agriculture.

landscape – A distinct association of land types that exhibit a unique combination of local 

climate, landform, topography, geomorphic process, surficial geology, soil, biota, and human 

influences. Landscapes are generally of a size that the eye can comprehend in a single view.

lease – A contract granting use or occupation of property during a specified period in exchange 

for a specified rent or other form of payment; a type of special use authorization (usually granted 

for uses other than linear rights-of-way) that is used when substantial capital investment is 

required and when conveyance of a conditional and transferable interest in National Forest 

System lands is necessary or desirable to serve or facilitate authorized long-term uses, and that 

may be revocable and compensable according to its terms.

leasable minerals – Those minerals or materials designated as leasable under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947. 

These include energy-related mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, and geothermal, and 

some non-energy minerals, such as phosphate, sodium, potassium, and sulfur. Geothermal 

resources are also leasable under the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970.

lessee – A person or entity holding record title in a lease issued by the United States; a person or 

entity authorized to use and occupy National Forest System land under a specific instrument 

identified as a lease.

lek – A courtship display area attended by male greater sage-grouse in or adjacent to sagebrushdominated habitat. For management purposes, leks with less than five males observed strutting 

should be confirmed active for 2 years to meet the definition of a lek (Connelly et al 2000 and 

Connelly et al. 2003, referenced in Table 3 above).

locatable minerals – Mineral disposable under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, that 

was not excepted in later legislation. They include hardrock, placer, industrial minerals, and 

uncommon varieties of rock found on public domain lands.

major pipeline – A pipeline that is 24 inches or more in outside-pipe diameter (Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. section 181; 36 CFR 251.54(f)(1)).

mineral – Any naturally formed inorganic material, solid or fluid inorganic substance that can be 

extracted from the earth, any of various naturally occurring homogeneous substances (as stone, 

coal, salt, sulfur, sand, petroleum, water, or natural gas) obtained usually from the ground. Under 

Federal laws, considered as locatable (subject to the general mining laws), leasable (subject to the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended), and salable (subject to the Materials Act of 1947).

mineral materials – Common varieties of mineral materials, such as soil, sand and gravel, stone, 

pumice, pumicite, and clay, that are not obtainable under the mining or leasing laws but that can 

be acquired under the Materials Act of 1947, as amended.

minimization mitigation – Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 

and its implementation.

mitigation – Includes specific means, measures, or practices that could reduce, avoid, or 

eliminate adverse impacts. Mitigation can include avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a 

certain action or parts of an action, minimizing the impact by limiting the degree of magnitude of 

the action and its implementation, rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitation, or restoring 
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

20

the affected environment, reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action, and compensating for the impact by 

replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

modification (oil and gas) – A fundamental change to the provisions of a lease stipulation, either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. A modification may include an exemption from or 

alteration to a stipulated requirement. Depending on the specific modification, the stipulation may 

or may not apply to all other sites within the leasehold to which the restrictive criteria applied.

native plant species – A plant species which occurs naturally in a particular region, state, 

ecosystem and habitat without direct or indirect human actions.

net conservation gain – The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions.

no surface occupancy – A major constraint where use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid 

mineral exploration or development and all activities associated with fluid mineral leasing (for 

example, truck-mounted drilling and geophysical exploration equipment off designated routes, 

construction of wells, pads, or both) are prohibited to protect identified resource values. Areas 

identified as no surface occupancy are open to fluid mineral leasing, but surface occupancy or 

surface-disturbing activities associated with fluid mineral leasing cannot be conducted on the 

surface of the land. Access to fluid mineral deposits would require horizontal drilling from 

outside the boundaries of the no-surface-occupancy area.

occupied lek – A lek that has been active during at least one strutting season within the prior 10 

years.

opportunity (allotment closure) – A suitable or favorable time to abolish or close an allotment 

because of nonuse violations, term permit waivers where the permit is waived back to the 

government, resource protection, or permit actions resulting in cancellation of the permit.

