United States Department of Agriculture

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman

National Forests Land Management Plans

Volume 2: Chapter 3 (part 2)

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, 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.

Accessibility: The Forest Service makes 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 Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

i

Contents of Volume 2

Chapter 3. (continued)

Biological Environment .............................................................................................................. 1

Aquatic Species Diversity and Viability ................................................................................. 1

Forest Vegetation................................................................................................................. 101

Timber and Forest Products................................................................................................. 162

Insects and Diseases............................................................................................................ 179

Wildland Fire and Fuels Treatments ................................................................................... 196

Terrestrial Wildlife Species................................................................................................. 225

Plant Species Diversity and Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants....................... 356

Nonnative Invasive Species................................................................................................. 405

Social Environment................................................................................................................. 413

Tribal and Treaty Resources................................................................................................ 413

Recreation............................................................................................................................ 418

Special Areas....................................................................................................................... 438

Scenery Resources............................................................................................................... 464

Heritage Program................................................................................................................. 473

Geology, Mining, Minerals, and Energy ............................................................................. 480

Lands and Special Uses....................................................................................................... 493

Index ....................................................................................................................................... 497

Contents of Volume 1:

Preface

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

Introduction

Purpose and Need

The Proposed Action

Decisions to be Made

Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

Other Guidance

Public Involvement

Issues and Key Indicators

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Modified Proposed Action

Developing the Alternatives

Description and Comparison of the Alternatives

Elements Common to the Plan Revision Alternatives

Alternative A: No-action Alternative

Alternative B: The Modified Proposed Action

Alternative C

Alternative D

Alternative E

Alternative E-Modified

Alternative E-Modified Departure

Alternative F

Description of Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Comparison of Alternatives
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2

Contents

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

ii

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (first half)

Introduction

Consideration of Climate Chang

Significant Issues

Issue 1: Access

Issue 2: Economic and Social Well-being

Issue 3: Livestock Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation

Issue 4: Old Forest

Issue 5: Preliminary Administratively Recommended Additions to the National Wilderness 

Preservation System

Issue 6: Ecological Resilience

Physical Environment

Soils

Air Quality

Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water Uses

Index

(Second half of Chapter 3 is in this volume)

Contents of Volume 3:

Chapter 4. Public, Governmental and Tribal Involvement; List of Preparers; and 

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

Tribal Consultation

Cooperating Agencies

State Government

Federal Government

Public Involvement

Preparers and Contributors

Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Glossary and Acronyms

References

Index

Contents of Volume 4:

Appendix A: Forest Plan Revision Alternatives in Detail

Appendix B: Laws and Regulations Relevant to Forest Planning

Appendix C: Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix D: Wild and Scenic Rivers

Appendix E: Wilderness Evaluation

Appendix F: Suitable Acres within Range Allotments for Each Alternative

Appendix G: Maps
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

1

Biological Environment

Aquatic Species Diversity and Viability

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Changes to the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS): The following 

discussion has been added here in response to a public comment on the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement.

The Purpose and Need section of Volume 1 explains the reason for integrating some form of an 

ARCS in each action alternative. Both the 2008 Regional ARCS and the 2018 Blue Mountains 

ARCS contain five essential elements, which have been developed as parts of the Plan and each 

of the action alternatives: desired conditions, standards and guidelines, development of 

restoration objectives, a monitoring plan, and riparian management area standardized widths. The 

2018 Blue Mountains ARCS is consistent with national agency planning direction, and revised 

and clarified specific elements of the original 2008 regional ARCS. The essential elements of the

2008 Regional ARCS were incorporated into Alternatives, B, C, D, E, and F and were described 

and contrasted by alternative in Appendix A in the 2014 Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Those alternatives still incorporate the elements of the 2008 Regional ARCS as previously 

described in 2014. The 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS has been incorporated into two additional 

alternatives Alternative E-Modified and Alternative E-Modified Departure. The 2018 Blue 

Mountains ARCS for the Revised Forest Plans (Alternative E-Modified) is included as Appendix 

A in each Forest Plan and is considered part of the Plan for analysis and decision purposes.

The 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS includes additional information about the scientific basis for the 

various ARCS elements, their purpose and how they would be applied during implementation. 

Appendix H of the Biological Assessment (located in the planning record) provides the scientific 

basis for the most recent iteration of a new forage utilization standard for Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure, known as GM-3G.

The updated analysis for aquatic species considers effects of implementing elements of the 2018 

Blue Mountains ARCS under each of the two additional alternatives, relative to effects of 

implementing PACFISH and INFISH for Alternative A, and relative to effects of the 2008 

Regional ARCS as it would be variously implemented under Alternatives B through F. The Blue 

Mountains Aquatic Sustainability model used for the effects analysis accounted for alternativespecific changes to land allocations for riparian management areas and other management areas, 

suitable uses, current riparian and upland vegetation conditions, aquatic habitat conditions, road 

density and road proximity to streams, current livestock use levels, and the associated risk to 

aquatic species used as surrogates representing all aquatic species and effects of these major land 

uses that affect aquatic species diversity within National Forest System lands.

Updated tables and comparisons of effects of alternatives based on active restoration objectives 

for all the alternatives and the degree to which each alternative is likely to restore aquatic habitats 

in key and priority watersheds and other subwatersheds as opportunity presents, across each 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

2

national forest, based on updated analyses of restoration objectives, conducted per the Aquatic 

Sustainability Model (documentation in the project record. See the “Watershed Function, Water 

Quality, and Water Uses” section for methods and additional effects analyses).

Changes in Species Classification Labels: Some terminology has been changed between the 

Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to reduce confusion and provide updates based 

on best available scientific information. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement referred to 

“species of conservation concern,” which has a specific definition and process for selection under 

the 2012 Planning Rule that is not applicable to plans revised under the 1982 Planning Rule. To 

avoid confusion with the 2012 Planning Rule and its implementing regulations, “species of 

conservation concern” is not used in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. See the Preface 

of Volume 1 for more information and the species category definitions in the “Terrestrial 

Wildlife” section under “Regulatory Framework” on page 228.

Changes to Labeling Species as “Focal” and “Surrogate” Species: Discussion has been 

revised to clarify that the aquatic species referred to as “focal” species in the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement are actually serving two different functions. Their role as species representing 

larger groups of species with similar patterns of habitat use, distribution and/or life history 

characteristics, was used in the species viability modeling and comparison of alternatives. When 

used in that sense, those species are now described as “surrogate” species in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. Describing the representative species as “surrogate” species 

indicates their use in representing other aquatic species with similar habitat requirements, similar 

seasonal habitat use patterns and overlapping geographic distributions, for purposes of analyzing 

effects of alternatives on overall viability of aquatic species in the Plan Area. Their designation as 

“focal species” indicates that habitat trends for these same species will be monitored.

Updates to the Existing Condition Section: Fish distribution and population information for the 

selected surrogate species was reviewed and updated from Streamnet, current Forest Service GIS 

fish distribution data layers, best available information from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Marine Fisheries Technical Teams, federally listed species Status Reviews and Recovery 

Plans.

Additional detail regarding the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service citation referenced in a 

footnote to Table 242 on page 25 was provided for clarity, together with a supporting citation.

Analysis for essential fish habitat has been dropped for salmon in the Walla Walla and John Day 

River subbasins in the Plan Area, based on final designations by National Marine Fisheries 

Service in 2014 per the Magnuson-Stevens Act after the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

was provided for public comment (79 FR 75449, Dec 18, 2014). Analysis under the MagnusonStevens Act is only required for Pacific salmon in the subbasins where Essential Fish Habitat has 

been designated per the Federal Register. Table 237, Table 238 and Table 239 in this section were 

updated to reflect changes to Essential Fish Habitat geographic designations for Pacific salmon. 

Those changes took effect in December of 2014, after the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

was published.

Updates to the Environmental Consequences Section: Assumptions and data underlying the 

aquatic species model protection scores were reviewed, updated, and recalibrated, as were 

calculations for numbers of priority, key and all watersheds improved over 10 and 20 years, 

resulting in updated and expanded tables for improved watershed conditions. The Aquatic 

Sustainability model was re-run for all alternatives. The methods used for the model, including 

the recalibrations, are described in the “Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water Uses” 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

3

section in Volume 1. Model calculations and summaries for watershed condition improvements 

are available in the project record.

Model protection evaluations for the alternatives were updated in tables. Effects analyses based 

on relative degrees of protection and passive restoration, as represented by protection evaluation 

metrics, were added for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. Analyses for all 

alternatives were updated based on results of new model runs.

Key and priority watershed information in Table 245 was updated, based on watersheds being 

added or dropped from the Key and Priority Watershed lists previously presented in Appendix B 

of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The final key and priority watershed lists are 

provided in Volume 4, Appendix A.

Changes in Terminology used for Aquatic Species: Some terminology has been changed 

between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to reduce confusion and provide 

updates based on best available scientific information. Both the terrestrial and aquatic sections of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement referred to “species of conservation concern,” which

has a specific definition and process for selection under the 2012 Planning Rule that does not 

applicable to the plans revised under the 1982 Planning Rule.

• The term “species of conservation concern” as used in the “Aquatic Species Diversity” 

section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, was intended to serve as an allencompassing phrase that included federally listed species, Forest Service sensitive species, 

and any other species with viability concerns. That all-encompassing phrase will not be 

used in the aquatic species section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement to remove 

any confusion as to which Planning Rule is being used. Additional clarifications on 

terminology between the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements are as follows:

• Surrogate Species in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were referred to as “focal 

species.” The name was changed to “surrogate species” for analysis of alternatives, to avoid 

confusion with “focal species” as defined in the monitoring program requirements of the 

2012 Planning Rule.

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. The long-term sustainability of a surrogate species 

is assumed to be representative of a group of species with similar ecological requirements 

and this group is assumed to respond in a similar manner to environmental change (Suring 

et al. 2011). Spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout and redband trout are the 

designated surrogate species used to analyze effects to other aquatic species with viability 

concerns in the Plan Area.

• Management Indicator Species – The Draft Environmental Impact Statement stated that 

only Alternative A was analyzed for management indicator species. The Draft discussed the 

ineffectiveness of past efforts at monitoring population trends for the aquatic management 

indicator species identified in the 1990 Forest Plans. No suitable alternative species were 

identified as useful aquatic management indicator species for the revised plans in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. The original management indicator species as well as 

possible replacement native and desirable non-native vertebrate species were reassessed for 

suitability as management indicator species between the Draft and Final Environmental 

Impact Statements. In addition, monitoring metrics identified in the 2012 Planning Rule as 

useful for population monitoring were reviewed further. After that reconsideration, a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

4

modified set of management indicator species is now being analyzed for the plan revision

alternatives.

• Focal Species – This discussion is added for clarity as to how focal species would be used 

in the revised Plan. Although this plan revision was developed under the provisions of the 

1982 Planning Rule, it is required that all land management plans be updated and include a 

monitoring strategy that addresses the status of focal species as directed in the 2012 

Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12 (c)(1)). Focal species are not intended to be a proxy for

other species. Instead, they are species whose presence, numbers, or status are useful 

indicators that are intended to provide insight into the integrity of the larger ecological 

system, the effects of management on those ecological conditions, and the effectiveness of 

plan components to provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities. Spring 

Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout and redband trout are the designated focal species in 

the Monitoring Plan.

See the applicable laws and regulations under the “Regulatory Framework” section that follows. 

These categories fully comply with the 1982 Planning Rule, the National Forest Management 

Act, the 2012 Planning Rule monitoring program development (CFR 219.12), national policy for 

Forest Service Sensitive species, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, The Endangered Species Act and the 

obligation to use best available science. It is important to note that a species can fall within one or 

more of the categories defined, but also that portions of a species may fall in one category, while 

another portion of the species may fall in a different category. For example, spring Chinook 

salmon as a whole, serve as both a surrogate species and a focal species; serve as a management 

indicator species for all the plan revision alternatives (but not for Alternative A); all spring 

Chinook salmon are covered under the Magnuson-Stevens Act except for those in the John Day 

and Walla Walla River subbasins; and only the Snake River group of spring Chinook salmon is 

federally listed (see Table 237, Table 238 and Table 239 on pages 9-11).

The climate change discussion was condensed and updated, incorporating recent research and 

literature pertinent to surrogate species viability in the Plan Area (USFWS 2015, Isaak et al. 2017, 

Clifton et al. 2017).

Introduction

The conservation of aquatic species is integral to the maintenance of viable plant and animal 

populations and biological diversity. National Forest System lands administered by the Forest 

Service in the Blue Mountains have long served an important role in supporting a variety of 

aquatic species that are critical to the needs and values of the human population. National Forest 

System lands in the Blue Mountains play an important role in supporting a variety of fish and 

other aquatic species critical to meeting the needs and values of people residing in the area. More 

than 30 native and 24 nonnative fish species occur in subbasins wholly or partly within the Blue 

Mountains national forests (Blue Mountains aquatic species list, project record). Some of these 

native species spend only a portion of their life cycles in National Forest System lands, others do 

not naturally occur within National Forest System lands due to absence of suitable habitat. 

Federal land management agencies and the state wildlife agencies share legal co-trustee 

responsibility for the protection and management of aquatic species. The Forest Service continues 

to work closely and cooperatively with both the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for the conservation and 

management of wildlife resources, including habitat, within the Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests. Such cooperation is important to meet the needs of a growing human 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

5

population that places increasing demands and competing values on resources, which ultimately 

impact the wildlife resource.

Managing ecosystems to sustain aquatic species depends on maintaining the appropriate mix of 

habitat quantity, quality, and distribution across the landscape. The categories and types of aquatic 

species within the Plan Area reflect the diversity of available habitat. Some species, such as 

Chinook salmon and steelhead, are steeped in local culture and tradition and have long been 

important to the local people and communities. However, other species have begun to receive 

greater recognition for the ecological values they offer as indicators of high-quality water (such as

mussel species) or genetic and life history diversity contributions to sustainable populations of 

aquatic species (redband trout in the Columbia River Basin versus redband trout in the Oregon 

Closed Basins). Some of the species that occur within the Plan Area are migratory and/or wide 

ranging and can use several habitat types, while others are more sedentary and use only a single 

habitat or individual component within a habitat type (such as various species of springdependent snails).

The majority of effects to aquatic species result from the proposed management of other 

resources, such as wood fiber, motorized access, wildland fire, and livestock grazing. Although 

the life of a forest plan is 10 to 20 years, impacts to aquatic species are displayed on a decadal 

basis out to 20 years to clearly depict the trajectory for the habitat risks and restoration benefits 

analyzed for each alternative. Different levels of management are proposed for each of the 

alternatives, and each is described in detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. Unless otherwise noted, 

the description of effects is only for National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains 

(excluding Hells Canyon National Recreation Area), and therefore references to the Plan Area, 

analysis area, or national forest are to public lands administered by the Forest Service, unless 

specifically noted otherwise.

Regulatory Framework

The three principle laws relevant to wildlife management are the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act for Pacific 

Salmon. Direction relative to aquatic species is as follows:

• The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to manage fish and 

wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of all native and desirable non-native 

vertebrate wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered species 

populations (36 CFR 219.19).

• The Endangered Species Act requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect 

individuals or habitat of a federally listed non-anadromous species. The Forest Service is 

required to consult with National Marine Fisheries Service if a proposed activity may affect 

individuals or habitat of a federally listed anadromous species.

• The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires analysis of effects to essential fish habitat for all 

Pacific salmon species, including those not listed under other laws or policies, where so 

specified by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The essential fish habitat designation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

6

was finalized on December 18, 2014,1 after the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was 

completed.

• Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal agencies are required to consult with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service when any activity proposed to be permitted, funded, or 

undertaken by a Federal agency may have adverse impacts on designated essential fish 

habitat for Pacific salmon species. The essential fish habitat regulations define an adverse 

effect as “any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of essential fish habitat . . . 

[and] may include direct (e.g. contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g. loss of 

prey, reduction in species’ fecundity), site-specific or habitat wide impacts, including 

individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.”

• Forest Service Manual direction provides additional guidance: identify and prescribe 

measures to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other 

habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species 

(FSM 2670.31 (6)). The Forest Service Manual also directs the Regional Forester to 

identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern 

(FSM 2670.32), and to evaluate the effects of alternatives on Forest Service sensitive 

species in the Plan Area as part of the environmental analysis and planning process.

To comply with the previously mentioned laws, regulations, and policy, the following categories

of species were analyzed in the forest planning process:

• Surrogate species selected as an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same 

habitat and with similar habitat requirements. Population and habitat conditions assessed 

for comparison of effects of alternatives. Rather than evaluating the viability of each 

individual species within the Plan Area, a representative (surrogate species) was selected to 

represent a group of species. The surrogate species approach is a credible and scientifically 

rigorous method to assess ecosystem conditions that contribute to the viability of wildlife 

species.

• Threatened and endangered species listed or proposed for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. The Forest Service is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service when a proposed activity may affect individuals or habitat of a listed 

nonanadromous aquatic species. The Forest Service is required to consult with National 

Marine Fisheries Service when a proposed activity may affect individuals or habitat of a 

listed anadromous aquatic species.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.31 (6)) direction provides additional guidance: 

identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modifications or destruction of critical 

habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened and 

proposed species.

• Forest Service sensitive species – The 2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

identified species identified by the regional forester as sensitive, whose presence either is

suspected or has been documented within the Plan Area.

For simplicity, the term “sensitive species” throughout the rest of this analysis will apply 

only to Forest Service sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s List. The term will not 

refer to other species considered sensitive by other organizations or entities. The Regional 

Forester reviews lists of species developed by other organizations that have identified 

 1 See Federal Register 79 FR 75449
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

7

species with viability concerns at state scale up to global scale, and selects those with 

concerns for viability on national forests for inclusion on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List as either documented or suspected on individual national forests in the region, 

based on best available information. The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List used 

for this analysis was distributed in 2011 for use by Forest Service biologists across the 

region.

• Management Indicator Species required under the 1982 Planning Rule. The Blue 

Mountains Forest Plan Revision process used management indicator species for the purpose 

of assessing the impacts of the alternatives on wildlife and fish populations as directed in 

the 1982 Planning Rule (CFR 219.19 (a)(1) and (2)). The no-action alternative (Alternative 

A, no change in current management) was evaluated in terms of the management indicator 

species listed in the 1990 Forest Plans. Some of those management indicator species were 

selected and analyzed for the plan revision alternatives. Effects of alternatives to 

management indicator species were conducted using surrogate species viability modeling.

• Focal Species – species required under the 2012 Planning Rule for monitoring purposes. 

Although this plan revision was developed under the 1982 Planning Rule, it is required that 

the plan include a monitoring strategy that addresses the status of focal species as directed 

in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12 (c)(1)). All surrogate species used in this 

analysis for comparison of alternatives, are also designated as focal species for monitoring 

purposes under the proposed Plan revision.

• Essential Fish Habitat for Pacific Salmon – Forest management in the Plan Area must be 

analyzed for effects to Essential Fish Habitat for Chinook and/or Coho salmon in subbasins 

designated by National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Federal 

agencies must consult with National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act when the preferred alternative has potential for adverse effects to essential fish habitat 

for Pacific salmon species in the Plan Area.

Surrogate Species and their Relationship to other Categories of Species

Species subject to a required viability analysis fall into a variety of categories for analysis based 

on concerns for viability, and some fall into multiple categories. Viability for each threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, and management indicator species will be discussed by applicable category 

as required by law and Forest Service policy. Species viability analyses and analyses for essential 

fish habitat will be presented by category in the following order:

• surrogate species

• threatened and endangered species

• Forest Service sensitive species

• management indicator species

• Magnuson-Stevens Act species

To assess effects to viability of native and desirable nonnative aquatic vertebrate species within 

each of the national forests, a suite of aquatic surrogate species was selected to represent other 

aquatic species in National Forest System lands with similar distributions or habitat requirements. 

Surrogate aquatic species were selected from among management indicator species in the 1990 

Forest Plans, as well as from federally threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species 

and Forest Service sensitive species (those on the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

8

species list as of 2011), or which qualified for consideration based on the presence of Essential 

Fish Habitat for Pacific salmon, including those which are not federally listed.

The process for selecting surrogate species followed direction and guidance provided by Pacific 

Northwest Region Planning, using a regional model originally developed by Reiss et al (2008), 

the Aquatic Sustainability Model, which was modified for use in the Blue Mountains Plan Area. 

The model as used in the Blue Mountains Plan Area is described in detail in the Watershed 

Function section earlier in this Final Environmental Impact Statement and in the Plan Area. Data 

and model inputs, calculations and results are available in the planning record various aspects of 

the results are summarized in the comparisons of alternatives here and in the Watershed Function 

effects section.

Each surrogate species consists of one or more regional subgroups of the species, termed 

variously as evolutionarily significant units (ESU), distinct population segments (DPS), or 

geographic management units (GMU). Some subgroups have been listed under the Endangered 

Species Act, others have not.

• “Evolutionarily significant units” is a term used by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and refers to regional subgroups of the various Pacific salmon species.

• “Distinct population segment” is used by the National Marine Fisheries Service to refer to 

regional subgroups of summer steelhead, as well as by the Forest Service Sensitive species 

list to refer to certain regional subgroups of redband trout. The term is also used by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to refer to regional subgroups of bull trout and redband trout, and 

is the term used in the Endangered Species Act to describe subunits of species that are 

eligible for listing, or to describe subgroups of species that could be delisted separately by 

meeting specific recovery objectives identified in a species recovery plan.

• “Geographic management unit” is a term used by a regional State, Federal, and private 

sector working group to refer to regional subgroups of redband trout to facilitate 

development of a species-wide, multi-state conservation strategy for redband trout.

Each of these terms will be used as relevant for purposes of category discussions and as required 

by law and regulation in the analyses for individual aquatic species that follow.

Spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout and redband trout, the selected surrogate species, in 

aggregate occupy the full extent of fish-bearing habitat in National Forest System lands in the 

Plan Area and are species for which the Forest Service has enough information to evaluate effects 

of management and whose habitat could be substantially affected by management of National 

Forest System lands. Projected effects of alternatives on viability of each surrogate species will 

represent projected effects to viability for other aquatic species represented by that particular 

surrogate species.

Some federally listed species and sensitive species are limited in their distributions to certain 

subbasins, as is essential fish habitat, even though chosen surrogate species may occupy a broader 

area. The subbasin-scale analyses for each surrogate species facilitate subsequent assessments for 

more geographically limited sensitive species. Individual threatened and endangered species and 

certain sensitive species are not uniformly distributed across the Plan Area, and analysis for each 

such species or species subgroup is limited to the subbasins where spawning and rearing habitat 

for the individual species or species subgroup is present. For those few sensitive species on the 

Regional Forester’s list that are not well represented by one or more of the selected surrogate 

species, effects conclusions were based on factors relevant to the species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

9

Table 237. Surrogate species and other species analyzed for viability, which are documented (D) or suspected (S) within the Malheur National Forest 

(including the portion of Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur National Forest)

Species, ESU/DPS1 Scientific Name Presence

(D or S)

Surrogate/Focal 

Species2

(Yes or No)

Federally 

Listed

Sensitive3

(Yes or No)

Management 

Indicator4

(Yes or No)

MagnusonStevens Act5

(Yes or No)

Spring Chinook salmon, 

Middle Columbia River 

ESU

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

D Yes No No No No

Bull trout, Columbia 

River Basin DPS

Salvelinus confluentus D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Steelhead, Middle 

Columbia River Basin 

DPS

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Redband trout, Interior 

Columbia River

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes No No Yes No

Redband trout, Great 

Basin/ Oregon Closed 

Basins GMU (Malheur 

Lakes populations)

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes No Yes 

(Oregon only)

Yes No

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi D No No Yes 

(Oregon only)

Yes No

Harney Basin duskysnail Colligyrus depressa S No No Yes 

(Oregon only)

No No

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata D No No Yes No No

Shortfaced lanx Fisherola nuttalli S No No Yes No No

Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae S No No Yes No No

Pacific lamprey6 Entosphenus tridentatus D No No No No No

1. ESU/DPS = Evolutionarily Significant Unit/Distinct Population Segment as defined by National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2. The surrogate species selected for viability modeling were also identified as focal species for purposes of forest plan monitoring under the 2012 Planning rule.

3. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 6, (2011).

4. Management Indicator species in the 1990 Forest Plans.

5. See Federal Register 79 FR 75449

6. Public interest species only.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

10

Table 238. Surrogate species and other species analyzed for viability, which are documented (D) or suspected (S) within the Umatilla National Forest 

Species, ESU/DPS1 Scientific Name Presence

(D or S)

Surrogate/Focal 

Species2

(Yes or No)

Federally 

Listed

Sensitive3

(Yes or No)

Management 

Indicator4

(Yes or No)

MagnusonStevens Act5

(Yes or No)

Spring Chinook salmon, 

Snake River ESU

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No No Yes

Spring Chinook salmon, 

Middle Columbia River 

ESU

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

D Yes No No No Yes

Fall Chinook salmon, 

Snake River ESU

Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

D No Yes 

(Threatened)

No No Yes

Bull trout, Columbia River 

Basin DPS

Salvelinus confluentus D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Steelhead, Snake River 

Basin DPS Oncorhynchus mykiss

D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No No No

Steelhead, Middle 

Columbia River Basin 

DPS

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Redband trout, Interior 

Columbia River Basin

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes No No Yes No

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi D No No Yes

(Oregon only)

No No

Margined sculpin Cottus marginatus D No No Yes

(Washington 

only)

No No

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata D No No Yes No No

Shortfaced lanx Fisherola nuttalli S No No Yes No No

Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae S No No Yes No No

Pacific lamprey6 Entosphenus tridentatus D No No No No No

1. ESU/DPS = Evolutionarily Significant Unit/Distinct Population Segment as defined by National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2. The surrogate species that were selected for viability modeling were also identified as focal species for purposes of forest plan monitoring per the 2012 Planning Rule.

3. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 6, (2011). The only redband populations identified as Forest Service Sensitive are the Malheur Lakes populations on the Malheur 

National Forest. An interagency 2010 rangewide redband conservation strategy addresses all interior Columbia Basin redband populations.

4. Management indicator species in the 1990 Forest Plans.

5. See Federal Register 79 FR 75449

6. Public interest species only.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

11

Table 239. Surrogate species and other species analyzed for viability, which are documented (D) or suspected (S) within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

Species, ESU/DPS1 Scientific Name Presence

(D or S)

Surrogate/Focal 

Species2

(Yes or No)

Federally 

Listed

Sensitive3

(Yes or No)

Management 

Indicator4

(Yes or No)

MagnusonStevens Act5

(Yes or No)

Spring Chinook salmon, 

Snake River Basin ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No No Yes

Spring Chinook salmon, 

Middle Columbia River ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha D Yes No No No No

Fall Chinook salmon, Snake 

River ESU

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha D No Yes 

(Threatened)

No No Yes

Sockeye salmon, Snake River 

Basin6

Oncorhynchus nerka D No Yes 

(Endangered)

No No No

Bull trout, Columbia River 

Basin DPS

Salvelinus confluentus D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Steelhead, Snake River Basin

Oncorhynchus mykiss

D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Steelhead, Middle Columbia 

River Basin DPS

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes Yes 

(Threatened)

No Yes No

Redband trout, Interior 

Columbia River

Oncorhynchus mykiss D Yes No No Yes No

Westslope cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi D No No Yes Yes No

Resident (non-anadromous) 

trout7

Salvelinus sp. and Oncorhynchus sp. D Yes (redband and 

bull trout only)

Yes (bull trout 

only)

Yes (westslope 

cutthroat only)

Yes No

Margined sculpin Cottus marginatus D No No Yes No No

Western ridged mussel Gonidea angulata D No No Yes No No

Shortfaced lanx Fisherola nuttalli S No No Yes No No

Columbia clubtail Gomphus lynnae S No No Yes No No

Columbia pebblesnail Fluminicola fuscus D No No Yes No No

Pacific lamprey8 Entosphenus tridentatus D No No No No No

1. ESU/DPS = Evolutionarily Significant Unit/Distinct Population Segment as defined by National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2. The surrogate species selected for viability modeling were also identified as focal species for purposes of forest plan monitoring under the 2012 Planning Rule.

3. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Region 6, (2011)

4. Management indicator species in the 1990 Forest Plans.

5. See Federal Register 79 FR 75449

6. Sockeye salmon are present in the Snake River/Hells Canyon National Recreation Area migratory corridor only, outside the Plan Area.

7. Resident Oncorhynchus species include redband trout, westslope cutthroat, hatchery rainbow trout. Resident Salvelinus species include bull trout and non-native invasive brook 

trout. Viability modeling was only done for redband trout and bull trout, which serve as surrogates for viability of the other resident trout species, native and desired non-native. The 

viability modeling done for the species selected as surrogate/focal species serves as indirect (surrogate) viability analysis for management indicator and sensitive species not used 

as surrogates and not proposed as focal species. Westslope cutthroat, hatchery rainbow and brook trout were not carried forward as management indicator species for plan revision 

alternatives for reasons discussed later in the section discussing management indicator species.

8. Public interest species only.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

12

The affected environment and effects of alternatives relative to federally listed, sensitive and 

management indicator species or Essential Fish Habitat will be analyzed based on effects to 

relevant surrogate species or spatially discrete subgroup of a surrogate species as appropriate, and 

discussed in the “Threatened and Endangered Species,” “Sensitive Species,” “Management 

Indicator Species” and Magnuson-Stevens Act (Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat) sections,

which follow the effects analyses for surrogate species.

For each individual species evolutionarily significant unit, distinct population segment, or 

geographic management unit, the goal for viability is to provide habitat sufficient to support selfsustaining populations in National Forest System lands within inherent capabilities of the 

landscape. “A self-sustaining population is one that is sufficiently abundant and has appropriate 

population characteristics to provide for its persistence over many generations” and “surrogate 

species populations are sustainable when their habitat is in good ecological condition and when 

they have access to habitat and other populations” (Reiss et al. 2008). For those species not 

currently listed under the Endangered Species Act, the intent is to provide ecological conditions 

that would help keep the species from being listed.

Aquatic Species Diversity – Affected Environment

Surrogate and Focal Species

The affected environment for species diversity consists of all fish habitat and all populations of 

the species selected for analysis within the 25 subbasins associated with the Plan Area. Lands of 

other ownership within each subbasin were assessed for purposes of cumulative effects analysis 

for these populations since the populations occupy many land ownerships in these subbasins. The 

affected environment includes all fish-bearing habitats in National Forest System lands, 

irrespective of species. Unless otherwise noted, the description of effects is only for fish 

populations and fish habitat within National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains national 

forests Plan Area (excluding Hells Canyon Natural Recreation Area). Therefore, references to the 

Plan Area, analysis area, or national forest are to public lands administered by the Forest Service, 

unless specifically noted otherwise.

The area managed under the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive 

Management Plan contributes to species diversity. Management direction under the 

Comprehensive Management Plan will remain unchanged by this plan revision. Species that may 

be affected by ongoing management in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, but which 

would not be affected by revisions to the Forest Plans, will not be analyzed here.

Management direction specific to the key watershed network (priority and other key watersheds 

in aggregate) contributes to the maintenance or restoration of viable populations and aquatic 

species diversity. For PACFISH and INFISH, the immediate purposes for establishing key and 

priority watersheds were to protect fish habitat and to initiate passive restoration through natural 

processes. The key watershed network represents more of the land base in some subbasins than 

others (see Table 240).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

13

Table 240. Current distribution of key (PACFISH) and priority (INFISH) subwatersheds by subbasin 

for each National Forest

Subbasin

Subwatersheds Occupied 

by One or More Federally 

listed Species

PACFISH Key 

Subwatersheds

INFISH Priority 

Subwatersheds

Malheur

Middle Fork John Day 29 29 0

Upper John Day 47 47 0

Upper Malheur 19 0 19

Silvies 0 0 20

Silver 0 0 14

North Fork John Day 4 4 0

Harney-Malheur 0 0 4

South Fork Crooked RiverBeaver Creek0 0 7

Totals 137 80 64

Umatilla

Middle Fork John Day 1 1 0

North Fork John Day 84 84 0

Lower John Day 4 4 0

Willow-Columbia 2 2 0

Umatilla 15 15 0

Walla Walla 10 10 0

Tucannon 7 7 0

Asotin 6 6 0

Lower Grande Ronde 25 25 0

Upper Grande Ronde 9 9 0

Totals 163 163 0

Wallowa-Whitman

Imnaha 29 29 0

Lower Grande Ronde 29 29 0

Upper Grande Ronde 50 50 0

Lower Snake-Asotin 1 1 0

North Fork John Day 7 7 0

Hells Canyon, Brownlee 32 20 12

Powder 30 0 30

Burnt 0 0 22

Wallowa 22 22 0

Totals 172 132 64

Examples of passive restoration in progress include changes in certain fish-habitat metrics being 

monitored in Umatilla and John Day subbasins on the Umatilla National Forest (Archer et al. 

2009, 2016a) based on the PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion long-term effectiveness 

monitoring program. With respect to trend analyses for the Umatilla National Forest’s portions of 

the North Fork John Day subbasin, a Umatilla National Forest interdisciplinary team of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

14

specialists (USDA Forest Service 2015) noted that significant accumulations of large woody 

debris in stream channels are occurring, and noted that those accumulations over time will likely 

drive subsequent improvements in additional indicators of habitat quality for aquatic species in 

forest watersheds. They also recognized that not all streams have the same habitat capabilities and 

that PACFISH-INFISH riparian management objectives were never intended to function as longterm one-size-fits-all metrics that apply to all fish-bearing streams. Some subbasins have 

insufficient sampling sites or insufficient repeat sampling at established monitoring sites to detect 

trends at the subbasin scale as yet.

As research has increasingly shown since 1995, landscape scale natural processes create shifting 

subwatershed mosaics through time and space, and watersheds with varying riparian and aquatic 

habitat conditions. The rich variety of life histories and mobility among members of the salmon 

and trout family demonstrate that as a group they are adapted to these landscape-scale disturbance 

processes, including high-severity wildfire events in environments where they represent the 

inherent fire regime; that is, those events are within the historic range of frequencies, severities 

and spatial extent for the particular vegetation types affected (Rieman et al, 1997; Howell, 2006), 

particularly when unaffected habitat remains accessible, is well-connected to habitats exposed to 

the disturbance event, and individuals maintaining a migratory life-history are still present in the 

population in question (Rieman and McIntyre, 1993). Based on the need to incorporate 

information gained over the past 15 years, the existing regional aquatic conservation strategies 

were combined and updated to create a new Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008, updated 2016). A revised set of key subwatersheds for the 

Blue Mountains forest plan revision was created under the guidance of the Regional Strategy and 

the Regional Aquatic Sustainability Model. This revised set of key watersheds was selected from 

all subbasins within the Plan Area and includes a set of priority watersheds targeted for active 

restoration over the life of the Plan. The list of key watersheds was identified based on guidance 

in the Regional Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008) and methods described in the Regional 

Aquatic Sustainability Model (USDA Forest Service 2008, as locally adapted for application in 

the Blue Mountains Plan Revision; see Watershed Function Methods section in Chapter 3 of this 

document). The selection was based on the assumption that an appropriate distribution of habitat 

conditions can be provided on National Forest System lands within this set of watersheds that, in 

the long term, will support viability for the four surrogate species and for the other aquatic 

species they represent on each national forest.

Population and habitat conditions in subwatersheds used for spawning and rearing by the selected 

surrogate species served as the basis for selection of a revised set of key watersheds for the plan 

revision alternatives. The conditions and trends for surrogate species in National Forest System 

lands are particularly influenced by management actions and natural processes within the 

watersheds they inhabit, as discussed in the both the 2008 and 2016 Regional ARCS.

Consistent with guidance provided by the 2008 Regional ARCS and the regional Aquatic 

Sustainability Model used for comparison of alternatives (Reiss et al. 2008), key watersheds 

selected for this Plan Revision are a network of watersheds identified to serve, or which have the 

potential to serve, as strongholds for important aquatic resources (surrogate species). The term 

“focal species,” which was used in the 2008 Regional ARCS, the 2014 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement and in Reiss et al. (2008), predates the term as it was defined for the 2012 

Planning Rule, is not used the same way in this analysis; it is synonymous with the term and 

intent for “surrogate species” as used in this updated Final Environmental Impact Statement. Key 

watersheds are areas crucial to threatened, endangered, or sensitive fish and aquatic species, 

and/or areas that provide high quality water important for maintenance of downstream 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

15

populations. The value of the selected key watersheds to surrogate species (spring Chinook 

salmon, steelhead, bull trout and redband trout) was identified through application of the Blue 

Mountains Plan Revision Sustainability Model for Aquatic Species, and validated through review 

by fisheries biologists located on the affected national forests (Gecy 2013a).

Guidance provided by both the 2008 and 2016 Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategies indicates that management of these areas is intended to emphasize minimizing risk and 

maximizing restoration or retention of ecological health. This guidance was brought forward into 

all alternatives, which vary in their proposed management strategies, and emphasize riskreduction and health of aquatic ecosystems through Plan Revision goals, objectives, standards, 

and guidelines for key watersheds for all alternatives. The alternatives were designed with that 

guidance in mind, which has been reflected in Alternatives B through F developed for the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement as of 2014 and the two additional alternatives developed since 

2014. The identification of a revised set of key subwatersheds (including priority subwatersheds 

for active restoration) was based on the assumption that an appropriate distribution of habitat 

conditions can be provided in National Forest System lands within this network of key 

subwatersheds that, in the long term, will contribute to sustaining viability for the various 

populations of the selected surrogate species and the sensitive, management indicator species and 

additional listed species they represent.

The purpose for selection of surrogate species was to select species that inhabit streams used by 

other species (such as margined sculpins, lamprey, and sensitive aquatic mollusks, as well as 

federally listed fall Chinook salmon), and that those selected surrogate species use habitat 

features also used by other federally listed species as well as margined sculpins and other 

sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (2011) for which we have little 

information. This plan focuses on effects to habitats used by species serving as surrogates for 

other sensitive species and assumes that if those habitats are improving or being maintained in 

good condition, that the agency’s management is not contributing to loss of the species and is 

helping to maintain viable populations of all species that require those habitat features which are 

also used by the surrogate species.

Aquatic Species Viability – Affected Environment

Surrogate and Focal Species

The four aquatic surrogate and focal species selected for this Plan revision are spring Chinook 

salmon, bull trout, summer steelhead, and redband trout. For purposes of diversity and viability 

analysis and comparison of alternatives, these four species will be referred to simply as 

surrogate species for the remainder of the analysis, as they only function as focal species for 

Monitoring Plan purposes under the 2012 Planning Rule. These surrogate species are all 

native salmonid species and represent broader biotic communities within various subsectors of 

aquatic habitats: headwaters, small tributaries, large tributaries, and rivers within the Plan Area. 

The selected surrogate species fall into two primary behavioral groups. Anadromous species, 

salmon and steelhead, breed and spend part of their life in fresh water, then travel to the ocean to 

feed until maturity, returning to fresh water 1 or more years later, to breed. Freshwater species,

bull trout and redband trout, may migrate long distances seasonally within fresh water habitats 

but they spend all their lives in fresh water and never migrate to and from ocean habitats. Each 

primary behavioral group is secondarily split between spring-spawners and fall-spawners.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

16

Each of these four species reflects adaptation to long term, local ecological characteristics and 

processes within each subbasin. Although their habitats overlap in places, each species uses a 

different portion of the wide range of aquatic habitats in National Forest System lands, depending 

on their life stage and season of the year, their habitat requirements, and current habitat conditions 

both on and off-forest. Current conditions for these species and their habitats on National Forest 

System lands reflect natural processes and watershed characteristics, along with the effects of past 

and present land management activities and on the species within the larger river basin landscapes 

in which those National Forest System lands are embedded. The ongoing and future influences of 

long-term climate change in the Pacific Northwest on aquatic surrogate species are discussed later 

in this chapter.

Fine-grained differences in habitat patterns of use by each species are described later in this 

section. Spawning and rearing habitat for one or more of the selected surrogate species is present 

in each subbasin in which Plan Area lands are located. As a group, these four species are well 

distributed throughout the subbasins within each national forest, but the distribution for individual 

species or subgroups varies across each forest.

For purposes of this discussion, subbasin-scale populations are connected networks of smaller 

local populations of each surrogate species and are analyzed separately, subbasin by subbasin 

using the Aquatic Sustainability Model. Effects to each subbasin population are based on a 

subwatershed-scale habitat and population condition model for each species and are aggregated 

by species using a subbasin-scale application of the Blue Mountains aquatic species sustainability 

model developed by Gecy (2013a). Both models are derivations of a Regional Sustainability 

Model developed by Reiss et al. (2008). Any strong local populations of any of the surrogate 

species that remain within the Blue Mountains National Forests are located within subwatersheds 

currently characterized by very limited management activity and low road density. The majority 

of those subwatersheds were identified as key watersheds, per the analysis process applied 

through the Blue Mountains aquatic sustainability model.

Long-term viability of each surrogate species is partially dependent upon availability of sufficient 

high quality spawning and rearing habitats within subbasins through time, as well as reliant on 

population and habitat connectivity within and between subbasins. Within National Forest System 

lands, an assortment of seasonal or year-round barriers currently impacts population connectivity. 

These barriers include physical barriers, such as culverts in National Forest System roads, barriers 

created by high water temperatures or low seasonal flow, and/or water diversions within National 

Forest System lands for beneficial uses outside the stream channel. The extent to which particular 

types of barriers impact a particular surrogate species is subwatershed and subbasin specific. 

Similar barriers in lands downstream of the National Forests further impair population 

connectivity within and between subbasins for each species.

All four surrogate species within the Plan Area occur as multiple distinct population segments or 

as multiple evolutionarily significant units of the species. One or more distinct population 

segments or evolutionarily significant units of each surrogate species is present within each 

national forest. Distinct population segments and evolutionarily significant units are important 

spatially defined regional subgroups within each species. Because component populations of each 

species are generally described by both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service at the subbasin scale, except where otherwise noted, current viability status for 

each distinct population segment and evolutionarily significant unit is described in this order: first 

for each population based on subbasin boundaries, then summarized for each distinct population 

segment or evolutionarily significant unit as they occur within each national forest, followed by a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

17

summary for each species where more than one distinct population segment or evolutionarily 

significant unit of the species is present within a national forest.

Surrogate Species Descriptions

Spring Chinook Salmon

Spring Chinook salmon are able to access intermediate sized tributaries and spawn farther 

upstream than fall run Chinook salmon and can be found in medium sized river reaches and 

tributaries within and downstream of national forest boundaries. Their habitat somewhat overlaps 

with steelhead habitat at the upper end of their distribution and overlaps with fall Chinook salmon 

habitat in the lower reaches of large rivers at the lower end of their distribution.

Non-native spring Chinook salmon stocks are present in the Umatilla and Walla Walla subbasins, 

where the original stocks are extinct. Hatchery stocks and wild stocks comingle in the Snake 

River Basin in subbasins below Hells Canyon Dam that are still accessible to anadromous 

species. Selection of spring Chinook salmon as a surrogate species represents the habitat needs of 

other aquatic species inhabiting lower elevation medium and large sized rivers and larger 

tributaries within the Plan Area, in particular, large bodied anadromous species and fall spawners.