permit – A special use authorization that provides permission, without conveying an interest in 

land, to occupy and use National Forest System land or facilities for specified purposes, and 

which is both revocable and terminable.

persistent woodlands – Long-lived pinyon-juniper woodlands that typically have sparse 

understories and occur on poor substrates in the assessment area.

plan of operation – A plan of operation is required for all mining activity conducted under the 

General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, if the proposed operations will likely cause significant 

disturbance of surface resources. The plan of operation describes the type of operations proposed 

and how they would be conducted, the type and standard of existing and proposed roads or access 

routes, the means of transportation to be used, the period during which the proposed activity will 

take place, and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for environmental protection (36 

CR 228.4).

prescribed fire – Any fire ignited by management actions to meet specific objectives. A written, 

approved prescribed fire plan must exist and National Environmental Policy Act requirements, 

where applicable, must be met before ignition.

priority habitat management areas – Areas identified by the Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management, in coordination with respective State wildlife agencies, as having the highest 

conservation value to maintaining sustainable greater sage-grouse populations. These areas 

include breeding, late brood-rearing and winter concentration areas.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

21

prohibit – To forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority; no authorizations will be issued, 

meaning no authorization will be granted.

reclamation plans – Plans that guide the suite of actions taken within an area affected by human 

disturbance, the outcome of which is intended to change the condition of the disturbed area to 

meet pre-determined objectives, to make it acceptable for certain defined resources (for example, 

wildlife habitat, grazing, ecosystem function, etc.), or both.

residual impacts – Impacts from an implementation-level decision that remain after applying 

avoidance and minimization mitigation; also referred to as unavoidable impacts.

restoration – Implementation of a set of actions that promotes plant community diversity and 

structure that allows plant communities to be more resilient to disturbance and invasive species 

over the long term. The long-term goal is to create functional, high quality habitat that is occupied 

by greater sage-grouse. Short-term goal may be to restore the landform, soils and hydrology and 

increase the percentage of preferred vegetation, seeding of desired species, or treatment of 

undesired species.

restriction or restrict – A limitation or constraint on public land uses and operations. 

Restrictions can be of any kind, but most commonly apply to certain types of vehicle use, 

temporal and/or spatial constraints, or certain authorizations.

right-of-way – Land authorized to be used or occupied for the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and termination of a project or facility passing over, upon, under or through such 

land.

road or trail – A road or trail wholly or partly within or adjacent to and serving the National 

Forest System that the Forest Service determines is necessary for the protection, administration, 

and utilization of the National Forest System and the use and development of its resources.

sagebrush focal areas – Areas identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that represent 

recognized “strongholds” for greater sage-grouse that have been noted and referenced as having 

the highest densities of greater sage-grouse and other criteria important for the persistence of the 

species.

special use authorization – A written permit, term permit, lease, or easement that authorizes use 

or occupancy of National Forest System lands and specifies the terms and conditions under which 

the use or occupancy may occur.

stipulation (general) – A term or condition in an agreement, contract, or written authorization.

stipulation (oil and gas) – A provision that modifies standard lease rights and is attached to and 

made a part of the lease. Lease stipulations include no surface occupancy, timing limitations, and 

controlled surface use.

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities – Actions that alter the vegetation, surface or nearsurface soil resources, or surface geologic features, beyond natural site conditions and on a scale 

that affects other public land values. Examples of surface-disturbing activities are operation of 

heavy equipment to construct well pads, roads, pits and reservoirs; installation of pipelines and 

power lines; maintenance activities; and several types of vegetation treatments (for example, 

prescribed fire, etc.). Surface-disturbing activities may be either restricted, not allowed, or not 

authorized.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

22

surface use – Activities that may be present on the surface or near-surface (for example,

pipelines) of Forest Service. When administered as a use restriction (for example, no surface 

occupancy), this phrase prohibits all but specified resource uses and activities in a certain area to 

protect particular sensitive resource values and property. This designation typically applies to 

small acreage sensitive resource sites (for example, plant community study exclosure, etc.) or 

administrative sites (for example, government ware-yard, etc.) where only authorized, agency 

personnel are admitted.

tall structures – A wide array of infrastructures (for example, poles that support lights, telephone 

and electrical distribution, communication towers, meteorological towers, high-tension 

transmission towers, and wind turbines) that have the potential to disrupt lekking or nesting birds 

by creating new perching and nesting opportunities, decreasing the use of an area, or both. A 

determination as to whether something is considered a tall structure would be based on local 

conditions such as vegetation or topography.

technically or economically feasible – Actions that are practical or feasible from the technical 

and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the 

standpoint of the applicant. It is the Forest Service’s sole responsibility to determine what actions 

are technically and economically feasible. The Forest Service will consider whether 

implementation of the proposed action is likely given past and current practice and technology; 

this consideration does not necessarily require a cost-benefit analysis or speculation about an 

applicant’s costs and profit.

temporary special use permit – A type of permit that terminates within 1 year or less after the 

approval date. All other provisions applicable to permits apply fully to temporary permits. 

Temporary special use permits are issued for seasonal or short-duration uses involving minimal 

improvement and investment.

term permit – An authorization to occupy and use National Forest System land, other than 

rights-of-way for a specified period that is both revocable and compensable according to its 

terms.

timely – The conservation benefits from compensatory mitigation accruing as early as possible or 

before impacts have begun.

timing limitation – A moderate constraint, applicable to fluid mineral leasing, on all activities 

associated with fluid mineral leasing (for example, truck-mounted drilling and geophysical 

exploration equipment off designated routes, construction of wells, pads or both), and other 

surface disturbing activities (those not related to fluid mineral leasing). Areas identified for timing 

limitations are closed to fluid mineral exploration and development, surface-disturbing activities, 

and intensive human activity during identified time frames. This stipulation does not apply to 

operation and basic maintenance activities, including associated vehicle travel, unless otherwise 

specified. Construction, drilling, completions, and other operations considered to be intensive in 

nature are not allowed. Intensive maintenance, such as workovers on wells, is not permitted. 

Timing limitations can overlap spatially with no surface occupancy and controlled surface use, as 

well as with areas that have no other restrictions.

transmission line – An electrical utility line with a capacity greater than or equal to 100 kilovolts

or a natural gas, hydrogen, or water pipeline greater than or equal to 24 inches in diameter.

travel management system – Planned and authorized roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 

use on National Forest System lands that are managed in a controlled, sustained manner.
Appendix B: Sage-grouse Guidance

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

23

utility-scale or commercial energy development – A project capable of producing 20 or more 

megawatts of electricity for distribution to customers through the electricity-transmission-grid 

system.

valid existing rights – Documented legal rights or interests in the land that allow a person or 

entity to use said land for a specific purpose and that are still in effect. Such rights include, but 

are not limited to, fee title ownership, mineral rights, and easements. Such rights may have been 

reserved, acquired, granted or otherwise authorized under various statutes of law.

vegetation treatments – Management practices designed to maintain current vegetation structure

or change the vegetation structure to a different stage of development. Vegetation treatment 

methods may include managed fire, prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical, and seeding.

viability – For purposes of the National Forest Management Act and its enabling regulations, 

viability is the availability of habitat that allows a species to persist on landscapes for longperiods (multi-generational). It assumes that populations are abundant (sufficient numbers) and 

well distributed (sufficient redundancy of populations) to provide for long-term population 

persistence on a landscape.

waiver (oil and gas) – Permanent exemption from a lease stipulation. The stipulation no longer 

applies anywhere within the leasehold.