Native spring Chinook salmon within the Plan Area belong to two different evolutionarily 

significant units that occur in non-overlapping portions of the Plan Area: the Middle Columbia 

River spring Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit and the Snake River Basin spring 

Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit. Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon are 

listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act; Middle Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon are not listed at this time. The Malheur National Forest provides habitat for populations 

within the Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant units only

whereas the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests provide habitat for populations of 

both evolutionarily significant units.

Viability analyses for Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon in the John Day River 

Basin and reintroduced nonnative stocks in National Forest System lands in other Middle 

Columbia River subbasins associated with the Plan Area would serve as surrogates for current 

viability of other non-Endangered Species Act-listed fall- spawning anadromous species in 

National Forest System lands (see Table 241), such as reintroduced coho, which are found 

downstream of the boundary of the Umatilla National Forest in the Umatilla River subbasin. The 

Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit will be analyzed 

separately from the Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit 

where they both occur in the same National Forest to facilitate subsequent Endangered Species 

Act determinations for effects specific to Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon, which serve 

as a surrogate for effects to Snake River fall Chinook salmon in the Plan Area. Overall 

conclusions for spring Chinook salmon as a surrogate species will be drawn based on review of 

effects to each individual evolutionarily significant unit, for those forests where both 

evolutionarily significant units are present (the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests).

Bull Trout

Bull trout exist express a variety of freshwater life histories, migratory and headwater nonmigratory, within the plan revision area. Migratory bull trout move between their natal streams 

and larger bodies of freshwater, such as lakes, reservoirs and mainstem rivers where they can 

grow much larger than the nonmigratory individuals that remain in small colder, high-elevation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

18

headwaters as adults. The migratory life history is still present in most of the populations 

associated with Blue Mountains national forests, but some headwater non-migratory populations 

have been isolated and are very small due to historic land use impacts. Connectivity among such 

non-migratory populations is no longer provided by migratory individuals and these populations 

are at heightened risk of long-term extirpation.

Bull trout, like spring Chinook salmon, are fall spawners with eggs that overwinter in the gravels 

and fry that emerge from redds in late winter and early spring. Bull trout tend to fare best where 

aquatic habitats provide not only cold water, but also high habitat complexity associated with 

instream large wood. Bull trout serve as a surrogate species based on their ability to represent 

aquatic species with similar habitat preferences and life history characteristics. They represent 

species present in medium-sized, high-elevation tributaries to headwaters, fall spawners, 

migratory freshwater species, those species requiring year round high quality cold water and 

habitat complexity, and those species closely associated with streambeds. Bull trout are noted for 

their affinity for cold headwaters and high habitat complexity and are an indicator of high quality 

habitat. Bull trout serve to a degree as surrogates for brook lamprey and Pacific lamprey 

ammocoetes, in that they associate closely with the streambed, although they prefer different 

microsites within streambeds once emerged from spawning gravels, and serve as surrogates for 

sculpin, which also associate closely with the streambed, and whose distributions extend into 

cold, higher-elevation headwaters used as year-round bull trout habitat where other species are 

less common.

Steelhead

Steelhead spawn and rear in medium and small rivers, tributary streams, and upstream portions of 

mainstem rivers. In the Plan Area, steelhead belong to two distinct population segments that occur 

in non-overlapping areas: the Middle Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment and 

the Snake River Basin steelhead distinct population segment. The Malheur National Forest 

provides habitat only for Middle Columbia River steelhead populations whereas the Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests provide habitat for populations of both the Middle Columbia 

River and Snake River Basin steelhead distinct population segments. Both distinct population 

segments are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Steelhead represent a different range of needs both spatially and temporally than spring Chinook 

salmon, although both species need good quality spawning and rearing habitat, cool water, and 

sufficient flow in the migration corridors as well as in spawning and rearing reaches. Steelhead as 

a surrogate species represent larger- bodied spring- spawning anadromous species using cool 

mid- elevation large tributaries to headwaters, within accessible portions of the Middle Columbia 

River and Snake River Basins. They will serve as a surrogate species for Pacific lamprey, which 

are one of the other anadromous spring-spawning species using these watersheds, because we 

know little about the current habitat distribution of lamprey, though juveniles lamprey 

(ammocoetes) are still observed on occasion in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin (S. Namitz, 

pers. comm.) and adults are still observed in main upper tributaries in the North Fork John Day 

subbasin now and then and have been reintroduced in the Umatilla River subbasin by the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Effects to Pacific lamprey will be 

assessed based on effects to surrogates because although they were not a Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species as of 2011, they were mentioned in public comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and are recognized as a public-interest species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

19

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to list Pacific lamprey as threatened or 

endangered in 2003. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published their findings in 2004 in the 

Federal Register (69 FR 77158), and determined that based on the information provided, that 

listing is not warranted for Pacific lamprey. Concerns remain, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

produced a guidance document, Best Management Practices to minimize adverse effects to 

Pacific lamprey in 2010, which is in use in the Blue Mountains Plan Area as best available 

science (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). They followed that effort by spearheading 

development of an interagency, multi-state Pacific Lamprey Conservation Initiative, which has 

three major aspects: (1) an assessment (Luzier et al, 2011), (2) a conservation agreement (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2012) signed by 29 states, tribes, and county and state and local 

organizations (including the Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest 

Service), and (3) multiple regional implementation plans.2

 The assessment concluded that 

existing threats to the species include passage barriers, streamflow management, stream and 

floodplain degradation and reduced water quality, which are also recognized as threats to listed 

species in the Plan Area. The regional implementation plans applicable to the Blue Mountains 

Plan Revision Plan Area include the Mid-Columbia and Snake Regional Implementation Plans 

(Poirier 2017, Brostom et al 2017). This assortment of documents are known and used by Forest 

Service biologists and their partners as best available science to incorporate lamprey conservation 

planning into projects designed to help recover federally listed species. Steelhead habitat is 

widespread throughout the accessible Columbia Basin portions of each forest in the Blue 

Mountains Plan Area, which is why steelhead were chosen as a surrogate for adult members of 

species with for which we have much more limited information.

Redband Trout

Redband trout are considered present wherever steelhead are present in the interior Columbia 

River Basin, including portions of the Snake River Basin downstream of Hells Canyon Dam. The 

juvenile life stages of the two forms can be very difficult to differentiate where they co-occur, as 

they are the same species (Oncorhynchus mykiss), but express two different life histories, 

steelhead expressing ocean-going anadromy and redband trout expressing year-round freshwater 

residency. Redband trout are found throughout the Plan Area, including subbasins where 

steelhead have no access.

Redband habitat requirements are similar to those of steelhead juveniles in freshwater, as they are 

the same species. Redband trout occupy small and medium rivers and streams year round. They 

spawn and rear in medium and small rivers and tributaries and upstream portions of mainstem 

rivers from late winter into May. As small-bodied lifelong-resident spring spawners, redband trout 

represent a different range of needs both spatially and temporally than spring Chinook salmon or 

steelhead. They spawn at elevations lower than those used by bull trout and tolerate warmer 

temperatures in their spawning and rearing habitats than bull trout. They are representative of 

species that preferentially use the middle to upper portions of the water column, as opposed to the 

streambed affinities displayed by bull trout. Redband trout are analyzed as a surrogate species 

based on their ability to represent non-anadromous freshwater aquatic species with similar habitat 

preferences and life history characteristics, particularly spring spawners, those requiring yearround good quality water, species inhabiting large tributaries to very small headwaters at middle 

elevations, and species in watersheds where no other surrogate species are present.

 2 https://www.fws.gov/pacificlamprey/Documents/Pacific%20Lamprey%20Conservation%20Agreement.pdf
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

20

Brook lamprey are one of the other spring-spawning, nonanadromous, native, small-bodied 

species using these watersheds; however, we know little about their current habitat distribution. 

Redband trout habitat is widespread throughout the accessible portions of each forest in the Blue 

Mountains Plan Area, particularly within the Middle Columbia and Snake River Basins, which is 

why redband trout were chosen as a surrogate for non-anadromous spring-spawning brook 

lamprey, for Pacific lamprey which spend years in fresh water, for westslope cutthroat trout and 

for other sensitive species for which we have much more limited information.

Current Status of Surrogate and Focal Species

Habitat and species status for each surrogate/focal species, were evaluated subbasin by subbasin, 

using National Forest System stream inventory data, information from other sources including 

subbasin assessments, recovery plans and status reviews and were applied using protocols 

described in Reiss et al. (2008). For purposes of analysis, a surrogate species is considered to be 

viable within the capabilities of an individual national forest when spawning and rearing habitat 

for that species is considered to be in fair or good riparian-aquatic condition and the species has 

fair or good access to habitat and related populations of the species within and between national 

forest system lands in subbasins used by that species. Federally listed species by definition are not 

currently viable at the scale at which they were listed (ESU/DPS), but may have component 

populations that are currently viable, which are defined at subbasin-scale across land ownerships. 

All-lands population status and trends, along with riparian-aquatic habitat condition and 

connectivity in the Plan Area are all used to describe current conditions for each surrogate/focal 

species in Table 241 through Table 244 below, using best available scientific information.

Condition of spawning and rearing habitat in each Plan Area subbasin, was assessed for each 

surrogate species, using the following criteria: (1) an area-weighted average of riparian and 

aquatic habitat conditions in subwatersheds used by the species for spawning and rearing, (2) how 

well the spawning and rearing habitat is distributed for the species in each subbasin, and (3) the 

quantity and location of culverts impairing access and connectivity among spawning and rearing 

habitats for the species. Passage barrier inventories of culverts available for each national forest, 

were reviewed and professional judgement used to determine for each surrogate species, the 

extent to which habitat and population connectivity is impaired at road-stream crossings within 

national forest boundaries as well as by downstream dams within some subbasins,.

Current trends for riparian and aquatic habitats for each aquatic species were assessed in this 

analysis, using data from regional-scale effectiveness monitoring using protocols developed in 

response to requirements of biological opinions for the 1990 Forest Plans as amended by 

PACFISH and/or INFISH (Archer et al. 2009, Archer and Ojala 2016a, 2016b, 2016c).

This monitoring is done at a larger scale than the Plan Area, but includes all portions of the Plan 

Area. Implementation of PACFISH and INFISH in their respective areas was designed to forestall 

any further management-related habitat degradation and to allow for nearly natural rates of 

habitat recovery. Passive restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats through natural processes 

appears to be occurring within National Forest System lands based on recent monitoring-based 

habitat trend analyses (Archer et al. 2009). The “Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water 

Uses” section of Chapter 3 discusses these effectiveness monitoring results in greater detail, 

which will not be repeated here. Instead, it will simply be noted that riparian and aquatic habitat 

conditions are currently trending upward at the scale of the Plan Area, following 15-plus years of 

management under the 1990 Forest Plans as amended by PACFISH and/or INFISH, based on 

these monitoring results.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

21

The 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS provides an adaptive strategy to refine the aquatic habitat 

metrics used for Watershed Condition Framework evaluations in the Blue Mountains Plan 

Revision area. That process would enable refinements of desired conditions for various metrics at 

meaningful watershed scales. This 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS provision was developed after the 

2008 Regional ARCS was incorporated into desired condition statements for aquatic habitat. The 

long-term effectiveness monitoring program that has been underway under the PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion for the past 16 years would continue, and would provide a basis for 

comparison with effectiveness of the revised plans for restoring watersheds, streams, riparian and 

fish habitats. Plan level monitoring using protocols developed originally to assess effectiveness of 

PACFISH and INFISH direction, will continue to be conducted, building ever more robust data 

sets enabling us to detect trends in individual habitat indicators at national forest, subbasin, 

watershed, and reach scales and the effects of Forest Plan implementation on those indicators.

Spring Chinook Salmon

Subbasin-scale habitat and population conditions in each national forest are summarized in Table 

241 and accompanying narratives for each forest. The table identifies populations as either 

belonging to the Middle Columbia River or Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units. 

Population boundaries are based on descriptions in the Snake River Basin salmon and steelhead 

Recovery Plan (NMFS 2016) and the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 

2009). Evolutionarily significant unit distinctions are made here to simplify and reduce 

redundancy of effects analysis and discussion specific to threatened Snake River Basin spring 

Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit in the section on “Threatened and Endangered 

Species” that follows.

Malheur National Forest – The Malheur supports two populations in two subbasins (Table 241). 

Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat in National Forest System lands is in fair condition 

based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model, and fair to poor withinsubbasin connectivity based on location of culverts at National Forest System road crossings 

relative to salmon distribution.

Aquatic and riparian habitat conditions across the national forest are generally improving or 

showing non-significant trends depending on the indicator, based on PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion trend monitoring (Archer and Ojala 2016a). This monitoring at integrator 

sites also helps to determine National Forest System riparian-aquatic habitat trends on National 

Forest System lands at subbasin scale. In the Middle Fork John Day and Upper John Day 

subbasins, the majority of indicators show no significant change, however anywhere from one to 

three indicators show significant improvement. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

monitoring results indicate that spring Chinook salmon habitat within the Malheur National 

Forest is being maintained, is slowly improving through natural processes on National Forest 

System lands, and is supporting viable Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon 

populations.

Active watershed restoration is ongoing with partners in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin on 

National Forest System lands as a consequence of implementing focused regional and national 

whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. Fish passage impairments 

at National Forest System road crossings are being redressed along with other essential 

restoration needs in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin, which contains the majority of Middle 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon spawning and rearing habitat within the forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

22

Table 241. Affected environment for spring Chinook salmon within the Blue Mountains national 

forests

Subbasin Population 

Name

Population 

Status and Trend 

(all lands)1

Evolutionarily 

Significant 

Unit

Spawning and Rearing 

Habitat Miles and 

Condition-Connectivity 

(NFS lands)2

Malheur

Middle Fork John 

Day

Middle Fork John 

Day Viable/unknown MCR3 15 miles/fair-fair

Upper John Day Upper John Day Viable/unknown MCR 1 miles/fair-poor

Umatilla

North Fork John 

Day

North Fork John 

Day Viable/unknown MCR 60 miles/fair-good

Umatilla Umatilla

Reintroduced 

(nonnative stock)/

unknown

Hatchery/nonn

ative 8 miles/fair-good

Walla Walla Walla Walla

Reintroduced 

(nonnative stock)/

unknown

Hatchery/nonn

ative 14 miles/fair-good

Tucannon Tucannon Not 

viable/increasing SRB4 6 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande 

Ronde Wenaha Not 

viable/increasing SRB 40 miles/fair-good

Designated Critical 

Habitats SRB ESU only N/A SRB 284 miles

Wallowa-Whitman

North Fork John 

Day

North Fork John 

Day Viable/unknown MCR 12 miles/good-good

Upper Grande 

Ronde

Upper Grande 

Ronde

Not

viable/increasing SRB 5 miles/fair-fair

Upper Grande 

Ronde Catherine Creek Not 

viable/increasing SRB 19 miles/fair-good

Wallowa Lostine/Wallowa Not 

viable/increasing SRB 12 miles/fair-good

Wallowa Minam Not 

viable/increasing SRB 46 miles/fair-good

Imnaha Imnaha Not 

viable/increasing SRB 41 miles/fair-good

Designated Critical 

Habitats SRB ESU only N/A SRB 1,377 miles

1. National Marine Fisheries Service status and trend conclusions (Ford et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2011, updated based on 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Population Status updates (NWFSC 2015), and NMFS (2016a, 2016b).

2. NFS (National Forest System) habitat status based on Blue Mountains Sustainability Model riparian-aquatic spawning 

and rearing habitat “condition” ratings combined with NFS culvert-impaired habitat connectivity ratings relative to 

current species distribution in NFS lands.

3. MCR: Middle Columbia River ESU (evolutionarily significant unit).

4. SRB: Snake River Basin ESU.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

23

Umatilla National Forest – The Umatilla National Forest provides habitat for multiple 

populations within each of the Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin spring Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant units. Overall, spawning and rearing habitat for both 

evolutionarily significant units throughout National Forest System lands is in fair condition based 

on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model and good within-basin 

connectivity based on location of culvert barriers at National Forest System road crossings 

relative to current salmon distribution (Table 241). The few culverts or other physical barriers 

within National Forest System lands that once inhibited instream movement of Middle Columbia 

River and Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon have been progressively upgraded or 

removed over the past 10 years.

National Marine Fisheries Service’s Biological Review Team determined that habitat risks were 

moderate in the Umatilla and Walla Walla subbasins across all lands, which is consistent with fair 

habitat conditions in National Forest System lands for these populations (Table 241). The North 

Fork John Day population is the only native population in the Middle Columbia portion of the 

Umatilla National Forest. The National Marine Fisheries Service considers this a viable 

population at the all-lands scale.

Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon have very little spawning habitat in non-wilderness 

National Forest System lands, other than in the mainstem Grande Ronde River and in the Wenaha

River tributary to the Grande Ronde River, which are both managed as Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Biological Review Team assessments (USDC-NMFS 2008) concluded that Snake River Basin 

spring Chinook salmon populations in the Grande Ronde and Tucannon subbasins are high risk 

and not viable, despite very low to moderate habitat risks in these subbasins. The most recent 

status and trend assessments by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NWFSC 2015; NMFS 

2016b) for Snake River Basin spring Chinook populations associated with the Umatilla National 

Forest indicate that their populations are increasing.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant trends, with 

meaningful changes in three of ten indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016b). 

Their monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. In the North Fork John Day subbasin, two of 

five indicators show significant change, going in either direction, while the others remain 

trendless. In the Umatilla subbasin, one indicator demonstrates measurable improvement and the 

other nine indicators display no significant trends. Monitoring results suggest that spring Chinook 

salmon spawning and rearing habitat within the Umatilla National Forest is being maintained and 

slowly recovering in some subbasins, and that uncertain habitat recovery through natural 

processes warrants continued monitoring in others, as well as effective implementation of 

protective habitat management strategies. Intensive habitat restoration actions in the Tucannon 

subbasin, previously completed or underway appear to be contributing to restoring viability for 

that population, though it remains at high risk.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners on National Forest System and adjacent lands in the 

North Fork John Day and Tucannon subbasins as a consequence of implementing focused 

regional and national whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. 

Additional habitat restoration on National Forest System lands is ongoing with partner support in 

the Umatilla subbasin. The geographic distribution of active restoration efforts ensures that those 

efforts benefit populations of both Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin spring 

Chinook salmon.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

24

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provides habitat 

for multiple populations, one within the Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon 

evolutionarily significant unit and several within the Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon 

evolutionarily significant unit. Overall, spawning and rearing habitat in National Forest System 

lands for Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon is in fair condition with good withinsubbasin connectivity, based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model, 

and location of culvert barriers at National Forest System road crossings relative to current 

salmon distributions (Table 241).

Spawning and rearing habitat for Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon in the WallowaWhitman National Forest is located in the headwaters of the North Fork John Day Basin. Most of 

their spawning and rearing habitat there is located in wilderness and/or a wild and scenic river 

corridor and is in good condition with good access. The Middle Columbia River spring Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant unit is considered viable at the all-lands scale. The most recent 

status and trend assessments by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NWFSC 2015; NMFS 

2016b) for the Snake River Basin spring Chinook populations associated with the WallowaWhitman National Forest indicate that their populations are increasing.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant changes, with 

meaningful changes in four indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016c). Their 

monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat condition trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin-scale. Within the Imnaha subbasin, most indicators 

are trendless, although 2 of 10 indicators show significant improvement. In the Upper Grande 

Ronde subbasin, changes in most indicators remain non-significant, though 1 indicator of 10 

revealed measurable deterioration. Monitoring results indicate that spring Chinook salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is being maintained 

and slowly recovering in some subbasins and that uncertain habitat recovery through natural 

processes warrants continued monitoring in others as well as effective implementation of 

protective habitat management strategies. Habitat recovery continues to sustain viable Middle 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon populations and is contributing to recovery of Snake 

River Basin spring Chinook salmon viability. Faster habitat recovery within National Forest 

System lands, along with additional recovery actions on other land ownerships, may be needed to 

ensure recovery of Snake River Basin spring Chinook populations continues.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners in the North Fork John Day subbasin on National 

Forest System lands as well as downstream, benefitting Middle Columbia Riverspring Chinook 

salmon, and is also ongoing in the Imnaha and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins, benefitting two 

populations of Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon (J. Vacirca, pers. comm.).

Bull Trout

Subbasin-scale habitat and population conditions in each national forest are summarized in Table 

242 and accompanying narratives for each national forest. Spawning and rearing habitats for bull 

trout in National Forest System lands are predominantly in fair condition. The species is well 

distributed among multiple subbasins in each national forest. Within-population connectivity 

ranges from poor to good, depending on the subbasin and forest. Populations are described at 

scales approximating subbasin boundaries, and follow population boundaries described in the 

Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015). Discussions specific to each national forest follow.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

25

Table 242. Affected environment for Columbia River Basin bull trout within the Plan Area

Subbasin

Core Area 

(Population) 

Names

Population Status and 

Trend (all lands)2

Spawning and Rearing 

Habitat Miles/ ConditionConnectivity (NFS lands)3

Malheur

Upper Malheur Upper Malheur unknown/unknown-declining 34 miles/fair-poor

Upper Malheur North Fork Malheur unknown/unknown-declining 42 miles/fair-poor

Upper John Day Upper John Day stronghold-0-50 

adults/unknown 25 miles/fair-poor

Middle Fork John Day Middle Fork John 

Day

50-250 adults/unknowndeclining 19 miles/fair-poor

Designated Critical 

Habitats All not applicable 344 miles

Umatilla

Asotin Asotin 0-50 adults/unknown 8 miles/fair-good

Tucannon Tucannon 50-250 adults/declining 27 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande Ronde1

Upper Grande Ronde

LookingglassWenahastronghold-250-1000 adults/ 

stable 68 miles/fair-fair

North Fork John Day North Fork John Day 50-250 adults/unknowndeclining 42 miles/fair-fair

Umatilla Umatilla 50-250 adults/declining 11 miles/fair-good

Walla Walla1 Walla Walla 50--250 adults/declining 55 miles/fair-good

Walla Walla1

Touchet stronghold-50-250 

adults/declining 18 miles/fair-good

Designated Critical 

Habitats All not applicable 286 miles

Wallowa-Whitman

Upper Grande Upper Grande 

Ronde (Catherine 

and Indian creeks)

50-250 adults/unknowndeclining 62 miles/fair-fair

Wallowa Little Minam stronghold-250-1,000 

adults/stable 12 miles/fair-good

Wallowa Wallowa/Minam 50-250 adults/stable 80 miles/fair-good

North Fork John Day North Fork John Day 250-1,000 adults/unknowndeclining 32 miles/fair-poor

Imnaha Imnaha stronghold-250-1,000 

adults/stable 76 miles/fair-good

Brownlee1 Pine, Indian and 

Wildhorse Creeks

250-1,000 adults/severe 

decline 33 miles/fair-fair

Powder Powder (excludes 

Eagle Creek)

250-1,000 adults/severe 

decline 21 miles/poor-poor

Designated Critical 

Habitats All not applicable 514 miles

1. The bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015) has revised the bull trout core areas in the Grande Ronde, Wallowa, Hells 

Canyon and Powder subbasins.

2. From USFWS (2006, maps B and D), and USFWS (2008, Figures 1 and 3), updated with newer population/trend 

information from bull trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015).

3. National Forest System habitat conditions status based on Blue Mountains Sustainability Model riparian-aquatic 

“habitat” condition ratings combined with habitat connectivity ratings based on number and locations of culvert barriers 

passage concerns on National Forest System lands relative to species distribution.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

26

Malheur National Forest – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified four populations of 

bull trout in three subbasins associated with the Malheur National Forest. Within these three 

subbasins, the majority of bull trout spawning and rearing habitat is located in National Forest 

System lands. Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat in National Forest System lands is in fair 

condition based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model, but provide 

poor within-subbasin connectivity, based on location of culverts at road crossings relative to 

current bull trout distribution (see Table 242).

The most recent status and trend assessments by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for these bull 

trout populations indicate that populations are in either declining or unknown trends (USFWS 

2008, USFWS 2015). Two dams downstream of the forest create impassible barriers that isolate 

both populations in the Upper Malheur River subbasin from all other populations, though prior to 

the dams, they were likely a larger subbasin-scale population connected via the main Malheur 

River downstream of both dams.

Aquatic and riparian habitat conditions across the national forest are generally improving or 

showing nonsignificant trends depending on the indicator, based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological 

Opinion trend monitoring (Archer and Ojala 2016a). Their monitoring at integrator sites also 

helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on National Forest System lands at the subbasin 

scale. In the Middle Fork John Day and Upper John Day subbasins, the majority of indicators 

show no significant change, however from 1 to 3 indicators show significant improvement. Four 

of 10 indicators in the Upper Malheur subbasin are demonstrating significant improving trends, 

while changes in others remain non-significant.

PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring results indicate that bull trout habitat within 

the Malheur National Forest is being maintained, is slowly improving through natural processes 

on National Forest System lands and is contributing to recovering viability for these bull trout 

populations. Given that populations are either very small, declining or both however, faster 

habitat recovery within National Forest System lands including improved within-population 

connectivity to reduce genetic drift and increase the probability of recolonization following 

localized extinctions that may occur due to demographics and/or major disturbance events such as 

the high-severity School Fire in 2005 that killed the local bull trout population in the Cummings 

Creek subwatershed of the Tucannon subbasin on the Umatilla National Forest. Additional 

recovery actions on other land ownerships may also be needed to restore viability to these 

populations. The Bull Trout Recovery Plan recognizes that not all populations may be 

recoverable, and has developed goals and strategies for recovery that recognize this reality. The 

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy has been finalized for the Preferred 

Alternative, through informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and content from 

the Bull Trout Recovery Plan used as best available science for maintaining or restoring bull trout 

viability on the Malheur National Forest.

Active watershed restoration is ongoing with partners in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin on 

National Forest System lands as well as downstream, as a consequence of implementing focused 

regional and national whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. Fish 

passage impairments at National Forest System road crossings are being redressed incrementally, 

along with other essential restoration needs.

Umatilla National Forest – The forest supports seven populations distributed among seven 

subbasins (Table 242). Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat within the Umatilla National 

Forest is in fair condition based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

27

Model, and fair to good within-subbasin connectivity based on location of culverts at National 

Forest System road crossings relative to current bull trout distribution. The most recent status and 

trend assessments by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for these bull trout populations indicate 

that most populations are in either declining or unknown trends (USFWS 2008 2015). One 

population is predominantly located in wilderness, and is considered stable. The Walla Walla 

population appears to be declining since an earlier conservation assessment conducted in 2005 

(USFWS 2006, 2008), despite being centered in a subbasin with limited Forest Service 

management activity. Between-population connectivity via lands outside the national forest 

downstream is variable, and is affected by factors including downstream dams, irrigation 

withdrawals and distance between confluences.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant trends, with 

meaningful changes in three of ten indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016b). 

Their monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. In the North Fork John Day subbasin, 2 of 5 

indicators show significant change, going in either direction, while the others remain trendless. In 

the Umatilla subbasin, 1 indicator demonstrates measurable improvement and the other 9 

indicators display no significant trends.

Monitoring results suggest that bull trout spawning and rearing habitat within the Umatilla 

National Forest is being maintained and slowly recovering in some subbasins, that uncertain 

habitat recovery through natural processes warrants continued monitoring in others as well as 

effective implementation of protective habitat management strategies. Given that populations are 

either very small, declining or both however, faster habitat recovery is likely needed within 

National Forest System lands including improved within-population connectivity to reduce 

genetic drift and increase the probability of recolonization following localized extinctions that 

may occur due to demographics and/or major disturbance events such as the high severity School 

Fire wildfire in 2005 that killed the local bull trout population in the Cummings Creek 

subwatershed of the Tucannon subbasin on the Umatilla National Forest. Additional recovery 

actions on other land ownerships may also be needed to restore viability to these populations. The 

Bull Trout Recovery Plan recognizes that not all populations may be recoverable, and has 

developed goals and strategies for recovery that recognize this reality. The Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy has been finalized for the preferred alternative 

through informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and content from the Bull 

Trout Recovery Plan used as best available science for maintaining or restoring bull trout viability 

on the Umatilla National Forest.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners on National Forest System and adjacent lands in the 

North Fork John Day and Tucannon subbasins as a consequence of implementing focused 

regional and national whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past 10 or more years. 

Additional habitat restoration on National Forest System lands is ongoing with partner support in 

the Asotin and Umatilla subbasins. These restoration efforts are benefitting bull trout populations 

in those subbasins.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – The forest supports seven populations in seven subbasins 

(Table 242). Overall, spawning and rearing habitat in National Forest System lands for bull trout 

is in fair condition, with in-subbasin habitat connectivity ranging from good to poor, based on 

riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model and location of culvert barriers at 

National Forest System road crossings relative to current bull trout distributions. Powder River 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

28

subbasin habitat for bull trout is highly fragmented within the national forest due to legacy 

mining impacts as well as high numbers of barrier culverts at road stream crossings. Connectivity 

within and between subbasins, is heavily fragmented by irrigation diversions, dams and reservoirs 

downstream of National Forest System lands. The most recent status and trend assessments by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for these bull trout populations indicate that most populations are 

stable, though even some larger populations are declining, particularly where downstream dams 

and reservoirs impact within-population connectivity as well as between-population connectivity 

(USFWS 2006, 2008, 2015).

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant changes, with 

meaningful changes in four indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016c). Their 

monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat condition trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. Within the Imnaha subbasin, most indicators 

are trendless, although 2 of 10 indicators show significant improvement. In the Upper Grande 

Ronde subbasin, changes in most indicators remain non-significant, though 1 indicator of 10

revealed measurable deterioration. Monitoring results indicate that bull trout spawning and 

rearing habitat within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is being maintained and slowly 

recovering in some subbasins and that uncertain habitat recovery through natural processes 

warrants continued monitoring in others as well as effective implementation of protective habitat 

management strategies. Faster habitat recovery within National Forest System lands may be 

needed to ensure that stable bull trout populations remain stable and that habitat for other 

populations recovers at a rate that helps stabilize and recover declining populations. The 2018 

Blue Mountains ARCS has been finalized for the preferred alternative through informal 

consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and content from the Bull Trout Recovery Plan 

used as best available science for maintaining or restoring bull trout viability on the WallowaWhitman National Forest.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners in the North Fork John Day subbasin on National 

Forest System lands as well as downstream private lands, benefitting bull trout. Active restoration 

is also ongoing in the Imnaha and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins, benefitting two other bull trout 

populations (J. Vacirca, pers. comm.).

Steelhead

Subbasin-scale habitat and population conditions in each national forest are summarized in Table 

243 with accompanying narratives for each forest. The table identifies populations as either 

belonging to the Middle Columbia River or Snake River Basin distinct population segments. 

Only the native anadromous (steelhead) forms of O. mykiss are listed, and effects to each listed 

steelhead distinct population segment must be analyzed separately under the Endangered Species 

Act. Population boundaries are based on descriptions in the Snake River Basin Salmon and 

Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2016) and the Middle Columbia Basin Steelhead Recovery Plan 

(NMFS 2009). Distinct population segment distinctions are made here to simplify and reduce 

redundancy of effects analysis and discussion specific to each distinct population segment in the 

section on “Threatened and Endangered Species” that follows.

Malheur National Forest – The forest supports four Middle Columbia River steelhead 

populations in three adjacent subbasins (Table 243). Steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in 

National Forest System lands is in fair to good condition based on riparian-habitat condition 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

29

ratings from the Sustainability Model, with fair to poor within-subbasin connectivity based on 

location of culverts at National Forest System road crossings relative to steelhead distribution.

Aquatic and riparian habitat conditions across the national forest are generally improving or 

showing non-significant trends depending on the indicator, based on PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion trend monitoring (Archer and Ojala 2016a). PACFISH-INFISH Biological 

Opinion monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on 

National Forest System lands at subbasin scale. In the Middle Fork John Day and Upper John 

Day subbasins, the majority of indicators show no significant change; however, anywhere from 1 

to 3 indicators show significant improvement. Integrator data for the North Fork John Day 

subbasin is insufficient to determine trend there at this point in time. PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion monitoring results in the first two subbasins indicate that steelhead habitat 

within the Malheur National Forest is being maintained, is slowly improving through natural 

processes on National Forest System lands and is contributing to recovery of steelhead 

populations. The North Fork John Day population is currently highly viable and growing, the 

Middle Fork and South Fork John Day populations are also viable and growing, while the Upper 

John Day population is meeting maintenance objectives at this point but still growing (NWFSC 

2015, NMFS 2016a).

Active watershed restoration is ongoing with partners in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin on 

National Forest System lands, as a consequence of implementing focused regional and national 

whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. Fish passage impairments 

at National Forest System road crossings are being redressed incrementally, along with other 

essential restoration needs.

Umatilla National Forest – The Umatilla National Forest provides habitat for six steelhead 

populations within the Middle Columbia River distinct population segment and four populations 

within the Snake River Basin distinct population segment (Table 243). Spawning and rearing 

habitat in National Forest System lands in both basins is in fair to good condition based on 

riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model. Within-subbasin connectivity for 

Middle Columbia River steelhead is fair to good, based on location of culverts at National Forest 

System road crossings relative to Middle Columbia River steelhead distribution. Passage 

conditions on National Forest System lands are also fair to good throughout the Snake River 

Basin, based on location of culverts at road crossings relative to Snake River Basin steelhead 

distribution.

The North Fork and Middle Fork John Day subbasin populations in the Middle Columbia River 

steelhead distinct population segment are the only populations currently considered viable, 

although the Walla Walla, Umatilla and Lower John Day populations are considered stable and all 

Middle Columbia River steelhead populations are currently growing. Population status in the 

Snake River Basin varies between subbasins, but three of four populations are currently either 

viable or at least being maintained. Only the Tucannon population remains at high risk for being 

non-viable. Population trends for Snake River Basin steelhead populations are unknown for the 

most part, except for the Upper Grande Ronde population, which is believed to be growing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

30

Table 243. Affected environment for summer steelhead populations within the Plan Area

Subbasin Population 

Name

Population Status 

and Trend 

(all lands)1

DPS2,3

Spawning and Rearing 

Habitat Miles/ConditionConnectivity (NFS lands)4

Malheur

Middle Fork John Day

Middle Fork John 

Day Viable/increasing MCR 171 miles/good-poor

Upper John Day Upper John Day Maintained/increasing MCR 97 miles/fair-fair

Upper John Day South Fork John 

Day

Viable/ increasing MCR 70 miles/fair-poor

North Fork John Day North Fork John 

Day

Highly 

Viable/increasing

MCR 8 miles/fair-good

Designated critical 

habitats 

MCR DPS only 410 miles

Umatilla

North Fork John Day

North Fork John 

Day

Highly Viable/ 

increasing MCR 365 miles/fair-fair

Middle Fork John Day Middle Fork John 

Day

Viable/increasing MCR 10 miles/fair-good

Lower John Day Lower John Day Maintained/increasing MCR 8 miles/fair-good

Umatilla Umatilla Maintained/increasing MCR 52 miles/fair-fair

Walla Walla Walla Walla Maintained/increasing MCR 23 miles/good-good

Walla Walla Touchet Not viable/increasing MCR 4 miles/fair-good

Tucannon Tucannon Not viable/Unknown SRB 17 miles/fair-good

Asotin Asotin Maintained/unknown SRB 8 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande Ronde Lower Grande 

Ronde

Maintained/unknown SRB 104 miles/fair-good

Upper Grande Ronde Upper Grande 

Ronde

Viable/increasing SRB 34 miles/good-fair

Designated critical 

habitats

SRB DPS only not applicable SRB 284 miles

Designated critical 

habitats 

MCR DPS only not applicable MCR 647 miles

Wallowa-Whitman

North Fork John Day

North Fork John 

Day Highly Viable/declining MCR 70 miles/good-fair

Asotin Asotin Not viable/unknown SRB 3 miles/fair-good

Hells Canyon Hells Canyon Not viable/unknown SRB 43 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande Ronde Joseph Highly viable/declining SRB 181 miles/fair-fair

Upper Grande Ronde Upper Grande 

Ronde

Viable/increasing SRB 204 miles/good-fair

Wallowa Wallowa Maintained/unknown SRB 86 miles/fair-good

Imnaha Imnaha Maintained/unknown SRB 198 miles/good-good

Designated critical 

habitats

SRB DPS only not applicable SRB 1,377 miles

Designated critical 

habitats

MCR DPS only not applicable MCR 76 miles

1. NMFS status and trend conclusions (Ford et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2011, updated based on Northwest Fisheries Science 

Center Population Status updates (NWFSC 2015), and NMFS (2016a, 2016b). Status calls of “Maintained” are 

provisional, as they are based on limited or provisional data sets, “Stable” trend descriptions are based on tentative 

assessments of moderate risk to viability based on limited or provisional data sets.

2, 3. MCR: Middle Columbia River DPS; SRB: Snake River Basin Distinct Population Segment (DPS).

4. National Forest System habitat conditions status based on Blue Mountains Sustainability Model riparian-aquatic 

“habitat” condition ratings combined with habitat connectivity ratings associated with number and locations of culvert 

barriers passage concerns on National Forest System lands relative to spawning and rearing habitat distribution.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

31

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing nonsignificant trends, with 

meaningful changes in three of ten indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016b). 

Their monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. In the North Fork John Day subbasin, 2 of 5 

indicators show significant change, going in either direction, while the others remain trendless. In 

the Umatilla subbasin, one indicator demonstrates measurable improvement and the other nine 

indicators display no significant trends. In the Snake River Basin, data for integrator sites in 

Snake River subbasins are insufficient to determine trend.

Monitoring results suggest that steelhead spawning and rearing habitat within the Umatilla 

National Forest is being maintained and slowly recovering in some subbasins, that uncertain 

habitat recovery through natural processes warrants continued monitoring in others as well as 

effective implementation of protective habitat management strategies. Monitoring results indicate 

that steelhead habitat conditions continue to contribute to restored viability of Middle Columbia 

River steelhead and may be contributing to recovery of viable Snake River Basin steelhead 

populations on National Forest System lands.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners on National Forest System and adjacent lands in the 

North Fork John Day and Tucannon subbasins as a consequence of implementing focused 

regional and national whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past 10 or more years. 

Additional habitat restoration on National Forest System lands is ongoing with partner support in 

the Umatilla subbasin. The geographic distribution of active restoration efforts ensures that 

restoration efforts benefit populations of both Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin 

steelhead.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provides habitat 

for one Middle Columbia River steelhead population and six Snake River Basin steelhead 

populations in the Middle Columbia and Snake River basins respectively (Table 243). Spawning 

and rearing habitat in National Forest System lands in both river basins is in fair to good 

condition, and fair to good within-subbasin connectivity based on location of culverts at National 

Forest System road crossings relative to current steelhead distribution.

The most recent status and trend assessments by National Marine Fisheries Service (NWFSC 

2015, NMFS 2016b) for Snake River Basin steelhead populations associated with the WallowaWhitman National Forest indicate that population status and trends vary by subbasin. National 

Forest System lands support two highly viable populations, one each in the Middle Columbia 

River and Snake River Basin steelhead distinct population segment. The Middle Columbia River 

steelhead population in the North Fork John Day subbasin is highly viable but declining in recent 

years despite good habitat conditions within Wallowa-Whitman National Forest System lands. 

Snake River Basin steelhead population trends are largely unknown, although the Upper Grande 

Ronde population is believed to be growing. The Joseph population in the Lower Grande Ronde 

subbasin, although highly viable, is also declining in recent years, similar to the trend in the North 

Fork John Day population.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant changes, with 

meaningful changes in four indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016c). This 

monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat condition trends on 

National Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. Within the Imnaha subbasin, most indicators 

are trendless, although 2 of 10 indicators show significant improvement. In the Upper Grande 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

32

Ronde subbasin, changes in most indicators remain non-significant, though 1 indicator of 10

revealed measurable deterioration. Monitoring results indicate that steelhead spawning and 

rearing habitat within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is being maintained and slowly 

recovering in some subbasins and that uncertain habitat recovery through natural processes 

warrants continued monitoring in others as well as effective implementation of protective habitat 

management strategies. Faster habitat recovery within National Forest System lands may be 

needed to ensure that stable steelhead populations remain stable and that habitat for other 

populations recovers at a rate that helps stabilize and recover declining populations.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners in the North Fork John Day subbasin on National 

Forest System lands as well as downstream private lands, benefitting Middle Columbia River 

steelhead. Active restoration is also ongoing in the Imnaha and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins (J. 

Vacirca, pers. comm.). The geographic distribution of active restoration efforts ensures that those 

efforts benefit populations of both Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin steelhead.

Redband Trout

Interagency conservation planning efforts have stratified redband populations in the Plan Area

into spatially discrete conservation populations based on geographic clusters of subbasins (May et 

al. 2012). Redband trout populations in the Oregon Closed Basins constitute their own geographic 

management unit, long separated from populations and geographic management units in the 

interior Columbia River Basin. Table 244 provides an overview of redband trout populations 

within the Plan Area, their distribution among various geographically distinct geographic 

management units, and related habitat conditions in National Forest System lands across the Blue 

Mountains national forests. Discussions specific to each national forest follow.

Redband trout populations will be identified by geographic management unit for the remainder of 

this surrogate species analysis for redband, with three exceptions: (1) when referencing the 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species described as the Malheur Lakes distinct population 

segment (aka Oregon Closed Basins geographic management unit) for purposes of sensitive 

species analysis, based on the Regional Foresters list of sensitive species as of 2011; or, (2) when 

used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) to refer to the Great Basin distinct population 

segment (Oregon Closed Basins geographic management unit); and (3) when discussing findings 

in Kostow (2003).

Malheur National Forest – National Forest System lands supports populations in seven 

subbasins, and are well distributed among four geographic management units (see Table 244). 

The John Day geographic management unit is the only one where steelhead is present, and the 

only one associated with the national forest, that is not currently targeted specifically for 

interagency redband conservation efforts (May et al. 2012). The Oregon Closed Basins 

geographic management unit, otherwise known as the Great Basin distinct population segment by 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is still considered viable by that agency (USFWS 2009), but the 

populations are believed to be declining. Redband trout of the Upper Malheur subbasin, though 

separated from other populations within the Middle Snake-Boise geographic management unit by 

impassible dams, are considered viable. They are supported within National Forest System lands 

by the amount of good-quality habitat available in wilderness and wild and scenic river 

management areas, despite poor within-basin connectivity due to location and quantity. Spawning 

and rearing habitat for redband trout in National Forest System lands is predominantly in good to 

fair condition, based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model, with 

good to poor within-subbasin connectivity based on location of culverts at National Forest 

System road crossings relative to redband trout distribution.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

33

Table 244. Affected environment for redband trout populations within National Forest System lands 

in the Plan Area

Subbasin Population Name

Population 

Status and 

Trend 

(all lands)1,2

Geographic 

Management 

Unit3

Spawning and Rearing 

Habitat Miles/ ConditionConnectivity (NFS lands)4

Malheur

Upper Malheur Malheur Viable/unknown MS-B1 142 miles/good-poor

Upper John Day Upper John Day Viable/unknown JD2 144 miles/good-poor

Middle Fork John Day Middle Fork John Day Viable/unknown JD 270 miles/good-poor

North Fork 

John Day

North Fork John Day Viable/unknown JD 15 miles/fair-good

Silvies Malheur Lakes Viable/declining Oregon 

Closed Basins

104 miles/good-poor

Silver Malheur Lakes Viable/declining Oregon 

Closed Basins

70 miles/fair-fair

Harney-Malheur Lakes Malheur Lakes Viable/declining Oregon 

Closed Basins

5 miles/poor-poor

Crooked River/SF 

Beaver Creek

South Fork Beaver 

Creek

Viable/unknown Deschutes 19/fair-good

Total Miles Habitat All All 769 miles

Umatilla

Tucannon Tucannon Viable/unknown LS3 88 miles/fair-good

Asotin Asotin Viable/unknown LS 47 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande Ronde Wenaha Viable/unknown LS 132 miles/good-good

Upper Grande Ronde Upper Grande Ronde Viable/unknown LS 80 miles/good-fair

North Fork John Day North Fork John Day Viable/unknown JD 550 miles/good-fair

Lower John Day Lower John Day Viable/unknown JD 11 miles/poor-good

Umatilla Umatilla Viable/unknown MC4 52 miles/good-fair

Walla Walla Walla Walla Viable/unknown MC 27 miles/fair-good

Willow Willow Viable/unknown MC 8/fair-fair

Total Miles Habitat All All 995 miles

Wallowa-Whitman

Asotin Asotin Viable/declining LS 40 miles/fair-good

Hells Canyon Hells Canyon Viable/declining LS 88 miles/fair-good

Lower Grande Ronde Grande Ronde Viable/declining LS 181 miles/good-fair

Upper Grande Ronde Upper Grande Ronde Viable/declining LS 35 miles/good-fair

Wallowa Wallowa Viable/declining LS 43 miles/fair-good

Imnaha Imnaha Viable/declining LS 82 miles/good-good

Brownlee Brownlee Viable/declining MS-B 60 miles/fair-fair

Powder Powder Viable/declining MS-P5 370 miles/fair-poor

Burnt Burnt Viable/declining MS-P 146 miles/fair-poor

North Fork John Day North Fork John Day Viable/declining JD 66 miles/good-fair

Total Miles habitat 1,111 miles

1. Thurow et al. 2007.

2. May et al. 2012.

3. MS-B/Middle Snake-Boise Geographic Management Unit (GMU); JD/John Day GMU; LS/Lower Snake GMU; 

MC/Middle Columbia GMU; MS-P/Middle Snake-Powder GMU.

4. National Forest System habitat conditions status based on Blue Mountains Sustainability Model riparian-aquatic 

“habitat” condition ratings combined with habitat connectivity ratings associated with number and locations of culvert 

barriers passage concerns on National Forest System lands relative to spawning and rearing habitat distribution.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

34

Aquatic and riparian habitat conditions across the national forest are generally improving or 

showing non-significant trends depending on the indicator, based on PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion trend monitoring (Archer and Ojala 2016a). Their monitoring at integrator 

sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on National Forest System lands at the 

subbasin scale. In the Middle Fork John Day, Upper John Day, Silvies, and Upper Malheur 

subbasins, the majority of indicators show no significant change, however anywhere from one to 

four indicators show significant improvement. Integrator data for the North Fork John Day 

subbasin is insufficient to determine trend there at this point in time.

PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring results in 4 of the 5 subbasins where trend can 

be determined, indicate that redband trout habitat within the Malheur National Forest is being 

maintained, is slowly improving through natural processes on National Forest System lands. 

Habitat on National Forest System lands support multiple viable populations in several 

ecologically distinctive hydrologic basins containing two subspecies of redband trout: Oregon 

Closed Basins, Middle Snake River, Deschutes, and John Day basins.

Active watershed restoration is ongoing with partners in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin on 

National Forest System lands, as a consequence of implementing focused regional and national 

whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. Fish passage impairments 

at National Forest System road crossings are being redressed incrementally, along with other 

essential restoration needs.

Umatilla National Forest – The Umatilla National Forest provides habitat for several redband 

trout distributed among portions of the John Day, Middle Columbia, and Lower Snake geographic 

management units. Spawning and rearing habitat in National Forest System lands is in good-tofair condition based on riparian-habitat condition ratings from the Sustainability Model, with the 

exception of the Lower John Day subbasin, where habitat is naturally limited. Within-subbasin 

connectivity is fair to good in the John Day and Mid-Columbia geographic management units, 

based on location of culverts at National Forest System road crossings relative to redband trout 

distribution. Passage conditions on National Forest System lands are also fair to good throughout 

the Snake River Basin, based on location of culverts at road crossings relative to redband trout 

distribution in the Lower Snake geographic management unit (Table 244). Redband populations 

are presumed viable, particularly since steelhead populations are growing in many of these 

subbasins. Nonetheless, redband trout population trends are currently unknown due to inability to 

distinguish redband trout from juvenile steelhead, large areas of spatial overlap in distribution of 

the two life histories, an intra-species breeding potential, and life history flexibility within the 

species.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the forest, 

most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant trends, with meaningful 

changes in three of ten indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016b). Their 

monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat trends on National 

Forest System lands at the subbasin scale. In the North Fork John Day subbasin, 2 of 5 indicators 

show significant change, going in either direction, while the others remain trendless. In the 

Umatilla subbasin, one indicator demonstrates measurable improvement and the other nine 

indicators display no significant trends. In the Snake River Basin, data for integrator sites in 

Snake River subbasins are insufficient to determine trend. Habitat monitoring results suggest that 

redband trout spawning and rearing habitat within the Umatilla National Forest is being 

maintained and slowly recovering in some subbasins, that uncertain habitat recovery through 

natural processes warrants continued monitoring in others as well as effective implementation of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

35

protective habitat management strategies. Monitoring results and growing populations of 

steelhead suggest that redband trout habitat continues to sustain viable populations of redband 

trout in multiple geographic management units on National Forest System lands.

Active restoration is ongoing with partners on National Forest System and adjacent lands in the 

North Fork John Day and Tucannon subbasins as a consequence of implementing focused 

regional and national whole-watershed restoration strategies over the past ten or more years. 

Additional habitat restoration on National Forest System lands is ongoing with partner support in 

the Umatilla subbasin. The geographic distribution of active restoration efforts ensures that 

restoration efforts benefit well-distributed populations of redband trout across multiple 

geographic management units on National Forest System lands.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest provides habitat 

for redband trout in portions of four geographic management units (Table 244). Spawning and 

rearing habitat in National Forest System lands is in fair to good condition, with fair to good 

within-subbasin connectivity based on location of culverts at National Forest System road 

crossings relative to current redband trout distribution.

In subbasins with lands in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, management direction is 

highly protective of fish habitat for redband populations belonging to the Lower Snake, Middle 

Snake-Powder, and Middle Snake-Boise geographic management units. The Imnaha subbasin 

provides high-elevation spawning and rearing habitat that is reasonably well connected within the 

subbasin. The majority of redband spawning and rearing habitat in the Imnaha subbasin is located 

within the national recreation area and/or within wilderness. Management direction within the 

national recreation area helps to support viable populations of redband trout within three of the 

four geographic management units represented by populations on the national forest, and 

contributes to the improving habitat trends that are becoming evident at the broader scale (Archer 

and Ojala 2016c). Redband populations are presumed viable, particularly since steelhead 

populations are growing in many of these subbasins. Nonetheless, redband trout population trends 

are currently unknown due to inability to distinguish redband trout from juvenile steelhead, large 

areas of spatial overlap in distribution of the two life histories, an intra-species breeding potential, 

and life history flexibility within the species.

Based on PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring at integrator sites across the national 

forest, most riparian and aquatic habitat indicators are showing non-significant changes, with 

meaningful changes in four indicators, going in either direction (Archer and Ojala 2016c). Their 

monitoring at integrator sites also helps to determine riparian-aquatic habitat condition trends on 

National Forest System lands at subbasin-scale. Within the Imnaha subbasin, most indicators are 

trendless, although 2 of 10 indicators show significant improvement. In the Upper Grande Ronde 

subbasin, changes in most indicators remain non-significant, though 1 indicator of 10 revealed 

measurable deterioration. Changes in Powder River subbasin are mostly non-significant, though 

two of ten indicators show substantial improvement. Most indicators show non-significant trends 

in the Burnt River subbasin, with meaningful deterioration in one indicator. Monitoring results 

and growing populations of steelhead indicate that redband trout spawning and rearing habitat 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is being maintained and slowly recovering in some 

subbasins and also that uncertain habitat recovery through natural processes warrants continued 

monitoring in other subbasins, along with effective implementation of protective habitat 

management strategies. Faster habitat recovery within National Forest System lands may be 

needed to ensure that degraded habitat recovers at a rate that helps stabilize and recover 

populations isolated from steelhead above Hells Canyon dam.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

36

Active restoration is ongoing with partners in the North Fork John Day subbasin on National 

Forest System lands as well as downstream private lands, benefitting Middle Columbia River 

steelhead. Active restoration is also ongoing in the Imnaha and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins (J. 

Vacirca, pers. comm.). The geographic distribution of active restoration efforts ensures that those 

efforts benefit populations of both Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin steelhead.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Important population segments of individual species have been listed separately as evolutionarily 

significant units or distinct population segments. This analysis therefore considers federally listed 

species at the distinct population segment or evolutionarily significant unit scale, together with 

their designated critical habitats. Table 237 through Table 239 display listed species present 

within each national forest in the Plan Area. Table 241 through Table 244 display the status of 

individual populations of each listed distinct population segment or evolutionarily significant unit 

associated with each of the national forests, the distribution of each species, the total amount of 

designated critical habitat within each national forest, and current habitat conditions within 

National Forest System lands. Status and trend information is based on the most current 

information available from recovery plans and status reviews by the responsible agencies. That 

information will not be repeated in this section.

Salmon

Sockeye Salmon (Snake River Basin Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Snake River Basin sockeye salmon are only present within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. They use the mainstem Columbia and Snake Rivers as a migration corridor to reach their 

spawning areas in Idaho, outside the Plan Area. For purposes of this analysis, they are considered 

present only in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, which is managed under the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive 

Management Plan. No revisions to the comprehensive management plan are proposed. National 

Forest System lands within the Plan Area provide no spawning habitat and no early rearing 

habitat outside the mainstem Snake River. Management strategies and activities analyzed herein 

for the revised plans for the Blue Mountains national forests would have no effect on this species 

outside of effects previously considered and consulted for the comprehensive management plan

and will not be discussed further in this analysis.

Fall Chinook Salmon (Snake River Basin Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Snake River Basin fall Chinook salmon is listed separately as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act and is considered a separate evolutionarily significant unit, the equivalent of a 

species under Endangered Species Act. Their spawning habitat is the Snake River and the lower 

ends of large tributaries in Wild and Scenic River management allocations in the Upper and 

Lower Grande Ronde River subbasins, in the Imnaha River in the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area downstream of the Plan Area, and well downstream of National Forest System 

lands in the Tucannon River subbasin. Viability of Snake River Basin fall Chinook salmon is 

primarily influenced by factors outside Forest Service control: mortality associated with upstream 

and downstream passage over multiple mainstem dams in the Snake and Columbia Rivers, 

cyclical ocean conditions, commercial, tribal and recreational harvest, and interbreeding with 

nonnative hatchery stock. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects to Snake River Basin fall 

Chinook salmon are based on effects to Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon viability as a 

surrogate.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

37

Spring Chinook Salmon (Snake River Basin Evolutionarily Significant Unit)

Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon are found in the Tucannon, Grande Ronde, Wallowa, 

Imnaha, and Snake River/Hells Canyon subbasins within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests. Characteristics of the species were discussed in the earlier section on surrogate 

species.

Steelhead

Two federally listed distinct population segments (Middle Columbia River and Snake River 

Basin) are located within the plan revision area.3 The Middle Columbia River distinct population 

segment consists of steelhead populations in the John Day, Walla Walla, and Umatilla River 

subbasins. The Snake River Basin distinct population segment includes steelhead in the 

Tucannon, Asotin, Wallowa, Lower and Upper Grande Ronde, Imnaha, and Snake River/Hells 

Canyon subbasins. For purposes of Endangered Species Act listing, each distinct population 

segment is considered a separate species, with recovery goals for component populations at the 

subbasin scale or comparable scales; therefore, viability for steelhead is described by distinct 

population segment and by subbasin.

Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment

Middle Columbia River steelhead and designated critical habitats are present in all three Blue 

Mountains National Forests. In the North Fork John Day subbasin, the Forest Service (Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests) administers separate, but adjoining, portions of Middle 

Columbia River steelhead habitat in the subbasin.

Snake River Basin Steelhead Distinct Population Segment

Snake River Basin steelhead and designated critical habitats are present within two of the three 

Blue Mountains National Forests. The Malheur National Forest provides no habitat for Snake 

River Basin steelhead. The Umatilla National Forest provides the majority of habitat in National 

Forest System lands for some populations (such as the Tucannon subbasin). The entire Imnaha 

subbasin is within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests provide approximately equal portions of other subbasins. In the lower Grande 

Ronde subbasin, the Umatilla National Forest includes lands draining the west side of the 

subbasin (Wenaha River watershed), and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest includes lands 

draining the east side of the subbasin (Joseph Creek watershed), which support two different 

populations of Snake River Basin steelhead within the subbasin.

Bull Trout (Columbia River Basin Distinct Population Segment)

Columbia River Basin bull trout are found in all the Plan Area subbasins except for the Burnt 

River (NWPPC 2004a), the Oregon Closed Basins, and the South Fork Crooked River subbasin 

in the south end of the Plan Area. Bull trout core populations (Whitsell et al. 2004) have been 

generally identified at the subbasin level. Core populations in all of these subbasins are part of the 

Columbia River Basin distinct population segment, which is listed under the Endangered Species 

Act as threatened. For the remainder of this analysis, Columbia River Basin bull trout will be 

referred to simply as “bull trout.”

 3 http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Steelhead/Index.cfm
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

38

Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list identifies fish and aquatic invertebrate species for 

which viability is a concern as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in 

population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat 

capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5). 

These species have not yet reached a threshold for listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

Table 237 through Table 239 on pages 9 through 11 include sensitive aquatic species with 

documented or suspected presence in each of the Blue Mountains national forests, based on the 

2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list.

Aquatic invertebrate species listed as sensitive for one or more National Forests in the Blue 

Mountains plan revision area include the shortfaced lanx, Columbia pebblesnail, the pristine 

springsnail, the Harney Basin dusky snail, and the Western Ridged Mussel (Table 237 through 

Table 239).

Some of these species are found in fast flowing streams or rivers of various sizes, others are 

found in slow-moving, spring-fed waters. All are known or suspected to occur in high-quality 

aquatic habitats associated with good condition riparian areas. Small aquatic snails inhabiting 

springs and spring-fed channels have not been found in the Blue Mountains where springs have 

been previously developed (Frest and Johannes 1995), but have been found in undeveloped 

springs and spring runs with high water quality.

Riverine Mollusks

The shortfaced lanx is a freshwater limpet that attaches to large, clean, cobble-boulder substrate 

in large, fast, relatively warm rivers, such as the Snake River below Hells Canyon Dam.

The western ridged mussel, in its adult form, is a large, long-lived bivalve mollusk found in 

clean, gravel-cobble substrates in streams and rivers of the Blue Mountains, typically at higher 

elevations than other mussel varieties in the interior Columbia River Basin. Once they become 

local streambed residents, Western Ridged Mussels may live for decades so long as their habitat 

remains characterized by good water quality and low sediment conditions.

The Columbia pebblesnail is an aquatic snail found in large rivers of the Pacific Northwest, 

including the lower Snake River, the lower Grande Ronde River ten miles or more downstream of 

the town of Troy, Oregon, and in middle reaches of the Columbia River downstream of the 

Umatilla National Forest. In National Forest System lands, Columbia pebblesnails have only been 

documented in portions of the Snake and Salmon Rivers managed by the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and are not suspected elsewhere 

within the Blue Mountains national forests.

Redband Trout, Great Basin Distinct Population Segment (aka Oregon Closed Basins

Geographic Management Unit)

Basic species information and current conditions of population viability and habitat conditions for 

the Malheur Lakes portion of the Oregon Closed Basins geographic management unit of redband 

trout, are presented in the section on surrogate species and will not be repeated here. The redband 

trout in this geographic management unit inhabit several subbasins on the south end of the 

Malheur National Forest and comprise a portion of the Great Basin distinct population segment of 

the species. These are the only redband populations in the Plan Area that were identified as Forest 

Service Sensitive species on the 2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (Table 237 and 

Table 244).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

39

Spring-dependent Snails

Species dependent upon microhabitats, such as high-quality springs and spring-fed riparian 

habitats, are not well represented by conditions and trends in habitats for the selected group of 

surrogate species. Their viability is much more closely related to conditions and trends in spring 

fed riparian areas. Conditions and trends for these limited habitats will be used as an indicator of 

viability for spring- dependent species not otherwise represented by aquatic vertebrate surrogate 

species or their habitats.

Based on surveys conducted within the Umatilla National Forest by Forest Service biologists, the 

pristine springsnail, a small aquatic snail, is found only in clear, cold, undeveloped springs and 

spring creeks within the Walla Walla and Umatilla River subbasins.

The Harney Basin dusky snail, is only known to be in one location in the Harney Basin (one of 

the Oregon Closed Basins), and has not yet been found in National Forest System lands. It is 

suspected to be present within the Malheur and Ochoco National Forests in the Oregon Closed 

Basins and Upper Malheur River subbasin portions of those forests, due to their presence in the 

Harney Basin. Little is known about this small, freshwater snail, other than that it has been found 

in habitat characterized as cold springs and associated spring channels.

Westslope Cutthroat Trout

Westslope cutthroat trout are a localized endemic of the Upper John Day subbasin within the 

Malheur National Forest. The species is considered an introduced species in headwaters of 

subbasins within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Westslope cutthroat trout 

inhabit high elevation headwater tributaries and typically occur higher in the tributaries than do 

redband trout, to which they are closely related. Both redband trout and bull trout in the North 

Fork John Day and Upper John Day subbasins function as surrogate species surrogates for 

westslope cutthroat trout because pure cutthroat inhabit higher elevation tributaries than redband 

trout, and share cold headwater habitats with bull trout. Both cutthroat and redband trout are 

spring spawners and have hybridized in the area of elevational overlap between the pure 

populations of those two species in the North Fork John Day subbasin. All three species are nonanadromous species resident in freshwater throughout their life cycle. Viability of westslope 

cutthroat in the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests is uncertain, despite having fair to good 

habitat conditions in the North Fork and Upper John Day subbasins, considering the status of 

surrogate populations of steelhead and redband trout in those subbasins, the status of surrogate 

bull trout populations in those same subbasins, and hybridization with redband trout.

Margined Sculpin

Margined sculpin are a small fish requiring clean cool water and clean streambed substrate 

without much fine-sediment. They are only known to occur in three subbasins, all associated with 

the Umatilla National Forest: the Tucannon, Walla Walla, and Umatilla. Margined sculpin are 

known to be present in the mainstem Tucannon River, which is a medium-large river supporting 

both spring Chinook salmon and steelhead, and are also known to be present in at least one 

tributary to the Tucannon River that was also occupied by bull trout. Their small size and 

productivity relative to the amount and quality of available habitat available suggests sculpin 

populations are viable, however monitoring population status for this species is difficult because 

other sculpin species in the Blue Mountains are similar in appearance and accurate identification 

to the species level during field surveys is difficult for seasonal surveyors less familiar with the 

species. Sculpins that are found in these drainages are presumed to be margined sculpins, in the 

absence of expert identification to the species level. Sculpin are spring spawners, non-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

40

anadromous, and associate strongly with the streambed, which they use for shelter, similar to 

juvenile bull trout, thus nonanadromous redband trout and bull trout both serve as surrogates for 

this species in those subbasins.

Management Indicator Species

The 1982 Planning Rule4 requires that certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the 

area be identified and selected as management indicator species and the reasons for their selection 

stated:

...the following categories shall be represented where appropriate: Endangered and 

threatened plant and animal species identified on State and Federal lists for the Plan Area; 

species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs; species commonly hunted fished or trapped; nongame species of 

special interest, and additional plant or animal species selected because their population 

changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species of 

selected major biological communities or on water quality.

Five species or groups of species from the trout and salmon family of fish (salmonids) were 

selected to serve as management indicator species in the 1990 plans because their habitat 

requirements encompassed a broad range of aquatic habitat conditions characteristic of the Blue 

Mountains national forests. In the 1990 Forest Plans, there was one general objective for 

management indicator species: to manage National Forest System lands to maintain viable 

populations of those selected species. However, the 1982 National Forest Management Act 

regulations (1982 Planning Rule) did not make a direct link between management indicator 

species and broad-scale species diversity. Population trends of management indicator species 

were not expected to represent trends in viability for other species.

The purpose of management indicator species monitoring was to evaluate the effectiveness of 

Forest Service management in maintaining habitat for the selected management indicator species; 

however, several of the management indicator species selected for the 1990 Forest Plans are 

significantly affected by human influences outside the management prerogative of the Forest 

Service. Indicators should be chosen for specific habitats identified as being at risk, where there is 

a high level of management actions anticipated, and where there is reasonable certainty that 

management indicator species population changes can be monitored and attributed to Forest 

Service activities (Hayward et al. 2004). It is this last criterion that the species previously selected 

and/or considered for continued use as management indicator species, fall farthest from meeting. 

Population changes in these species have proven difficult to tie specifically to management of 

National Forest System lands for reasons specific to each of the selected species, as discussed in 

this section.

The Malheur National Forest’s 1990 Forest Plan identified steelhead, redband trout, bull trout and 

westslope cutthroat trout as management indicator species, all native species. The Umatilla 

National Forest’s 1990 Forest Plan identified steelhead and redband trout as management 

indicator species. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s 1990 Forest Plan identified steelhead 

and “resident trout” as management indicator species (which at the time included bull trout and 

redband trout, as well as introduced westslope cutthroat trout and non-native brook trout which 

were all considered desirable non-native species as game fish at the time), while the Ochoco 

National Forest’s 1990 Forest Plan identified “all trout” as management indicator species, 

 4 36 CFR219.19(a)(1)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

41

however the portion of the Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur National Forest 

is located in the Oregon Closed Basins, where only redband trout are present.

None of the native aquatic management indicator species were Endangered Species Act-listed at 

the time the Blue Mountains forest plans were signed in 1990. Several steelhead and bull trout 

distinct population segments were subsequently federally listed as threatened between 1998 and 

2010, along with their designated critical habitats, indicating a loss of viability at the distinct 

population segment or species scale. Reasons for those listings are provided in the various 

Federal Registers that announced the listings. No other 1990 aquatic management indicator 

species in the Plan Area have been listed as threatened or endangered since 2010. Redband trout 

and westslope cutthroat trout are the only remaining native aquatic management indicator species 

from the 1990 Forest Plans that are not currently listed under the Endangered Species Act. Brook 

trout are widely recognized now as an invasive species and a threat to bull trout with which they 

interbreed, to the detriment of the listed bull trout populations. Non-native brook trout were 

introduced as desirable game fish in times past and are present in scattered watersheds in all three 

national forests, but their current status is unknown. They are no longer considered a desirable

nonnative species in the Plan Area, as they compete and hybridize with threatened bull trout, 

eventually decimating pure bull trout populations due to their comparatively higher rates of 

reproduction. All Forest Service fish habitat improvement projects currently are designed to 

minimize the risk of increasing brook trout populations in areas where they pose a threat to 

federally listed native bull trout. Westslope cutthroat trout distribution is patchy on all three 

National Forests. As already discussed, redband trout and bull trout serve as surrogates for 

westslope trout viability for this analysis, and have been designated as a regional Forest Service 

sensitive species by the Regional Forester.

Each of the 1990 Plans addressed monitoring for management indicator species populations at the 

forest scale in quite different ways. All three 1990 Forest Plans selected aquatic management 

indicator species based on their special habitat requirements. They were to serve as indicators of 

maintenance and quality of aquatic habitats. A data-intensive smolt habitat capability index model 

in regional use was the primary monitoring tool established in each forest plan. The model was 

designed to monitor managed habitat conditions for resident and anadromous management 

indicator species and evaluate those habitat capabilities relative to pristine habitat conditions. The 

specified habitat condition objectives were expected to potentially produce a corresponding

number of smolts.

PACFISH and INFISH plan amendments established new metrics for fish habitat evaluation in 

1995(riparian management objectives), and terms and conditions in Biological Opinions for 

federally listed Chinook salmon, steelhead and bull trout established new habitat monitoring 

requirements between 1995 and 1998 which resulted in the development of PACFISH-INFISH 

Biological Opinion Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring programs which have been 

ongoing since 2001. This new monitoring protocol is not designed to forecast the number of 

smolts potentially produced based on habitat conditions and trends.

Population trends for federally listed anadromous species, steelhead and Chinook salmon, are 

now assessed by states and National Marine Fisheries Service at all-lands subbasin scales and 

estimated based on passage over various Columbia and Snake River hydropower dams, with 

population trends published in status reviews by National Marine Fisheries at 5-year intervals. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provides similar population trend estimates at all-lands subbasin 

scales for federally listed bull trout every 5 years, using information from a wide range of 

sources. Forest Service biologists use that status and trend information to refine project planning 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

42

and management for populations affected by management activities in the Plan Area and use 

professional judgement to develop estimates of population status within the forest, based on the 

broader scale population status and trends, and to assess the likelihood that on-forest habitat 

conditions and trends are contributing to the wellbeing of the species.

The Malheur National Forest 1990 Forest Plan specified use of the regional smolt habitat 

capability index model to tie habitat condition trends to population trends. Habitat surveys have 

continued, but population monitoring currently entails detecting changes in species distribution 

and population status, based on before-after distribution monitoring and presence-absence 

monitoring (S. Namitz, pers. comm.), without quantifying population trends for each management 

indicator species to habitat conditions through use of the smolt habitat capability index model 

which has been discontinued.

The Umatilla National Forest 1990 forest monitoring plan specified that management indicator 

species population trends would be monitored using several methods: 1) direct counts for 

steelhead via physical trapping and counting out-migrating steelhead smolts headed for the ocean, 

combined with smolt habitat capability modeling using habitat survey data, 2) steelhead redd 

surveys, 3) population trend data provided by state fish and wildlife agencies for steelhead and 

coordinated population trend monitoring between the Forest Service and state agencies. Stream 

surveys have continued over the years but funding has dropped and the quantity of stream surveys 

have dropped over the past 20 years. Species status and trend efforts have focused on refining 

distribution and habitat condition information, rather than quantifying population trends. 

Population trends for steelhead are now assessed by States and National Marine Fisheries Service 

at all-lands subbasin scales and estimated based on passage over various Columbia and Snake 

River hydropower dams, with population trends published in status reviews by National Marine 

Fisheries at 5-year intervals. Steelhead redd surveys are conducted on the Forest in limited 

locations, primarily on the Heppner ranger district, due to lack of staffing and funding, but smolt 

trapping has not been done in many years and efforts to apply the smolt habitat capability model 

has been discontinued for a variety of reasons, one reason being that field biologists could not 

distinguish between resident redband trout and juvenile steelhead during the low-flow season 

when fieldwork is typically done, after spring high flows have receded.

As stated in the Wallowa-Whitman glossary definition for the smolt habitat capability index, the 

index was designed to estimate the number of smolts that could be produced if habitat was in a 

specified condition. The Wallowa-Whitman 1990 monitoring plan also specified use of the smolt 

habitat capability index model to monitor population trends for anadromous and resident MIS. 

That monitoring protocol has fallen into disuse for similar reasons as the Umatilla.

The Ochoco National Forest 1989 Forest Plan specified monitoring all trout, including nonnative 

brook trout where they occurred, as well as native redband trout and steelhead populations. Only 

native redband trout are present in the portion of the Ochoco National Forest, portions of which 

(Silver and Crooked River-South Fork Beaver Creek subbasins), are administered by the Malheur 

National Forest and analyzed as part of the plan revision area.

Other aquatic species known present in the Plan Area were considered as candidates for 

management indicator species, but were not selected for a variety of reasons including lack of 

information on distribution or biology or current population conditions for the species. Most 

nongame species are believed to be less sensitive to effects of land management than are 

coldwater salmonids, particularly water temperatures and sediment levels in streambeds. Other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

43

species are anadromous similar to salmon and steelhead and are affected by similar impacts to 

their populations in the migratory corridors downstream of National Forest System lands.

Other species prefer warmer and/or larger slower waters downstream of National Forest System 

lands, or may be species that would potentially benefit from land management impacts that would 

be considered detrimental to listed and sensitive coldwater species. Other species considered are 

strongly affected by management of lands downstream of National Forest System lands or are 

species for which there are no current concerns for viability and not expected to be detrimentally 

affected by forest management activities. Salmonid species are believed to be more sensitive to 

the types of land management activities likely to occur on National Forest System lands.

For reasons previously discussed, of the current management indicator species, only bull trout 

and redband trout were initially considered as possibilities for carrying forward as management 

indicator species in the new plan revisions. Redband trout are distributed in subbasins both inside 

and outside the range of steelhead, and are affected by management on both Federal and nonFederal lands in the subbasins where they are present. Attempts to evaluate effects of 

management based on population trends have not been successful on the Umatilla National 

Forest, which had specified smolt trapping and physically handling out-migrating steelhead 

smolts, but did not occur, due to funding and staffing challenges. Counts of spawning adults and 

redds are very difficult in the spring with high flows from snowmelt, while doing population 

assessments of juveniles during the summer low flow season proved unfeasible due to inability to 

distinguish between redband trout and juvenile steelhead at that time of year. Similar rationales 

apply for steelhead and westslope cutthroat trout, therefore habitat metrics were selected for 

monitoring effects of management on bull trout, redband, steelhead, and westslope cutthroat as 

management indicator species on the Malheur National Forest under the 1990 Plans. That habitat 

monitoring is ongoing on the Malheur National Forest through protocols established since 2001, 

for habitat monitoring required as a term and condition of the PACFISH and INFISH Biological 

Opinions.

As noted previously, upon reconsideration of options for management indicator species, which 

are required under the 1982 Planning Rule for purposes of comparing plan revision alternatives, 

together with types of monitoring acceptable for use with species chosen as focal species under 

the 2012 Planning Rule, redband trout, bull trout, steelhead and Chinook salmon were selected to 

carry forward as management indicator species for the proposed plan action alternatives. The 

utility of monitoring bull trout population trends for effects of management are limited. Bull trout 

are high-elevation species and use spawning and rearing habitats in upper watersheds with limited 

commercial timber management, infrequent high-intensity wildfires as a natural occurrence, 

limited forage production and suitability for livestock grazing. Most of their spawning and rearing 

habitat is located in areas predominantly allocated to wilderness and other low-roaded 

management area allocations. In addition, their migratory life history confounds efforts to detect 

population trends since a large part of their annual life cycle as adults is spent in larger rivers 

downstream of national forest lands during the winter and some populations are fragmented by 

dams below the national forest on both the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. For 

these reasons bull trout population trends were not considered to be a good indicator of 

management effects and why habitat monitoring is now the preferred method for monitoring their 

status as a focal species on national forest system lands, with status reviews from other agencies 

serving to monitor status and trends of each population for purposes of progress in species 

recovery across all land ownerships.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

44

The biology and legal status of anadromous steelhead and spring Chinook salmon in the Middle 

Columbia and Snake River basins demonstrates that anadromous populations are heavily 

influenced by many factors outside and downstream of National Forest System lands. Steelhead 

and Chinook salmon both are highly migratory and spend a large portion of their lives in large 

rivers and oceans downstream of National Forest System lands. They are strongly affected by 

land and population management factors outside of National Forest System lands, all of which are 

beyond the management purview of the Forest Service.

Those factors include competition and interbreeding with hatchery stocks; tribal, recreational and 

commercial harvest; habitat conditions including water quality in the migratory river corridors 

and estuaries; and impacts of passing through multiple, mainstem hydropower dam operations 

during both emigration downriver to the ocean as subadults and as adults returning upriver to 

spawn in their natal streams. These population and evolutionarily significant units/distinct 

population segment level impacts are described in multiple documents, including the Middle 

Columbia River Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2009) and subbasin plans for the Middle 

Columbia River and Lower Snake River subbasins associated with the Plan Area (NWPCC

20045

).

Steelhead and redband trout juveniles are indistinguishable visually, and their spawning and 

rearing habitats overlap on National Forest System lands in year-round habitats. In addition, 

where they co-occur, offspring of female steelhead may mature into freshwater redband trout, and

offspring of female redband trout may ultimately out-migrate to the ocean and return to National 

Forest System streams as adult steelhead (Carmichael et al. 2005). This uncertainty in adult 

development further limits reliability of viability assessments for steelhead and redband 

populations in National Forest System lands where steelhead and redband juveniles are both 

present year-round and cannot be distinguished from one another visually.

Conclusions regarding effects of forest management on populations of either steelhead or cooccurring redband trout as separate management indicator species from field surveys of spawning 

and rearing habitats on National Forest System lands become highly unreliable. Monitoring to 

detect population trends for the resident life history where steelhead are present is difficult to 

conduct without conducting expensive and extensive genetic testing of both juveniles and adults 

of both life histories throughout National Forest System lands, which has not been done for 

purposes of monitoring effects of forest management on either steelhead or redband populations 

as management indicator species.

Local populations (subwatershed scale) of interior redband trout across the Blue Mountains 

national forests are considered depressed, with low numbers, or of unknown status (Thurow et al. 

2007); subwatershed-scale population assessment data for the selected surrogate species; project 

record). Redband populations within the current range of steelhead are also affected by habitat 

conditions outside the National Forests. They can be seasonally migratory within the subbasinscale freshwater networks and may winter in larger streams in National Forest System lands and 

downstream in private and state lands, and are likely impacted by habitat fragmentation across 

ownerships. Redband trout are presumed present in all Columbia and Lower Snake River 

subbasins where steelhead are present.

For these reasons, changes in populations of either redband trout or steelhead at subbasin-scale do 

not necessarily reflect consequences of Forest Service management on either species/life history 

individually. The fact that redband and steelhead are known to interbreed may support population 

 5 http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/home/
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

45

viability for both life histories where they co-occur, but the extent to which this occurs or the 

extent to which each life history supports viability of the other, is unknown.

Redband trout populations in subbasins outside the current range of steelhead are heavily 

impacted by agricultural and urban development in migratory corridors downstream of National 

Forest System lands, and their habitats are naturally fragmented in the Oregon Closed Basins, and 

are fragmented by mainstem dams and water diversions in the Upper Malheur, Powder, and Burnt 

River subbasins downstream of National Forest System lands. The fact that redband trout 

populations are known to use habitats within National Forest System lands as well as habitats 

downstream of National Forest System lands, complicates monitoring efforts to detect effects of 

land management activities within National Forest System lands on these populations as a 

management indicator species, even in river systems where steelhead co-occurrence is not a 

confounding factor. Rieman et al. (2000) noted the extreme population fragmentation and related 

impacts of land management downstream of National Forest System lands in these subbasins, 

based on analyses conducted for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP).

Westslope cutthroat trout are a native species with limited presence in eastern Oregon and 

Washington, where they are on the outer limits of their natural distribution, which is centered in 

northern Idaho and western Montana. Westslope cutthroat are known to be present within the 

North Fork John Day and Upper John Day subbasins. Their population numbers within the Plan 

Area are unknown, but are likely similar to those of redband and bull trout populations in shared 

watersheds as their habitat requirements are similar.

Westslope cutthroat, although a true separate species, are closely related genetically to redband 

trout and steelhead and are known to experience hybridization zones where they overlap with 

redband trout and steelhead. Hybridization confounds efforts to detect effects of Forest Service 

management on westslope cutthroat trout as a standalone species. Similar problems may occur 

where brook trout have been introduced into bull trout streams.

Non-native brook trout are limited to a very few watersheds within the Plan Area and are not a 

management indicator species except where noted previously for the Ochoco and WallowaWhitman National Forests. Current population numbers are unknown, but local populations are 

suspected to be increasing wherever they occur. Non-native brook trout impact bull trout 

populations, in particular, through interbreeding which results in sterile hybrids and/or through 

relatively high reproductive rates, which leads to competitive displacement of bull trout that 

exhibit much lower reproductive rates. Brook trout also tend to out-compete westslope cutthroat 

trout for space and food supply where they co-occur. Their presence makes it much more difficult 

to detect correlations with land management for either bull trout or westslope cutthroat.

Although nonnative brook trout were included in the “resident trout” management indicator 

species group in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan in 1990, brook trout are currently considered 

an undesirable nonnative introduced species in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest due to their 

negative impacts on native bull trout and/or westslope cutthroat populations where brook trout 

co-occur with either of the other two species. Based on the hybridization and competition 

concerns for Threatened bull trout and Sensitive westslope cutthroat, brook trout are no longer 

considered a desirable nonnative species suitable for use as a management indicator species for 

any of the Blue Mountains national forests for purposes of monitoring population effects of land 

management on National Forest System lands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

46

Most bull trout populations in the Plan Area include both freshwater migratory and headwater 

year-round resident individuals. This mix of life histories is an adaptation to infrequent but 

catastrophic natural disturbances in their high-elevation habitats. The benefits of such 

disturbances are that they tend to deliver pulses of large wood and streambed material that 

provide new spawning gravels and increase habitat complexity, providing for resting places and 

cover to shelter them from predators and reduce energy demands imposed by fast streamflow. A 

fresh assortment of large streambed substrate provides spaces in the streambed where juveniles 

can hide from predators.

Most resident bull trout and spawning habitats are located in high-elevation habitats limited 

management is likely to occur, in that these areas are mostly allocated to wilderness, wild and 

scenic rivers corridors, municipal watersheds, backcountry nonmotorized use where timber 

harvest, livestock grazing and roaded access are limited. Natural disturbance processes in 

spawning areas are predominantly operating at natural frequencies, magnitudes and rates to which 

the species has adapted over centuries. Attempts to monitor bull trout populations are extremely 

difficult due to difficult access to remote headwater habitats, complex life histories and 

population networks interacting with large disturbance-prone landscapes to which the species is 

adapted. The remoteness of their headwater habitats, natural life history complexity of the species 

and the limited types of land uses in their habitats were some of the combined reasons why bull 

trout were not chosen for continuation as a management indicator species for the effects of forest 

management. Other reasons are summarized below.

Bull trout, redband trout, and steelhead populations in and downstream of National Forest System 

lands have become highly fragmented due to loss of access to migratory corridors and wintering 

habitats downstream of National Forest System lands through conditions created by impassible 

dams on main rivers, together with impacts of hybridization and competition with related, 

introduced species and nonnative hatchery stocks. Subbasin plans and recovery plans indicate that 

spawning and rearing habitats for federally listed distinct population segments and evolutionarily 

significant units in lands downstream of National Forest System lands are also degraded by past 

land use and/or accessibility within and among spawning and rearing habitat. The degree to 

which these species have been affected varies by subbasin and associated population. The 

cumulative impacts of historic and ongoing management in National Forest System and other 

lands are represented in the current habitat and population conditions and trends presented in 

Table 241 through Table 244.

Both anadromous and freshwater aquatic species considered here for use as management 

indicator species are affected by mainstem hydropower dam construction and operation, hatchery 

management, fishing regulation, (commercial and recreational fishing), mining, timber harvest, 

road building, water development and ongoing water uses in other ownerships downstream of 

National Forest System lands, as well as by ongoing and legacy habitat impacts of past 

management in National Forest System lands, particularly management in terms of mining, 

timber harvest, livestock grazing and road construction. Current population, habitat conditions, 

and trends both within and outside of National Forest System lands reflect those cumulative 

impacts to those species and their habitats, and are discussed in Federal Register listings for each 

threatened distinct population segment and evolutionarily significant units. They are also 

described in greater detail in Subbasin Plans for each Plan Area subbasin and in agency status 

reviews, recovery plans and draft recovery plans for listed evolutionarily significant units and 

distinct population segments.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

47

Over the years since 1990, in consideration of the numerous Endangered Species Act-listings for 

populations that operate at scales that extend well beyond National Forest System lands, State and 

Federal biologists from many agencies have come to recognize that federal land management 

alone cannot ensure viability for sensitive species will not be lost due to factors outside national 

forest boundaries or beyond agency management authority, even if adequate habitat quality and 

quantity are available in National Forest System lands. Thus, the management indicator species 

concept and aquatic species selected as management indicator species have not served their 

intended management indicator species function well over the years. For the reasons discussed 

above, no aquatic management indicator species were chosen for any of the proposed Plan 

Revision alternatives in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; however, as noted previously, 

a modified set of management indicator species will be used for analysis of action alternatives, as 

required under the 1982 Planning Rule. Spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and 

redband trout will be used as management indicator species for purposes of analyzing effects of 

action alternatives for all three National Forests.

Management Indicator Species Habitat

Repeatable riparian and stream habitat surveys designed for detecting habitat trends, as required 

by forest plan biological opinions for listed steelhead, spring Chinook salmon, and bull trout, 

have been ongoing throughout the Blue Mountains Plan Area since 2000. The survey areas 

include watersheds in which only non-listed redband trout are present. Those monitoring surveys 

are repeated on a five-year schedule, and enough repeat surveys have been completed during the 

past five years to allow for early indications of trend across the plan area for both riparian and 

aquatic conditions (Archer et al. 2009, Archer and Ojala 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). Early results 

display improving trends for a handful of indicators, non-significant changes in most other 

indicators, and detrimental changes in a few cases, as previously discussed in surrogate species 

discussions above. Improving trends in riparian vegetation and instream large wood inputs, where 

they have occurred, are expected to trigger follow-on responses in additional habitat indicators 

through natural processes (Day et al. 2015).

Aquatic Species Viability – Environmental Consequences

Species Viability – Overview

Viability analyses considered population conditions for each surrogate species and an assessment 

of the habitat necessary to sustain those populations. Spawning and rearing habitat and access to 

such habitat were considered the most crucial habitat elements provided by National Forest 

System lands and the most likely aspects of habitat to be affected by land management activities; 

therefore, analyses were based on effects to quality, quantity, distribution and access to spawning 

and rearing habitats. Conclusions regarding effects to viability were drawn at the subbasin 

(population) scale and by national forest for each surrogate species.

Management of National Forest System lands affects viability of aquatic species in two ways. The 

first way is the extent to which aquatic and riparian habitats and species are protected from 

detrimental effects of active land management, particularly from long-term detrimental effects of 

timber management, livestock grazing and/or road construction and motorized access as suitable 

uses. When riparian areas and aquatic habitats are protected from chronic impacts of these 

activities, they can typically recover without additional assistance from active restoration, but 

relatively slowly. Plan components including desired conditions, management area suitability for 

various land uses, and standards and guidelines thus promote ‘passive” restoration for purposes of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

48

this analysis. Desired conditions apply across all plan revision alternatives in this analysis, while 

management area allocation acreages and configurations on the landscape, along with their 

associated suitable uses, vary across alternatives, as do certain standards and guidelines. Other 

standards and guidelines apply similarly across alternatives. Standards must be implemented as 

written. Guidelines must also achieve the intent of the measure, but allow for flexible ways to 

meet the intent. Alternatives E and F contain desired conditions for road density that do not apply 

to the other alternatives.