West Nile virus – A virus that is found in temperate and tropical regions of the world and most 

commonly transmitted by mosquitoes. West Nile virus can cause flu-like symptoms in humans 

and can be lethal to birds, including greater sage-grouse.

wildfire suppression – An appropriate management response to wildfire, or prescribed fire that 

results in curtailment of fire spread and eliminates all identified threats from the particular fire.

withdrawal (land) – Withholding an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, 

under some or all of the general land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws, for the 

purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain other public values in the area, 

or for reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

25

Attachment 1 – Greater Sage-grouse Mitigation

General

The Forest Service will require mitigation that provides a net conservation gain to the greater 

sage-grouse when undertaking Forest Service management actions, and consistent with valid 

existing rights and applicable law, in authorizing third party actions that result in greater sagegrouse habitat loss and degradation. This will be achieved by avoiding, minimizing, and 

compensating for impacts by applying beneficial mitigation actions.

Mitigation will follow the regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

1508.20) and the steps of avoid, minimize, and compensate, hereafter referred to as the mitigation 

hierarchy. If impacts from Forest Service management actions and authorized third party actions, 

which result in habitat loss and degradation, remain after applying avoidance and minimization 

measures (residual impacts), compensatory mitigation will be used to provide a net conservation 

gain to the greater sage-grouse. The mitigation strategy should account for any uncertainty 

associated with the effectiveness of the proposed compensatory mitigation. Any compensatory 

mitigation will be durable, timely, and in addition to that which would have resulted without the 

compensatory mitigation.

The Forest Service mitigation policy, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and the 

State of Oregon greater sage-grouse mitigation guidance will serve as a framework for 

developing and implementing greater sage-grouse mitigation.

Incorporating the Mitigation into Environmental Analyses

The Forest Service will include the avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

recommendations outlined below in one or more of the environmental analysis alternatives for 

Forest Service proposed management actions and third-party actions that result in habitat loss and 

degradation, and the appropriate mitigation actions will be carried forward into the decision.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory Recommendations

Avoidance includes the following:

• avoidance areas (for example, no surface occupancy areas) already included in right-of-way 

avoidance or exclusion areas, laws, regulations, policies, land use plans (for example, forest 

plans, State plans), or a combination of these things

• any potential additional avoidance actions (for example, additional avoidance best 

management practices) related to greater sage-grouse conservation

Minimization includes the following:

• minimization actions (for example, required design features, best management practices) 

already included in laws, regulations, policies, forest plans, and special use authorizations

• any potential additional minimization actions (for example, additional minimization best 

management practices) related to greater sage-grouse conservation

Compensation includes a discussion of impact and project valuation, compensatory mitigation 

options, siting, compensatory project types and costs, monitoring, reporting, and administration. 

Each of these topics is discussed in detail below.
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

26

Residual Impact and Compensatory Mitigation Project Valuation Guidance

A common standardized method should be identified for estimating the value of the residual 

impacts and value of the compensatory mitigation projects, including accounting for any 

uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of the projects. This method should consider the 

quality of habitat, scarcity of the habitat, and the size of the impact and project.

For compensatory mitigation projects, consideration of durability, timeliness, and the potential for 

failure (for example, uncertainty associated with effectiveness) may require an upward 

adjustment of the valuation. The resultant compensatory mitigation project will, after application 

of the above guidance, result in proactive conservation measures for greater sage-grouse.

Compensatory Mitigation Options

Options for implementing compensatory mitigation should be identified, such as:

• utilizing certified mitigation and conservation bank or credit exchanges

• contributing to an existing mitigation and conservation fund

• authorizing user-conducted mitigation projects

For any compensatory mitigation project, the investment must be additional.

Compensatory Mitigation Siting

• Sites should be in areas that have the potential to yield a net conservation gain to the greater 

sage-grouse, regardless of land ownership.

• Sites should be durable.

• Sites identified by existing plans and strategies (for example, fire restoration plans, invasive 

species strategies, healthy land focal areas) should be considered if those sites have the 

potential to yield a net conservation gain to greater sage-grouse and are durable.

Compensatory Mitigation Project Types and Costs

• Project types should be identified that help reduce threats to greater sage-grouse (for 

example, protection, conservation, and restoration projects).

• Each project type should have a goal and measurable objectives.

• Each project type should have associated monitoring and maintenance requirements for the 

duration of the impact.