The Blue Mountains Aquatic Species Sustainability Model used in this analysis, follows the 

methods described in Reiss et al (2008), and assesses alternatives from the perspective of 

providing protection and reduction of risk of combined effects to fish and their habitats from 

forest management, livestock grazing and roaded access based land allocations and suitability for 

those uses. The model was designed to assess risk to viability for each of the individual surrogate 

species by alternative, based on the mix of land allocations and suitability for these uses, in each 

subbasin occupied by the species. Model calculations at subbasin scale describe relative risk that 

aquatic habitats on National Forest System lands would be exposed to habitat risks associated 

with those uses, for each individual surrogate species with spawning and rearing habitat on 

National Forest System lands in a subbasin, in the absence of additional protective plan 

components such as desired conditions, standards and guidelines and monitoring, which are 

designed to reduce those risks to aquatic habitats or even avoid them altogether, depending on the 

alternative. Protective measures are based on the presumption that passive restoration of aquatic 

habitats and species will occur through natural processes at near-natural rates in the absence of 

further degradation. Methods, assumptions and data used in the Sustainability Model to develop 

protection metrics are described in the Watershed section.

The second way management of forest system lands affects aquatic species viability is through 

active restoration of watershed functionality, which may require restoring upland watershed 

conditions as well as riparian and aquatic habitats. Quantitative objectives for active watershed, 

riparian and aquatic habitat restoration are one of the key emphases in the plan revision 

alternatives, as a way to accelerate achievement of desired conditions and meet ecological goals, 

though the degree to which such objectives would be accomplished varies by alternative. 

Methods, assumptions and data used in the Sustainability Model to estimate the number and types 

of watersheds likely to be improved under each alternative are described in the “Watershed 

Function, Water Quality, and Water Uses” section, along with projections as to number of 

watersheds improved through various methods and combinations of methods, in 10 and 20 years. 

Appendix A of this document compares various pertinent active restoration objectives under each 

action alternative. Objectives would be applied in priority watersheds and opportunistically in 

other watersheds. New priority watersheds would be selected for additional active restoration 

from among key watersheds, when all essential active restoration needs have been addressed in 

current priority watersheds, or when priorities change due to changed conditions. Decisions as to 

priorities for Watershed Condition Framework priority watershed restoration scheduling would 

remain at local forest administrator’s discretion.

Examples of active restoration that would serve to maintain or restore viability for aquatic 

species, take place in or near the stream channel, example, restoration of fish passage by 

removing or upgrading a culvert barrier at a road-stream crossing, or replanting riparian shrubs to 

restore stream shade to provide cooler water and improve streambank stability to reduce sediment 

inputs that clog spawning gravels. Such actions would contribute to improved viability of aquatic 

species relatively quickly. Other activities to restore watershed function and processes in priority 

watersheds would take place in the uplands, such as restoring stand structure and composition to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

49

reflect and enable the return of nature fire frequencies and intensities in dry forest landscapes, and 

reducing sediment inputs and hydrologic connectivity between the road network, both in uplands 

and in the valley bottoms. Such actions would improve species viability indirectly and more 

slowly.

The greater the number of priority and other key watersheds holistically restored, the greater the 

benefits of the alternative to viability of aquatic species inhabiting those watersheds. The most 

immediate benefits are likely to come from restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats, including 

reduced hydrologic connections between roads and streams and improving riparian forest 

vegetation. Longer-term benefits are expected to accrue from restoration of uplands in the same 

watersheds. The full suite of priority watersheds on each forest would not be restored under any 

of the alternatives during the life of the Plan, or even necessarily within the first 20 years. The 

number of priority watersheds expected to be restored over the first 10 years varies by alternative.

Because of uncertainty as to which watersheds would be restored over the life of the plan, the 

extent to which any particular surrogate species will benefit from a given alternative cannot be 

known, as not all surrogate species are present in the same priority watersheds. What can be 

known, however, is that at least one surrogate species will benefit whenever a priority or other 

key watershed is improved. Table 245 displays subbasins contain priority watersheds that, when 

restored, are likely to provide benefits to a given species.

Because each of the four surrogate species is non-uniformly distributed within each forest, this 

section assesses how well the Plan alternatives would maintain distributions and provide 

sustainable habitat for each aquatic surrogate species in each forest. Basic plan protection metrics 

are based on land allocations and their suitable uses.

Assumptions for Species Viability

• PACFISH and INFISH were designed as conservation strategies to prevent further habitat 

degradation and initiate habitat restoration through natural processes. Protection scores 

calculated for Alternative A are accordingly assumed to represent a baseline of no degradation 

from existing condition on a species-by-species basis, for purposes of comparison of 

alternatives, except where noted in existing habitat trend discussions based on PACFISHINFISH Biological Opinion monitoring indicators earlier.

• A further assumption for purposes of comparing alternatives, is that near-natural rates of 

recovery through natural processes are in progress to varying degrees on each forest, and that 

degradation is no longer occurring, as a baseline for comparison with plan revision 

alternatives and that Alternative A would continue those patterns, based on PACFISHINFISH Biological Opinion trend monitoring reports for each forest (Archer and Ojala 

2016a-c). Protection scores for plan revision alternatives are assumed to represent slightly 

faster or slower rates of recovery through natural processes, depending on the degree of 

difference from protection scores for Alternative A, and in consideration of modeling results 

for riparian-aquatic improvements in watershed conditions forestwide by alternative.

• Viability analyses for surrogate species or subgroups of surrogate species that represent 

effects to viability for other sensitive species or other species sharing their habitats with 

similar habitat requirements the habitats requirements and/or geographic distributions are 

similar.

• Multiple-scale analysis would be conducted to identify and prioritize active restoration needs 

for priority watersheds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

50

Table 245. Distribution of key subwatersheds (KWS) (priority subwatersheds in parenthesis) for all 

alternatives, including Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, relative to surrogate 

species habitats within the Blue Mountains national forests

Subbasin Bull 

Trout

Chinook 

salmon Steelhead Redband Trout4

Total 

KWS1

Current KWS5

(Alternative A)

Malheur 

Middle Fork John Day 5 (5) 12 (12) 15 (15)2 15 (15)2 15 (15) 29 (15)2

Upper John Day 4 (0) 1 (0) 15 (0) 9 (0) 17 (0) 47 (0)

Upper Malheur 3(3) NA NA 11 (10) 15 (10) 19 (7)

Silvies NA NA NA 10 (0) 10 (1) 0

Silver NA NA NA 4 (4) 4 (4) 0 (4)

North Fork John Day 0 0 0 0 0 4 (0)

Harney-Malheur NA NA NA 0 0 0

South Fork Crooked RiverBeaver Creek

NA NA NA 0 0 0

Malheur National Forest Totals 18 (7) 13 (12) 30 (15) 49 (29) 59 (29) 99 (26)

Umatilla 

Middle Fork John Day NA NA 0 0 0 1 (0)

North Fork John Day 9 (2)2 9 (2)2 20 (8)2 20 (8)2 20 (11) 84 (12)2

Lower John Day 0 NA 0 0 0 4 (0)

Willow-Columbia NA NA NA 0 0 2 (0)

Umatilla 4 (0) 4 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 6 (0) 15 (0)

Walla Walla 4 (0) 1 (0) 3 (0) 3 (0) 4 (0) 10 0)

Tucannon 4 (4)2 2 (2) 4 (4)2 4 (4)2 4 (4) 7 (4)2

Asotin 4 (0) NA 4(0) 2 (0) 5 (0) 6 (0)

Lower Grande Ronde 12 (0) 8 (0) 12 (0) 12 (0) 12 (0) 25 (0)

Upper Grande Ronde 1(0) 1(0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 1 (0) 9 (0)

Umatilla National Forest Totals 38 (6) 25 (4) 49 (12) 49 (12) 38 (15) 163

Wallowa-Whitman

Imnaha 9 (4)

1 9 (4)2 9 (4)2 9 (4)2 9 (4) 27 (4)2

Lower Grande Ronde 5 (0) 0 (0) 5 (0) 5 (0) 12 (0) 23 (0)

Upper Grande Ronde 19 (13)2 9 (9)2 24 (13)2 24 (13)2 27 (16) 27 (15)2

Lower Snake-Asotin 0 0 0 0 0 1 (0)

North Fork John Day 5 (2) 2 5 (2) 2 6 (3) 2 6 (3) 2 6 (3) 10 (3)2

Brownlee (in the HCNRA) 5 (3) NA NA 6 (4) 7 (5) 7 (4)

Powder 3 (0) NA NA 4 (0) 6 (0) 7 (0)

Burnt NA NA NA 4 (0) 11 (0) 0

Wallowa 16 (0) 12 (0) 13 (0) 13 (0) 18 (0) 16 (0)

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest Totals 

66 (21) 44 (18) 81 (20) 65 (24) 96 (28) 112 (26) 

(Hells Canyon 

not included)

1. Includes priority (key) watersheds for active restoration as defined for plan revision alternatives. Subwatersheds with 

multiple species are only counted once for purposes of total KWS count. Totals do not represent sum of KWS for 

individual surrogate species.

2. Denotes one or more current Watershed Condition Framework priority watersheds benefit this species in this subbasin

3. Represents current combined set of key and priority subwatersheds as defined by PACFISH and INFISH criteria.

4. Redband trout are presumed present wherever steelhead are present.

5. Current KWS include all INFISH priority watersheds, as well as all PACFISH key watersheds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

51

Environmental Consequences to Species Viability Common to All Alternatives

All alternatives incorporate, to varying degrees, the plan components essential to assuring 

viability for surrogate species and the aquatic species they represent in National Forest System 

lands. These plan components include:

• Desired conditions and objectives for watershed condition and function, threatened and 

endangered species, and riparian and aquatic habitat conditions supporting surrogate 

species and the other native aquatic species represented by the surrogate species.

• Allocation of lands (management areas) considered either suitable or not suitable for 

grazing, timber management, and/or roaded access, including new road construction.

• Active restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats, roads and forest vegetation in priority 

watersheds over the life of the Plan.

• Watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat protections provided by standards and guidelines, 

including protective measures that would control or eliminate undesirable non-native and 

invasive aquatic plant and animal species, which would direct management changes in 

grazing allotments where one or more surrogate species are present and/or conditions 

indicate management is not promoting desired conditions.

• Forest Plan-scale implementation and effectiveness monitoring strategies used to assess 

riparian and aquatic conditions and trends over time that would inform adaptive 

management decisions.

All of these components would be in place for all the plan revision alternatives, therefore 

management of National Forest System lands can be expected to contribute to viability of the 

various surrogate species that spawn and rear in National Forest System lands. The plan revision 

alternatives are strengthened further by establishment of riparian management areas as a land 

allocation and by standards and guidelines such as ones that ensure redds of listed fish would be 

protected from trampling by grazing livestock for all alternatives.

The suite of protections provided by desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and suitability 

determinations for timber production, grazing and road access tailored to each management area 

would facilitate passive restoration through natural processes, for aquatic and riparian habitats.

Under Alternatives B through F, additional protections related to construction of new roads would 

be provided by additional desired conditions, goals, standards, and guidelines specific to key 

watersheds. Under Alternative A, PACFISH and INFISH direction for key and priority 

watersheds would continue to apply to all subwatersheds where listed fish are present, as shown 

in Table 245. Protective effects from the alternatives are represented by protection scores, which 

were calculated through application of the Blue Mountains Aquatic Sustainability Model. The 

model assumptions and calculations are described in Gecy (2013a).

Relative protection levels for each species are presented by protection scores for that species. 

Habitat protections integrated into the alternatives through suitability determinations for the 

various management areas in each subbasin are represented by protection scores calculated 

through the model.

• Acres allocated to the various management areas, and their distribution within each 

subbasin where a species is present.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

52

• Suitability for forest management, livestock grazing and roaded access for each 

management area.

Brief interpretations of the protection scores are provided by alternative in the tables that follow 

for each species. Passive restoration is considered to occur when protection scores are the same or 

greater than protection scores for Alternative A, because Alternative A is currently supporting 

ongoing passive restoration processes at nearly natural rates, based on forest plan level 

monitoring for riparian and aquatic habitat conditions (Archer et al 2016a-c).

Additional assumptions upon which the following effects analyses are based:

• The Revised Forest Plan will have no direct effects as the Plan is a programmatic action 

that is not tied to a specific place or location and does not authorize site-specific projects. 

Forest Plans influence what might or might not be proposed in the future and the nature of 

those actions.

• The Revised Forest Plans can indirectly affect habitat and populations for surrogate species, 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species and other more common species sharing 

surrogate species habitats, since future projects will be expected to be consistent with 

applicable forest plan direction, including progress towards achieving desired watershed 

conditions in project areas, thereby indirectly influencing habitat for populations of aquatic 

species inhabiting those watersheds.

• The 2008 Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy as it was applied across 

Alternatives B through F, and the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategy, as it applies to Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, contain more 

comprehensive sets of desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and objectives than 

included in PACFISH and INFISH) and are expected to be more effective at restoring 

ecologically healthy watersheds, riparian, and aquatic habitats, balancing and reducing risks 

to aquatic habitat conditions associated with management allocations deemed suitable for 

forest management, livestock grazing and/or roaded access. Those risks vary by alternative, 

by subbasin, by species and existing population and habitat conditions and trends. The 

relative risks posed by each alternative are disclosed in surrogate species analyses that 

follow.

• Most of the active restoration activities are assumed to occur in priority watersheds; 

accordingly, the aquatic surrogate species inhabiting those watersheds will all benefit long 

term from whole-watershed restoration in these watersheds, as stated in Appendix A of this 

document. Additional active restoration may occur opportunistically in non-priority 

watersheds as staffing, funding and partner support permit. Table 246 through Table 251 in 

the effects section, display 10- and 20-year projects for subwatersheds with measurable 

improvements in watershed condition at each time step. Metrics for watershed 

improvement in those tables demonstrate that work is likely to occur in more watersheds 

than are currently identified as either key or priority, at each time step. The extent to which 

no-priority watersheds on each national forest are likely to show net improvement, depends 

on the individual national forest, restoration work currently ongoing, and the time step in 

question.

• Active restoration in select priority subwatersheds is intended to complement and enhance 

riparian and aquatic habitat conditions and support passive restoration through ongoing 

natural processes in those subwatersheds. Active restoration is not intended to offset 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

53

degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats by land management that would detract from 

desired conditions for watershed function and aquatic species habitats.

Active and Passive Restoration Effects Common to All Alternatives

The degree to which alternatives would result in watershed and riparian improvements through 

protective measures associated with livestock grazing, forest management and access 

management provided by desired conditions, management allocations and their suitable uses, 

along with standards and guidelines, combined with active restoration of roads and upland 

vegetation, riparian and aquatic habitats based on objectives, will likely benefit aquatic species 

and their habitats in commensurate terms, through improved watershed function and natural 

disturbance processes that are closer to the long-term natural range of variability to which these 

species are adapted. Active restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats and improved connectivity 

through removal of passage barriers will result in more immediate benefits than work in uplands. 

The aquatic surrogate species inhabiting those watersheds will all benefit long term from wholewatershed restoration in these watersheds, though benefits of upland restoration will show up 

more slowly than the near-term benefits of restoration in aquatic and riparian habitats and 

reductions in hydrologic road connectivity.

Accelerated restoration in priority watersheds and perhaps additional key watersheds would also 

contribute to creating larger better-connected blocks of good-quality spawning and rearing 

habitats for one or more surrogate species within targeted subbasins. Larger areas of connected 

key watersheds and habitats would be well distributed within each forest, as priority and key 

watersheds in each forest are distributed between two or more subbasins in a similar number of 

major river basins: Middle Columbia, Lower Snake, Middle Snake and Oregon Closed Basins 

(Appendix B). This long-term improvement in watershed conditions in targeted subbasins would 

help offset any short-term detrimental effects from natural disturbances or from restoration 

activities within those subbasins, by providing well-distributed refugia from these disturbances. 

The more priority and other key watersheds that are restored, the more resilient the networks of 

habitat and populations are likely to be in the face of natural disturbance, and the more likely that 

plan activities will contribute to maintaining or restoring viability for surrogate species by 

providing well-distributed, accessible sizeable refugia from future disturbances.

Combinations of passive and active restoration that would improve habitat quality and 

connectivity are likely to be among the more effective restoration activities that could be 

undertaken near term for spring Chinook salmon and other surrogate species. In watersheds that 

have been fragmented by land management activities and infrastructure including historic placer 

mining, dams, culverts, or that indirectly caused loss of base flow or elevated water temperatures, 

connectivity could be increased by removing barriers associated with road crossings and 

diversion structures (Steel et al. 2004), restoring water tables and meadows for water storage to 

improve seasonal low flow conditions, or restoring stream shade that would alleviate high stream 

temperatures that can act as thermal barriers (Torgersen et al. 1999).

Watershed-scale restoration action plans have been completed for all 14 priority subwatersheds in 

the Granite and Wall Creek watersheds within the Umatilla National Forest, and for all 8 priority 

subwatersheds in the Camp Creek watershed within the Malheur National Forest, all done at the 

5th-HUC watershed scale per direction in the 2005 Aquatic Restoration Strategy have also been 

completed for priority subwatersheds within the Imnaha and Upper Grande Ronde subbasins on 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Watershed Restoration Action Plans are developed or 

refined for individual subwatersheds when they are selected by forest staff on each national forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

54

as a national Watershed Condition Framework priority subwatershed targeted for restoration 

within the next 5 to 7 years. New Watershed Condition Framework watersheds are selected from 

among other priority watersheds once essential restoration work is completed in one or more 

current Watershed Condition Framework watersheds.

The degree to which active restoration would benefit individual surrogate species would depend 

on which priority watersheds are restored over the life of the plan, and the species present in those 

watersheds. The specific set of priority watersheds that would be restored under each alternative 

is unknown at this time, as there are more priority watersheds identified on each forest, than are 

likely to be completed under any of the alternatives. However, based on the distribution of current 

watersheds with ongoing restoration (Watershed Condition Framework watersheds), it is likely 

that bull trout and redband trout populations will benefit from active restoration in subbasins in 

which current Watershed Condition Framework watersheds are located on each forest. Snake 

River Basin steelhead and spring Chinook populations are also likely to benefit from active 

restoration in subbasins in which current Watershed Condition Framework watersheds are 

currently selected in the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Middle Columbia 

River steelhead in the North Fork John Day population are likely to benefit from restoration of 

Watershed Condition Framework watersheds currently selected and being restored on the 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and watersheds restored on the Malheur 

National Forest will benefit the Middle Fork John Day population of Middle Columbia River 

steelhead as well.

Environmental Consequences to Surrogate Species Viability

Comparison of Active Restoration Outcomes among Alternatives for Aquatic Species

Analysis of effects to individual species for viability are required by law and policy. Active 

restoration would occur primarily in priority watersheds, and is expected to benefit aquatic 

species in the long-term, but the extent to which viability of each species is benefited is unknown, 

due to uncertainty as to which priority watersheds would be restored over the life of proposed 

Plan, since there are more priority watersheds currently identified than are likely to undergo 

active restoration efforts during the first decade of proposed Plan, and not all priority watersheds 

provide habitat for all four surrogate species, or for every federally-listed or sensitive species. In 

some alternatives, more restoration objectives have been set than could be achieved within the 

specified priority watersheds alone, those objectives will likely be achieved through additional 

restoration work in other key watersheds, and some restoration work may improve conditions in 

other watersheds not comprising any portion of the key watershed network at all, Some of those 

outcomes are evident in Table 246 through Table 251 on pages 58-61.

Effects to surrogate species and their habitats as a group, from active restoration, parallel the 

effects of active restoration of watersheds, including uplands as well as riparian and aquatic 

habitats, all of which contribute to improvement of watershed conditions. Active restoration is

expected to improve watershed conditions, including riparian and fish habitat quantity, quality 

and connectivity for aquatic species the most rapidly. These near-term and longer-term effects to 

habitat, measured through improvements in watershed condition in the first and second decades,

in turn are expected to affect viability of aquatic species populations in National Forest System 

lands.

Assumptions Common to all Alternatives with Respect to Active Restoration

• Replacement or removal of culverts currently creating problems for fish passage will also 

reduce hydrologic connectivity and reduce the risk of future sediment inputs from failures 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

55

at stream crossings, and improve habitat and population connectivity as well as 

connectivity within and between populations of the various surrogate species where they 

are present. The relative degree of active restoration for fish passage and other actions 

taken to increase habitat quantity and connectivity between stronghold watersheds for 

surrogate species, which would be anticipated under the alternatives in priority watersheds 

is described in Appendix A for each national forest. Table 183 for the Malheur National 

Forest in the “Watershed Function, Watershed Quality, and Water Uses" section of Volume 

1, provides a list of the quantified aquatic and riparian restoration objectives for the 

Malheur from Appendix A, which were considered in the analyses for improved watershed 

condition class, as an example. The extent of fish passage restoration and increased habitat 

quantity and connectivity varies by alternative.

• Improvements in aquatic habitat connectivity will benefit one or more surrogate species 

wherever these activities are conducted. The extent to which any particular species will 

benefit, is unknown at this time. Benefits to any particular species will depend on which 

priority watersheds receive these improvements and whether the location of such 

improvements occurs in locations the species is either expected or known to use.

• Active restoration for stream shade, water quality, flow volume and riparian habitat are 

discussed in the Watershed section. Improvements in all these elements will benefit 

surrogate species wherever these activities are conducted. The extent to which any 

particular species will benefit, will depend on which priority watersheds receive these 

improvements beyond the Watershed Condition Framework watersheds completed in the 

first 5 to 7 years of Plan life, which is unknown at this time, other than for the WallowaWhitman, which expects to restore forest vegetation condition class in 26 of 28 priority 

watersheds irrespective of which alternative is selected. Accomplishment of other 

restoration activities in priority watersheds varies by alternative, even on the WallowaWhitman, where upgrades or removals of culverts impairing fish passage are expected to 

vary by alternative, as would other restoration activities, most of which would be expected 

to be undertaken in priority watersheds as essential restoration actions, depending on 

existing conditions in individual priority watersheds.

Restoration needs are subbasin-specific and species-specific. For example, according to the 

Middle Columbia steelhead Recovery Plan, while a number of recovery actions were identified 

including protection of spawning and rearing habitats, the greatest overall restoration needs in the 

three John Day River subbasins consist of active restoration of stream flow, (especially in the 

Lower John Day River itself), along with targeted [active] restoration of stream function in terms 

of aquatic structure and floodplain connectivity combined with restoration of associated riparian 

conditions (NMFS 2015, p. 18). Restoration of riparian conditions can be accomplished through 

protection (passive restoration), active [targeted] restoration or any combination thereof, as 

appropriate. This portion of the analysis is necessarily broader, due to limitations of the model 

used, and compares the extent to which priority and non-priority key watersheds as a group, 

would be improved at forest scale over the first 10 and 20 years of implementing the various 

alternatives. Based on their intended role in maintaining a well-connected network of high-quality 

aquatic habitats in sufficient amounts to support viable populations of surrogate species and the 

other species sharing their habitats, the assumption is that improving conditions in this group of 

watersheds is more meaningful than improving conditions in other watersheds in the Plan Area, 

for restoring threatened and endangered aquatic species, Forest Service sensitive species, and 

diverse communities of native aquatic species throughout each National Forest, which are 

represented by the suite of selected surrogate species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

56

The “Watershed Function, Watershed Quality, and Water Uses” section in Volume 1 provides 

detailed comparisons of alternatives specific to effects of the suite of aquatic and riparian 

restoration actions quantified for each alternative in Appendix A for each national forest. An 

example of the quantified objectives considered in the Watershed analysis for improved 

watershed conditions are presented in the “Watershed Function, Watershed Quality, and Water 

Uses” section of Volume 1, Table 183. That section also evaluates indicators for the specific 

effects of roads, timber management, riparian management area land allocations, livestock 

grazing and soils impacts. The numbers of watersheds with improved conditions, are the result of 

the aggregated improvements in all those factors, which are described in general terms here:

• Upslope conditions within watersheds are described in terms of expected changes in the 

condition of forested vegetation, hydrological connectivity of the road system, and 

livestock use intensity

• Differences in the effects of grazing on riparian habitats between alternatives

• Influence of differences in riparian habitat conservation areas and riparian management 

areas

• Influence of restoration actions on riparian, stream channel, and aquatic habitat conditions

• Extent of detrimental soil conditions resulting from expected levels of timber harvest

• Changes in overall watershed conditions, considering all of the above factors

Outcomes from implementation of these objectives assumes compliance with law, policy, 

standards and guidelines, Suitability determinations, and that implementing actions would be 

designed to meet desired conditions for riparian management areas and other desired conditions 

as applicable. Analysis for the factors listed above that influence overall watershed conditions 

was presented in the “Watershed” section in Volume 1 and will not be repeated here. Those 

comparisons are incorporated by reference in this section, as fish habitat is expected to benefit or 

degrade proportionate to changes in individual indicators and the degree to which they influence 

watershed conditions overall. The relative number of watersheds comprising the total key 

watershed network, including both priority and other key watersheds, with improved conditions 

serves as an indicator for effects of alternatives on aquatic habitats and the surrogate aquatic 

species using those habitats.

The tables and discussions that follow are specific to each national forest. They weigh upward 

trends in watershed conditions at years 10 and 20 holistically, incorporating effects of active 

management of grazing, riparian and upland rangeland vegetation, management of the road 

network, management objectives for forest vegetation and investments in stream channel and 

riparian restoration, which are expected, in aggregate, to result in changes to watershed conditions 

at subwatershed-scale, as the proposed Plan would be implemented under each alternative.

For reasons discussed in the “Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water Uses” section, more 

key watersheds as well as additional non-key watersheds may be improved than are currently 

identified as Priority watersheds for active restoration. The Watershed section provides detailed 

discrete analyses of the changes in watershed conditions from changes in forest and riparian 

vegetation, investments in roads, the influence of livestock grazing, based on restoration 

objectives for roads and forest vegetation described in Appendix A, and livestock animal unit 

months provided under each alternative, also described in Appendix A. This section discusses the 

changes in watershed condition from the integrated influence of those specific land uses and 

restoration activities under each alternative. The reader is referred back to the watershed section 

for methods and results that disclose the relative influence of those individual factors on the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

57

integrated effects of those factors discussed in this section. In summary, the results displayed and 

discussed here represent the integrated effects of active management based on restoration 

objectives for which ultimately provide habitat for aquatic species, and will not attempt to discuss 

the relative influences of forest management, road management or livestock grazing as they relate 

to overall improvements in watershed condition for key watersheds and the habitat they 

ultimately provide for the selected aquatic surrogate species.

The number of watersheds improved in Table 246 through Table 251 on pages 58-61 are 

described in categories meaningful in terms of their relevance to aquatic species diversity and 

each forest’s ability to provide for well-distributed viable populations of aquatic species at forest 

scale: priority watersheds, other key watersheds (non-priority), total key watersheds, and all 

watersheds. In each category, the sum of watersheds improved represents the sum of watersheds 

in which condition improves by one condition class, from class 3 to 2 or from class 2 to 1, 

relative to the existing condition for watersheds in that category.

This discussion will expand beyond effects to priority watersheds, as it is the entire set of key 

watersheds which is intended to provide long-term population viability for the selected surrogate 

species and provide a range of watershed conditions that would sustain aquatic species ecological 

diversity across each of the National Forests for the long term, support recovery of federally listed 

and maintain viable populations of species on the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list that 

were considered in this analysis. Many watersheds outside the key watershed networks provide 

additional critical habitat and support to recovery of federally listed species, and help to maintain 

viable populations of Sensitive species, therefore net gains in condition among all watersheds at 

forest scale were also considered, since measurable improvements in condition of these additional 

watersheds, provide additional benefits to fish populations at forest scale. Effects to individual 

surrogate species, as well as to individual federally listed or sensitive are based on additional 

analyses in the next section titled “Passive Restoration,” which uses other metrics from the 

Aquatic Sustainability Model which can be analyzed at subbasin scales meaningful to each 

individual listed or sensitive species or which may fall into another category for analysis, or 

which may refine results for surrogates representing other species naturally limited to certain 

subbasins affected by individual forests. The aggregate changes in watershed conditions disclosed 

in this section do not contain sufficient information to discuss effects to individual species, but 

simply enable generalized conclusions regarding the diverse aquatic habitats and watershed 

conditions supporting aquatic species across each forest over the next 10 and 20 years.

Malheur National Forest – A total of 62 key watersheds have been identified on the Malheur 

National Forest for future management, through application of the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

Sustainability Model, the EMDS model adapted from Reiss et al (2008) as previously disclosed in 

the preceding “Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water Uses” section of this document in 

Volume 1. Of the 62 key watersheds identified, 34 have been identified as high-priority for active 

restoration over the life of the Plan. Restoration objectives described in Appendix A, and 

presented again in Table 25 in the preceding Watershed Effects section are the basis for the 

expected 10 and 20-year results presented in Table 246 and Table 247 that follow, results that

were calculated using the Blue Mountains Aquatic Sustainability Model. They are based on the 

same calculated model results shown in similar tables in the “Watershed Function, Watershed 

Quality, and Water Uses” section for all watersheds and for key watersheds identified as priorities 

for restoration (Table 187 through Table 190 in Volume 1, but expand on those discussions by 

also considering additional results for other key watersheds from the model, ones not currently 

identified as priority for restoration, as well as aggregate results for the entire key watershed 

network (model analyses, effects-compare_v_1-Feb-2018.xls, project record), in addition to using 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

58

results for priority watersheds and all watersheds, which were previously presented in the 

watershed section. Improvements in condition of these additional watersheds, particularly with 

respect to additional key watersheds, provide additional benefits to populations of aquatic species 

at the national forest scale.

Alternatives C and D, closely followed by the two E-Modified alternatives, would produce the 

fastest results in terms of priority watersheds improved in the first 10 years. Alternatives A and E 

would achieve intermediate rates of improvements in watershed condition for priority watersheds 

by year 10, while B and F would show the slowest results. Alternatives A and F would show 

additional, though limited gains in priority watershed conditions over the course of the second 

decade. Other alternatives would achieve no additional gains for priority watersheds in the second 

decade.

Further inspection of Table 246 and Table 247 discloses that with respect to all key watersheds as 

a group at year 10, Alternative C stands out as making the greatest improvements, followed 

closely by D, then by a middle group consisting of A and the two E-Modified alternatives, with 

much lesser improvements under E, B and F across the full key watershed network. Under 

Alternatives A, B, C, and D, all gains in watershed condition for key watersheds as a group, 

would be achieved in the first decade, with no additional key watersheds showing measurable 

improvement over the second decade.

Table 246. Number of subwatersheds improved (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) as 

of year 10 (Malheur National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Priority key 

watersheds (PWS)

2 1 5 5 2 4 4 1

Other key 

watersheds (KWS)

5 2 4 3 3 3 3 2

Total key 

watersheds1 (KPW)

7 3 9 8 5 7 7 3

All WS2 26 19 39 27 21 30 26 19

1. KPW=KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of all key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.

Table 247. Number of subwatersheds (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) cumulatively 

improved within 20 years (Malheur National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Alt EMod.

Alt E-Mod. 

Dep. Alt F

Priority key 

watersheds (PWS)

3 1 5 4 2 4 4 2

Other key watersheds 

(KWS)

4 2 4 4 4 6 5 2

Total key watersheds1 

(KPW)

7 3 9 8 6 10 9 4

All WS2 25 19 39 27 25 35 28 22

1. KPW =KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of all key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

59

By year 20 however, alternative E-Modified stands out as exhibiting the greatest improvements in 

key watersheds as a whole, followed by alternatives C and E-Modified Departure. Alternative A 

would slip slightly from improvements gained in the first 10 years, which is conceivable due to 

random disturbance events, which are built into the vegetation model, while alternative E would 

continue to gain ground. Alternatives B and F would progress at the slowest rates throughout the 

first and second decades with respect to overall improvements in watersheds.

At year 10 alternative C would result in the largest number of total watersheds improved, 

followed by alternative E-Modified. The remaining alternatives would all have fewer total 

watersheds with improved conditions at year 10, with B and F showing the slowest rates of 

progress.

A minor setback is expected to occur in aggregate condition outside the key network by year 20 

under alternative A, which is conceivable due to random disturbance events, which are built into 

the vegetation model. By year 20, alternative C and E-Modified retain their leads over the other 

alternatives, all of which continue to gain condition across all watersheds due primarily to gains 

in condition in watersheds outside the key watershed network, with limited or no additional gains 

among key watersheds.

Umatilla National Forest – A total of 52 key watersheds have been identified on the Umatilla 

National Forest for future management, through application of the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

Sustainability Model. Of the 52 key watersheds identified, 15 have been identified as highpriority for active restoration over the life of the plan. Restoration objectives described in 

Appendix A, and presented again in Table 205 in the preceding Watershed Effects section of 

Volume 1 are the basis for the expected 10 and 20-year results presented in Table 248 and Table

249 that follow, results that were calculated using the Blue Mountains Aquatic Sustainability 

Model. They are based on the same calculated model results shown in similar tables in the 

“Watershed Function, Watershed Quality, and Water Uses” section (Table 209 through Table 212, 

Volume 1), but expand on those discussions by also considering additional results for other key 

watersheds, ones not currently identified as priority for restoration, as well as aggregate results 

for the entire key watershed network model (model analyses, effects-compare_v_1-Feb-2018.xls, 

project record), in addition to using results for priority watersheds and all watersheds, which were 

previously presented in the watershed section.

As displayed in Table 248 and Table 249, most of the priority watersheds (13 of 15) could exhibit 

improved conditions within 10 years in Alternative C, but a slight setback could occur by year 20, 

due to a random disturbance factor built into the vegetation model. All other alternatives would 

result in much lower numbers of priority watersheds with improved conditions both at year 10 

and year 20, with limited or no gains after year 10.

At year 10 alternative C would result in the largest number of key watersheds improved, followed 

by alternative D, then a close cluster of E, the E-Modified alternatives and F. Alternatives A and B 

would display the slowest improvement rates at year 10.

Alternative C would show the most improvement in conditions throughout the key watershed 

network by year 20, though a slight setback in condition would potentially occur between year 10 

and year 20 due to a random disturbance factor built into the vegetation model. Alternative D 

would show no additional improvement. A, E, F, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

achieve all achieve additional gains in conditions, however Alternatives A, B and E would exhibit 

the fewest improvements in key watersheds at year 20.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

60

Table 248. Number of subwatersheds improved (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) as 

of year 10 (Umatilla National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Priority key 

watersheds (PWS) 2 3 13 4 4 4 4 4

Additional key 

watersheds (KWS) 5 7 14 13 6 5 7 6

Total key watersheds1 

(KPW) 7 10 27 17 10 9 11 10

All WS2 11 11 41 24 13 14 12 13

1. KPW = KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of all key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.

Table 249. Number of watersheds improved (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) 

cumulatively within 20 years (Umatilla National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. E-Mod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Priority key watersheds 

(PWS)

2 4 12 4 4 4 4 5

Additional key 

watersheds (KWS)

10 9 14 13 9 12 12 13

Total key watersheds1

(KPW)

12 13 26 17 13 16 16 18

All WS2 19 19 40 24 18 21 21 21

1. KPW=KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of all key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.

At year 10 alternative C would result in the largest number of watersheds improved overall, 

followed by alternative D, then a close cluster of E, the E-Modified alternatives and F. 

Alternatives A and B would achieve the fewest total watersheds with improved condition. At year 

20, alternative C would still result in the largest number of watersheds in improved condition in 

general, with a slight step back from gains achieved in year 10, which is conceivable due to 

random disturbance events, which are built into the vegetation model. Alternative D would retain 

second place, while all other action alternatives continue to gain in condition, but end up with 

close results to one another.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – A total of 96 key watersheds have been identified on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for future management, through application of the Blue 

Mountains Aquatic Sustainability Model. Of the 96 key watersheds identified, 26 have been 

identified as high-priority for active restoration over the life of the plan. Restoration objectives 

described in Appendix A and presented again in Table 227 in the preceding Watershed Effects 

section of Volume 1 are the basis for the expected 10 and 20 year results presented in Table 250

and Table 251 that follow, results which were calculated using the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

Sustainability Model. They are based on the same calculated model results shown in similar 

tables in the “Watershed Function, Watershed Quality, and Water Uses” section (Table 231

through Table 234, Volume 1, but expand on those discussions by also considering additional 

results for other key watersheds from the model, ones not currently identified as priority for 

restoration, as well as aggregate results for the entire key watershed network (model analyses, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

61

effects-compare_v_1-Feb-2018.xls, project record), in addition to using results for priority 

watersheds and all watersheds, which were previously presented in the watershed section.

A wide range of improved conditions would occur among the 28 priority watersheds identified for 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest within the first 10 years of the Plan (Table 250), 

depending on the alternative. Again, the greatest improvements in priority watershed conditions 

would occur under Alternative C in the first decade, with only 1 priority watershed improved 

under alternative A, and a limited number of watershed with improved conditions across the other 

alternatives, with alternative D and E slightly gaining on B, F and the two E-Modified

alternatives. Alternatives B, D, E and F would achieve limited additional gains among priority 

watersheds in the second decade, most notably by Alternative F; however, Alternative A would 

not improve further, while Alternative C would continue to exhibit much greater improvement 

than the other alternatives, though with limited gains over the first decade.

Table 250. Number of watersheds improved (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) as of year 10 

(Wallowa-Whitman National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. E-Mod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Priority watersheds 

(PWS)

1 4 19 5 5 4 4 4

Additional key 

watersheds (KWS)

0 3 12 5 3 0 0 3

Total key watersheds1

(KPW)

1 13 27 10 10 4 6 9

Total WS2 4 19 33 12 15 5 7 14

1. KPW = KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of all key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.

Table 251. Number of watersheds improved (riparian/aquatic habitat/roads/upland vegetation) cumulatively 

within 20 years (Wallowa-Whitman National Forest)

Watershed Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. E-Mod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Priority key watersheds 

(PWS) 1 5 21 6 6 4 4 7

Additional key 

watersheds (KWS) 1 8 8 5 5 2 2 5

Total key watersheds1

(KPW) 2 13 29 11 11 6 6 12

Other watersheds 4 8 7 4 6 2 7 5

Total WS2 6 21 36 15 17 8 13 17

1. KPW = KWS+PWS. As previously noted, priority watersheds are a subset of key watersheds.

2. WS = watersheds of all types, including ones outside the key watershed network.

A number of additional key watersheds would cumulatively add to the overall network of key 

watersheds that would experience improved watershed conditions under each alternative at 10 

years, resulting in total key watershed network conditions gaining the most improvement under 

alternative C, followed at a distance by Alternative B, with Alternatives D, E and F running 

closely behind. The two E-Modified alternatives lag in terms of cumulative improvements to the 

key watershed network at year 10, and Alternative A shows no additional improvement beyond 

that achieved in priority watershed conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

62

At the 20-year mark in the key watershed network, Alternative C would retain the lead in 

improved conditions, with Alternatives B and F in second and third place respectively, closely 

followed by Alternatives D and E. The two E-Modified alternatives would show substantially 

little or no additional improvement comparatively speaking, and A would show almost no 

additional improvement over the first decade, and the least over the full 20 years.

In terms of all watersheds across the forest, the greatest number of watersheds improved at year 

10 occurs under Alternative C. Alternative B follows at a distance, followed by Alternatives E, F 

and D. Alternatives A, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure show slow improvement in total 

watershed conditions, most of which would occur within the key watershed network and 

predominantly due to work done in those key watersheds prioritized for restoration investment.

The cumulative number of watersheds improved overall, increases slightly in all alternatives by 

year 20, with the greatest aggregate gains over the 20 years occurring under Alternative C, 

followed at a distance by alternative B, then by a loose cluster represented by Alternatives D, E, 

E-Modified Departure and F. Alternative A produces the least amount of watersheds with 

improved conditions, which are only slightly exceeded by Alternative E-Modified.

Passive Restoration

The Blue Mountains Aquatic Sustainability Model provides a means by which to assess 

protective aspects of alternatives to viability for individual species, and is consistent with regional 

direction for analyzing effects to viability for individual surrogate species. This model is based on 

the assumption that the level of risk of habitat degradation implied by land allocations considered 

suitable for livestock grazing, timber production and/or roaded access is counterbalanced by 

management allocations where these uses are considered not suitable. The degree to which 

allocations within a subbasin are not suitable for these uses is the degree to which the model 

considers aquatic habitat protected in that subbasin. The degree of protection represented by 

model protection scores is rated on a scale of 0 to 1.0, with 1.0 being the highest level of 

protection from these three major ground-disturbing land uses.

Protection from detrimental effects from land management activities is as critical to maintaining 

and restoring viability of individual surrogate species as is active restoration. These two aspects 

of restoration can complement one another on the same piece of ground, or may complement each 

other through application to non-overlapping acreages. Management Area allocations and 

suitability determinations provide protection through acreages determined not Suitable for uses 

(roads, grazing, timber production) that present potential risk to aquatic and riparian habitats and 

aquatic species. The benefits of those protective plan elements are displayed in relative terms in

Table 252 through Table 263 in the following section, where further discussion is provided. 

Additional protections on lands determined to be suitable for these uses, are provided through 

desired conditions, standards and guidelines and monitoring. Those protective plan components 

are additive to the protections provided by management allocations and suitability determinations, 

and are not reflected in the referenced tables, but are discussed narratively in the following 

section. The Forest Plan desired conditions, suitable uses for riparian management areas and other 

land allocations, standards and guidelines for roaded access, threatened and endangered species, 

livestock grazing, timber management and other activities in riparian management areas, are all 

designed to work in an integrated fashion to protect water quality, fish habitat and support 

restoration through natural processes in all watersheds among the three Blue Mountains National 

Forests. This was the premise explicit in PACFISH and INFISH, (USDA-USDI 1995, Decision 

Notice); that passive restoration would begin to occur through natural processes in the absence of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

63

further degradation, based on protections for riparian and aquatic habitats established through 

PACFISH and INFISH direction.

Methods by which protection scores for each subbasin were calculated are described in Reiss et 

al. (2008). This section uses protection score calculations from the Blue Mountains Aquatic 

Sustainability Model to discuss effects to individual surrogate species, and is the only systematic 

tool used in this revision capable of displaying effects to individual surrogate species or other 

sensitive species. These species are geographically limited to specific portions of each forest and 

limited to specific drainages.

As displayed in Table 252 through Table 263, the greatest differences in National Forest System 

management protective effects on viability would be between national forests, by species and/or 

by major river basin (Middle Columbia River versus Snake River Basin versus Oregon Closed 

Basins). In some cases, relative effects of alternatives may vary by distinct population segment, 

evolutionarily significant unit and/or by geographic management unit in the same national forest 

and relative effects of the alternatives on each species may be more related to whether the species 

occurs in the Snake River Basin or in the Middle Columbia River basin. These differences reflect 

different overall balances of land uses within each major river basin. In all cases, it is the mix of 

land allocations and balance of risk from timber production, livestock grazing and roaded access 

posed by alternatives, subbasin by subbasin, that creates relative differences in terms of 

protection and degree of risk from active management, for each species, as reflected in protection 

scores and rankings of alternatives in Table 252 through Table 263 that follow.

The following observations hold throughout the remainder of the analysis for species viability for 

each forest and for each individual surrogate species and each Sensitive species, including 

individual distinct population segments, evolutionarily significant units and/or geographic 

management units:

• Based on relative differences between protection scores among alternatives, with one 

exception (redband in the Middle Columbia River Geographic Area on the Malheur 

National Forest, discussed later in this section), Alternative C provides the greatest degree 

of protection, lowest risk of detrimental management effects to species viability from roads, 

grazing and timber production, and likely provides the most opportunity for natural 

processes to restore riparian and aquatic habitats throughout the range of each species. This 

alternative also poses the greatest risk of impacts from wildfire by allowing unnatural fuel 

conditions to continue to build in dry forest landscapes, relative to other alternatives.

• Based on relative differences between protection scores among alternatives, Alternative D 

poses the greatest degree of aggregate risk to riparian and aquatic habitats throughout the 

range of each species. This is based on differences between alternatives for levels of timber 

production, grazing and road construction/access based on suitability for those uses among 

the various management area allocations. The riparian management areas in this alternative 

are the narrowest of any of the alternatives, and carries the greatest risk of grounddisturbing land uses in close proximity to stream channels with attendant risk of 

degradation for water quality, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions. The risk is such that 

passive restoration through natural processes may be stalled or result in renewed 

degradation, a greater risk than that posed by other alternatives.

• As reflected in Table 252 through Table 263, relative habitat protections provided by 

alternatives vary by Forest and can also vary by evolutionarily significant unit, distinct 

population segment, or geographic management unit for the chosen surrogate species. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

64

relationship between these alternatives may vary by national forest, by individual species 

and/or by major drainage basin (such as Lower Snake River, Middle Snake River, Middle 

Columbia River, Oregon Closed Basins) within a national forest. Alternative C consistently 

provides the highest levels of protection, highest levels of support to passive restoration 

through natural processes, and lowest risk to viability among alternatives for each forest 

from management activities, for spring Chinook salmon throughout their range.

• The relative protective differences between Alternatives A, B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F based on protection scores would generally be small and show little risk 

of impact on viability for any of the species due to strong protections in place under each of 

those alternatives. The reduced levels of riparian vegetation use under Alternatives E and F 

add protections that are not reflected in Model protection scores for anadromous species 

and bull trout. Where protection scores suggest that Alternative E and F protective benefits 

are similar or less than benefits of Alternatives A or B, these additional protective benefits 

likely result in Alternatives E and F providing similar or greater benefits than Alternatives 

A and B.

• Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure contain revised utilization guidelines 

similar initially to utilization levels proposed in Alternative B, but which may be adjusted 

to become more conservative in some allotments in the plan area, pending the outcome of 

deeper analyses of subwatershed-scale water quality, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions 

that would be conducted within the first 5 years following a Plan decision. That potential is 

not reflected in protection scores in Table 252 through Table 263, as the potential for those 

increased levels of protection and risk reduction are speculative at this time for any 

particular watershed or subbasin, pending future analyses.

• PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion monitoring results show habitat recovery through 

natural processes under current PACFISH and INFISH management directions and 

additional protections provided by project-level Endangered Species Act consultations for 

grazing and other management activities (Alternative A). Monitoring data collected for the 

PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion Effectiveness Monitoring Program appears to show 

that riparian and aquatic habitat conditions in National Forest System lands in the Blue 

Mountains have improved since implementation of PACFISH and INFISH. Since the 

inception of monitoring in 2001 and based on repeat sampling of the sites through 2015, a 

few indicators are showing significant improvement, however most habitat and vegetation 

indicators appear to be showing no trend in condition. Indicators, which are not-yet 

displaying significant trends, may be slower to respond than those currently showing 

significant change. As monitoring continues, data may become sufficient to detect trends 

where none is evident yet. In Table 252 through Table 263 below, protection scores for each 

subbasin were summed to enable objective rankings of each alternative for the surrogate 

species analyzed. Protection scores for each subbasin are area-weighted based on the mix 

of management area allocations in each subbasin, with their determinations of Suitable uses 

in each management area and relative risks posed by the mix of uses in each subbasin, 

which are assigned protection scores for each suitable use and area-weighted at the 

subbasin scale. Alternative A is always the base ranking against which other alternatives are 

ranked in relative terms.

• Both Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would necessarily rely on 

consistent proactive effective implementation of standards and guidelines and best 

management practices to ensure that passive restoration already in progress under the 

current Plan as modified by PACFISH (Alternative A) continues.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

65

• Increased grazing in currently vacant allotments in both E-Modified alternatives would 

increase risk from wider spread grazing use across the forest, and require additional 

administrative efforts to ensure no degradation of water quality, riparian function or fish 

habitat occurs and that passive restoration of these features through natural processes 

continues in the absence of degradation, including in watersheds where active restoration is 

not yet occurring.

• Many more acres are proposed for annual disturbance from timber management under 

Alternative E-Modified Departure within a much shorter timeframe than proposed under 

Alternative E-Modified. The increased activity described in E-Modified Departure, would 

additionally require a substantially expanded system of open roads for the duration of 

proposed Plan, to support the increased level of management activity. Given that set of 

conditions, the ability of currently limited available staff to ensure full, effective 

implementation of best management practices and to ensure full effective application of 

pertinent standards and guidelines on that many acres over the life of proposed Plan, would 

be extremely challenging, and would pose an elevated risk of soil erosion and water quality 

degradation and could potentially slow down rates of passive restoration through natural 

processes that are otherwise reflected in protection scores and the relative ranking of this 

alternative based on protection scores.

Spring Chinook Salmon

As shown in Table 252 through Table 254, relative effects of alternatives for spring Chinook 

salmon from habitat protections vary by National Forest and also depend on the spring Chinook 

salmon evolutionarily significant units in question.

Malheur National Forest – Passive Restoration: As reflected in the protection scores and 

interpretation shown in Table 252, Alternatives B, E, F and both E-Modified alternatives provide 

intermediate levels of protection and support for passive restoration and improved watershed 

conditions through landscape-scale natural processes.

Table 252. Malheur National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for spring Chinook salmon, Middle Columbia River 

evolutionarily significant unit

Subbasin Chinook Salmon 

Population Name Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, Alt. F

Alt E-Mod., 

Alt E-Mod. 

Dep

Upper John 

Day

Upper 

John Day 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.66 0.69

Middle Fork 

John Day 

Middle Fork John 

Day 0.56 0.60 0.71 0.44 0.57 0.59

Sum of scores by 

alternative 1.18 1.28 1.48 0.98 1.23 1.28

Ranking of scores * 1 3 4 0 2 3

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered unsuitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive

or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which 

contribute to passive restoration trends, include protective management actions designed to avoid deterring progress 

towards desired conditions, as well as standards and guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on 

monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

66

A greater number of acres are allocated under Alternatives E, F and the E-Modified alternatives, 

to management allocations considered suitable for one or more of the primary land uses in 

subbasins occupied by spring Chinook salmon, thereby increasing the risk of management effects 

to their habitat, relative to Alternative B. Because the model integrates multiple Plan components 

(suitabilities and allocations) and produces a protection score that integrates the associated 

management risks from all those factors at subbasin-scale, it is uncertain as to specifically which 

or how many aspects of Alternatives E, F, Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure are 

outweighed by a corresponding aspect of Alternative B. Degree of risk and protection are 

subbasin-specific based on management allocations, their suitability for various land uses and the 

relative risks posed to riparian and aquatic habitats and overall watershed condition. Relative 

effects of Alternatives C and D in terms of passive restoration and its inverse (aggregate risk) 

were discussed in the general observations bullets listed above as prelude to the forest-specific 

discussions in this section.

Existing project-level biological opinions for grazing in the Malheur National Forest currently 

require greater reductions in riparian utilization and bank alternation under certain conditions than 

the guidelines given for Alternatives E and F, based on concerns for federally listed Middle 

Columbia River steelhead and bull trout. The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for 

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may ultimately result in similar reductions in 

riparian utilization and bank alteration on allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent 

project-level analysis determines that based on the weight of evidence among three core 

indicators used in the national Watershed Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or 

riparian condition, a subwatershed is determined to be less than properly functioning within the 

allotment and there is evidence that livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where 

those heightened requirements are applied, passive protection would increase and restoration 

through natural processes could be expected to proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level 

monitoring would continue to collect data on conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect 

change in selected riparian and aquatic habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale 

monitoring.

Umatilla National Forest – Passive Restoration: Relative effects of Alternatives C and D were 

discussed in the general observations bullets listed in the prelude to forest-specific discussions in 

this section and apply equally to Chinook salmon across the forest, whether in the Snake River 

Basin or in the Middle Columbia Basin region. For both evolutionarily significant units, 

Alternative D would provide the lowest degree of protection of all the alternatives and represents 

the greatest degree of risk to viability from active management and the lowest support for passive 

restoration through natural processes, whereas Alternative C offers the greatest levels of 

protection and support for passive restoration through natural processes throughout the national 

forest.

In the Middle Columbia Basin part of the forest, where no salmon are federally listed,

Alternatives E and F would support stronger protections and support for non-listed Middle 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon viability relative to alternatives A, B, or the two EModified alternatives, as reflected in the protection scores and interpretation shown in Table 253

below.

Results shown in Table 253 for Snake River Basin spring Chinook vary slightly from those for 

Middle Columbia Basin spring Chinook salmon in that Alternative B would provide greater 

protections and support faster rates of passive restoration through natural processes than would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

67

occur under alternatives E and F, A or the two E-Modified alternatives for that Evolutionarily 

Significant Unit.

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 253. Umatilla National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends, and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for spring Chinook salmon, Middle Columbia River and 

Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units

Subbasin Chinook Salmon 

Population Name Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E and 

F

Alt. E-Mod., Alt 

E-Mod. Dep.

Middle 

Columbia 

Basin ESU

North Fork 

John Day 

North Fork John Day 0.67 0.68 0.76 0.53 0.65 0.64

Umatilla Umatilla 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.58 0.74 0.74

Walla Walla Walla Walla 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77

Sum of scores by 

alternative 1.98 2.15 2.45 1.78 2.18 2.15

Ranking of scores 1 2 4 0 3 2

Snake River 

Basin ESU

Tucannon * Tucannon 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.72

Lower Grande 

Ronde Wenaha 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.83

Upper Grande 

Ronde Upper Grande Ronde 0.61 0.63 0.74 0.46 0.60 0.59

Sum of scores by 

alternative 2.11 2.17 2.39 1.86 2.13 2.14

Ranking of scores* 1 4 5 0 2 3

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

68

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Passive Restoration: The relative effects of alternatives 

vary between evolutionarily significant units in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, based on 

protection scores and interpretation displayed in Table 254. For both evolutionarily significant 

units, Alternative D would provide the lowest degree of protection of all the alternatives and 

correspondingly represents the greatest degree of risk to viability from active management and 

consequently the lowest support for passive restoration through natural processes, whereas 

alternative C offers the greatest levels of protection and support for passive restoration through 

natural processes throughout the national forest.

Alternatives C and A would provide the stronger protections and associated rates of passive 

restoration for Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, which may be attributable to little 

or no allocations to acres suitable to timber production or motorized access (MA4A and MA 3B) 

relative to other alternatives. Alternative D would provide the lowest level of protection and 

would potentially slow rates of restoration through natural processes when compared to 

Alternative A. Protection scores for Alternatives B, E and F suggest moderately increased risks to 

Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon protections compared to Alternative A.

Table 254. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends, and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for spring Chinook salmon, Middle Columbia River and 

Snake River Basin evolutionarily significant units

Subbasin

Chinook Salmon 

Population 

Name

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E 

and F

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep.

Middle 

Columbia 

River ESU

North Fork 

John Day 

North Fork John 

Day 0.72 0.66 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.66 0.66

Ranking of scores 3 2 4 0 1 2 2

Snake River 

Basin ESU

Upper Grande 

Ronde 

Upper Grande 

Ronde/ Catherine 

Creek

0.59 0.65 0.75 0.51 0.63 0.66 0.66

Wallowa Lostine/ Minam 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.91

Imnaha Imnaha 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.84

Hells Canyon Hells Canyon 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Sum of scores by 

alternative 3.17 3.27 3.42 3.09 3.26 3.31 3.31

Ranking of 

scores* 1 3 5 0 2 4 4

*Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.

For federally threatened Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon, Alternative B would provide 

stronger protections than Alternatives A, E and F. Both E-Modified alternatives would provide 

slightly more protection than Alternative B for this evolutionarily significant unit. The higher 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

69

protection scores for alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may reflect increased 

allocations to riparian management areas (MA4B) in the Upper and Lower Grande Ronde 

subbasins and more backcountry motorized (MA3B), which would limit timber production, while 

still allowing limited roaded access.

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Bull Trout Viability (Columbia River Basin DPS)

Malheur National Forest – Passive Restoration: Based on protection scores shown in Table 

255 for bull trout in the Malheur National Forest, Alternative A would maintain ongoing passive 

restoration through natural processes. Alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F 

would likely result in slight improvements in restoration rates achieved through natural processes 

due to fewer acres subject to ground disturbance compared to Alternative A. The lower protection 

score for Alternative D reflects potential reductions in riparian and aquatic habitat conditions and 

habitat recovery rates when compared to Alternative A.

Table 255. Malheur National Forest protection scores, habitat trends, and relative restoration rates 

for bull trout, Columbia River Basin distinct population segment

Subbasin Bull Trout Population 

(Core Area) Name Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, Alt. F

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep.

Malheur* Upper Malheur 0.57 0.63 0.72 0.49 0.59 0.62 0.62

Malheur* NF Malheur 0.57 0.63 0.72 0.49 0.59 0.62 0.62

Upper John 

Day**

Upper John Day 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.66 0.69 0.69

Upper John 

Day**

Indian Creek 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.66 0.69 0.69

Middle Fork 

John Day 

Middle Fork John Day 0.56 0.60 0.71 0.44 0.57 0.59 0.59

Sum of scores by 

alternative 2.94 3.22 3.69 2.36 3.07 3.21 3.21

Ranking of scores** 1 4 5 0 2 3 3

* Protection scores were calculated for entire Upper Malheur subbasin. North Fork and Upper Malheur watershed protection 

scores are assumed to be similar to scores at subbasin scale.

** Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber management 

and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks associated with the

three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and fish habitat. Other Plan 

components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive or negative. The other plan 

components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which contribute to passive restoration trends 

include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management 

based on monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

70

Restoration through natural processes would likely happen fastest for Alternative C, overall, due 

to the fewest acres exposed to ground disturbing activities, with Alternative B providing the 

second highest rates of restoration through natural processes. Interpretation of the protection 

scores expects that Alternative C would provide the fastest upward trend in passive restoration. 

Alternatives E, F and E-Modified alternatives would provide stronger protections for bull trout 

viability relative to Alternatives A and D and would enable passive restoration to continue 

through natural processes, potentially at faster rates than would occur under Alternative A. Both 

E-Modified alternatives may produce somewhat faster rates of passive restoration than 

Alternatives E or F, for similar reasons.

Existing project-level biological opinions for grazing in the Malheur National Forest currently 

require greater reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration under certain conditions than 

the guidelines given for Alternatives E and F, based on concerns for federally listed Columbia 

River bull trout and Middle Columbia River steelhead. The new grazing guidelines proposed for 

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may result in similar reductions in riparian 

utilization and bank alteration on allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent projectlevel analysis determines that one or more of three indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, are determined to be 

functioning at less than properly functioning levels within the allotment. In cases where those 

heightened requirements are applied, passive protection would increase and restoration through 

natural processes could be expected to proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring 

would continue to collect data on conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in 

selected riparian and aquatic habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Umatilla National Forest – Passive Restoration: Based on protection for bull trout shown in 

Table 256 for the Umatilla National Forest, most of the alternatives generally provide stronger 

protections and a moderately positive influence on viability from plan protections, when 

compared to Alternative A. Alternative D in the Upper Grande Ronde would be an exception and 

suggests risks to the Grande Ronde population in terms of slowing progress currently being 

achieved through passive restoration under PACFISH, as reflected in the lower protection score 

than shown for Alternative A in that subbasin.

Overall, protection scores for Alternatives E and F suggest marginally less protections than for 

Alternative B, primarily due to the difference in management allocations between the alternatives 

along with differing degrees of suitability for timber production, grazing, and roads. However, the 

stronger standards for riparian grazing utilization would provide greater protections for bull trout 

under Alternatives E and F. Intermediate protection scores for the two E-Modified alternatives 

reflect the renewed use of allotments and/or pastures in the Tucannon, Asotin and Grande Ronde 

subbasins that are currently vacant and which would remain vacant under Alternatives B, E and F.

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

71

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 256. Umatilla National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for bull trout, Columbia River Basin distinct population 

segment

DPS 

Subbasins

Bull Trout 

Population 

(core area) 

Name*

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt EMod.Alt EMod. Dep.

North Fork 

John Day

North Fork John 

Day 0.67 0.68 0.76 0.53 0.65 0.64 0.64

Umatilla Umatilla 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.58 0.74 0.74 0.74

Walla Walla Walla Walla 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77 0.77

Walla Walla Touchet 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77 0.77

Tucannon Tucannon 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.72

Asotin Asotin 0.67 0.64 0.73 0.49 0.61 0.59 0.59

Lower 

Grande 

Ronde

LookingglassWenaha 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.83

Upper 

Grande

Ronde

LookingglassWenaha 0.61 0.63 0.74 0.46 0.60 0.59 0.59

Sum of scores 

by alternative 5.38 5.71 6.43 4.8 5.71 5.65 5.65

Ranking of 

scores** 1 3 4 0 3 2 2

*Lookingglass-Wenaha core area, as described in the Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015), was previously described as 

the Grande Ronde population (core area) (USFWS 2006, 2008).

** Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and fish 

habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive or 

negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which contribute

to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and guidelines, watershed 

analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Passive Restoration: Based on protection scores for bull 

trout shown in Table 257, Alternatives E and F would provide stronger protections and greater 

support for more passive restoration processes in bull trout habitat than Alternatives A and D, and 

only slightly less than Alternative B. Alternative C would contribute the most protections and 

support to improved viability through natural processes for bull trout within the WallowaWhitman National Forest. Alternatives A and D both would provide lower protection levels than 

Alternatives B, E, and F, primarily due to differences in management area allocations and 

suitability for timber production, grazing, and roads. Bull trout habitat in Brownlee subbasin is 

managed under the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan, as 

would management in the Imnaha subbasin outside the Big Sheep Creek watershed. The 

comprehensive management plan has already gone through Plan-level analysis and Endangered 

Species Act consultation, and no changes in management are expected as a consequence of this 

decision for lands within the national recreation area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

72

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 257. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trend based on passive 

restoration through natural processes for bull trout, Columbia River Basin distinct population segment

DPS 

Subbasins

Bull Trout 

Population 

(core area) 

Name

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt EMod.

Alt EMod. 

Dep.

North Fork 

John Day 

(good)

North Fork John 

Day (32) 0.72 0.66 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.66 0.66

Upper 

Grande 

Ronde (fair)

Upper Grande 

Ronde (Catherine 

and Indian 

Creeks) (62)

0.59 0.65 0.75 0.51 0.63 0.66 0.66

Wallowa (fair) Wallowa/ Minam 

(80)* 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.91

Wallowa (fair) Little Minam (12) 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.91

Imnaha (fair) Imnaha (76) 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.84

Brownlee 

(poor) Brownlee (33) 0.75 0.78 0.84 0.71 0.78 0.77 0.77

Powder (fair) Powder (21) 0.61 0.68 0.77 0.55 0.67 0.69 0.69

Sum of scores by 

alternative 5.22 5.37 5.75 4.8 5.33 5.44 5.44

Ranking of 

scores** 1 3 5 0 2 4 4

* Wallowa subbasin contains 2 core areas. Protection scores were run at subbasin scale, protection scores are assumed to 

apply equally in both core areas.

** Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive

or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which 

contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and guidelines, 

watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring

Steelhead Viability (Middle Columbia River Distinct Population Segment)

Malheur National Forest – Passive Restoration: Effects to steelhead parallel effects to spring 

Chinook salmon discussed earlier, as these species use the same subbasins and will be affected by 

the same balances of land uses in the subbasin. The protection scores for Alternatives B, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F indicate stronger support for steelhead viability relative 

to Alternatives A and D. The more restrictive riparian utilization guidelines for bull trout and 

anadromous watersheds in Alternatives E and F would further strengthen the protections indicated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

73

by protection scores in Table 258, and may result in protections as strong or stronger than 

provided by Alternative B.

A greater number of acres are allocated under Alternatives E, F and the E-Modified alternatives, 

to management allocations considered suitable for one or more of the primary land uses in 

subbasins occupied by steelhead, thereby increasing the risk of management effects to their 

habitat, relative to Alternative B. Because the model integrates multiple Plan components 

(suitabilities and allocations) and produces a protection score that integrates the associated 

management risks from all those factors at subbasin-scale, it is uncertain as to specifically which 

or how many aspects of Alternatives E, F, Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure are 

outweighed by a corresponding aspect of Alternative B. Degree of risk and protection are 

subbasin-specific.

Table 258. Malheur National Forest passive restoration scores and relative habitat trends for 

steelhead populations, Middle Columbia River Distinct Population Segment

DPS 

Subbasins

Steelhead 

Population 

Name

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt EMod.

Alt EMod. 

Dep.

Middle Fork 

John Day 

(good)

Middle Fork 

John Day (181) 0.56 0.60 0.71 0.44 0.57 0.59 0.59

Upper John 

Day (fair)

Upper 

John Day (161) 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.66 0.69 0.69

Sum of scores 

by alternative 1.18 1.28 1.48 .98 1.23 1.28 1.28

Ranking of 

scores* 1 3 4 0 2 3 3

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and fish 

habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive or 

negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which contribute

to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and guidelines, watershed 

analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.

Both E-Modified and E-Modified Departure display mixed results relative to protections provided 

by Alternative B, E and F. While it would likely maintain or improve existing conditions through 

natural processes and prevent further degradation of Middle Columbia River steelhead habitat in 

the Upper John Day subbasin, it may provide marginally less protection via land allocations and 

associated suitable uses in the Middle Fork John Day subbasin. Due to the fact that the Middle 

Fork John Day subbasin provides the majority of steelhead habitat on the Malheur National 

Forest (15 of 16 miles, Table 241), sustainability under both Alternative E-Modified and EModified Departure would necessarily rely on consistent proactive effective implementation of 

standards and guidelines and best management practices to ensure that passive restoration already 

in progress under the current Plan as modified by PACFISH (Alternative A) continues.

Existing project-level biological opinions for grazing in the Malheur National Forest currently 

require greater reductions in riparian utilization and bank alternation under certain conditions than 

the guidelines given for Alternatives E and F, based on concerns for federally listed Middle 

Columbia River steelhead and bull trout. The new grazing guidelines proposed for Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure may result in similar reductions in riparian utilization and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

74

bank alteration on allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis 

determines that one or more of three indicators used in the national Watershed Condition 

Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, are determined to be 

functioning at less than properly functioning levels within the allotment. In cases where those 

heightened requirements are applied, passive protection would increase and restoration through 

natural processes could be expected to proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan level monitoring 

would continue to collect data on conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in 

selected riparian and aquatic habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Umatilla National Forest – Passive Restoration: Effects to steelhead parallel effects to spring 

Chinook salmon discussed earlier, as these species use the same subbasins and will be affected by 

the same balances of land uses in the subbasin. The protection scores for Alternatives B, E and F 

indicate stronger support for steelhead viability relative to Alternatives A, D and the two EModified alternatives. The more restrictive riparian utilization guidelines for bull trout and 

anadromous watersheds in Alternatives E and F would further strengthen the protections indicated 

by protection scores in Table 259, and may result in protections as strong or stronger than 

provided by Alternative B. Reactivating livestock use in vacant allotments with contingent 

increases in risk, is reflected in protection scores for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure.

For Middle Columbia River steelhead, Alternative D would provide stronger protections than 

Alternative A, in the Walla Walla subbasin and in the North Fork John Day subbasin. The reason 

for Alternative D outweighing Alternative A in the model protection scores may reflect increased 

acres allocated to Municipal Watershed management area (2J), which receives extremely high 

protections from active management to conserve drinking water quality for the city of Walla 

Walla and surrounding area. For the distinct population segment as a whole, Alternatives E and F 

would both provide the greatest levels of protection and support for passive restoration relative to 

Alternatives B, C, or either of the E-Modified alternatives. Protective aspects of Alternative B 

would be slightly more than those provided by either of the E-Modified alternatives.

Protection scores in Table 259 show a different pattern for Snake River Basin steelhead when 

comparing Alternatives B, E, and F than for Middle Columbia River steelhead. Alternative B 

would provide stronger protections than Alternatives E and F for the Snake River Basin steelhead

distinct population segment, which may be explained by the shifting balance of land allocations 

in the Lower Grande Ronde subbasin in terms of more acres in riparian management areas under 

Alternative D. Protections under Alternative A would be consistently stronger than those provided 

under Alternative D, E or F, as well as stronger than protections provided under alternative EModified or E-Modified Departure when summed for all subbasins, primarily due to a balance of 

allocations that would reduce risks from roads and timber production. The stronger protections in 

alternatives B and A would provide greater support for passive restoration through natural 

processes, relative to the other alternatives.

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

75

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 259. Umatilla National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for steelhead populations, Middle Columbia River and 

Snake River Basin distinct population segment

DPS 

Subbasins

Steelhead 

Population 

Name

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E,

Alt. F

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Middle 

Columbia 

River DPS

North Fork 

John Day

North Fork 

John Day 0.67 0.68 0.76 0.53 0.65 0.64 0.64

Lower John 

Day

Lower John 

Day 0.53 0.59 0.68 0.39 0.55 0.52 0.52

Umatilla 

(fair) Umatilla 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.58 0.74 0.74 0.74

Walla Walla Walla Walla 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77 0.77

Walla Walla Touchet 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77 0.77

Sum of scores 

by alternative 3.13 3.49 3.99 2.84 4.16 3.44 3.44

Ranking of 

scores* 1 3 4 0 5 2 2

Snake River 

Basin DPS

Tucannon Tucannon 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.72 0.72

Asotin Asotin 0.67 0.64 0.73 0.49 0.61 0.59 0.59

Lower Grande 

Ronde Wenaha 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.83 0.83

Upper Grande 

Ronde

Upper Grande 

Ronde 0.61 0.63 0.74 0.46 0.60 0.59 0.59

Sum of scores 

by alternative 2.78 2.81 3.12 2.35 2.74 2.73 2.73

Ranking of 

scores* 3 4 5 0 2 1 1

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health 

and fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Passive Restoration: Discussions for Middle Columbia 

River steelhead and Snake River Basin steelhead parallel previous discussions for Middle 

Columbia River and Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon, as these distinct population 

segments each occupy the same set of subbasins respectively. Protective effects of the allocations, 

suitable uses, desired conditions, watershed analysis and effective implementation of standards 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

76

and guidelines will likely affect aquatic habitats similarly at subbasin and forest scales (Table 

260).

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 260. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for steelhead, Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin 

distinct population segment

DPS 

Subbasins

Steelhead 

Population 

Name

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt EMod.Alt E-Mod. 

Dep.

Middle 

Columbia 

River DPS

North Fork 

John Day 

North Fork John 

Day 0.72 0.66 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.66 0.66

Ranking of 

scores* 3 2 4 0 1 2 2

Snake River 

Basin DPS

Hells Canyon Hells Canyon 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Lower 

Grande 

Ronde 

Joseph 0.58 0.67 0.79 0.53 0.65 0.64 0.64

Upper 

Grande 

Ronde 

Upper Grande 

Ronde 0.59 0.65 0.75 0.51 0.63 0.66 0.66

Wallowa Wallowa 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.91

Imnaha Imnaha 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.79 0.84 0.85 0.85

Sum of scores 

by alternative 3.75 3.94 4.21 3.59 3.9 3.96 3.96

Ranking of 

scores* 1 3 5 0 2 4 4

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber management 

and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks associated with the

three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and fish habitat. Other Plan 

components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either positive or negative. The other plan 

components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and which contribute to passive restoration trends 

include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management 

based on monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

77

Redband Trout

Malheur National Forest – Passive Restoration: As reflected in the protection scores for 

redband trout and interpretations displayed in Table 261 for the Malheur National Forest, degree 

of risk and protection are subbasin-specific, as are miles of habitat affected by land allocations 

and suitability of ground-disturbing uses, hence the relative balance of protections and risk to 

redband trout vary between alternatives depending on the subbasin in question.

Redband trout in the South Fork Crooked River/Beaver Creek population are members of the 

Deschutes geographic management unit (GMU). While protection scores were not evaluated for 

this geographic management unit in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, they have now 

been calculated and results presented in Table 261. This is the only area where Alternative A 

would provide stronger protections and more strongly promote passive restoration through natural 

processes, relative to any of the other alternatives, even Alternative C. This difference may be a 

result of management area reallocations among the action alternatives towards land allocations 

that provide for increased acreages suitable for ground-disturbing management activities.

Table 261. Malheur National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends, and relative 

restoration rates for interior redband trout, Middle Columbia River, Deschutes, Middle Snake, 

Oregon Closed Basins geographic management units

Redband GMU subbasins 

and populations Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt E-Mod., Alt. 

E-Mod-Dep

Middle Columbia River GMU

Upper John Day 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.54 0.66 0.69

North Fork John Day 0.54 0.60 0.68 0.46 0.57 0.60

Middle Fork John Day 0.56 0.60 0.71 0.44 0.57 0.59

Sum of scores by alternative 1.72 1.88 2.16 1.44 2.49 1.88

Ranking of scores* 1 2 3 0 4 2

Deschutes GMU

South Fork Crooked 

River/Beaver Creek (NFS)

0.66 0.56 0.62 0.40 0.52 0.55

Ranking of scores* 5 3 4 0 1 2

Middle Snake GMU

Upper Malheur 0.57 0.63 0.72 0.49 0.59 0.62

Ranking of scores 1 4 5 0 2 3

Oregon Closed Basins GMU

Silvies 0.49 0.58 0.66 0.42 0.54 0.57

Silver 0.53 0.59 0.68 0.43 0.56 0.59

Harney-Malheur Lakes 0.57 0.56 0.69 0.40 0.52 0.55

Sum of scores by alternative 1.59 1.73 2.03 1.25 1.62 1.77

Ranking of scores* 1 3 5 0 2 4

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

78

Alternative A would provide minimal protections for all redband trout geographic management 

unit other than the Deschutes (Crooked River-Beaver Creek subbasin), compared to Alternatives 

B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F. Otherwise, Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F would all provide stronger levels of grazing protection for populations 

throughout the Middle Columbia River, Malheur Lakes and Middle Snake River Basin 

geographic management units compared to protections provided by Alternative A for those areas . 

Alternative B provides variable degrees of protection relative to Alternatives E, F and the two EModified alternatives, depending on the redband trout geographic management unit.

Alternatives E and F would provide the strongest protections among all alternatives for the 

Middle Columbia Basin geographic management unit. Protections provided under Alternatives E 

and F, by alternative-specific grazing utilization standards for bull trout would concurrently 

provide protections for redband trout sharing bull trout subwatersheds in the Middle Columbia 

River and Middle Snake River geographic management areas. The benefits provided by those 

utilization standards would be offset by the balance of land allocations and suitable uses in the 

Middle Snake River (Upper Malheur subbasin). Without the balance provided by the grazing 

utilization guidelines for Alternatives E and F or for the two E-Modified alternatives, Alternative 

B would otherwise provide stronger protections than E, F, or either of the two E-Modified 

alternatives.

The populations in the Oregon Closed Basins geographic management unit would experience 

higher levels of protection under each of the E-Modified alternatives, second only to protections 

provided by Alternative C. These populations have been classified as a separate subspecies and 

proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act, though listing has not been determined to 

be warranted. They are component populations of the only Geographic Management Unit 

(Oregon Closed Basins) that was categorized as a Sensitive species on the Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list as of 2011.

Existing project-level biological opinions for grazing in the Malheur National Forest currently 

require greater reductions in riparian utilization and bank alternation under certain conditions than 

the guidelines given for Alternatives E and F. Those biological opinions already benefit redband 

trout populations where they co-occur with federally listed species. The new grazing guidelines 

proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may result in similar reductions 

in riparian utilization and bank alteration on allotments or portions of allotments in watersheds 

where federally listed species are absent, in the event that subsequent project-level analysis 

determines that one or more of three indicators used in the national Watershed Condition 

Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, are determined to be 

functioning at less than properly functioning levels within the allotment. In watersheds where 

those heightened requirements under GM-3G are applied, passive protection would increase and 

restoration through natural processes could be expected to proceed at a faster pace. If those 

adjustments are found warranted in watersheds in the Oregon Closed Basins or Upper Malheur 

River subbasin during future project analyses, redband trout populations not currently protected 

by Biological Opinions for steelhead or bull trout would potentially receive increased protections 

beyond those currently provided. Forest Plan level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Umatilla National Forest – Passive Restoration: For the Middle Columbia River geographic 

management unit, effects to redband parallel earlier discussions for Middle Columbia River 

steelhead in these same subbasins. For redband in the Lower Snake River geographic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

79

management unit, protective effects of each alternative parallel the protective effects to Snake 

River Basin steelhead in these subbasins (Table 262). Umatilla National Forest protection scores, 

anticipated habitat trends and relative restoration rates through natural processes for interior 

redband trout, Middle Columbia River and Lower Snake geographic management units.

The new grazing guideline (GM-3G) proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure may ultimately result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on 

allotments or portions of allotments where subsequent project-level analysis determines that 

based on the weight of evidence among three core indicators used in the national Watershed 

Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, a subwatershed is 

determined to be less than properly functioning within the allotment and there is evidence that 

livestock management is a contributing factor. In cases where those heightened requirements are 

applied, protection would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to 

proceed at a faster pace. Forest Plan-level monitoring would continue to collect data on 

conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian and aquatic 

habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Table 262. Umatilla National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends, and relative 

restoration rates through natural processes for interior redband trout, by geographic management unit

Redband GMUs and component 

populations by subbasin Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E,

Alt. F

Alt. E.-Mod., Alt. 

E-Mod-Dep.

Middle Columbia River GMU

North Fork John Day 0.67 0.68 0.76 0.53 0.65 0.64

Umatilla 0.69 0.72 0.83 0.58 0.74 0.74

Walla Walla 0.62 0.75 0.86 0.67 0.79 0.77

Lower John Day 0.53 0.59 0.68 0.39 0.55 0.52

Sum of scores by alternative 2.51 2.74 3.13 2.17 2.73 2.67

Ranking of scores* 1 4 5 0 3 2

Lower Snake River GMU

Tucannon 0.68 0.72 0.81 0.63 0.72 0.72

Asotin 0.67 0.64 0.73 0.49 0.61 0.59

Lower Grande Ronde 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.83

Upper Grande Ronde 0.61 0.63 0.74 0.46 0.60 0.59

Sum of scores by alternative 2.78 2.81 3.12 2.35 2.74 2.73

Ranking of scores* 3 4 5 0 2 1

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health 

and fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Passive Restoration: Based on protection scores for 

interior redband trout shown in Table 263 for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Alternative 

C would contribute the most to improved viability for redband trout through passive restoration, 

followed by Alternatives B, E and F, then by Alternative A in all geographic management units 

except the Lower Snake River geographic management unit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

80

Protections provided to the Middle Columbia River and Lower Snake River geographic 

management unit populations parallel effects to Middle Columbia River and Snake River Basin 

steelhead, previously discussed. Relative protective effects to redband in the Powder and Burnt 

River geographic management units from alternatives parallel the relative effects to Middle 

Columbia River redband, due to similar balances of land allocations and land use suitabilities. 

Increased riparian grazing utilization protections afforded to bull trout watersheds would not 

apply under Alternative F for the Burnt River geographic management unit, and increased 

riparian grazing utilization protections afforded to anadromous watersheds would not apply under 

Alternative E for the Powder River geographic management unit.

Table 263. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest protection scores, anticipated habitat trends, and 

relative restoration rates through natural processes for interior redband trout, by geographic 

management unit

Redband GMUs and 

component populations 

by subbasin

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E, 

Alt. F

Alt. E.-

Mod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Lower Snake River GMU

Hells Canyon 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Asotin 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Lower Grande Ronde 0.58 0.67 0.79 0.53 0.65 0.64 0.64

Upper Grande Ronde 0.59 0.65 0.75 0.51 0.63 0.66 0.66

Wallowa-Minam 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.91

Imnaha 0.81 0.84 0.88 0.79 0.85 0.84 0.84

Sum of scores by 

alternative 4.65 4.84 5.11 4.49 4.81 4.85 4.85

Ranking of scores* 1 3 4 0 2 4 4

Middle Snake River GMU

Brownlee 0.75 0.78 0.84 0.71 0.78 0.77 0.77

Sum of scores by 

alternative

Ranking of scores* 1 3 4 0 3 2 2

Powder GMU

Powder 0.61 0.68 0.77 0.55 0.67 0.69 0.69

Burnt 0.53 0.59 0.68 0.43 0.57 0.59 0.59

Sum of scores by 

alternative 1.14 1.27 1.45 .98 1.26 1.28 1.28

Ranking of scores* 1 3 5 0 2 4 4

Middle Columbia River 

GMU

North Fork John Day 0.72 0.66 0.73 0.52 0.64 0.66 0.66

Ranking of scores* 3 2 4 0 1 2 2

* Protection scores represent the degree to which lands in the subbasin are considered suitable for grazing, timber 

management and/or roads, based on management area allocations. Higher scores indicate few acres are subject to risks 

associated with the three primary ground-disturbing uses with the most potential to negatively affect watershed health and 

fish habitat. Other Plan components must be considered before determining whether a trend is likely to occur, either 

positive or negative. The other plan components that provide protective elements for National Forest System lands and 

which contribute to passive restoration trends include desired conditions, as well as compliance with standards and 

guidelines, watershed analysis, and adaptive management based on monitoring.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

81

The new grazing guidelines proposed for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may 

result in reductions in riparian utilization and bank alteration on allotments or portions of 

allotments in watersheds where federally listed species are absent, in the event that subsequent 

project-level analysis determines that one or more of three indicators used in the national 

Watershed Condition Framework: water quality, fish habitat, and/or riparian condition, are 

determined to be functioning at less than properly functioning levels within the allotment. In 

watersheds where those heightened requirements under GM-3G are applied, passive protection 

would increase and restoration through natural processes could be expected to proceed at a faster 

pace. If those adjustments are found warranted in watersheds above Hells Canyon Dam during 

future project analyses, redband trout populations not currently protected by management 

protective of Chinook salmon, steelhead or bull trout would potentially receive increased 

protections beyond those currently provided. Forest Plan level monitoring would continue to 

collect data on conditions in the allotments with the intent to detect change in selected riparian 

and aquatic habitat indicators used for ongoing landscape-scale monitoring.

Environmental Consequences to

Threatened and Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitats

Snake River Basin spring, summer and fall Chinook salmon are all listed as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act, as are Middle Columbia River steelhead and Columbia River bull trout. 

Under the Act, threatened species, by definition, are “likely to become endangered.” Until 

population numbers are sufficiently recovered for the relevant populations, as prescribed in 

recovery plans for these species, they will remain listed as threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service is the agency responsible for delisting listed 

anadromous species when their populations have sufficiently recovered, based on criteria 

established in the recovery plans, which described the threats to each listed species and remedies 

to resolve those threats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the agency responsible for delisting 

listed non-anadromous species when their populations have sufficiently recovered, based on 

criteria established in the recovery plans, which described the threats to each listed species and 

remedies to resolve those threats. Both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service publish population status and trend information in recovery plans and in 5-year 

status reviews that assess progress in reducing identified threats, including threats outside of 

National Forest System lands or outside of Forest Service authorities. The most recent status 

reviews and recovery plans are cited as the source for status and trend information in Table 241

through Table 243 earlier; see table footnotes. Threat information is extremely detailed in the 

source documents, more than can reasonably be repeated here, and thus is incorporated by 

reference. Grazing management, forest management, road management, water use and other land 

management concerns are identified as threats in those documents, and have been identified as 

threats needing to be addressed on National Forest System lands as well as other ownerships, to 

the extent possible within Forest Service authorities and consistent with its multiple-use mission.

All of the plan alternatives may affect listed species or their designated critical habitats. Effects of 

projects implemented for any of the alternatives are expected to move the Plan Area towards 

desired conditions for watershed function and species diversity and viability, as described in 

Appendix A to this document. Rate of progress towards desired conditions would vary by 

alternative. Active restoration may have short-term effects for any alternative, but the magnitude 

of those effects at any point in time is likely to be localized as restoration work would not happen 

in all priority or key watersheds at the same time. The duration of effects would vary by activity, 

and would also depend on the sequencing of multiple restoration activities. As restored 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

82

watersheds accumulate over time, fish and habitats would likely respond in positive ways to those 

restoration activities in subsequent decades, particularly in the watersheds targeted as priority for 

restoration that serve to create larger blocks of high-quality, well-connected habitat, and increase 

the number of refugia available to offset large disturbances elsewhere such as fires or floods. The 

effects of roads on streams are documented in the “Watershed Function, Water Quality, and Water 

Uses” section of this document. Increased protections related to roads, new standards and 

guidelines, and/or desired conditions specific to federally listed species have been included in 

Alternatives B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F prohibiting construction of new 

roads and trails in high elevation riparian areas, adding protection for bull trout and other listed 

species spawning in high elevation streams. In addition, no increases in road density would be 

allowed in key watersheds, which would be more beneficial to aquatic species than current 

requirements under PACFISH or INFISH.

The objectives for road improvements in Alternative D (Appendix A) would potentially allow for 

increased maintenance and reconstruction of problem roads relative to the other alternatives, and 

in relative terms, would thereby reduce road-related water-quality impacts from sediment 

delivery, and reduce fish passage impacts by culvert upgrades based on current standards for fish 

passage design. The effects of grazing on streams and aquatic species are well documented. Cattle 

and sheep can have negative effects when they are in streams, depositing excess nutrients and 

trampling spawning beds and stream banks. Grazing in riparian zones can reduce vegetation and 

tree recruitment, affecting stream temperature and sediment delivery via removal of shade and 

compacted soils (Platts 1991, Armour et al. 1994, Bohn and Kershner 2002).

Plan standards and guidelines for grazing in any of the plan revision alternatives would require 

grazing to be managed in a way that would avoid redd trampling, and to be managed in ways that 

would move riparian and aquatic habitats towards desired conditions. While grazing may affect 

listed species or designated critical habitats, those effects may be reduced as grazing would be 

managed to meet and maintain desired conditions. Current management is already resulting in 

improving riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, though very slowly, and in some cases, trends 

are uncertain or indiscernible (Archer et al. 2009, Archer and Ojala 2016a, 2016b, 2016c)). This 

pattern would be expected to continue under Alternative A, but would likely improve more 

quickly under any of the plan revision alternatives where animal unit month stocking and/or 

allowable use levels are similar to or less than current stocking levels. Desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines could be met under Alternatives D, E-Modified or E-Modified 

Departure, but the heavier stocking levels would likely require relatively more intensive 

management to achieve desired conditions and to meet standards and guidelines on an annual 

basis. Reduced impacts to riparian areas and aquatic habitats could be expected to occur under 

Alternatives E and F in the majority of watersheds on each forest due to presence of anadromous 

species and/or bull trout, and the reduced riparian utilization standards that would apply in those 

watersheds. Guidelines for riparian grazing and desired conditions for federally listed species are 

likely to result in intensified grazing management and faster improvement for federally listed 

species where watershed conditions are impaired in terms of riparian, aquatic habitat or water 

quality, per the Watershed Condition Framework analyses, once closer review are conducted as 

the plan is implemented and existing consultations expire.