• To identify contributions to a mitigation and conservation fund, expected costs for these 

project types (and their monitoring and maintenance), should be identified.

Compensatory Mitigation Compliance and Monitoring

• Mitigation projects should be inspected to ensure that they are implemented as designed 

and if not, there should be methods to enforce compliance.

• Mitigation projects should be monitored to ensure that the goals and objectives are met and 

that the benefits are effective for the duration of the impact.

Compensatory Mitigation Reporting

• Standardized, transparent, scalable, and scientifically defensible reporting requirements 

should be identified for mitigation projects.
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

27

• Forest Service personnel in Oregon should provide information to Bureau of Land 

Management personnel for their reports that will compile, summarize, and review 

mitigation in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ management zone to 

determine if greater sage-grouse conservation has been achieved, to support adaptive 

management recommendations, or both.

Compensatory Mitigation Program Implementation Guidelines

• Guidelines for implementing a State-level compensatory mitigation program should include 

holding and applying compensatory mitigation funds, operating a transparent and credible 

accounting system, certifying mitigation credits, and managing reporting requirements.

Implementing a Compensatory Mitigation Program

The Forest Service must ensure that compensatory mitigation is strategically implemented to 

provide a net conservation gain to the greater sage-grouse. To align with any existing 

compensatory mitigation efforts, compensatory mitigation will be managed at a State-level, in 

collaboration with Forest Service partners (for example, Federal, Tribal, and State agencies).

To ensure transparent and effective management of the compensatory mitigation funds, Forest 

Service personnel will work with the Bureau of Land Management personnel to determine the 

best process (for example, enter into a contract or agreement with a third party) to help manage 

the State-level compensatory mitigation funds. The Forest Service personnel will be responsible 

for making decisions that affect National Forest System lands.

Glossary of Terms used in Attachment 1 of Sage-grouse Guidance

Additionality – The conservation benefits of compensatory mitigation are demonstrably new and 

would not have resulted without the compensatory mitigation project.

Avoidance mitigation – Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of 

an action (40 CFR 1508.20(a)). (For example, may include avoiding the impact by moving the 

proposed action to a different time or location.)

compensatory mitigation – Compensating for residual impact by replacing or providing 

substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20).

compensatory mitigation projects – The restoration, creation, enhancement, and/or preservation 

of impacted resources (adopted and modified from 33 CFR 332), such as on-the-ground actions to 

improve habitats, protect habitats, or both. (For example, chemical vegetation treatments, land 

acquisitions, and conservation easements.)

compensatory mitigation sites – The durable areas where compensatory mitigation projects will 

occur. Durability (protective and ecological) is the maintenance of the effectiveness of a 

mitigation site and project for the duration of the associated impacts, which include resource, 

administrative, legal, and financial considerations.

durable (protective and ecological) – The administrative, legal, and financial assurances that 

secure and protect the conservation status of a compensatory mitigation site and the ecological 

benefits of a compensatory mitigation project for at least as long as the associated impacts persist.

minimization mitigation – Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action 

and its implementation (40 CFR 1508.20 (b)).
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

28

net conservation gain – The actual benefit or gain above baseline conditions.

residual impacts – Impacts that remain after applying avoidance and minimization mitigation; 

also referred to as unavoidable adverse impacts.

timeliness – The lack of a time lag between impacts and the achievement of compensatory 

mitigation goals and objectives.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

1

Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Possible management actions are those actions that the national forest staff anticipates to occur 

over the life of the Plan and that show the variety of multiple use opportunities or resource 

management programs that the staff expects to provide (36 CFR 219.11(b) and (c)). The possible 

management actions are presented as a brief summary of the types of projects that may occur to 

maintain or move the national forest toward desired conditions. Because the Plan is a strategic 

document that provides general management guidance, the following items include program 

strategies anticipated during the next 15 years.

The list of possible management actions is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor are the identified 

possible management actions intended to be decisions. They are projections of what actions may 

take place in the future for program areas that might constitute the typical annual program of 

work for a national forest.