Timber harvest can influence aquatic ecological condition via such activities as removal of trees 

in the riparian zone, removal of upslope trees, and associated understory or slash burning (Hicks 

et al. 1991). These activities can affect wood recruitment, stream temperatures, erosion potential, 

stream flow regime, and nutrient runoff, among others (Hicks et al. 1991). Effects of harvest are 

likely to be different at different scales. Hemstad and Newman (2006) found few effects of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

83

harvest at the site or reach scale, but found that harvest 5 to 8 years earlier resulted in losses of 

habitat quality and species diversity at the scale of a stream segment (larger than a reach) or at the 

subwatershed level. Those losses were revealed in terms of increases in bank instability and fine 

sediment throughout the watershed and increased water temperatures and sediment problems 

throughout the channel segment. The cumulative effects of widespread harvest within a single 

drainage in a short period of time resulted in deterioration of the aquatic and riparian habitats, but 

evidence of effects lagged harvest by several years and different evidences of deterioration 

showed up at different spatial scales within the watershed.

To minimize risks of unintended effects, ground disturbance in riparian areas would be managed 

to achieve desired conditions for water quality and fish habitat through use of best management 

practices and watershed analyses. Watershed-specific objectives for riparian and aquatic habitats 

would be integrated with watershed-specific objectives for fuels and vegetation management at 

the project level. As required by PACFISH and INFISH standards and guidelines, as well as 

desired conditions and standards and guidelines in the 2008 Regional ARCS and the 2018 Blue

Mountains ARCS, any treatments in riparian areas under any of the alternatives, would be 

required to be designed and implemented to move riparian management areas towards desired 

conditions, benefit habitat for aquatic species and contribute to recovery of federally listed 

aquatic species. Watershed analyses and integration of multiple objectives in project design is 

likely to contribute to restoration of natural watershed and hydrologic function and processes at 

the watershed scale over the long term.

Plan alternatives could have indirect effects on designated critical habitat since projects 

implemented under any of the alternatives would be required to move towards desired conditions 

for watershed function and maintain or improve species diversity and viability. Restoration 

actions, such as culvert replacement or floodplain restoration requiring in-channel or near-channel 

operation of heavy equipment, may affect individuals of listed species or designated critical 

habitats, or both, in the short term. The long-term effects would be expected to be beneficial in 

terms of habitat response in most cases.

Watershed restoration actions in priority watersheds would serve to recreate larger networks of 

connected high quality habitats within and between watersheds in each subbasin with identified 

key watersheds. Building these larger connected networks of good habitat would increase 

resiliency of listed species to both landscape scale and smaller disturbances by allowing listed and 

other species to relocate to better habitat when the habitat they are currently using is impacted by 

episodic natural disturbances. Watershed analyses and Endangered Species Act consultations 

would help to determine project-level tradeoffs in short-term effects to fish and habitats for the 

sake of long-term benefits of restored natural processes for projects implemented.

Other land management activities could result in short term effects to designated critical habitat 

or listed species, depending on project design and the frequency and intensity of the activity. 

Those activities would potentially include livestock grazing, construction of new roads, mining 

activity, and/or timber harvest within 300 feet of perennial or intermittent fish-bearing streams. 

Alternative D would experience the highest frequency and intensity of ground disturbing 

activities that could affect listed species and designated critical habitat over the life of the plan, 

based on objectives, desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for that alternative. The higher 

level of vegetation management objectives in Alternative D would require retaining higher 

amounts of system road than would be needed for implementation of the other alternatives and 

could require retaining key system roads in riparian management areas that would not need to be 

retained under alternatives with lower levels of vegetation management, particularly in dry forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

84

landscapes. The tradeoff is in achieving reductions in road effects in parts of the landscape where 

frequent reentries would not be needed for prescribed burning or other forest management 

activities to maintain desired forest vegetation conditions (Rieman et al. 2000).

Consultation would be undertaken with National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service based on effects of implementing actions for the selected alternative. Actions 

implemented under a new plan will be consulted at the project level or at program level for 

specific categories of activities. Modifications will be developed at project or program level if 

needed, to reduce risks to listed species and their designated critical habitats.

In summary, each of the plan revision alternatives may affect any or all of the listed species 

and/or their designated critical habitats, for the reasons given. A biological assessment for the 

preferred alternative has been developed in detail and serves as the basis for Endangered Species 

Act Section 7 Consultation on bull trout, Snake River Basin spring Chinook salmon, Middle 

Columbia River and Snake River Basin steelhead with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively.

Environmental Consequences to Sensitive Species

Forest Service viability status and effects analyses for redband trout populations in the HarneyMalheur Lakes subbasin within the Malheur National Forest represent status and indirect effects 

to sensitive redband trout of the Malheur Lakes distinct population segment. Based on the 

redband protection scores presented in Table 261, standards and guidelines, desired conditions for 

Alternatives B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F are, in some cases, as strong as or 

stronger than those elements as they are contained in the 1990 plans, as amended by INFISH. For 

example, additional guidelines (standards in the case of Alternatives C and E-Modified) have 

been added to avoid the risk of grazing livestock trampling redds of listed species during 

spawning season before young fish have emerged from the gravels (MA 4B, GM-6S). Non-listed 

sensitive aquatic species that spawn in those streams during the same season as either spring 

and/or fall spawning listed species would likely accrue collateral direct benefits from this 

guideline.

Increased protections related to roads are reflected in standards and guidelines for Alternatives B, 

C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F that prohibit construction of new roads and trails 

in high elevation riparian areas. This requirement would be an added protection for sensitive 

westslope cutthroat trout and other species spawning in high elevation headwater streams.

Monitoring using protocols developed for the PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program would likely remain in use in future years, and local 

monitoring would likely employ these same or similar protocols where additional, site-specific 

monitoring may be needed. These monitoring trend results are currently showing a slowly 

improving trend in riparian and aquatic habitat conditions across the Plan Area under the 1990 

Forest Plans and those trends are expected to continue for all alternatives.

Management would potentially affect viability for sensitive species in the Tucannon, Umatilla 

and Walla Walla subbasins, particularly for the Margined sculpin. A narrow endemic Sensitive 

species, the Margined sculpin inhabits the Upper Tucannon, Walla Walla and Umatilla subbasin 

headwaters within the Umatilla National Forest, as well as the mainstem Tucannon River in state 

lands downstream of the national forest boundary. The known distribution ranges from medium 

rivers to moderate-elevation headwater tributaries in those systems.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

85

Margined sculpin are a small-bodied freshwater resident species strongly associated with the 

streambed, as are bull trout, but are a spring-spawner similar to redband and steelhead. Fair to 

mostly good connectivity and condition ratings for redband and bull trout habitats in the Walla 

Walla and Tucannon subbasins suggest that the Margined sculpin is not trending towards listing 

within the Umatilla National Forest (see Table 253 and Table 259).

The Malheur National Forest is the only national forest where management would potentially 

affect viability for Harney Basin Duskysnail and the Great Basin (Malheur Lakes) distinct 

population segment of redband trout. Based on current knowledge of its distribution, surveys for 

presence of the Duskysnail would need to be done prior to development of any natural springs,

and a site-specific assessment would ensure any populations located would be protected.

Effects of projects implemented under any of the alternatives would be expected to move towards 

desired conditions for watershed function, key watersheds, hydrologic connectivity, stream shade, 

water quality and riparian condition, as described in appendix A. Improvement of any of these 

factors would help to maintain and improve population viability for the sensitive species 

considered in this assessment.

Active restoration in priority watersheds would potentially have short-term effects for any 

alternative, but the magnitude of those effects at any point in time would likely be localized. Road 

decommissioning in riparian management areas, replacement of culverts for fish passage, and 

instream habitat restoration are all potential short-term effects that would result in long-term 

beneficial effects. These actions would be most likely to occur in key watersheds and would serve 

to recreate larger networks of connected high quality habitats within and between watersheds in 

each subbasin with identified key watersheds. Long-term effects would be expected to benefit all 

aquatic species present or potentially present within those project areas.

Best management practices would be applied to all ground disturbing projects to protect water 

quality and habitat for Sensitive aquatic species; however, research has shown best management 

practices to lose effectiveness the closer activities are to stream channels, to become less effective 

the steeper the ground is adjacent to the channel, and to be ineffective or to vary in effectiveness 

when riparian buffers are not in place (Rashin et al. 2006). Best management practices would be 

an added protection for bull trout and other listed species spawning in high elevation streams.

Rate of progress towards desired conditions through natural processes would vary by alternative, 

as indicated by differences in protection scores (see Table 252 through Table 263). In addition, no 

increases in road density would be allowed in key watersheds.

For Alternative A, all subwatersheds where listed fish species are present would remain key and 

priority subwatersheds respectively under the 1990 plans as amended by PACFISH or INFISH. A 

smaller set of key (including priority) subwatersheds would be implemented for any of the plan 

revision alternatives as discussed previously. For Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure and F, riparian management areas would provide the same or greater degrees of 

protection as currently provided in riparian habitat conservation areas within key and priority 

watersheds under PACFISH and INFISH (Alternative A), because the maximum riparian 

management area widths would apply in every subwatershed in each national forest. They would 

not be limited to key and priority watersheds with designated critical habitat or listed species, as 

now directed by INFISH and PACFISH for riparian habitat conservation areas for Alternative A. 

Practically speaking, the application of these maximum riparian management area widths for 

Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F make no difference for the Umatilla 

National Forest. In the Umatilla National Forest, essentially every subwatershed contains 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

86

designated critical habitat for one or more listed species. The maximum riparian management 

area widths are already being applied throughout the Umatilla National Forest for this reason and 

would continue to be applied for Alternative A.

For the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, the application of these maximum 

riparian management area widths for Alternatives B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, 

and F would constitute an increase in acres incorporated in riparian management areas and miles 

of aquatic habitat receiving passive restoration benefits relative to the number of acres managed 

within riparian habitat conservation areas in Alternative A. The reason for the increase in riparian 

management area acreage for these two National Forests is that they have a substantial number of 

subwatersheds where only redband trout are present. As a result, these watersheds do not 

currently contain designated critical habitat for any listed species and therefore the maximum 

riparian habitat conservation area widths are not currently being applied and would not be applied 

under Alternative A.

The allocation to more acreage to riparian management areas for the Malheur National Forest for 

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F relative to the amount of acres 

managed as riparian habitat conservation areas in Alternative A would potentially result in greater 

benefits from passive restoration to Great Basin redband trout and other freshwater species in the 

Oregon Closed Basins. The increase in riparian management area acres for these alternatives 

would be added in subwatersheds that do not contain designated critical habitat or listed species, 

i.e., in subwatersheds located within the Oregon Interior Basins within the Malheur National 

Forest in particular. Redband trout may also receive added benefits with respect to passive 

restoration from increased acreages in riparian management areas in subwatersheds upstream of 

Hells Canyon Dam on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and in the Crooked River 

subwatersheds management by the Malheur National Forest, where no listed species or 

designated critical habitats are present.

Research has shown that effective vegetated filter strips need to be at least 200 to 300 feet wide to 

effectively capture sediment mobilized by overland flow from outside the riparian management 

area. Rieman et al. (2001), in analyzing the most aggressive restoration alternative for the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, determined that the habitat benefits provided 

during the first 10 years of implementation for restoration of forest vegetation under that 

alternative were lower than the benefits achieved through less aggressive restoration schedules. 

They noted that vulnerable aquatic species could be impacted in the short term in ways from 

which they could not easily recover, even if long-term benefits eventually became evident in later 

years. Alternative D and E-Modified Departure are the alternatives where that risk would most 

apply.

Alternatives B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure and F provide for protections at least as 

strong as those provided by current management direction under Alternative A. Activities are 

currently permitted within riparian habitat conservation areas, so long as they do not retard 

habitat recovery through natural processes. Thus, the difference between Alternative D and 

Alternative A is a difference in level of risk of degradation that may occur once the streamside 

area identified for management for riparian and aquatic habitat values is narrowed. Protections of 

water quality, aquatic and riparian habitats would be lower for Alternative D when compared to 

Alternative A in terms of permitted activities and infrastructure near stream channels, and the 

narrow riparian management area widths associated with Alternative D would pose higher risks 

of unintended negative effects to aquatic species and habitats, and could interfere with restoration 

of natural hydrologic processes and watershed function.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

87

The increased risks from activities with Alternative D would be associated with roads, livestock 

management, timber/fuels management, and mining, and would also be potentially associated 

with other infrastructure-related management activities. These activities potentially affect 

Sensitive or surrogate species and their habitat, and, by association, other aquatic sensitive 

species that are not yet Endangered Species Act listed. Such effects would likely be localized and 

would be unlikely to result in a trend toward listing for Great Basin redband trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, margined sculpins or riverine mollusks. Project-level biological evaluations would 

assess effects to these species when activities occur in areas occupied by these localized species, 

and develop site-specific mitigations to reduce those risks if needed to avoid a trend towards 

federal listing.

Best management practices monitoring, aquatic surveys and continued monitoring of conditions 

and trends in aquatic and riparian habitat conditions are likely to identify any project-level 

situations detracting from achievement of desired condition. Use of best management practices 

monitoring is expected to facilitate implementation of proactive management changes quickly 

enough to maintain or restore timely progress towards desired conditions for riparian and aquatic 

habitats.

Both the 2008 and 2016 Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy and the 2005 

Regional Aquatic Restoration Strategy recognized the need to strategically focus scarce 

restoration funds where they would contribute the most to recreating effective networks of 

connected watersheds and subwatersheds and high quality habitats across the Blue Mountains 

national forests. The intent behind targeting focus watersheds and priority subwatersheds for 

restoration was that they would provide the greatest benefits for recovery of listed species. The 

above sensitive species are each known present in at least some of the key subwatersheds within 

their range and are likely to benefit to some extent from active restoration in priority 

subwatersheds, depending on where work is done relative to the distribution of each species.

Sensitive Species Determinations

Malheur National Forest – All alternatives except D may impact individuals or habitat, but are 

not likely to result in a trend towards listing for the Malheur Lakes distinct population segment of 

redband trout or other sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrate species within the Malheur National 

Forest for reasons discussed above and in the surrogate species sections. Alternative D, due to the 

possibility that habitat recovery may not progress at acceptable rates of passive restoration and 

insufficient investments in active restoration may not occur, may result in a trend towards listing 

for redband trout in the Oregon Closed Basins, particularly the population in the Malheur Lakes 

subbasin.

None of the plan components completely addresses risks to potential habitat for the dusky snail 

with respect to spring development or water diversion out of a spring fed channel flow. However, 

site surveys and project-specific analyses would likely ensure any newly discovered populations 

are protected in ways that would avoid a trend towards Federal listing.

Umatilla National Forest – All alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but are not likely 

to result in a trend towards listing for margined sculpin or other sensitive fish and aquatic 

invertebrate species within the Umatilla National Forest for reasons discussed above and in the 

surrogate species sections.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – All alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but are 

not likely to result in a trend towards listing for sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrate species 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

88

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for reasons discussed above and in the surrogate 

species sections.

Environmental Consequences to Management Indicator Species

Only the no action alternative (Alternative A) would be evaluated in terms of the management 

indicator species listed in the 1990 Forest Plans. No management indicator species were selected 

for evaluation for the plan revision alternatives, based on factors discussed in the Affected 

Environment section and expanded upon here. Limiting aquatic management indicator species to 

Alternative A reflects the historic and ongoing cumulative effects to populations and fish habitats 

in lands in other ownerships within the subbasins occupied by each management indicator species 

as represented by surrogate species that served as management indicator species in the 1990 

Forest Plans. Further detail is provided in the Analysis of the Management Situation.

The surrogate species concept used for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F would use habitat condition and trends as a proxy to monitoring species 

diversity and viability on National Forest System lands. Population viability status for federally 

listed species in each subbasin would be tracked at the all-lands scale by U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service and would be based on integration of multiple 

criteria for each population. Viability for species not tracked by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service would likely be tracked by state agencies responsible for 

fish and wildlife resources in their respective states, to the extent that state resources are 

available.

Within the limits of the Forest Service authority and landbase, Alternative A would not likely 

result in a loss of viability for redband trout or other management indicator species. Riparian and 

aquatic habitat conditions are beginning to demonstrate statistically supportable trends in 

improvement resulting from implementation of PACFISH and INFISH standards, guides, goals 

and objectives, and key and priority watersheds. Implementation of PACFISH and INFISH 

standards, guides, goals and objectives would continue under Alternative A. Active restoration is 

currently ongoing to restore habitat quality and quantity in select subwatersheds and is expected 

to continue to the extent funding and staffing are available. Those trends would likely continue 

with continued implementation of PACFISH and INFISH.

Monitoring conducted under the PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion effectiveness monitoring 

program would continue. Additional analysis over time would serve to strengthen these 

conclusions or reduce statistical “noise” enough to detect whether the apparent trends are genuine 

and continuing. PACFISH-INFISH Biological Opinion effectiveness monitoring may provide the 

means to project rates of recovery of aquatic habitats across the landscape as enough data 

accumulates to provide stronger statistical assessments of trends and rates of recovery in riparian 

and aquatic habitat conditions.

Malheur National Forest

Westslope cutthroat trout are a management indicator species for the Malheur National Forest for 

the 1990 Forest Plan, as amended by PACFISH and INFISH (Alternative A), and viability for the 

species needs to be considered at the scale of the Malheur National Forest for Alternative A. 

Outcomes for redband trout as a surrogate species are considered to represent outcomes for 

westslope cutthroat trout and other freshwater trout, aside from bull trout, but effects to westslope 

cutthroat are represented specifically by effects to redband trout in the Upper John Day subbasin, 

since westslope cutthroat do not occur elsewhere within the Malheur National Forest. Viability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

89

for redband trout in the Upper John Day subbasin is good, therefore viability for westslope 

cutthroat trout is currently considered good within the Malheur National Forest under Alternative 

A. The Malheur National Forest’s contribution to viability of westslope cutthroat trout is 

moderate, as the proportion of spawning and rearing habitat within that national forest is nearly 

70 percent, and much of that habitat is located within wilderness areas.

Effects to viability of bull trout for Alternative A are discussed and disclosed in the “Species 

Viability” section. An assessment of short- and long-term implications to viability for each 

alternative is disclosed in the “Threatened and Endangered Species” discussion. Loss of viability 

for species or component populations in National Forest System lands would not be expected if 

current management direction (Alternative A) were to be continued under PACFISH and INFISH 

direction, given current improving trends for riparian and aquatic habitat conditions at the scale of 

the Plan Area.

Umatilla National Forest

Redband trout and steelhead are management indicator species for the Umatilla National Forest 

for the 1990 Forest Plan, as amended by PACFISH (Alternative A). Viability for both species 

needs to be considered at the scale of the Umatilla National Forest for Alternative A.

Effects to viability of steelhead for Alternative A are discussed and disclosed in Effects to 

Viability in the “Surrogate Species” section. Effects to viability of redband for Alternative A are 

discussed and disclosed in the “Environmental Consequences to Surrogate Species Viability” 

section. An assessment of short and long-term implications of alternatives to steelhead viability is 

disclosed in the “Threatened and Endangered Species” discussion above.

Viability for redband trout and steelhead in Umatilla National Forest subbasins currently is fair or 

good, and the loss of viability for species or component populations at in National Forest System 

lands would not be expected if current management direction were to be continued under 

PACFISH and INFISH direction, given current improving trends for riparian and aquatic habitat 

conditions at the scale of the Plan Area.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Because westslope cutthroat trout are a management indicator species for the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest for the 1990 Forest Plan, viability for the species needs to be considered at the 

scale of the national forest for Alternative A. Outcomes for redband trout as a surrogate species 

are considered to represent outcomes for westslope cutthroat trout and other freshwater trout, 

aside from bull trout. Steelhead and bull trout are also management indicator species for the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for the 1990 Forest Plan, and viability for both species needs 

to be considered at the national forest scale for Alternative A.

Effects to viability of steelhead and redband trout with Alternative A are discussed and disclosed 

in “Environmental Consequences to Surrogate Species Viability” section. Assessments of short 

and long-term implications of alternatives to steelhead viability are disclosed in the “Threatened 

and Endangered Species” discussion.

Viability for redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout, and steelhead in subbasins of the WallowaWhitman National Forest currently is fair or good for the 1990 Forest Plan as amended by 

PACFISH and INFISH (Alternative A) and loss of viability for species or component populations 

on National Forest System lands would not be expected if current management direction were to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

90

be continued under PACFISH and INFISH direction, given current improving trends for riparian 

and aquatic habitat conditions at the scale of the Plan Area.

Environmental Consequences to Magnuson-Stevens Act Species (Pacific Salmon)

A determination of “may affect” under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is made when a determination 

of “no effect” cannot be made with certainty. Since plan components and other plan direction, 

either together or separately, may indirectly affect Endangered Species Act-listed Snake River 

Basin Chinook salmon and may affect other non-listed spring Chinook salmon stocks wherever 

they occur for reasons similar to those given for listed salmon species, a finding of “may affect” 

under the Magnuson Stevens Act would apply to each plan action alternative for each national 

forest where Snake River Basin or Middle Columbia River spring Chinook salmon are present. 

The “may affect” determination applies to spring Chinook salmon in either evolutionarily 

significant unit, excluding only the John Day and Walla Walla subbasins, and a “no effect” 

determination would apply to Snake River Basin fall Chinook salmon, as well as to Snake River 

Basin sockeye.

Pursuant to requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that include an assessment of effects, 

consultation would be conducted with National Marine Fisheries Service concurrently with 

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations to ensure protection of all Pacific Ocean salmon 

species within the Blue Mountains national forests.

Cumulative Effects

Cooperative fish habitat and native fish population restoration work is ongoing between Forest 

Service ranger districts, Tribes, and local stakeholders represented by soil and water conservation 

districts, watershed councils and nongovernmental organizations. Cooperation across 

administrative boundaries is increasingly important in efforts to meet increasing demands and 

competing values for natural resources placed by a growing human population with ultimate 

impacts on fisheries resources. This cumulative effects analysis considers actions in lands of all 

ownerships within the full subbasins in which National Forest System lands are found over the 

next 10 to 20 years, unless otherwise specified.

Cumulative Effects on Species Viability

The biology and legal status of anadromous steelhead demonstrates that steelhead populations are 

heavily influenced by many factors outside and downstream of National Forest System lands. 

These factors include competition and interbreeding with hatchery stocks; tribal, recreational and 

commercial harvest; habitat conditions including water quality in the migratory river corridors 

and yearly and decadal changes in the ocean rearing environment; and, impacts of passing 

through multiple main-stem hydropower dam operations during both emigration downriver to the 

ocean as subadults and as adults returning upriver to spawn in their natal streams. These 

population-level and evolutionarily significant unit and distinct population segment-level impacts

are described in multiple documents including the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Recovery 

(NMFS 2009), the Columbia River Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 2015), the Snake River 

Basin Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2016), and subbasin plans for the Middle 

Columbia River and Lower Snake River subbasins associated with the Blue Mountains National 

Forest Plan Area (NWPCC 2004 online).

Current habitat conditions and connectivity at the subbasin scale were considered in lands of all 

ownership for each component population of the selected surrogate species using the Blue 

Mountains Sustainability Model for Plan Revision, which followed Reiss et al (2008) for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

91

methods. Those conditions influence freshwater species as well as the anadromous species, since 

freshwater populations move seasonally within the drainage network and larger fluvial 

individuals of freshwater species are known to winter in the larger, lower elevation portions of the 

stream network downstream of National Forest System lands.

Current connectivity and habitat conditions in National Forest System lands are the result of past 

natural disturbances, particularly floods and wildfire, and past land management activities 

including grazing, mining, timber harvest and road construction, in particular. Those disturbances, 

along with fires and floods, have also taken place within private and state lands, including the 

small, private-ownership inholdings that checkerboard within the forest boundaries, and the 

habitat condition scores in each subbasin reflect those past effects. Habitat connectivity has been 

disrupted by culverts, dams, water withdrawals for irrigation. More than 3,700 miles of fish 

habitat for one or more surrogate species within National Forest System lands are blocked, or 

seasonally blocked, by National Forest System road culverts. Existing loss of connectivity within 

subbasins appears to a primary impact to current viability for any of the species, but particularly 

for bull trout. Timber harvest, grazing and mining have contributed to degradation of stream 

channels and floodplains, resulting in less water storage and release for instream flows during the 

summer season.

Seasonal barriers created by loss of stream flow and/or thermal barriers created by water 

temperatures can exceed species tolerances. Impassible dams and diversions disrupt habitat and 

population connectivity downstream of national forest boundaries and between subbasins, and 

other diversions and water withdrawals have partially disrupted connectivity within National 

Forest System lands in some subbasins. Many of those effects would continue for the foreseeable 

future. Grazing and timber production are likely to continue on private lands, and small-scale 

mining operations are likely to continue on private lands in places where they already occur.

As in the case of anadromous species, the quality, size, and accessibility of spawning and rearing 

habitat in National Forest System lands play but a partial role in terms of ensuring long-term 

viability of bull trout as a species. As Nelson et al. (2002) discovered, even where other 

associated salmonids, such as redband trout and westslope cutthroat trout, retained fluvial life 

histories, bull trout populations in the same drainage may exhibit only the headwater-resident life 

history, even where the fluvial life history may have been present in the drainage in times past. 

Various theories for this divergence in life history capabilities between species in the same 

drainage were posited, but further research on loss and recovery of the expression of the fluvial 

bull trout life history would be needed to help answer the uncertainties that remain.

A study of long-term (10-plus years) effects of fire was conducted by Rosenberger et al. (2011). 

Their findings suggest that general characteristics of stream ecosystems may recover more 

quickly than the underlying processes from which they are derived. They concluded that detecting 

more subtle long-term ecosystem impacts from wildfire disturbance and correlating condition of 

fish populations may require more in depth analyses. This is particularly important considering 

increased water temperatures, wildfire occurrence, and the accompanying shifts in ecosystem 

function that could be exacerbated by ongoing climate warming.

Recovery plans are in place for Middle Columbia River steelhead, as well as Snake River Basin 

salmon and steelhead (NMFS 2009, NMFS 2016). Private stakeholder and state agencies in 

Oregon and Washington within the range of Middle Columbia River steelhead are implementing 

recovery actions in subbasins identified in the recovery plan, and are contributing to and 

complementing Forest Service restoration efforts in these subbasins. The Southeast Washington 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

92

Recovery Plan for listed Snake River steelhead, sockeye, fall Chinook salmon and spring 

Chinook salmon (NMFS 2005) is being implemented by private stakeholders and Washington 

state agencies. The final Snake River Basin Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan is being 

implemented throughout the Snake River Basin portions of the Plan Area, downstream of Hells 

Canyon dam, including within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area which would continue 

to be managed by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest under the 1990 Plan as amended by 

PACFISH and INFISH, guided by the 2003 Comprehensive Management Plan. Bull trout receive 

recovery benefits from actions taken to restore salmon and steelhead populations where their 

habitats coincide within the implementation of restoration activities. Redband trout benefit from 

actions in watersheds shared with listed species, as well as actions undertaken with partners and 

across boundaries in watersheds with split ownerships, in the Oregon Closed Basins as well as in 

watersheds within the Middle Columbia and Snake River basins.

Operation of the many dams on the main-stem Columbia and Snake rivers would continue to 

affect listed steelhead and salmon species within the cumulative effects analysis area, as would 

recreational and tribal harvest. State and tribal hatcheries for steelhead and salmon would 

continue to provide hatchery fish for harvest as mitigation for loss of wild fish due to the dams, 

but hatchery management at individual hatcheries is shifting to support recovery of wild 

anadromous stocks. Recreational fishing would continue to affect bull trout to an unknown 

degree. In subbasins where National Forest System lands provide no spawning and rearing 

habitat, cumulative effects of Forest Service management on species viability on National Forest 

System lands are minor at best.

So far as plan revision alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects to viability of aquatic 

surrogate species, Alternatives B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would reduce 

effects to these species from past and present management in National Forest System lands by 

restoring a wide assortment of priority watersheds and other key watersheds, along with a 

variable set of additional lower-quality watersheds. Alternative A would maintain or continue to 

reduce effects at rates that may be slower or faster than would occur under other alternatives, 

depending on the species, the number and location of priority subwatersheds restored under each 

alternative, and the degree of riparian and aquatic habitat protection afforded by each alternative, 

both short term and long term. Alternative D may create greater cumulative effects than the other 

alternatives, but the balance of risks from combined short-term effects of landscape protections 

and active restoration in priority watersheds relative to long-term benefits of landscape protection 

and active restoration in priority watersheds is unknown, since the same desired conditions apply 

to all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects to Surrogate Species

All alternatives would contribute to restoring or maintaining sustainable populations of surrogate 

species and their habitats through management of riparian management areas to meet desired 

conditions and protect listed species and their designated critical habitats wherever they occur. 

Active restoration for listed species and critical habitats would continue to improve key 

watersheds and subbasins for surrogate species leveraging restoration efforts on other land 

ownerships wherever interests overlap across watershed boundaries. Non-listed redband trout and 

Chinook salmon would receive cumulative positive effects from actions taken to restore bull 

trout, steelhead and listed salmon in the Snake River and Middle Columbia River basins.

There would be positive effects from alternative-dependent mixes of passive and active 

restoration that benefit multiple surrogate species present in key watersheds under all alternatives. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

93

Passive and active restoration combined across each national forest would complement 

restoration efforts undertaken by stakeholders including Tribes, local nongovernment 

organizations and state agencies to restore listed species and habitats in those watersheds and 

would cumulatively contribute to restoration of entire watersheds and subbasins over time.

The biology and legal status of steelhead and spring Chinook salmon, particularly in the Snake 

River and Middle Columbia River basins, demonstrate that anadromous populations are heavily 

influenced by many factors outside and downstream of National Forest System lands. 

Competition and interbreeding with hatchery stocks; tribal, recreational and commercial fish 

harvest; habitat conditions including water quality in the migratory river corridors and yearly and 

decadal changes in the ocean rearing environment; and impacts of passing through multiple mainstem hydropower dam operations during both emigration downriver to the ocean as subadults and 

as adults returning upriver to spawn in their natal streams influence surrogate species viability. 

These population and evolutionarily significant units/distinct population segment-level 

cumulative impacts from historic and ongoing factors outside the scope of Forest Service 

management authority are described in multiple documents, including Federal Registers in which 

steelhead and spring Chinook salmon were listed as threatened species, the Middle Columbia 

River Steelhead Recovery Plan (NMFS 2009), and subbasin plans for the Middle Columbia River 

and Lower Snake River subbasins (NWPCC 2004). Federal Registers that listed Columbia River 

Basin bull trout and their designated critical habitats describe similar cumulative impacts to bull 

trout in subbasins where bull trout occur. Subbasin plans describe similar cumulative impacts and 

threats to redband populations where redband populations occur.

Highly effective all-lands restoration efforts are ongoing in multiple watersheds and subbasins,

which leverage restoration efforts in portions of each National Forest in the Plan Area. Examples 

include the southeast Washington’s Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, which includes 

representatives from 2 area tribes, 5 counties, multiple state agencies, private landowners, and 

multiple Federal agencies including the Forest Service. Funding decisions by the Board ensure 

that restoration funds go to well-thought out projects through a collaborative prioritization 

process that implements restoration projects targeting restoration actions identified in Recovery 

Plans for bull trout and anadromous species in southeast Washington in both the mid-Columbia 

and Snake River basins, leveraging forest service restoration efforts on National Forest System 

lands. Similar all-lands, multi-organizational efforts are developing in portions of the Umatilla 

and Walla Walla subbasins, as well as in all of the John Day subbasins, which are working to 

implement the Oregon portions of the Middle Columbia River steelhead Recovery Plan. The 

Grande Ronde Model watershed group continues to implement actions detailed in the Oregon 

Snake River Basin recovery plan for anadromous species and the bull trout Recovery Plan.

Cumulative Effects to Threatened and Endangered Species

Restoration actions are ongoing on private, state and tribal lands in subbasins supporting listed 

steelhead, bull trout and Chinook salmon populations within the cumulative effects analysis area, 

including changes in hydropower operations, hatchery operations, harvest management by the 

states and habitat improvement activities. Those actions are guided by individual subbasin plans 

developed for the Northwest Power Planning Council and by Recovery Plans for listed bull trout 

and anadromous species. Restoration actions are likely to continue for the foreseeable future as a 

continuation of recovery plan implementation through State, Federal, and private partnerships and 

other collaborative efforts. In aggregate, those restoration actions are expected to support and 

promote recovery of each federally listed species and their designated critical habitats, in 

accordance with their respective recovery plans.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

94

Cumulative Effects to Sensitive Species

Cumulative effects of alternatives to redband trout and steelhead were discussed in the “Surrogate 

Species” section. Redband and bull trout serve as surrogate species surrogates for westslope 

cutthroat trout and margined sculpin, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on these species 

constitute the cumulative effects analyses for redband trout, westslope cutthroat trout and 

margined sculpin as sensitive species. There would be no cumulative trends towards Federal 

listing for these species from management actions for any of the alternatives.

Cumulative Effects to Management Indicator Species

Cumulative effects to redband trout, steelhead, bull trout, westslope cutthroat trout and other nonanadromous trout were discussed as surrogate species or are represented by cumulative effects to 

surrogate species. No cumulative effects to these management indicator species from 

management actions are expected to occur for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, or F. Net reductions in cumulative effects are likely to occur for Alternative A, given 

current indications of improving trends in aquatic habitat and riparian conditions across the Blue 

Mountains national forests’ Plan Area, and improving trends in population viability (all-lands) 

scale in many subbasins and stable populations in other subbasins, at the all-lands scale. Those 

improving trends are expected to continue at nearly natural rates for Alternative A, which would 

continue current management under PACFISH and INFISH direction.

Climate Change Implications for Species Diversity and Viability

McElhany et al. (2000), noted “...processes contributing to extinction risk (catastrophes and large 

scale environmental variation) ...need to be assessed at the larger temporal and spatial scales 

represented by ESUs or other entire collections of populations” (i.e., scales larger than the Blue 

Mountains Plan Area). More recently, climate change effects can be projected at the scale of the 

Plan Area and even by subbasin (Haak 2010, Hamlet et al. 2010. Some subbasins and species 

would be affected more quickly than others.

Fall spawning species, such as salmon and bull trout, whose eggs overwinter in streambed 

gravels, are likely to be impacted by increased winter flooding and greater movement of 

streambed gravels and cobbles during winter rain-on-snow events. Steelhead and redband trout 

are spring spawners; their spawning activity typically occurs as winter and spring flood flows are 

declining. Their eggs are less likely to be damaged than the eggs of fall-spawning salmon and 

bull trout. Some subbasins that are currently snow-dominated (spring snowmelt) systems, are 

expected to shift to transitory-snow (winter rain-on-snow) dominated systems, as climate change 

progresses. These would be the subbasins where spring Chinook salmon and bull trout spawning 

habitats would be most at risk. Other subbasins may experience limited change in timing of 

runoff and fish populations would be less affected by shifts in timing of runoff. Other subbasins 

may shift to winter rain-dominated systems from their current transitory-snow dominated 

regimes.

The science panel that reviewed the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy made the 

general observation that:

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).

Effects of ongoing climate change on riparian and aquatic habitats and Threatened, endangered, 

sensitive and other aquatic species could be reduced by active habitat restoration objectives 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

95

described in Appendix A, which incorporate many possible mitigation actions listed in Isaak et al.

(2017). Improvements in fish passage would enable fish to recolonize drainages impacted by 

uncharacteristically severe fires. Redband trout and bull trout have been shown to recolonize 

severely burned drainages within two years, provided the drainages were physically accessible 

(i.e., no culvert barriers, and provided that other fish in unburned areas, particularly migratory 

adults, were close enough to discover and move back into the recently burned habitat (Rieman et 

al. 1997).

With anticipated effects of climate change during the next 20 to 40 years, increased winter and 

early spring flooding effects on fall spawning species, such as Chinook salmon and bull trout, are 

likely to be exacerbated where streams are deficit of large wood and where large wood inputs are 

below natural rates of recruitment. Research has shown that flooding has limited impacts on 

survival of redds and fry when sufficient large wood is present in the channel to mediate flow 

velocities and create naturally sheltered areas of slower water that act as refugia for older 

juveniles. Flooding would also have less impact where fish are able to move freely through the 

system due to passage barriers having been removed.

Interactions between restoration activities and natural disturbances would influence resiliency of 

fish habitat and community diversity in different ways that cannot be known fully at this time. 

For example, fish are more likely to be resilient to a stand-replacing fire and/or atypical flooding 

if fish passage to adjoining drainages is restored prior to the disturbance, thereby providing timely 

access to alternative habitat from while habitat recovers in the watersheds affected by the 

disturbance.

In subwatersheds where barriers have not yet been removed, fish habitat may be more resilient to 

fire if forest vegetation structure and composition, particularly in subwatersheds dominated by 

dry forest, are in a condition that would enable habitat to maintain or improve in the presence of 

frequent low intensity fire, high road density and frequent stand entries for mechanical fuels 

management. In subwatersheds and larger drainage networks (5th and 4th hydrologic unit code 

watersheds) dominated by mixed severity or stand-replacing fire regimes, fish are more likely to 

be resilient to climate change where restoration of instream large wood, habitat complexity, 

restored fish passage and “storm-proofed” road systems contribute to resiliency to flooding and 

reduced summer stream flows. . Storm-proofing can entail any of an assortment of road 

treatments designed to reduce vulnerability of existing open roads to washout from storm events, 

at stream crossings which may or may not be fish passage barriers, and may not be a priority for 

culvert replacement but still need reduced vulnerability to storm high flows. Examples of 

stormproofing treatments may include adding ditch relief culverts and water bars appropriately 

spaced along the roadway to reduce ditchline erosion, or adding rolling dips in roads immediately 

upstream or downstream of stream crossings, (dips hardened with coarse rubble from rock pits), 

which are designed to allow the road to be overtopped during storm events while reducing stream 

impacts from road washouts in the event that a culvert becomes blocked by debris or is 

undersized relative to an abnormally large storm event. Decisions on appropriate stormproofing 

design are made at project-scale. As Rieman et al. (2000) noted, every subbasin is different due to 

different climatic characteristics and the risks to fish and habitat from management impacts 

including retention and maintenance of existing road networks, versus impacts of wildfire, flood 

or drought exacerbated by climate change, may balance out in most of the Blue Mountains 

province. Investments in restoration of watershed function, aquatic habitat restoration and 

improved fish passage through culverts at road crossings, to the extent projected in Appendix A 

objectives under each alternative, would help to offset the impacts of natural disturbance 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

96

processes, particularly where dry forest vegetation has not yet been restored, grazing continues 

and where roaded access will still be needed.

Most researchers expect bull trout to be the least resilient to climate change of any of the 

surrogate species, in that they are likely heavily impacted by warmer waters which would 

constrict their habitat by warmer water encroaching further upstream, and further constricted by 

greater declines in stream flow on the upper colder ends of their habitat high in the watersheds 

due to earlier loss of snowpack. The Blue Mountains Climate Vulnerability Assessment for bull 

trout found that bull trout will be affected in the Blue Mountains as a consequence of changes in 

stream flow and water temperature (Isaak et al 2017, Clifton et al 2017). Lack of connectivity 

within and between subbasins may be more impactive to bull trout in the Blue Mountains than to 

the other species.

Bull trout, with their dependence on cold water, are expected to be severely affected; losses of 

habitat in the Columbia River Basin are estimated at 22 to 92 percent (ISAB 2007, Hixon et al. 

2010). The practical implication is that some sensitive fish populations are likely to “blink out” or 

become isolated.” Although the temporary blinking out of local populations is a natural that bull 

trout are adapted to, given their highly stochastic natural environments, the species is currently 

struggling to maintain viability in the face of existing core population numbers, loss of migratory 

life histories and loss of physical connectivity within and between core populations. Most core 

populations within the Plan Area are not able to easily accommodate additional “blinking out” 

given existing challenges to which they are not well adapted, given their current status (USFWS 

2008, 2015), especially for those population which are already highly fragmented or very low in 

population numbers. The chronic threats posed by climate change would only exacerbate the 

challenges to recovery those populations already face. The Bull Trout Recovery Plan (USFWS 

2015) has acknowledged that though desirable, recovery is unlikely to be achievable for all 

populations. They have set recovery goals for various populations of the species accordingly.

Fall-spawning spring Chinook salmon may be impacted by drought and high water temperatures 

more than bull trout, steelhead or redband, due to large body size and more of their habitat being 

located within larger streams and rivers in warmer lower elevation portions in Plan Area

subbasins. Elevated water temperatures are expected to contract spawning reaches on the lower 

boundary of those reaches, while they may be unable to access upper portions of current habitat 

where lower snowpacks reduce base flows. Fall-spawning bull trout will likely see their yearround spawning and rearing habitats shrink as well, particularly on the lower end of the current 

range as water temperatures increase, and migration corridors may become inhospitable earlier in 

the spring, triggering upstream movement from wintering areas more quickly as spring runoff 

levels drop. Bull trout may find their habitat shrinking on the upper end of current use areas. In 

some stream reaches, riffles will become shallower and perhaps intermittent (Sando and Blasch 

2015). This may result in disconnected stream reaches, isolated pools, overcrowding of fish for 

redband and steelhead especially (Ramsey, personal observation), increased competition for food 

and cover, and greater vulnerability to predators in remaining deep water habitat. Bull trout are 

less likely to experience overcrowding than redband or steelhead, as their natural behavior as 

juveniles is to seek visual isolation from one another, triggering downstream movement as they 

become larger and competition for food and space increase in headwater habitats. Juvenile bull 

trout may be less vulnerable than juvenile spring Chinook salmon, to invasive warm-water 

species such as smallmouth that are slowly expanding their range upstream in the North Fork 

John Day River (Lawrence et al. 2012, 2014), in that bull trout naturally hold near the streambed 

and have a high affinity for streams with high amounts of large wood that provide shelter from 

predators as well as from high stream flows.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

97

Across the Plan Area as a whole, steelhead and redband are likely to be the most resilient of any 

of the surrogate species to effects of climate change, as they are the most widespread species with 

the widest range of habitat available, not all of which would likely be impacted simultaneously. 

Good connectivity within and between subbasins in terms of fish passage would enable juveniles 

and adults to move freely through the system to access cooler tributaries during summer heat, and 

to access slower side channels during floods. Steelhead, Chinook salmon, and bull trout have all 

been found to recolonize burned drainages within two years post fire and flooding, where they 

had access to move back into the watershed (Howell 2006, Rieman et al. 1997).

While there would be elevated risks to fish habitat that would likely vary by subbasin and 

therefore by species, not all of the anticipated trends would necessarily be harmful to aquatic 

habitats. A distinguished panel of scientists who reviewed the scientific basis for the 2008 

Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy noted that climate change scenarios include 

an increase in large flood events, wildfires, and pathogen outbreaks. Haak et al. (2010) assessed 

the probability and likely magnitude of such effects within Plan Area subbasins over the next 50 

years. The science panel reviewing the Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy noted that 

these trends have some potential to improve habitat complexity in some areas as a result of 

floodplain reconnection and large wood recruitment.