Goal 1 – Promote Ecological Integrity

Aquatic and Riparian Ecosystems

Management activities include both passive and active restoration to maintain and improve 

habitat and ecological conditions capable of supporting ground and surface hydrologic function 

and self-sustaining populations of native riparian-dependent plant and animal species. Passive 

restoration is the broad-scale, natural recovery of aquatic ecosystems and includes 

implementation of best management practices, key watersheds and designation of riparian 

management areas. Active restoration includes targeted management activities with the goal of 

restoring specific processes that improve aquatic and riparian habitat function. Activities for 

active restoration may include:

• Adding large woody debris to selected stream reaches to improve degraded conditions and 

stream channel stability.

• Planting riparian vegetation for bank stability and shade.

• Treating invasive terrestrial plant species in riparian areas to improve riparian community 

structure.

• Removing, reconstructing, or improving roads located in riparian areas to improve watershed 

health and reduce sediment delivery to the aquatic ecosystem.

• Treating upland roads to reduce water interception.

• Replacing or removing culverts to improve passage for native species, where appropriate, and 

to improve hydrologic function and sediment transport.

• Installing riparian area fencing.

Vegetation 

Vegetation management includes those activities that actively move vegetation towards desired 

conditions. Vegetation management might include activities that would maintain or increase 

representation of early seral, shade-intolerant, drought- and fire-tolerant, or insect- and diseaseresistant species and dominance types. Activities also could treat areas to maintain or improve 
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

2

forest resilience, natural diversity, and productivity, and to reduce negative impacts resulting from 

nonnative organisms. Specifically, the following types of actions may occur:

• Thinning forested stands to maintain or improve forest health and to produce a positive trend 

towards historic densities, composition, and structure.

• Regeneration of vegetation to mimic historic community composition and structure using a 

variety of silvicultural prescriptions.

• Planting blister rust resistant western white pine or whitebark pine.

• Pruning western white pine to reduce vulnerability to white pine blister rust.

• Pruning trees to reduce dwarf mistletoe infections.

• Girdling overstory trees infected with dwarf mistletoe to prevent spread to understory host 

trees.

• Maintaining or restoring rare plant habitat and special and unique ecological communities.

• Planting shade-intolerant, fire-adapted, drought resistant species.

• Managing stands to retain or move towards old forest characteristics.

• Treating invasive terrestrial plant species.

• Treating insects and diseases using integrated pest management techniques.

Wildlife

Successfully managing for habitats that will maintain viable populations of all native and 

desirable nonnative wildlife species requires a combination of minimizing threats while providing 

a similar amount, quality, and distribution of habitat to what occurred historically. Some threats 

are not easily minimized (such as climate change), while other threats such as human disturbance 

and invasive species are more easily mitigated. Providing habitat that is within the historical 

range of variability will largely be achieved by meeting the desired condition for other resources 

such as forest vegetation, rangeland, soil, and water quality. Activities might include:

• Prescribed burning within forest understories to maintain or restore wildlife habitat.

• Harvest of shade-tolerant trees to restore historical habitat conditions and associated surrogate 

species.

• Restoring wetland and riparian habitat to restore populations of amphibians.

• Increasing security habitat to improve distribution of elk and encourage elk to remain on 

public lands.

• Restore habitat effectiveness by considering designating routes for other uses, or closing or 

decommissioning roads where open motor vehicle routes are negatively affecting wildlife.

• Treating invasive plant species to improve forage for wildlife.

• Planting vegetation for riparian dependent wildlife species.

• Removing unnecessary rangeland fencing to reduce mortality to wildlife.

Fire Management

Planned and unplanned fire is managed to address excess fuels and restore the ecosystem 

processes essential in maintaining resilient landscapes. Fires are managed using current science, 
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

3

modern decision tools, and collaborative decisionmaking. Prescribed fires are considered the 

most effective fuels management tool for restoring and maintaining fire-adapted systems;

therefore, planned (prescribed) fire may be used in all management areas covered in this Plan. 

Safety of fire personnel and the public is the highest priority. Actions related to treatment of fuels 

may include the following:

• Planned ignitions in any management area, as well as areas in the wildland-urban interface.

• Mechanical treatments, including commercial timber sales and noncommercial treatments, to 

reduce fuels.

• Unplanned ignitions will be allowed to burn when they contribute to achieving restoration 

goals.

Invasive Species 

Management actions for invasive species and other undesirable species (terrestrial and aquatic 

plants and animals) strive to maintain areas free of invasive species or reduce their distribution to 

small areas, thereby limiting or eliminating their impacts on the viability of native and desired 

nonnative species. Actions related to invasive species treatments may include:

• Using an array of tools (chemical, biological, manual, mechanical, and cultural) to suppress, 

contain, control or eradicate invasive species.

• Providing education and outreach programs designed to increase awareness of invasive 

species.

• Implementing preventative measures (such as pre- and post-work equipment sanitation, 

requiring certified weed-free seed and hay, or sequencing of activities) through annual 

operating instructions, permitting, contracting, and other national forest administrative 

processes.

• Collaborating with other agencies and entities to replace nonnative aquatic species with 

natives.

• Cooperating with Oregon and Washington State agencies, local governments and other 

organizations to support a successful invasive species management program.

Goal 2 – Promote Social Well-Being

Scenery

Management actions to support and enhance scenic resources may be accomplished through 

maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of the natural landscape through use of the vegetation, 

wildlife and the aquatic and riparian tools and techniques described above.

Recreation

Management actions to support developed, dispersed, and backcountry recreation provide for a 

variety of recreational opportunities on the national forest. Possible recreation management 

actions may include the following:

• Implementing trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and relocation projects.

• Using volunteers and partners for trail maintenance.
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

4

• Implementing construction and reconstruction of facilities such as parking areas, toilets, 

trailheads, information kiosks, fishing access, and boating access points.

• Maintaining and upgrading facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, toilets, and parking 

lots.

• Maintaining and modifying dispersed recreation sites to reduce or eliminate impacts to 

natural and cultural resources.

• Providing special use permits for commercial recreation opportunities (such as resorts, ski 

areas, outfitters and guides, and special events).

• Providing recreational rental cabin and lookouts for public use.

Access and Road Management

Access and road management actions serve to maintain and improve the national forest 

transportation system to enhance recreation opportunity, provide administrative access for 

resource management, and reduce negative impacts on ecosystems and natural and cultural 

resources. Actions may include:

• Conducting travel management planning. Identifying summer routes that are open to wheeled 

motorized vehicles, and identifying areas and trails for motorized and nonmotorized winter 

uses on the national forest.

• Supporting access via permanent road construction and temporary road reconstruction 

actions.

• Implementing measures (such as education, signage, law enforcement, or seasonal road 

closures) to discourage encroachment of motorized vehicles into nonmotorized areas.

• Conducting annual road maintenance on existing roads, and implementing emergency repairs 

necessitated by natural events.

Heritage Resources 

Heritage resource management actions ensure that significant archaeological and historical 

resources are identified, protected, and preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of the public and 

future generations Heritage resources activities may consist of:

• Conducting surveys to identify significant sites, and follow-up actions necessary to protect, 

stabilize, or salvage sites.

• Identifying and evaluating heritage resources for the National Register of Historic Places.

• Stabilizing, rehabilitating, restoring, and stewarding heritage resources.

• Conducting deferred maintenance to historic facilities.

• Promoting heritage values through public education, outreach, and interpretative programs.

• Conducting scientific and historic research on heritage.

American Indian Rights and Interests

The Forest Service has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian tribes that are clarified in 

statutes, executive orders, and enacted case law that is interpreted for the protection and benefit of 

federally recognized American Indian tribes. Activities associated with American Indian tribes 

may consist of:
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

5

• Continued habitat management of traditional use areas and development of management 

plans for ongoing consultation through a cooperatively established communication policy.