Isaak et al (2017) concluded that when warming stream temperatures are considered in the 

absence of confounding or additive impacts, isotherms (thermal boundaries) are shifting slowly 

enough that many populations can be expected to shift with them so long as they are not inhibited 

by barriers, and in some cases, unsuitably cold habitats may exist further upstream and become 

sufficiently warm enough to offset losses at lower habitat margins where temperatures become 

too warm (Isaak et al. 2017, Al-Chokhachy et al. 2013). Moreover, although stream temperatures 

impacted by a warming climate will further isolate populations in headwaters, many species that 

inhabit mountain streams are already adapted to an insular existence and could continue to persist 

for long periods” (Isaak et al 2016), based on observations by Whitely et al. (2010). However, 

climate change stressors pose increased risks to such isolated populations (Haak et al 2010).

Mote (2003) stated that the extent to which restoration of stream habitat and altered dam 

operations would contribute to restoration of surrogate species and sensitive species, or the extent 

to which such actions would increase species resilience to climatic stresses, is an unknown. He 

stated his belief that it is impossible to say broadly (let alone for specific stocks) how those 

changes would compare with other environmental changes salmon have faced and would face in 

future. Steelhead are likely to experience challenges similar to those faced by salmon of similar 

ages, but due to seasonal differences in timing of migratory movement, spawning and egg 

residence periods in natal gravels relative to stream flows and water temperatures, the two species 

are likely to experience climate change in somewhat different ways.

With a warming climate, increased frequency of winter rains and an earlier snowmelt, “a higher 

frequency of severe floods would probably result in increased egg mortality due to gravel scour. 

Winter snowpacks would likely retreat and run off 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 would probably be lower and the network of 

perennially flowing streams in a drainage system is likely to shrink during the summer dry period, 

forcing fish into smaller wetted channels and less diverse habitats (Battin et al. 2006). 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, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

98

Crozier et al. 2008). Higher temperatures would also favor species that are better adapted to 

warmer water, including potential predators and competitors (Reeves et al. 1987).

Climate change would likely force shifts in the distribution of fish populations affecting their 

ability to cope with natural disturbances, particularly drought (Battin et al. 2006). Streams located 

high in watersheds that historically provided some of the best habitat may no longer be accessible 

to migratory fishes 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 would be important to 

supporting salmon survival and recovery as the climate continues to warm (Martin and Glick 

2008). As stated in both the 2008 and 2016 Regional Aquatic and Riparian Conservation 

Strategies:

Maintaining and restoring these areas is a fundamental purpose for establishment of key 

watersheds. Active restoration actions would achieve objectives that would increase 

resiliency of aquatic habitat and populations to climate change, by reducing flood peaks 

by enhancing floodplain connectivity and disconnecting roads from streams, reconnecting 

isolated habitats by removing or replacing culverts, managing riparian forests to provide 

shade and other functions, and improving watersheds where aquatic habitats and water 

quality have been degraded. Actual impacts to aquatic ecosystems would be highly 

dependent on the degree to which these adaptation actions are implemented now and in 

the future.

Without these types of restoration actions the 2008 and 2016 Regional Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategies postulated that aquatic habitats and species are likely to become 

increasingly isolated, simplified, and less likely to recover after significant disturbance events. 

The Blue Mountains Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment continues to support this 

statement, given current conditions and projected conditions in the absence of such restoration 

actions (Isaak et al. 2017)

At a smaller scale, warmer stream temperatures associated with climate change are likely to 

exacerbate the extent and frequency of lethal temperatures in reaches occupied during low flow. 

Nonanadromous salmonids have been shown to move extensively within the stream network 

during periods in spring and fall when flows are either rising or falling, and tend to become 

sedentary during summer months when spring flows drop (Mellina et al. 2005), which puts them 

at risk from lethal temperatures they are not wired to escape. However, such extinctions would be 

dispersed, and freshwater trout move enough in cool seasons to keep populations connected. That 

population interconnectivity may contribute to long-term viability of local populations even for 

freshwater species, where that connectivity between populations exists or where it can be 

restored.

Two foundational assumptions for this analysis have been: (1) species that inhabit an aquatic 

ecosystem should benefit when it is functioning properly or when it is improving; and should be 

negatively impacted if aquatic habitats are degraded or in a downward trend; and (2) the most 

immediate potential for irreversible and irretrievable commitments of aquatic resources, are 

associated with threatened and sensitive aquatic species. Land management can positively or 

negatively affect aquatic resources. The magnitude of effect commonly relates to the scope (size 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

99

of area) and intensity of an action; its proximity to aquatic resources, the type of activity and the 

effectiveness of mitigation standards applied.

Collectively, the ARCS components are designed to maintain and improve watershed, riparian 

and aquatic habitat conditions, fish populations, and habitat connectivity, particularly within the 

key watersheds. As restoration is implemented across the Blue Mountains national forests, 

projects should slowly implement the Blues Vulnerability Assessment recommendations and 

create a network of properly functioning watersheds that are more resilient to withstanding some 

climate change effects and that are better able support to a variety of aquatic species and other 

riparian-dependent resources on National Forest System lands.

PACFISH and INFISH did not include active restoration as an essential element of those 

conservation strategies, whereas both the 2008 and 2016 Regional ARCS and the 2018 Blue

Mountains ARCS do. All versions of the ARCS, Regional and Blue Mountains versions, as 

variously represented in the plan revision alternatives, promote varying degrees of resilience to 

effects of climate change through ARCS elements and plan components including riparian 

management areas, desired conditions, standards and guidelines, active restoration objectives, and 

key watersheds. Investments in active restoration under the plan revision alternatives are expected 

to increase resiliency of aquatic ecosystems to climate change and its derivative effects by: 

moderating stream temperatures by increasing stream shade, improving floodplain water storage 

and release to maintain base flows longer through the summer and fall, improving fish passage 

through culvert upgrades, improving habitat quality and connectivity for aquatic species, enabling

them to move to more hospitable habitats from less hospitable habitats by managing riparian 

management areas and other portions of the watershed for desired conditions that restore 

hydrologic functions and processes together with federally listed species and their habitats.

Alternatives C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F include the greatest amount of 

acreage in riparian management areas, and due to associated desired conditions, management area 

suitable uses and standards and guidelines, these alternatives carry the lowest risk from 

detrimental management impacts, and may provide more opportunities for riparian habitat 

protection than other alternatives. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure contain 

additional desired conditions for federally listed species, and additional Standards and Guidelines 

for key watersheds, all of which are likely to promote greater resiliency to effects of climate 

change for both listed and nonlisted aquatic species. Alternative D has the lowest number of miles 

of aquatic habitat restored, the narrowest riparian management areas, fewest acres of riparian 

restoration, and the least reduction in hydrologic connectivity of roads, and thus would have the 

lowest potential for maintaining aquatic habitat resiliency and habitat network connectivity in the 

face of climate change.

Alternative C would have the greatest number of miles of riparian restoration and stream channel 

enhancements, and the greatest reduction in hydrologic connectivity of roads, thus providing the 

greatest potential for maintaining aquatic habitat resiliency and network connectivity that would 

enable fish to relocate to the most suitable habitats seasonally, and would maintain habitable 

stream temperatures for aquatic species as air temperature rises. Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure, under the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS contain additional desired conditions 

for federally listed species together with strengthened standards and guidelines for grazing and 

key watersheds in particular, which are likely to promote greater resilience and resistance to 

climate change for hydrologic functions and processes, aquatic habitats and the species that 

depend on them.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

100

Cumulative Effects on Species Diversity

Forest plan level decisions for any alternative are expected to maintain and improve habitats and 

maintain viability for aquatic species on National Forest System lands. These decisions include 

desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines for maintaining or improving all 

watersheds, priority watersheds, protecting key watersheds, protecting and restoring riparian 

management areas, Water Quality, decisions regarding Suitability of riparian management areas 

for various management uses, investment in active restoration of National Forest System lands in 

priority watersheds, monitoring of watershed, riparian and aquatic habitat conditions, combined 

with designation of key watersheds, active restoration, and monitoring of watershed, riparian and 

aquatic habitat conditions,

When combined with other components of the regional restoration and conservation strategy that 

are outside the scope of the plan decision, (multiple scale assessments, designation of key 

watersheds), implementation of those components of the strategy that constitute plan level 

decisions, (restoration, riparian management areas, and monitoring) are not expected to prevent 

the listing of any species or distinct population segment, mainly because Federal land 

management agencies are responsible only for the habitat they manage. State agencies are 

responsible for populations on all lands and for the regulation of activities that affect populations 

and habitats on other ownerships. For listed salmon and trout, factors outside the responsibility of 

Federal land managers contribute to the status and trends of populations. These include changes 

in freshwater and estuarine habitats; harvest in commercial and recreational fisheries; 

management of dams; and the effects of hatchery practices and introductions (NMFS 2008).

Per Kostow (2003), fish-bearing streams in the John Day River Basin historically relied on 

extensive headwater beaver meadows for water storage and related maintenance of base flows 

that contributed to cooler water temperatures during the low flow season. These headwater 

meadows were largely lost in the late 1800s, which changed the hydrology of the lower 

mainstem. The lower Umatilla and Walla Walla rivers are severely modified by irrigation 

diversions, which have resulted in elevated water temperatures and abnormally low flows during 

the low flow season. In the years since 2003, a bucket-for-bucket program has begun providing 

water from the Columbia River for Umatilla Basin irrigators, which allows more water to remain 

in the Umatilla River mainstem during the low flow season, thereby contributing to suitable 

migration and spawning conditions for the Chinook salmon stock reintroduced by the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in recent years. Kostow (2003) 

speculated that all major rivers in the Middle Columbia River basin once provided rearing habitat 

for freshwater redband trout historically, based on current redband trout populations present in the 

lower mainstem Deschutes River, but that those other river populations have gone extinct as a 

result of water withdrawals for irrigation and other purposes, leading to poor rearing habitat 

quality and quantity in summer and fall due to low flows and elevated water temperatures. This 

possible loss of mainstem habitats and populations may have contributed to reduced viability of 

redband populations on National Forest System lands due to loss of spatial and genetic 

connectivity and diversity within each subbasin.

The entire Crooked River is above the Pelton-Round Butte and Bowman dams and was probably 

the major steelhead production area historically. Much of the mainstem Crooked River, and the 

entire South Fork, are now severely impacted by irrigation and cattle grazing. These activities 

have lowered water tables, caused passage blockages, dewatered reaches, and decreased water 

quality (Kostow 2003). Many of the headwater areas still have good desert trout habitats, 

although the best remaining habitats are limited. If habitat has been fragmented or lost and the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

101

potential for dispersal and recolonization is limited by barriers or by loss of the migratory life 

history in the case of bull trout, lagged extinctions in presently occupied habitat may be 

anticipated. When habitat is lost more rapidly than populations, a ‘‘debt of extinction’’ is incurred 

(Hanski et al. 1996), so even if further habitat loss is prevented, local extinctions would continue 

to occur until a new equilibrium between extinction and recolonization is established. The 

implication is that conservation of existing habitats alone may not be adequate for the long-term 

conservation of some species.

Active cooperation between the Forest Service, other Federal agencies, the states, Tribes, and 

local interest groups and organizations is important to national forest fish and wildlife programs, 

and programs integrated between different parties promote a synergy that leads to faster 

restoration of fish and fish habitats at the landscape scale than would likely occur only with funds 

appropriated to the Forest Service by Congress for these purposes.

Forest Vegetation

Introduction

This section describes and analyzes the forest potential natural vegetation types of the Malheur, 

Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests. For the purpose of this analysis, vegetation in 

the Blue Mountains was classified into broad categories of forest, woodland, grassland, or 

shrubland. Categories were further classified as upland or riparian vegetation. The riparian 

vegetation is described in more detail in the Watershed section of Chapter 3. Shrubland, 

woodland, and grassland are discussed in the “Livestock Grazing” section of Chapter 3. This 

section quantifies and compares the degree to which the current condition of the forest 

vegetation’s overstory structure, size class, and density is different from desired conditions. It 

then projects what the trends in those characteristics would be after fully implementing the forest 

vegetation treatment objectives in each alternative. The processes, threats and risks that have 

caused deviations from desired conditions are also discussed. This section also examines the state 

of aspen and whitebark pine on the National Forests.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Additional Background and Context Information Provided Regarding Methodology and 

Historic Range of Variation: In reviewing public comments regarding historical range of 

variability and the forest vegetation modeling in general, it was apparent that providing additional 

information and improving the clarity of this section would help readers and stakeholders 

understand the definitions, ideas and context surrounding these processes. Discussion was added 

to the “Affected Environment” section.

Corrections to the Table Depicting the Proportions of Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

Included in each Potential Vegetation Group: Between the development of the Draft and the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, mathematical errors were detected in some of the 

calculations behind the results presented in the table, which depicts the percent of the WallowaWhitman National Forest’s total land area represented by each potential vegetation group. All 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

102

values pertaining to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, which were incorrectly presented in 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, have been corrected.

Methodology

Forest Vegetation Classification Approach

To structure the analysis of the forest vegetation and changes associated with the different 

management alternatives, the potential natural vegetation concept was used along with a 

classification system of the existing vegetation. Potential natural vegetation is the plant 

community that would be expected to establish under existing environmental conditions in the 

absence of significant disturbance or human involvement. Some have criticized the potential 

vegetation concept as problematic for a variety of reasons (Chiarucci et al. 2010). However, the 

idea of potential natural vegetation is thought to be useful and compatible with existing widely 

used Forest Service classification systems and models. Forest Service used potential vegetation 

groups similar to those described by Powell et al. (2007). The three mid-scale upland forest 

potential vegetation groups selected were cold upland forest, moist upland forest, and dry upland 

forest. The potential vegetation groups are aggregations of plant communities and plant 

associations as described by Johnson 1987 and 1992.

The existing condition of the forest vegetation was characterized by examining the Forest Service 

existing vegetation polygon data. The existing vegetation database contains summarized 

information for each of the polygons mapped on their respective vegetation layers. Data sources 

for individual polygons vary, but include walk-through examinations, photo-interpretation, 

intensive stand examination plot data, and Most Similar Neighbor modeling. Summary

information generally includes eco-class, potential vegetation group, existing vegetation cover 

type, structural stage, size class, density class, and age. The Pacific Northwest Region of the 

Forest Service has standards for the classification of vegetation, which were used during the 

process of developing a consistent set of structural stages for the forest plan revision. However, 

the regional standards do not mandate a specific structure classification system, but instead 

provide flexibility to develop a classification scheme based on several different systems.

All three National Forests within the Blue Mountains used a slightly different structural stage 

classification developed from guidance in the 1995 Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment 

No. 2 document. It was further decided that the forest plan revision effort would use a consistent 

structural stage classification system based on Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 

Project science, which was also consistent with the Pacific Northwest Regional standards. It was 

also decided that the revision effort would use a potential vegetation classification system that 

linked to the Interior Columbia Basin science. The structural stages chosen were stand initiation, 

stem exclusion, understory reinitiation, old forest single-story, and old forest multi-story. These 

structural stages are similar to those described in O’Hara et al. (1996), Oliver and Larson (1996), 

and Hessburg et al. (1999). See the “Existing Condition” section below for further descriptions of 

the structural stages used in this analysis. The cover type (dominant species composition) and 

general density class was also assigned to each of five main structural stages. Acreage within each 

potential vegetation group is static, because it is based on a combination of several factors such as 

topography, elevation, aspect, soil type, soil moisture and temperature, ambient air temperature, 

and associated biotic influences. However, the acreage within each potential vegetation group 

structural stage will vary over time because of management treatments, natural succession and 

other disturbance factors.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

103

Vegetation Modeling

To simulate the effects of management, disturbances and natural succession over time, the 

existing vegetation data was summarized and organized into an “initial condition” format that 

was compatible for use with the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool (VDDT) model (ESSA 

Technologies Ltd. 2007). The model is a relatively easy-to-run and user-friendly program that can 

be run on a desktop personal computer. It provides a modeling framework for examining the 

effects of succession, various disturbance agents and management actions on forest vegetation. 

The model was designed to project changes in vegetation over long periods of time. The 

interaction of these factors can be quite complex and sometimes counterintuitive, but projecting 

these changes and incorporating how they interact with one another is a very important part of a 

landscape scale analysis.

The different areas of forest potential vegetation group within each national forest were organized 

into model “state-classes.” Each state-class represents a unique combination of potential 

vegetation group, structure, species composition, size, and density. The Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool model then moves portions of each state-class from one class to another class 

based on a set of transition pathways. These pathways can be either deterministic (e.g. gradual 

succession over time), or probabilistic transitions, which are random events whose occurrence is 

driven largely by probabilities. For each simulation, the landscape is partitioned into a number of 

“cells” or simulation units; each initially assigned to a state-class (i.e., cover type and structural 

stage) and age. For each time step (year) the model simulates the probability of each cell being 

affected by one of the transition types, and if a transition does occur, moves the cell to the 

resulting state-class as defined in the pathways diagram. The structure of the model allows runs of 

hundreds of years and many repeated “Monte Carlo” simulations to generate averages and 

associated variability of state-class abundance and disturbance occurrence. The details of the 

models, including the probabilities, pathways and time intervals required among transitions were 

originally developed as a part of the Integrated Analysis of Landscape Management Scenarios 

Project in the upper Grande Ronde River Subbasin in the late 1990s (Hemstrom et al. 2007). 

Annual variability for both wildfire and insect outbreaks is included in the model by using a set of 

multipliers that was developed using expert opinion from local fire managers and forest 

pathologists and entomologists to reflect the expected frequency and severity of fire years and 

insect outbreaks.

One acknowledged drawback of this type of model is that transition probabilities and pathways of 

each individual cell are independent of the state of the other cells. Thus, the model is not spatially

explicit, and so does not simulate contagion in space (such as wildfire) or time (such as insect 

outbreaks) (ESSA Technologies Ltd. 2007).

As a result of the original project work in the Grande Ronde Subbasin, five different submodels 

were developed through literature searches, expert opinion and simulating management practices 

with current vegetation survey data. All of these were built around potential vegetation groups 

found in the Blue Mountains (Powell et al. 2007). The following table displays descriptions of the 

six different Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool forest submodels used to simulate the 

effects of the alternatives on forest vegetation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

104

Table 264. Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool Submodel descriptions

Potential Vegetation Group

VDDT 

Submodel Description

Cold Upland Forest CD Whitebark pine forest

Cold Upland Forest CD Cold dry forest (subalpine, spruce, lodgepole)

Moist Upland Forest CM Moist grand fir, spruce, lodgepole, larch

Dry Upland Forest DG Dry grand fir forest

Dry Upland Forest DD Dry Douglas-fir forest

Dry Upland Forest DP Dry ponderosa pine forest

Dry Upland Forest XP Hot/dry ponderosa pine

The modeled forest landscapes were further broken into four basic management area allocations, 

called “strata” in the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool model. This was done so different 

levels of treatments could be distributed among the area represented by each model strata based 

on the design of the alternatives. The model’s strata were based on a combination of the 

management areas in each alternative, and corresponding levels and types of treatment 

assumptions for each alternative (see following table). Each of the submodels in the previous 

table were included in each of the strata outlined in the following table. The determination of 

what portion of each forest potential vegetation group would fall into which model strata varied 

by each alternative’s approach to management area allocation and suitability. This initial 

breakdown was determined by overlaying each alternative’s Geographic Information Systems

management layer data onto the forest vegetation layer.

Table 265. Harvesting assumptions within the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool model 

management area strata

Model Strata Primary Management Area or Suitability Percent of Harvesting Activity

Allocated to the Strata

Wilderness Areas MA 1 (wilderness areas) 0%

Minimal 

Management/Roadless 

Areas

MA 3A and 3B (backcountry) and MA 2B 

(RNAs)

1%

Low Level Management

Reserve Areas

MA 2s (special areas), MA 4B Old Forest, 

and MA 4C Riparian Management Areas

10 - 20%

General Forest/Active 

Management Areas

MA 4A General forest/Lands Suitable for 

Timber Production

80 - 90%

In addition to the level of harvesting within each model stratum, assumptions were also made 

about the allocation of treatments between each of the forest potential vegetation groups. The 

following table displays the assumed distribution of treatments between the cold, moist, and dry 

upland forests. Because the dry upland forest is the most highly departed from desired conditions 

and it also represents the majority of the general forest/active management stratum, for modeling 

purposes, it was assumed that the majority of treatments would continue to occur in the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group. However, treatments would also occur in the moist and 

cold upland forests and the specific decisions regarding implementation of future projects will be 

made on a case-by-case basis.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

105

Table 266. Treatment distribution modeling assumptions by potential vegetation group

Potential 

Vegetation Group

Approximate Treatment Distribution 

Between Potential Vegetation Groups

Alternatives A thru F

Approximate Treatment Distribution 

Between Potential Vegetation Groups

Alternatives E-Modified and

E-Modified Departure

Cold Upland Forest 5 - 10% < 5%

Moist Upland Forest 10 - 30% 5-20%

Dry Upland Forest 60 - 90% 80-95%

Each alternative was run through the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool model for a least 5 

simulations, each with a length of 80 years. Output data for each alternative was generated and 

analyzed to characterize the average amount of the different changes and management treatments 

that had occurred. Output data was also analyzed to show the distribution of ending state-classes, 

which could then be sorted and summarized into projected vegetation conditions at any future 

time period.

Forest Vegetation – Affected Environment

The Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon range from approximately 1,000 to nearly 10,000 

feet in elevation. Most of the higher elevations have been glaciated in the past. The landscape 

includes mountains with narrow valleys, basins, alpine meadows, and breaklands. Maritime 

climate, westerly winds, and mountainous terrain yield less than 10 inches of precipitation at the 

lowest elevations to more than 80 inches in mountainous areas. The dry upland forest, moist 

upland forest, and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups are currently dominated by 

Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, western larch, subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and 

grand fir forest cover types. Soils in many areas are only moderately productive because of 

shallow depths associated with cold temperatures and low precipitation. The most productive 

soils occur in valleys and basins where soils are often deep and have high water-holding capacity 

due to their increased volcanic ash content. The dominant valley bottom settings include both 

steep, confined valleys with step-pool and rapids dominated streams, and broad, gently sloping 

valleys with meandering streams in well-developed floodplains at lower elevations (Quigley et al. 

1996). Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains 

are comprised of upland forest potential vegetation groups.

Dry upland forests generally occur at low to moderate elevations in the montane vegetation zone. 

Climate varies with elevation, but common features include warm, dry summers, with warm to 

hot daytime temperatures and cool nighttime temperatures, and cold, wet winters. Much of the 

annual precipitation falls as snow in winter or during spring rainstorms. Dry upland forests in the 

Blue Mountains are water-limited, meaning water stress during the warm growing season is the 

primary factor limiting tree growth at low elevations (Brubaker 1980). 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.

History

Historically, the dry upland forest potential vegetation group experienced disturbance regimes 

that included frequent fire. These frequently occurring fires were predominantly low-severity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

106

surface fires occurring at intervals of less than 20 to 25 years (Johnston 2016, Barrett et al. 1997), 

but mixed-severity and some high-severity fire also occurred occasionally (Perry et al. 2011). 

Under a naturally functioning fire regime, the dry upland forest potential vegetation group was 

dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, because these species were best adapted to survive 

and reproduce along with frequent fire. While larger-diameter, old trees typically survived these 

low severity fires, younger, smaller-diameter trees and tree species that were less fire-tolerant 

were often killed. The historical fire regime created and maintained a generally open forest 

structure, with a small-scale mosaic pattern of clumps or patches of trees often dominated by 

large diameter, old ponderosa pines, scattered individual trees, and openings that contained an 

abundance of native grasses and shrubs (Churchill et al. 2013, Larson and Churchill 2012, and 

Franklin et al. 2008). This spatial heterogeneity is a key structural element of a properly 

functioning dry upland forest (Franklin et al. 2008). The frequent fires in the dry upland forest 

potential vegetation group also maintained relatively low fuel loadings.

Moist upland forests occur at moderate elevations in the montane vegetation zone, or at the lower 

end of the subalpine zone. They are adjoined by cold upland forests at their upper edge and by 

dry upland 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. Historically, the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group was generally characterized by moderate or mixed-severity fires occurring every 40 to100 

years (Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2016). In a mixed-severity fire regime, fire alternates 

between stand-replacing crown fires that kill all trees to nonlethal, low-intensity surface fires that 

leave patches of living trees. Historically, the moist upland forest landscape was a mosaic driven 

by variation in climate, soils, topography, and low- to mixed- and occasional high-severity fire. 

Mixed-severity fires create a patchiness of forest structure, composition, and seral status that can 

be observed and quantified at an intermediate scale, with patch sizes ranging from a fraction of an 

acre to tens or hundreds of acres, depending on locale and climatic drivers. In moist upland forest 

types that were naturally dominated by mixed-severity fire regimes, the resulting highly variable 

structures and compositions would tend to render them among the most diverse and complex of 

all forest types (Perry et al. 2011; Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2016).

Cold upland forests occur at moderate or high elevations in the subalpine zone and are 

characterized by cold, wet winters, and mild, relatively cool and dry summers. Deep, persistent 

winter snowpacks are common. Cold upland forests have relatively short growing seasons, low 

air and soil temperatures, and slow nutrient cycling rates. 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 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. Smaller scale disturbances, such 

as windthrow, are common in the cold upland forests, but the fire regime is characterized by highseverity or stand-replacing fire events that occur very infrequently, generally at return intervals of 

150 to 300 years. On drier high-elevation sites, high-severity fires sometimes perpetuate forests 

of lodgepole pine. These stand-replacing fires usually occurred every 100 to 200 years. However, 

when these fires do not occur, these lodgepole stands often succumb to attacks by mountain pine 

beetle or are gradually replaced by more shade-tolerant species, such as fir and spruce.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

107

The dry and moist upland forests are the most common forest zones in the Blue Mountains, and 

they have a long history of human use for commodity purposes (such as livestock grazing and 

timber production). European settlement began broadly impacting the frequent-fire forests in the 

mid-19th century (Hessburg and Agee 2003). Since that time, numerous factors, including fire 

exclusion and suppression, timber harvest, introduction of nonnative plant species, and livestock 

grazing, have altered the natural fire regimes in the Blue Mountains. Intense grazing by millions 

of head of domestic cattle and sheep was an early and pervasive disturbance that eliminated 

ground fuels and grasses that would have normally carried the low and mixed severity surface 

fires that naturally thinned the forest. Suppression of grass and shrub competition also created 

conditions more favorable to tree regeneration (Noss et al. 2006). Extensive logging of the 

accessible portions of the dry and moist forests began with local settlement and utilization of 

timber resources. Initially logging focused on selecting individual trees of the larger merchantable 

species. These practices tended to promote the regeneration of shade tolerant, less fire adapted 

species like grand fir.

Wildfire suppression, which was formally adopted as policy by the Forest Service over 100 years 

ago and became effective in the 1930s, was another major influence. Dry upland forests and areas 

of moist upland forests that historically experienced relatively frequent, low- and mixed-severity 

fires have now missed have been a natural recurrence of several fires due to decades of fire 

exclusion and suppression. Tree regeneration that naturally would have been thinned by fire 

continued to grow into dense stands of fire-vulnerable species, ultimately forming multi-storied, 

closed canopy structures. The historically open stands within the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group, with their mosaic pattern of tree clumps or patches and openings, have now 

filled in with younger trees, resulting in a more uniform stand structure, increased ladder fuels, 

increased stand densities, increased fuel continuity, and decreased variety of spatial patterns. 

Increased stand densities and a reduction in low severity fire events on dry and moist sites has 

also contributed to a shift from shade intolerant/fire tolerant tree species, such as ponderosa pine 

or western larch, to more shade tolerant and fire or disease prone species, such as grand fir.

Because of these altered processes, some of the key changes that have developed, particularly 

within the dry upland forests and moist upland mixed conifer forests, include:

• Creation of a simplified landscape vegetation mosaic 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 a species mix that is well adapted and 

resilient to historical levels of disturbance agents like fire, drought, insects and diseases.

• An increased susceptibility to large and severe fires, insect outbreaks, and widespread 

disease.

A small number of scientists contend these views (such as Williams and Baker 2012), but most 

scientists today agree that these forests neither resemble nor function as they once did. Density 

and fuel loadings within dry and moist conifer forests and landscapes has increased dramatically 

as a result of the human activities outlined above. This has greatly increased their vulnerability to 

wildfire, drought, insect/disease outbreaks and climate changes. The nature of these changes 

along with possible restoration strategies and barriers have been outlined in recent years by 

numerous forest scientists and ecologists including Franklin and Johnson (2012), Stine et al. 

(2014), Franklin et al. (2014), Haugo et al. (2015), Hessburg et al. (2015) and Hessburg et al. 

(2016).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

108

Historical Range of Variability Analysis

A historical range of variability analysis was completed to provide a set of forest vegetation 

reference conditions. These reference conditions provide an ecological basis from which to 

compare existing conditions and the effects of different management options. Current forest 

vegetation conditions can be evaluated against these reference conditions, not only to determine 

degrees of change, but also to design management regimes and treatments that will be able to 

provide human society with valuable resources and services while returning highly departed, atrisk ecosystems to a more natural and sustainable condition (Hessburg et al. 1999; Swetnam et al. 

1999). The departure of current conditions from reference conditions can be used to prioritize and 

select areas for possible restoration treatments or to highlight areas in particular need of 

conservation.

The historical range of variability concept is used to characterize the degree of normal 

fluctuations in ecosystem conditions and processes over a period of time. Ecosystem conditions 

change as the result of disturbance processes. Managers initially used ‘‘target’’ forest vegetation 

conditions developed from historical evidence to craft treatment prescriptions and prioritize areas. 

However, these target conditions tended to be subjective and were considered somewhat arbitrary 

by some because they represented only one possible “snap-shot” condition from a wide range of 

possibilities (Keane et al. 2002). Historical range of variability, on the other hand, is not intended 

to portray a static, unchanging condition. Ecosystems within the Blue Mountains evolved with 

disturbances, including wildfire, insects, diseases, landslides, human uses, changing weather 

patterns, and other factors (Powell 2012). The historical range of variability concept recognizes 

that ecosystem components have a range of conditions within which they are resilient and selfsustaining (Egan and Howell 2001, Holling and Meffe 1996). The historical range of variability is 

meant to characterize a reasonable range of vegetation composition, structure, and density 

conditions that would be produced by these disturbance agents under naturally functioning 

ecosystem processes (Morgan et al. 1994).

A key idea behind the use of historical range of variability is that if landscapes are maintained 

within the historical range then the conditions should be sustainable over time. This is based on 

the premise that since native plant and animal species have evolved with, and are adapted to, the 

historical disturbance regimes and resulting conditions of an area, ecosystem components 

occurring within their historical range should represent sustainable conditions (Aplet and Keeton 

1999, Swanson et al. 1994). A historical range of variability approach should also provide a

means of ensuring that the long-term consequences of management activities are consistent with 

maintaining the conditions under which native species and ecosystem processes evolved (Delong 

and Tanner 1996).

Some believe that conditions based on historical range of variability should not be used as 

reference conditions to guide management activities because climate change projections 

anticipate a warmer and drier climate. For example, old-growth forests that established 300 to 500 

years ago and grew under the cold climates of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1600–1850) may not be 

good examples of forests that will be appropriately adapted to drought anticipated for the 21st 

century. Halofsky and Peterson (2017) suggest that future climates may trigger major changes in 

disturbance processes, plant species dynamics, and hydrological processes.

However, Keane et al. (2009) suggest that using historical range of variability may still be the 

most viable approach for the near-term because it entails the least amount of uncertainty, 

particularly as compared to the uncertainty associated with the magnitude, timing, scale, and 

spatial extent of climate change impacts. Keane et al. (2009) also point out that until technology 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

109

has improved and new models have been thoroughly validated (given the uncertainties in 

predicting climatic and ecological responses to increasing carbon dioxide), using a historical 

range of variability based on the past may provide more certainty than attempting to simulate the 

future. Similarly, Fulé (2008) maintains that the use of historical reference conditions to guide 

management remains valid because forests were historically much more resilient to disturbance 

and drought than they are today. Adapting reference conditions to future climates is valid. If the 

historical ranges are sufficiently broad, adequate “management space” should remain available to 

incorporate many recommended climate adaptation strategies (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Estimates of the historical range of variability for forest structural stages, species composition and 

stand density were developed for this analysis in 2007 through modeling using the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT). Using computer models to quantify the historical range of 

variability is a common method. It involves using computer models to simulate historical 

dynamics to produce a time series of simulated data to compute statistics and metrics. This 

approach relies on the accurate estimation of natural succession and disturbance processes, and it 

is limited by the tool’s inability to incorporate spatial contagion. However, the methods used for 

this analysis were generally consistent with previous historical range of variability 

characterizations completed by scientists in the inland Northwest (Hann et al. 1997; Hemstrom et 

al. 2007).

The models were run on representations of 4.3 million acres of forest land within the Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Initial landscape conditions were developed 

from the existing vegetation layer as previously described. The length of each simulation was 500 

years. The degree of variation in the output generally stabilized after 200 to 400 years. We 

analyzed the output from year 200 to year 500 to develop our historical ranges of variability. 

These results were summarized for 30 different modeling simulations from model year 200 to 

year 500. The mean values for the results over this 300-year time period were calculated. The 

extent of the historical range was calculated as two standard deviations around these means. 

Results were summarized into three potential vegetation groups (cold, moist, and dry upland 

forest).

The reference conditions and historical range of variability generated by the Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool were used as the primary basis for developing the desired conditions for forest 

vegetation structure, density, and species compositions. Broad-scale assessments of the interior 

northwest and Columbia River basin suggest that upland forest ecosystems could be characterized 

as healthy and resilient if these primary ecosystem components were restored to, or maintained in,

conditions similar to the historical range (Quigley et al. 1996; Lehmkuhl et al. 1994; Franklin and

Johnson 2012; Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2015). The underlying assumption is that these 

forest ecosystems will be sustainable and resilient to natural disturbances and climate change if 

they exist in a condition close to that under which they evolved (Morgan et al. 1994).

Forest Vegetation – Existing Condition

Table 267 displays the proportion of each National Forest represented by each of the potential 

vegetation groups. The National Forests within the Blue Mountains consist mostly of upland 

forest potential vegetation groups (approximately 78 to 87 percent), with an additional 13 to 22 

percent comprised of juniper woodlands, shrublands, grasslands and nonvegetation (rock, water). 

The three mid-scale upland forest potential vegetation groups (cold upland forest, moist upland 

forest, and dry upland forest) of the Blue Mountains national forests differ in their distribution 

across the Forests. The Malheur National Forest uplands are dominated by the dry upland forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

110

potential vegetation group, and include only minor amounts of cold and moist forests. The 

Umatilla National Forest uplands are characterized by large amounts of both dry upland and 

moist upland forest. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest upland forests are about one-half dry 

forest and equal minority proportions of both moist and cold upland forest. The WallowaWhitman has more cold upland forests than the other two Blue Mountains national forests. 

Despite these differences between individual forests, the dry upland forest is predominant across 

the region and makes up the bulk of the active management allocations across all three National 

Forests.

Table 267. Percent of each National Forest’s total land area within each potential vegetation group

Potential Vegetation Group Malheur Umatilla Wallowa-Whitman

Cold upland forest 9% 8% 21%

Moist upland forest 6% 31% 21%

Dry upland forest 72% 42% 36%

Cold riparian forest T* T T

Low soil moisture riparian forest T T T

Warm riparian forest T T T

Moist upland woodland (juniper) 3% 1% 1%

Dry upland woodland (juniper) T T 1%

Cold upland shrubland T T 1%

Moist upland shrubland T 2% 1%

Dry upland shrubland 6% 1% 1%

Cold riparian shrubland T T T

Warm riparian shrubland T T T

Low soil moisture riparian shrubland T T T

Cold upland herbland T T 2%

Moist upland herbland T 1% 1%

Dry upland herbland 2% 13% 8%

Cold riparian herbland T T T

Warm riparian herbland T T T

Low soil moisture riparian herbland T T T

Non-vegetation or other T T 4%

Totals

(acres are rounded approximates)

100%

(1,700,000 acres)

100%

(1,400,000 acres)

100%

(1,800,000 acres)

* T indicates trace (less than 1 percent)

Forest Structural Stages

The vertical and horizontal structural arrangement of forest vegetation as well as the size and 

arrangement of grasses and shrubs are all important components related to wildlife habitat, insects 

and diseases, wildfire hazard, scenic integrity and social and economic products, such as timber 

and culturally significant foods. The structural stages chosen for this analysis were stand 

initiation, stem exclusion, understory reinitiation, old forest single-story and old forest multistory. Forest vegetation for the Blue Mountains national forests was classified using these 

structural stages, which are similar to those described in O’Hara et al. (1996), Oliver and Larson 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

111

(1996), and Hessburg et al. (1999). See Figure 5 in the Forest Plans for a graphical depiction of 

the structural stages used in this analysis.

Stand Initiation Stage (SI) – Young stands that develop following a stand-replacing 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 typically either survive the disturbance above ground, initiate regrowth from their 

underground roots, or regenerate 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.

Stem Exclusion Stage (SE) - The stage is usually created when vigorous, fast growing trees that 

compete strongly with one another for available light and moisture fully occupy the growing 

space. Because trees in this stage have grown taller, and the growing space is fully utilized, 

establishment of new trees in the understory is generally precluded by a lack of sunlight and/or 

moisture. Individuals that compete unsuccessfully are stressed and may die. These stands 

typically only have one dominant layer. For analysis purposes, all single-layered stands with 

average overstory tree diameters ranging generally from 5 to 20 inches were classified as stem 

exclusion stage

Understory Reinitiation (UR) – As the forest continues to develop, new age classes of trees 

establish during this stage as the original 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 into distinct vertical layers. Average tree overstory diameters 

range from 5 to 20 inches.

Old Forest Single-story (OFSS) - This structure stage typically results from low-intensity 

surface fire. It can include multiple age classes, but generally only includes one main overstory 

stratum. 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.

Old Forest Multi-story (OFMS) - This structure stage includes multiple age classes and 

vegetation layers, similar to the understory reinitiation stage, but also along with numerous large, 

old trees. Decaying fallen trees may also be present that leave a discontinuous overstory canopy. 

Overstory diameters are generally greater than 20 inches.

For each national forest, Table 268 displays the existing forest structural stages as a percent of 

each upland forest potential vegetation group and compares each to the historical range of 

variability.

The distribution of structural stages among the different potential vegetation groups as depicted 

by the historical range of variability reflects the different natural fire regimes of each group. The 

historical range of variability analysis shows that within the cold upland forest potential 

vegetation group, the largest portions of the landscape tended to be represented by either the stand 

initiation or the old forest structural stages. The moist upland forest potential vegetation group

was usually relatively evenly distributed between each of the forest structural stages, with a 

slightly higher percent of the landscape in the two old forest structural stages. Within the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group, the historical range analysis indicates that the landscape 

was historically dominated by old forest structural stages, particularly in the single-storied stage. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

112

Only a very small percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group would be expected 

to exist in the understory reinitiation structural stage.

Table 268. Existing forest structural stages as a percent of each upland forest potential vegetation 

group by national forest

Upland Forest 

PVG/Structural 

Stage

Historical Range 

of Variability

(Desired 

Conditions)

Malheur Umatilla WallowaWhitman

Cold Upland Forest

Stand Initiation

20% - 45% 24% 30% 14%

Cold Upland Forest

Stem Exclusion

15% - 30% 12% 21% 10%

Cold Upland Forest

Understory 

Reinitiation

10% - 25% 44% 18% 41%

Cold Upland Forest

Old Forest SingleStory

5% - 20% 1% 0% 1%

Cold Upland Forest

Old Forest Multi-Story

10% - 25% 20% 30% 34%

Moist Upland Forest

Stand Initiation

20% - 30% 1% 9% 12%

Moist Upland Forest

Stem Exclusion

20% - 30% 5% 10% 11%

Moist Upland Forest

Understory 

Reinitiation

15% - 25% 41% 26% 50%

Moist Upland Forest

Old Forest SingleStory

10% - 20% 5% 23% 1%

Moist Upland Forest

Old Forest Multi-Story

15% - 20% 47% 32% 25%

Dry Upland Forest

Stand Initiation

15% - 30% 6% 12% 14%

Dry Upland Forest

Stem Exclusion

10% - 20% 18% 26% 16%

Dry Upland Forest

Understory 

Reinitiation

< 5% 54% 50% 54%

Dry Upland Forest

Old Forest SingleStory

40% - 65% 3% 4% 1%

Dry Upland Forest

Old Forest Multi-Story

1% - 15% 20% 8% 14%

Figure 37 displays the amount of departure from the historical range of variability within the cold 

upland forest potential vegetation group by graphically comparing the existing and historical 

forest structural stages within each national forest. In general, existing conditions within the cold 

upland forest potential vegetation group exhibit a lesser amount of departure from the historical 

range of variability, in comparison to the moist and dry upland forest potential vegetation groups. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

113

The historical fire regime in the cold upland forest potential vegetation group was characterized 

by high severity, stand-replacing fire events that occurred every 150 to 300 years or more. With 

such infrequent fire events, fire suppression has had less noticeable effects on the existing forest 

structures of the cold upland forest.

Figure 37. Existing forest structural stages (percent of potential vegetation 

group) and the historical range of variability (desired conditions) by national 

forest within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group

(HRV = historical range of variability; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; 

UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single story; OFMS = old forest 

multi-story)

The Wallowa-Whitman’s cold upland forest is probably the most departed from the historical 

range of variability of the Blue Mountains national forests. None of the Wallowa-Whitman’s cold 

forest structural stages is currently within the historical range. The Wallowa-Whitman has a 

particularly large excess of the understory reinitiation stages. The Malheur’s stand initiation and 

multi-storied old forest stages are within historical range of variability, but the Malheur’s cold 

upland forest is also unmistakably overrepresented in mid-aged understory reinitiation stages. In 

time, some of this understory reinitiation stage would likely develop into more mature old forest.

In some cases, these understory reinitiation stages may develop into old forest, single-storied 

stages, which is currently underrepresented, but with the dominance of shade tolerant species like 

subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce, in many cases the existing understories would tend to persist 

and eventually develop into multi-storied old forests, which are already at or above the historical 

range of variation. The early and mid-aged stages of the Umatilla’s cold forest are all currently 

within historical range of variability. The Umatilla has a modest excess of multi-storied old 

forests in the cold uplands, and a scarcity of single-storied old at the same time. These similar 

patterns, which are noted across the Blue Mountains national forests, may be indicative of the 

combination of past harvesting practices within old forest along with other management practices 

that have disrupted natural disturbance regimes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

114

Figure 38 displays the amount of departure from the historical range of variability within the 

moist upland forest potential vegetation group within each National Forest. The historical fire 

regime in the moist upland forest potential vegetation group was generally characterized by 

moderate or mixed-severity fire events that occurred every 40-100 years. After many decades of 

mostly successful fire suppression and exclusion efforts, in terms of average natural fire return 

intervals, some of these areas may have perhaps missed approximately one to three natural 

wildfire cycles. Therefore, fire suppression has had more noticeable effects on existing forest 

structures compared to the cold upland forest potential vegetation group. Historical timber 

harvesting has also likely played a bigger role within the moist upland forests than within the less 

accessible cold uplands.