• Cooperatively established policy for continued access and acquisition of forest products for 

each federally recognized tribe with historical or treaty interest for cultural uses.

• Ongoing government-to-government and staff consultation for each federally recognized tribe 

with historical or treaty interests in national forest lands, through a cooperatively established 

communication policy.

Goal 3 Promote Economic Well-being

The public expects a diversity of uses from national forest lands. Social well-being contributes to 

resilience in national forests by fostering public use patterns and restoration strategies that help 

support human communities, livelihoods, cultures, and social values. Management actions within 

the national forest contributes to outputs and opportunities that support community infrastructure 

and may include:

• Contributing to and supporting local jobs and labor income within the counties surrounding 

the national forest through anticipated outputs associated with management activities such as 

forest products and grazing.

• Coordinating management plans and activities with State, local and Tribal governments.

Lands and Special Uses 

The national forest lands program emphasizes land acquisitions that protect and enhance 

identified management resource needs. The program also pursues opportunities to consolidate 

land ownership, decrease management conflicts, increase management efficiencies, secure and 

mark property boundaries, and secure rights-of-way to meet administrative and public needs. 

Special use permits provide a wide range of recreation and non-recreation special use permits that 

authorize the occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. Lands and special use program 

actions may include:

• Maintaining landlines and actions associated with adjusting national forest ownership through 

purchases, exchanges, or other conveyances.

• Permitting uses (such as easements), structures (such as communication towers), outfitters 

and guides, and special events.

• Issuing right-of-way authorizations.

• Implementing strategic land acquisitions.

Forest Products 

The supply of timber outputs contributes to a local forest products industry. Forest product

actions may include:

• Using various harvest methods for timber production and tree cutting to achieve vegetation 

desired conditions and contribute to the local and regional economy.

• Salvaging dead or dying timber.

• Gathering of firewood, huckleberries, and other special forest products.
Appendix C: Possible Management Actions

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

6

Grazing 

The annual amount of grazing that occurs within the national forest varies due to resource 

conditions and livestock markets. National forest staff adjusts the amount and timing of use based 

on forage utilization standards. Activities may consist of:

• Permitting livestock grazing where compatible with management area suitability.

• Completing environmental analysis and assessing and updating allotment management plans 

to improve allotment management and protect and manage the resources present within them.

• Building fences, constructing and maintaining water developments, managing invasive 

plants, implementing deferred or rest-rotation grazing systems, and improving livestock 

distribution.

• Working with permittees, States, Tribes, and other organizations to maintain or improve 

rangeland conditions.

Minerals

Minerals on the national forest include leasable energy minerals, saleable minerals, and locatable 

minerals. Mineral administration activities may consist of:

• Facilitating the orderly exploration, development, and production of mineral and energy 

resources within the National Forest System on lands open to these activities or on withdrawn 

lands consistent with valid existing rights.

• Processing mineral applications, operating plans, leases, licenses, permits, and other use 

authorizations efficiently and in a timely manner. Interacting with applicants and operators 

according to the principles of customer service.

• Planning for, providing, and maintaining access to and occupancy of National Forest System 

lands for mineral resource activities. Eliminating or preventing occupancy that is not 

reasonably incident to and required for the mineral operation.

• Restoring ecosystems and watersheds affected by past mining practices.

• Providing geologic expertise and scientific information necessary for sustained forest 

management and for watershed health and restoration.

• Managing and protecting paleontological resources.

• Administering through special use application and report, for free-use disposals.

• Establishing community pit areas to provide sources of mineral materials for small volume 

and noncommercial users.

• Disposing of mineral materials from community sites and common-use areas by negotiated 

sale or free-use permit.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land Management Plan

Appendix D: Maps

• Management Areas (this map is an 11-inch by 17-inch format)

• Suitability for Timber Production

• General Suitability for Cattle Grazing

• General Suitability for Sheep Grazing

• Key and Priority Watersheds

• Elk Priority Areas