Figure 38. Existing forest structural stages (percent of potential vegetation 

group or PVG) and the historical range of variability (desired conditions) by 

national forest within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group

(HRV = historical range of variability; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; 

UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single story; OFMS = old forest 

multi-story)

In general, existing conditions within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group exhibit a 

greater amount of departure from the historical range when compared to the cold upland forest 

potential vegetation group (Figure 37). The general areas of similarity between the three National 

Forests in terms of departure from historical range of variability are a lack of both young stand 

initiation stages and mid-aged stem exclusion stages. As with the cold upland forests, the 

Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests both have pronounced excesses in the 

understory reinitiation stages and scarceness of old single-storied structures. Multi-storied stages 

of old moist upland forest are overrepresented on all three national forest landscapes, but the 

Umatilla’s old multi-storied moist upland forest is noticeably closer to being within the historical 

range of variability than the other two National Forests. The Umatilla is unique in that its mid-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

115

aged understory reinitiation stages are basically at the high end of being within the historical 

range, while the single-storied stages of old forest are actually slightly overrepresented.

Figure 39 displays the amount of departure from the historical range of variability within the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group by comparing the existing and historical forest structural 

stages within each National Forest. The historical fire regime in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group was generally characterized by low- severity surface fires occurring at intervals 

of less than 20 to 25 years, with only occasional occurrences of mixed or high-severity wildfire. 

After decades of fire suppression and exclusion, in terms of average natural fire return intervals, 

the dry upland forest potential vegetation group has certainly missed multiple natural wildfire 

cycles over the last century.

Figure 39. Existing forest structural stages (percent of potential vegetation 

group or PVG) and the historical range of variability (desired conditions) by 

national forest within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group

(HRV = historical range of variability; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; 

UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single story; OFMS = old forest 

multi-story)

These fire management policies, combined with historical timber harvesting practices have had 

substantial effects on existing forest structures and contributed to more highly departed 

landscapes. From its beginning, forest management of the National Forests emphasized what 

were perceived as efficient and productive forests capable of meeting the nation’s demands into 

the future. The emerging discipline of American forestry in the early 20th century held that 

inferior diseased and decadent trees needed to be removed and replaced with young, healthy, 

rapidly growing trees. Generally, this meant replacing many stands of the dry upland forest that 

were characterized by slower growing, old trees, with young, faster growing stands. As harvest of 

the largest, old trees, within the dry upland forest continued over decades, areas of old forest and 

their associated large, old trees declined dramatically throughout the Blue Mountains national 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

116

forests. The extent of the dry upland forest existing today in the old forest single-story structural 

stage ranges only from 1 to 4 percent versus a natural historical condition that is estimated to 

have been between 40 to 65 percent.

In general, as compared to the other forest potential vegetation groups, existing conditions within 

the dry upland forest potential vegetation group tend to exhibit the greatest amount of departure 

from the historical range of variation. Within the dry upland forest landscape, all three National 

Forests are currently characterized by a vast disparity between the mid-aged understory 

reinitiation stages and the single-storied stages of old forest. The understory reinitiation stages are 

grossly overrepresented in terms of historical range of variability, while at the same time, singlestoried old forests are now very uncommon. This pattern is a complete reversal of the structure 

stage distribution that would be expected to develop under a natural disturbance and stand 

development regime. The old forest was reduced primarily by historical harvesting practices as 

described above. The observed excess of mid-aged understory reinitiation stages within the dry 

upland forest landscape fits with what would be expected to result from successful past 

suppression of what would have developed into low and moderate severity wildfires. The absence 

of these fires has allowed uncharacteristic development of understory layers within areas that 

were historically maintained in more single-storied structures by relatively frequent surface 

wildfires.

In time, some of what are now mid-aged understory reinitiation stages will likely develop into 

additional mature old forest. However, without either low- to moderate-severity surface fire or 

active management treatments to control the understory density, these understory reinitiation

stands are unlikely to develop into the severely lacking single-storied stages of old forest. Without 

some force acting upon the understory layers, the most probable transition paths for the current 

mid-aged understory reinitiation stands into the future would be either gradual aging and 

development into the already adequately represented multi-storied old forest stages, or abrupt 

change to stand initiation stages via severe disturbance. With a large proportion of these 

understory reinitiation stands lacking their historical representation of fire resistant species and 

older individual trees, the present structure distribution of large areas of the dry upland forest now 

supports an unusually severe wildfire regime. A high-severity fire regime within the current dry 

upland forest is more likely to “reset” large areas into the stand initiation stage, or convert stands 

to shrublands and grasslands, than it is to allow future development into more mature, fireresistant, old single-storied forest structures.

Forest Species Composition

The tree species composition within different potential vegetation groups can significantly 

influence the wildfire, and insect and disease hazards in an area. The shade tolerance of tree 

species is a measure of a species ability to grow successfully and regenerate under shaded 

conditions. Common tree species of the Blue Mountains that are more intolerant of 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 inland 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 ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir also possess greater tolerance to drought conditions. Conversely, shade-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

117

tolerant species like grand fir or subalpine fir are poorly adapted to resist wildfire damage, and 

their branching habits facilitate torching and crowning fire behaviors. These species of fir trees 

are also generally associated with a high susceptibility to attack from defoliating insects, root 

diseases, fir engraver beetles, stem decay, and other insects and diseases. Stress from 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

(Hessburg et al. 1999; Stine et al. 2014).

The existing species composition for forest vegetation was characterized using the current 

vegetation survey data and by examining the Forest Service existing vegetation polygon data. The 

species cover type was determined by the dominant tree species based on basal area. The major 

forest cover types of each upland forest potential vegetation group were summarized into either 

the shade tolerant, intermediate tolerant or shade intolerant groups as shown in the table below.

Table 269. Crosswalk of cover type to species composition group

Potential Vegetation Group Cover Type

Species Composition 

Group

Cold Upland Forest Engelmann spruce Shade tolerant

Cold Upland Forest Subalpine fir Shade tolerant

Cold Upland Forest Douglas-fir/Grand fir Intermediate tolerance

Cold Upland Forest Whitebark pine Shade intolerant

Cold Upland Forest Lodgepole pine Shade intolerant

Cold Upland Forest Western larch Shade intolerant

Cold Upland Forest Western white pine Shade intolerant

Moist Upland Forest Grand fir Shade tolerant

Moist Upland Forest Engelmann spruce Shade tolerant

Moist Upland Forest Subalpine fir Shade tolerant

Moist Upland Forest Douglas-fir Intermediate tolerance

Moist Upland Forest Western larch Shade intolerant

Moist Upland Forest Ponderosa pine Shade intolerant

Moist Upland Forest Lodgepole pine Shade intolerant

Moist Upland Forest Western white pine Shade intolerant

Dry Upland Forest Grand fir/Douglas-fir Shade tolerant

Dry Upland Forest Ponderosa pine Shade intolerant

Dry Upland Forest Western larch Shade intolerant

Table 270 displays the existing species composition as a percent of each upland forest potential 

vegetation group, and compares those conditions to the historical range of variability for species 

composition groups. A comparison of these two tables shows significant changes have occurred in 

species composition over time. The exclusion of wildfire and past timber harvesting and grazing 

practices have all 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; Hessburg et al. 

2015).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

118

The greatest areas of departure from the historical range of variability in terms of species 

composition are within the dry and moist upland forests. With the exception of the Malheur’s dry 

upland forest, the shade tolerant species groups are now greatly overrepresented. Many landscape 

and stand-level species compositions have been modified by past harvests which removed large 

ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir and western white pine, while creating conditions 

favorable for regeneration of fire-sensitive shade tolerant species. White pine has also been 

negatively impacted by white pine blister rust. There have been significant increases in the 

distribution of grand fir noted across the region. 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 compositions altered in this 

way can also result in increased moisture stress, increased susceptibility to insects and diseases, 

and decreased forest health (Hessburg et al. 1999; Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2016).

Table 270. Existing species composition as a percent of each upland forest potential vegetation 

group by national forest compared to historical range of variability

Upland Forest PVG/Species 

Composition Group

Historical Range of 

Variability

(Desired Conditions)

Malheur Umatilla WallowaWhitman

Cold Upland Forest Shade Intolerant 40% - 60% 63% 70% 38%

Cold Upland Forest Intermediate 

Tolerance

5% - 20% 31% 10% 24%

Cold Upland Forest Shade Tolerant 25% - 50% 7% 20% 38%

Moist Upland Forest Shade Intolerant 30% - 60% 21% 15% 27%

Moist Upland Forest Intermediate 

Tolerance

20% - 40% 6% 21% 27%

Moist Upland Forest Shade Tolerant 10% - 30% 73% 65% 46%

Dry Upland Forest Shade Intolerant 75% - 90% 76% 45% 45%

Dry Upland Forest Shade Tolerant 5% - 20% 24% 55% 55%

Many scientists have recognized that reversing these trends and converting back to a species like 

ponderosa pine may require significant effort (Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2015; Hessburg et 

al. 2016). For example, Douglas-fir and grand fir regeneration has now become so

uncharacteristically widespread within some areas, that continued seed rain and resulting 

regeneration from these species may make it difficult for ponderosa pine to reestablish as a 

dominant species even after fires.

Aspen

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 uncommon and considered a unique habitat type in the Blue 

Mountains. Wildfires or other disturbances normally revitalized aspen clones, with some patches 

sprouting 24,000 to 49,000 stems per acre while regenerating after fires. Intense within-stand 

competition combined with 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

119

develop decay (which facilitates cavity excavation), make it valuable habitat for wildlife such as 

deer, elk, woodpeckers, beaver, songbirds, and small mammals. In the Blue Mountains, aspen 

tends to 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 widely appreciated for their scenic value, especially their golden colors in 

the fall (Swanson et al. 2010).

Aspen populations within the Blue Mountains generally now exist as small, scattered, remnant 

stands of rapidly declining trees. According to Swanson et al. (2010), detailed inventories 

performed in some ranger districts have located hundreds of aspen stands broadly distributed 

within the Blue Mountains. Although these aspen stands are numerous, they are invariably small. 

An inventory of approximately 25 percent of the Malheur National Forest has revealed 1,327 

stands, with a median stand area of less than 1 acre. Only 5 percent of the stands are greater than 

10 acres. Within the Umatilla National Forest, an inventory of 514 stands also shows a median 

area of less than 1 acre and only 1 percent of the stands larger than 10 acres. The total basal area 

of aspen is also quite low (Swanson et al. 2010).

Within the Blue Mountains, aspen stands have declined over the past century due to fire 

suppression and browsing pressure from large ungulates (Shirley and Erickson 2001). Although 

succession is a natural event, the alteration of fire regimes and a lack of successful aspen 

recruitment have promoted a more consistent landscape level succession to conifers or 

grass/shrubland. In most aspen stands, regeneration has been suppressed to some degree by both 

fire suppression and browsing. Small clonal aspen patches, often imbedded within mixed-conifer 

forests, have been heavily affected, in part, because of their relatively short natural life 

expectancy (stands often 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 Hondkala 

1990). Assuming the same holds true for aspen in the Blue Mountains, then most of the aspen 

trees may presently be approaching the end of their natural life cycles.

A decline in the area occupied by aspen can be inferred from observations of dead aspen 

representing former groves with no survivors. The predominance of clones where many 

individuals are decadent or dead, and the rarity of unbrowsed aspen suckers or young age cohorts 

also points toward a general decline (Swanson et al. 2010). Although little is known about the 

historic distribution of aspen in Oregon, it is believed that stands were once larger and more 

widely distributed (Shirley and Erickson 2001). However, historical photography (Skovlin and 

Thomas 1992) and early accounts (Bright 1994) indicate that aspen forests were never as 

widespread in the Blue Mountains as in other parts of the mountain west.

Based on a historical range of variability analysis, Swanson et al. (2010) recommended 

maintaining aspen stands within age and structural class distributions similar to those shown in 

the table below. They also note that since aspen occupied areas are largely considered deficit in 

this area, restoration treatments would ideally include expansion of the aspen areas in addition to 

manipulation of age and structural classes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

120

Table 271. Recommended aspen age and structural distributions from Swanson and others (2010)

Age (Years) Structural Class

Proportion of Aspen 

Forest Area

0-40 Stand Initiation 45 – 50%

40-80 Stem Exclusion, Understory Reinitiation 45 – 50%

80+ Old Forest Multi-story, Old Forest Single Story 5 – 10%

Whitebark Pine

Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), an important component of western high-elevation forests, has 

been declining in both the United States and Canada from the combined effects of the exotic 

disease white pine blister rust (caused by the fungal pathogen Cronartium ribicola), mountain 

pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) outbreaks, altered disturbance regimes in stands where 

whitebark pine is a seral species, and climate change. These combined threats led to the 

determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on July 18, 2011, that the species warrants 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service also 

determined 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. As a result of these circumstances, whitebark pine is considered a 

sensitive species in the Northwest Region of the Forest Service.

Whitebark pine seedlings survive on harsh, arid sites and may act as nurse trees to less hardy 

conifers and vegetation. At high elevations, it helps regulate snow melt and reduce soil erosion. 

For these collective functions, whitebark pine is considered both a keystone species for promoting 

community diversity and a foundation species for promoting community stability (Tomback et al. 

2001; Schwandt 2006; Keane et al. 2012). As an important ecosystem component that influences 

the success of other organisms, it plays a vital role in colonizing areas disturbed by fire or 

landslides, stabilizing the soil, moderating snow melt, and providing the cover that allows 

regeneration of other tree species. Seed dissemination by whitebark pine is unique among 

American pines. The large, wingless seeds of the species are rarely if ever effectively spread by 

wind or gravity. Instead, whitebark pine seeds are mostly released from cones and disseminated 

by a bird species, the Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana). Many other wildlife species of 

high-elevation ecosystems depend to varying degrees on whitebark pine seeds as food resources. 

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 (Mattson, 

et al. 2001).

Whitebark pine has a limited distribution within the Blue Mountains and is strongly associated 

with higher elevation areas within the cold forest potential vegetation group and within 

wilderness areas. Based on Forest Service vegetation databases, the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest contains the largest acreage of whitebark pine, with the Umatilla and Malheur National 

Forests containing smaller extents. Whitebark pine was found on approximately 140 of the 

10,000 current vegetation survey plots. Locations of whitebark pine include the Eagle Cap 

Wilderness, the Elkhorn Mountains, areas near the Strawberry Wilderness, and Hells Canyon 

(Seven Devils Mountains).

The four major threats to whitebark pine populations within the Blue Mountains are white pine 

blister rust, mountain pine beetle, fire, and climate change (Aubry et al. 2008). Monitoring 

transects within the Blue Mountains analysis area indicate white pine blister rust infection within 

the majority of checked sites, with higher levels of infection in the Elkhorn Mountains, compared 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

121

to the Wallowa Mountains. Increased levels of whitebark pine mortality may alter high-elevation 

community composition and ecosystem processes similarly to what has been seen in other areas 

of the western United States (Keane et al. 2012).

Forest Stand Density

Stand density refers to 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 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/disease disturbance. For example, very high stand density tends to spread the 

limited available growing space and resources among many individual trees. The result is that 

some 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. As stands of a given tree size reach 

certain thresholds of overall density, they essentially enter a zone of imminent competitionrelated mortality (Drew and Flewelling 1977, 1979). However, some wildlife species depend on 

the relative security of either dense stems and foliage or interlocking overstory canopies to rear 

young and/or to escape predators. Stand density relationships to potential fire behavior can be 

complex, but higher density forest stands typically correlate with greater potential for severe fire 

behavior because they provide more fuels, which are arranged in a more continuous manner.

Stand density can be described or quantified in many ways, but strictly speaking, it is an absolute 

measure of tree occupancy per unit area, like trees per acre or basal area per acre. Relative density 

is another concept that is important to forest managers, as it is used to gauge the degree of intertree competition relative to some implied biological limit or “carrying capacity” (Kimmins 2004). 

The broad-scale analysis and modeling done in support of this forest plan revision used canopy 

cover as a surrogate 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 generally 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, closed 

canopy/high stand density stands were defined as those having 40 percent canopy cover or 

greater. Within the moist and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups, closed canopy/high 

stand density was defined as those stands having 60 percent canopy cover or greater. Stands with 

canopy covers less than these thresholds were categorized as being “open” or having low density.

Table 272 compares the existing forest stand density as a percent of each upland forest potential 

vegetation group to the stand density distribution within the historical range of variability. 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. The result was that these 

fires, which burned mostly on the surface, maintained relatively low tree density stand conditions 

throughout most of the dry upland forest (Hessburg et al. 2005). The estimate of the historical 

range of variability is that 80 to 90 percent of the dry upland forest would be expected to exist in 

open, low-density conditions if natural disturbance regimes and ecological processes were

functioning. On the other hand, the moist and cold upland landscapes likely consisted of a high 

proportion of high-density stands, but a portion of those potential vegetation groups would also 

have likely existed in a low-density condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

122

Table 272. Existing stand density as a percent of each upland forest potential vegetation group 

compared to the historical range of variability

Upland Forest Potential 

Vegetation Group and Stand 

Density

Historical Range of 

Variability

(Desired Conditions)

Malheur Umatilla WallowaWhitman

Cold** Upland Forest Low Density 20% - 30% 88% 44% 62%

Cold** Upland Forest High Density 65% - 80% 12% 56% 38%

Moist** Upland Forest Low Density 30% - 40% 58% 55% 41%

Moist** Upland Forest High Density 60% - 80% 42% 45% 59%

Dry* Upland Forest Low Density 80% - 90% 60% 30% 32%

Dry* Upland Forest High Density 5% - 20% 40% 70% 67%

* Dry upland forest high density is approximately 40 percent canopy cover or greater.

** Cold and moist upland forest high density is approximately 60 percent canopy cover or greater.

Decades of wildfire suppression and exclusion, domestic livestock grazing, and timber harvesting 

have interacted to alter the structure, composition, and disturbance regimes of the Forests. In 

particular, the dry upland forest has become much denser. The vast majority of the Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman’s dry upland forest is uncharacteristically dense. The Malheur National Forest 

is in better condition in relation to the historical range of variability, but still has a significant 

surplus of dense dry forest stands. These results are consistent with results of a regional study 

compiled by Stine et al. (2014). That report indicated that current trees per acre density of the dry 

forest in northeast Oregon is on average roughly 2.5 times as high as they were historically. The 

same study showed that within the moist mixed-conifer forest trees per acre are about two times 

as high.

The current excess of over-stocked dry upland forest stands, combined with the imbalances in 

structural stages and species compositions already discussed, means the existing dry upland 

forests no longer appear or function as they once did. Large landscapes of dry forest are now 

more uniform in terms of their species composition and densities, and they are dominated by 

atypical dense, multi-layered structures. Stand density, structure, and species composition are all 

important factors related to potential fire behavior (Agee & Skinner 2005). With a large 

proportion of the dry upland forest currently altered in density and structure, and also lacking 

their historical representation of fire resistant species and older individual trees, the present 

condition of large areas of the dry upland forest now supports unusually severe wildfire behavior. 

A high-severity fire regime within the current dry upland forest is more likely to “reset” large 

areas into the stand initiation stage, or convert stands to shrublands and grasslands, than it is to 

allow future development into the desired mature, fire resistant old single-storied forest 

structures.

Climate Change Context

Climate change is expected to profoundly alter vegetation structure and composition, terrestrial 

ecosystem processes, and the delivery of important ecosystem services over the next century. 

Historically, the climate of the Blue Mountains region has fluctuated between cool and warm 

periods. Climate is affected by multiple factors, including sea surface temperatures tracked by 

indices such as the Pacific decadal oscillation, El Niño southern oscillation, and the Atlantic 

multi-decadal oscillation. Considerable natural variation in climate occurred historically and will 

continue. Different climate models project differing rates of change in temperature and 

precipitation because they operate at different scales, have different climate sensitivities, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

123

incorporate feedbacks differently. However, climate models are in agreement in projecting 

increasing average annual temperatures over the coming decades. Continued and/or increasing 

drought will also likely further affect the carrying capacity of forested sites, resulting in altered 

composition, structure, or even lifeforms (grass/shrub versus forest vegetation) especially on low 

elevation sites (Vose et al. 2016).

Since 1750, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from 280 to over 390 parts 

per million (ppm) and are expected to continue rising, reaching 450 to 875 ppm by 2100. Global 

mean temperatures have increased by about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century and 

could increase by another 3.6 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 as a result of increasing 

atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Globally, mean annual 

precipitation is expected to increase somewhat, but there is great uncertainty about precipitation 

changes for any particular region, including the Pacific Northwest. Temperature and precipitation 

changes are expected to alter soil water availability by altering amounts and timing of 

precipitation, snowpack dynamics, and evapotranspiration rates (Peterson et al. 2014).

Climatic variability and change can affect plant physiological processes, including altering 

growth and reproductive phenology, rates of photosynthesis and respiration, root and shoot 

growth, and seed production. Elevated carbon dioxide can influence many of these same 

processes, either enhancing or offsetting climatic influences (Peterson et al. 2014). Climate 

influences the spatial distribution of major vegetation types, as well as the abundance of species 

and communities and the geographic ranges of individual species. Climate influences the rates at 

which terrestrial ecosystems process water, carbon, and nutrients and deliver ecosystem services 

like fresh water, food, and forest products. Climate also influences the disturbance processes that 

shape forest vegetation structure and composition, and altered disturbance regimes will likely be a 

very important catalyst for vegetation change in the future (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

At broad scales, forests of western North America can generally be sorted into either “energylimited” or “water-limited” systems. In water-limited forests, the primary factor limiting tree 

growth and productivity is competition for water. In energy-limited forests, water is sufficiently 

available, so the main factors limiting growth and productivity of individual trees are a 

combination of sunlight and temperature. Tree growth in energy-limited forests appears to be 

responding positively to warming temperatures over the past 100 years (McKenzie et al. 2001). 

Tree growth in energy-limited portions of the landscape (high elevations, north aspects) may 

increase as the climate warms and snowpack decreases, whereas tree growth in water-limited 

portions of the landscape (low elevations, south aspects) will probably decrease.

Some species may respond positively to higher concentrations of ambient carbon dioxide as a 

result of increased water-use efficiency, although this “fertilization” effect may diminish as other 

factors become limiting (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Considerable uncertainty exists about how 

climate change will affect species distribution, forest productivity, and ecological disturbance in 

the Blue Mountains. Because the future climate may differ considerably from what has been 

observed in the past, it is difficult to project vegetative response accurately for specific locations 

and time periods.

Cold Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group Projected Changes

The cold upland forest potential vegetation group is a high-elevation energy-limited forest 

ecosystem. Productivity is projected to increase in subalpine and alpine zones across the Pacific 

Northwest in response to moderate warming and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (Halofsky 

and Peterson 2017). Longer growing seasons and warmer summer temperatures associated with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

124

projected future warming may promote increased tree growth within the treeline areas. Others, 

(Zald et al. 2012) point out that the importance of snow, the mediation of snow by interacting and 

context dependent factors in complex mountain terrain, and the uncertainty of climate change 

impacts on snow, make it difficult to understand how these areas may respond to future climate 

conditions.

Species distribution modelling completed for Halofsky and Peterson (2017) project that suitable 

climate available for most cold upland tree species will be either moderately reduced or 

nonexistent in the Blue Mountains by the end of the 21st century. Based on this model output, 

cold upland forests may be vulnerable to climate change, and high-elevation mountains (like the 

Wallowa Mountains and Seven Devils) may serve as refugia for subalpine species. Devine et al. 

(2012) considered subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and western white to be highly susceptible to 

climate change, although lodgepole pine has a lower susceptibility score. Although western white 

pine also has a high susceptibility score (Devine et al. 2012), its generalist life history (Rehfeldt et 

al. 1984) may confer phenotypic plasticity, allowing it to better adjust to changing environmental 

conditions. Although results from experimental and observational studies are not entirely clear, 

multiple lines of evidence suggest climate change is likely to produce significant changes in the 

cold upland forests over time, including altered growth and altered tree life cycle events. Cold 

upland forests may be converted to high-elevation herbaceous parklands or woodlands with 

ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir under warmer and drier scenarios. Remnant populations may 

persist in the highest of elevations within the Blue Mountains (such as the Wallowa Mountains). 

Increased wildfire may constrain tree reestablishment in these slow-growing systems, particularly 

for sites without serotinous lodgepole pine as a common, pre-fire component. Increased insect 

and disease activity with climate change may also increase stress and mortality in these cold 

upland forests (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Moist Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group Projected Changes

Many (but not all) productive moist upland forests at higher elevation are more energy limited 

than water limited. Moderate warming along with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may lead 

to a positive response and increased productivity within some of these moist upland forests.

However, in the Blue Mountains, lower elevation moist upland forests may transition to being 

primarily water-limited, particularly areas without much ash or loess, which would enhance water 

holding capacity. More extreme warming and increased drought stress, particularly at lower 

elevations and in the southern portion of the Blue Mountains (Malheur National Forest) will 

likely cause decreased tree growth and forest productivity in these areas of the moist upland 

forest. However, suitable climate habitat currently occupied by cold upland forests may offset 

these losses (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Paleoecological and some model evidence suggest that climate change will cause moderate to 

extreme loss of moist upland forests and characteristic species throughout the Blue Mountains 

national forests. However, some model results do suggest the opposite. Future warming with 

increased precipitation may lead to increased importance of this potential vegetation group across 

the landscape. This outcome is somewhat supported by recent trends in response to warming in 

energy limited forests. Unlike cold upland forests, these forests may be able to adapt to future 

climate change by expanding into new available habitats. Warm and very warm moist forest plant 

associations may be able to better adapt to warming compared to cooler plant associations within 

the moist upland forest potential vegetation group. However, increased summer drought stress 

may make these forests more vulnerable to other stressors, particularly at lower elevations and on 

southern sites in the Blue Mountains. Wildfire activity and insect and disease outbreaks will most 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

125

likely increase with future warming, and may reduce the distribution of this potential vegetation 

group (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Dry Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group Projected Changes

Dry upland forests in the Blue Mountains are water-limited, and productivity is projected to 

decline in a warmer climate (Latta et al. 2010). Water stress during the warm season is the 

primary factor limiting tree growth at low elevations common in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group, and negative water balances constrain photosynthesis, although this may be 

partially offset if carbon dioxide fertilization significantly increases water-use efficiency in trees. 

Generally, increased drought stress will likely result in decreased tree growth and forest 

productivity in the dry upland forests of the Blue Mountains. Areas with increased tree density 

due to recent fire exclusion may be particularly vulnerable to future climate change because of 

increased drought stress, although suitable climate habitat currently occupied by moist upland 

forest may offset these potential losses (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Some areas of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group may undergo undesirable changes 

in the face of future climate change. These forests have already experienced a long history of 

human land use. Many dry upland forests are already experiencing severe and uncharacteristic 

wildfire, and equally atypical insect and disease outbreaks, which will most likely increase in the 

future. It is likely that the hottest and driest sites will shift to woodland or steppe vegetation. 

Species characteristic of hot dry plant associations may be better adapted to future conditions and 

these species may become more common. Some model output suggests that Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine may decrease in the future, although paleoecological evidence conflicts somewhat 

with this conclusion, suggesting that ponderosa pine was able to adapt to warmer climate by 

migrating north or up in elevation. However, the extent to which these species can adapt under 

current and future stressors is unclear. The overall vulnerability assessment score for ponderosa 

pine is quite low, whereas Douglas-fir has a somewhat higher score. Given the strong 

paleoecological evidence regarding the persistence of ponderosa pine, coupled with its potential 

low vulnerability and availability of habitat currently occupied by moist forests, it is likely that 

this forest type will persist and remain an important component of the landscape, although shifts 

in the distribution of dry upland forests and changes in relative abundance of different plant 

associations might be expected (or the formation of novel plant associations) (Halofsky and

Peterson 2017).

Forest Vegetation – Environmental Consequences

Key Indicators of the Alternatives’ Effects to Forest Vegetation:

Indicator: Percent of upland forest potential vegetation groups in each forest structural stage at 

year 20 and year 50.

Indicator: Percent of upland forest potential vegetation groups in each species composition 

group at year 20 and year 50.

Indicator: Percent of upland forest potential vegetation groups in low or high density conditions 

at year 20 and year 50.

Effects from Each Alternative

Forest structural stages, species composition and stand density can all be changed through a 

variety of mechanisms, such as natural disturbances (like insects, disease, fire, or storms) growth 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

126

and succession and management activities (such as timber harvest or fire suppression). The 

following section describes the expected changes in forest vegetation based on both natural and 

human actions for each of the alternatives. The landscape composition of these various forest 

characteristics can have an effect on ecological resiliency. For example, a landscape that contains 

a diversity of structural stages would be more sustainable and able to perpetuate itself through 

time because, as older age classes succumb to mortality, younger age classes would be available 

to replace them. A landscape that consists of a diversity of diameter classes would also be at 

decreased risk of attack from bark beetles that favor certain diameter classes. The alternatives that 

result in the closest achievement of the desired conditions for forest structural stages, species 

composition and stand density would likely result in forest conditions that are more ecologically 

resilient. By maintaining and/or restoring forest conditions similar to that which occurred and 

evolved prior to interruption of the historical fire regime (the historical range of variability), 

ecosystems would be better able to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure 

and ways of functioning, and they would have a greater capacity to adapt to stress and change in 

the future.

In order to compare the effectiveness of each of the alternatives in achieving the desired 

conditions for forest structural stages, species composition and stand density, the amount of 

variation (either above or below) from the desired condition ranges was determined for each of 

the individual stages or classes. The amount of variation for each of the structural stages or 

classes was then added together to obtain a summed total amount of variation for each alternative. 

All variation values were treated as positive numbers, regardless of whether the stage or class fell 

above or below the desired condition range. If a value fell within the desired condition range, then 

there was no variation and a value of zero was assigned. For those stages or classes that are 

outside of the desired condition ranges, the amount of variation for each was added together to 

obtain a summed total for each alternative. This same method was used to compare the 

effectiveness of each of the alternatives in achieving the desired conditions for structural stages, 

stand density and species composition.

Using the structural stages of the Malheur’s cold upland forest potential vegetation group as an 

example, Alternative A would result in 33 percent of the potential vegetation group in the stand 

initiation stage, 14 percent in the stem exclusion stage, 30 percent in the understory reinitiation 

stage, 6 percent in the old forest single-story stage, and 17 percent in the old forest multi-story 

stage at year 50 (see Table 273). The desired condition ranges for each structural stage are also 

displayed in the table. Under Alternative A, the percent of the Malheur’s cold upland forest in the

stand initiation stage (33 percent) would be within the desired condition range at year 50, so the 

variation is zero. The percent of the potential vegetation group in the stem exclusion stage (14 

percent) would vary from the desired condition range (15 to 30 percent) by 1 percentage point at 

year 50. The percent in the understory reinitiation stage (30 percent) would vary from the desired 

condition range (10 to 25 percent) by 5 percentage points at year 50. The percent in the old forest 

single-story stage and old forest multi-story stages would both be within their desired condition 

ranges at year 50, so the variation for those stages is zero. So in this example, under Alternative 

A, the projected percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group in each of the forest

structural stages would vary from the desired condition ranges by a summed total of 

approximately 6 percentage points (1 + 5) at year 50.

Summary of Direct Effects

The detailed analysis following this summary section provides a comprehensive look at all the 

individual forest vegetation indicators, and a description of how each alternative is expected to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

127

change the forest vegetation in terms of the desired conditions. All three of the major forest 

potential vegetation groups are analyzed and discussed below, but this effects summary focuses 

mainly on changes to three key areas of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group in 

particular. The dry upland forest is the dominant and most widely distributed forest vegetation 

group among the National Forests, and it is also the most highly departed from the desired 

conditions. It also plays a major role in terms of the key issues of Ecological Resilience and Old 

Forests (related discussion can be found within those sections of Chapter 3).

After comparing existing conditions to the desired conditions, it is apparent that two of the most 

significant concerns in regards to the dry upland forest vegetation are related to the distribution 

structural stages. Currently, there is a vast surplus of understory reinitiation stages as compared to 

the desired conditions, and also a very large deficit of old forest single story stages. Stand density 

is the third major issue, with a substantial excess of high-density stand conditions and a 

corresponding lack of low-density, open forest conditions found across the dry uplands of the 

Blue Mountains national forests. This summary will focus on how quickly the alternatives could 

move these current conditions toward the desired conditions, and how well they would be able to 

keep them there.

The detailed data presented in the following sections show that even if fully implemented, none 

of the alternatives would be able to completely correct all imbalances and restore the forest 

potential vegetation groups to the desired conditions within the next planning period, or even 

within the mid-term period of 50 years. Time itself is a key component of the overall restoration 

solution, particularly in regards to correcting the current scarcity of desired resilient old forest 

structural stages within the dry upland forest. However, well designed management strategies can 

do a lot in the near term to address immediate issues, move toward the historical range of 

variation, and reduce current risk levels. Thinning activities within the dense portions of the dry 

upland forests understory reinitiation stages within the short and mid-term timeframe should 

promote a general stabilizing effect across the dry upland landscapes, which will allow continued 

beneficial development into older structural stages to occur over time. Compared to the other 

alternatives, the data tables in the following section show that Alternatives D, E-Modified, and EModified Departure make the most progress reducing the surpluses of understory reinitiation and 

dense forest, while simultaneously increasing the proportions of old forest single-storied stages.

Alternative E-Modified Departure would represent the most rapid change in terms of reducing the 

surplus of understory reinitiation stages and overly dense dry upland forests over the a 20-year 

time frame, with accelerated levels of harvesting focused on the dry upland forest. However, in 

subsequent decades, the amount of restoration related harvesting work under E-Modified 

Departure would decline markedly as the timber harvest schedule returns to a level that can 

produce non-declining volume flows over the long-term (see Timber and Forest Products 

section). This inevitable decline in treatment levels associated with Alternative E-Modified 

Departure is likely part of the reason that when looking at the same metrics at the 50-year time 

frame, the alternative does not perform significantly better than Alternatives D or E-Modified. In 

terms of restoring the single-storied old forest of the dry upland forests, Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure are the best options among all of the alternatives, and their rates of 

progress would be virtually identical at the 50-year time frame.

Although Alternatives D is among the top three performing alternatives in terms of moving 

toward these desired conditions quickly, its lack of flexibility in regards to using wildland fire as 

a management tool may hinder its ability to maintain the desired conditions of the dry upland 

forest over time. Historically wildland fire played a particularly critical role within the forests of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

128

the Blue Mountains in terms of maintaining forest vegetation within the historical range of 

variation. As dense understory reinitiation stages of the dry upland forest are moved into lower 

density forms of the stem exclusion stage by means such as harvesting, wildland fire would be a 

useful tool in terms of maintaining those conditions and thus allowing those stands to develop 

into need old forest single-storied stages. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure both 

would not only focus mechanical treatments on the forest conditions with the most critical needs, 

but they would also include a much broader flexibility to use both planned ignitions and managed 

wildfire to aid in the maintenance of desired structures and restoration of key ecosystem 

processes. These tools would be a great aid in maintaining and enhancing the desired attributes of 

these fire adapted forests over time. Therefore, as compared to Alternative D, either Alternative 

E-Modified or E-Modified Departure may result in greater realization of the desired conditions 

throughout the dry upland forest.

Table 273. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Malheur National Forest

Alternative

Time 

Period

Cold/SI

DC =

20% – 45%

Cold/SE

DC =

15% - 30%

Cold/UR

DC =

10% - 25%

Cold/OFSS

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/OFMS

DC =

10% - 25%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

24% (0) 12% (3) 44% (19) 1% (4) 20% (0) (26)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 26% (0) 16% (0) 31% (6) 3% (2) 24 (0) (8)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 30% (0) 16 (0) 29% (4) 6% (0) 19% (0) (4)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 26% (0) 16% (0) 31% (6) 3% (2) 24 (0) (8)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 30% (0) 16 (0) 29% (4) 6% (0) 19% (0) (4)

Alt. F Year 20 25% (0) 18% (0) 28% (3) 4% (1) 24% (0) (4)

Alt F. Year 50 42% (0) 13% (2) 25% (0) 5% (0) 14% (0) (2)

Alt. E Year 20 26% (0) 19% (0) 28% (3) 4% (1) 23% (0) (4)

Alt. E Year 50 46% (1) 14% (1) 22% (0) 5% (0) 13% (0) (2)

Alt. D Year 20 28% (0) 19% (0) 27% (2) 3% (2) 22% (0) (4)

Alt. D Year 50 48% (3) 15% (0) 21% (0) 5% (0) 12% (0) (3)

Alt. C Year 20 23% (0) 19% (0) 30% (5) 4% (1) 24% (0) (6)

Alt. C Year 50 36% (0) 13% (2) 29% (4) 7% (0) 16% (0) (6)

Alt. B Year 20 23% (0) 18% (0) 29% (4) 4% (1) 26% (1) (6)

Alt. B Year 50 37% (0) 13% (2) 28% (3) 6% (0) 17% (0) (5)

Alt. A Year 20 22% (0) 19% (0) 30% (5) 3% (2) 26% (1) (8)

Alt. A Year 50 33% (0) 14% (1) 30% (5) 6% (0) 17% (0) (6)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Forest Structural Stages

Malheur National Forest – Structural Stages of the Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest makes up a very small portion of the Malheur’s forest landscape. The 

largest current deviation from desired conditions is in terms of a significant surplus of understory 

reinitiation stages. All of the alternatives make substantial improvements in terms of reducing the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

129

understory reinitiation stages toward the historical range of variability, and Alternatives D, E and 

F are estimated to be within the historical range by year 50. In terms of the total variation within 

the Malheur’s cold upland forest, again Alternatives D, E, and F all would likely result in 

conditions closest to the historical range of variability at both the 20-year and 50-year time 

frames. All of the other alternatives would also substantially reduce the existing condition’s 26-

point total variation. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within the 

cold upland forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be driven largely by natural 

disturbance effects.

Malheur National Forest – Structural Stages of the Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up the vast majority of the Malheur’s forest landscape. With the 

existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 100, it is 

also the most highly departed of all the potential vegetation groups from the desired conditions. 

The largest current deviations are in terms of a very large surplus of understory reinitiation stages 

and a lack of old forest single-story stages. With their very ambitious objectives for thinning 

harvests, Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure would likely make the most progress toward 

the desired conditions in the 20-year timeframe (Table 274). These two alternatives would reduce 

the total variation from desired conditions to about 71 to 72 within 20 years. Alternatives E and 

E-Modified would be the next best options in the near term, as they would drop the dry upland 

forest’s variation to 75 to 77. Despite some indicated differences in near term performance, all 

four of these alternatives are likely to result in similar levels of progress over the mid-term 50-

year horizon. All four alternatives would cut the potential vegetation group’s current variation 

basically in half over the 50-year time frame, to levels of 47 to 50.

The total summed variation as an indicator may tend to miss some of the significance in terms of 

the changes expected within the dry upland forest. The alternatives that are more aggressive with 

active restoration would thin a large amount of what is now understory reinitiation stage, and thus 

it would be reclassified as stem exclusion stages. In the near term, when looking just at total 

variation as a metric, this merely results in a swap of a large variation in the understory 

reinitiation stages for a corresponding large variation in stem exclusion stages. What is missed in 

terms of the variation scoring is that the stem exclusion stages of the dry upland forest would 

likely represent a much more stable condition, less prone to atypical severe wildfire. The stem 

exclusion stages would also be poised to develop directly into future old forest single-story stages 

that are currently lacking. The understory reinitiation stages are very vulnerable to excessive fire 

behaviors, and in the absence of severe fire, they are likely to eventually develop into old forest 

multi-story stages, which are already overrepresented on the landscape. Alternatives E, EModified and E-Modified Departure, which reduce the understory reinitiation stages the most, 

may be superior for the Malheur National Forest in light of these considerations.

Alternatives A, B and C would be the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired 

conditions for structural stages in the Malheur’s dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Under Alternatives A, B and C, the percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group in 

each of the structural stages would vary from the desired condition ranges by a summed total of 

approximately 84 to 87 points after 20 years. These trends of lagging performance would 

continue into the 50-year time frame with total variations from desired conditions expected to 

remain around 67 to 74.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

130

Table 274. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Malheur National Forest

Alternative

Time 

Period

Dry/SI 

DC = 

15% – 30%

Dry/SE

DC = 

10% - 20%

Dry/UR DC 

= < 5%

Dry/OFSS 

DC =

40% - 65%

Dry/OFMS 

DC =

1% - 15%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

6% (9) 18% (0) 54% (49) 3% (37) 20% (5) (100)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 10% (5) 35% (15) 27% (22) 9% (31) 19% (4) (77)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 14% (1) 35% 15 17% 12 19% (21) 15% (0) (49)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 10% (5) 41% (21) 20% (15) 12% (28) 17% (2) (71)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 14% (1) 36% 16 15% (10) 20% (20) 15% (0) (47)

Alt. F Year 20 10% (5) 29% (9) 33% (28) 7% (33) 21% (6) (81)

Alt. F Year 50 16% (0) 31% (11) 23% (18) 12% (28) 19% (4) (61)

Alt. E Year 20 12% (3) 33% (13) 28% (23) 8% (32) 19% (4) (75)

Alt. E Year 50 18% (0) 35% (15) 16% (11) 16% (24) 15% (0) (50)

Alt. D Year 20 12% (3) 25% (5) 36% (31) 10% (30) 18% (3) (72)

Alt. D Year 50 19% (0) 29% (9) 20% (15) 16% (24) 16% (1) (49)

Alt. C Year 20 9% (6) 27% (7) 36% (31) 6% (34) 22% (7) (85)

Alt. C Year 50 13% (2) 28% (8) 28% (23) 10% (30) 22% (7) (70)

Alt. B Year 20 10% (5) 28% (8) 35% (30) 6% (34) 22% (7) (84)

Alt. B Year 50 14% (1) 29% (9) 35% (30) 11% (29) 20% (5) (74)

Alt. A Year 20 7% (8) 29% (9) 35% (30) 7% (33) 22% (7) (87)

Alt. A Year 50 11% (4) 30% (10) 26% (21) 13% (27) 20% (5) (67)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Malheur National Forest – Structural Stages of the Moist Upland Forest

Like the cold upland forest, the Malheur’s moist upland forest is a relatively minor component of 

the overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 82 points, it is currently highly departed from the desired 

conditions. The largest deviations are in terms of surplus understory reinitiation and old forest 

multi-story stages and lacking stand initiation and stem exclusion stages. Alternatives D, EModified and E-Modified Departure would be likely to make the most progress toward the 

desired conditions in the 20-year timeframe. These alternatives would reduce the total variation 

from desired conditions to about 59 to 61 within 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year timeframe 

shows Alternative D as the best performing option, with the total variation from desired 

conditions reduced to about 28 points after five decades. In comparison, Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure would likely result in total variation of 39 to 40 points within the same 

timeframe.

Alternative A stands out as being the least effective alternative in achieving the structural desired 

conditions for the Malheur’s moist upland forest potential vegetation group. Under Alternative A, 

almost no improvement is indicated, as the structural stages would still vary from the desired 

condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 79 points after 20 years. These trends of 

relatively weak performance continue into the 50-year time frame, but Alternatives B and C 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

131

actually have the worst expected level of improvement after 50 years with total variations from 

desired conditions expected to remain around 58 to 59.

Table 275. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/SI

DC =

20% – 30%

Moist /SE

DC =

20% - 30%

Moist /UR

DC =

15% - 25%

Moist

/OFSS

DC =

10% - 20%

Moist

/OFMS

DC =

15% - 20%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

1% (19) 5% (15) 41% (16) 5% (5) 47% (27)

(82)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 11% (9) 7% (13) 36% (11) 5% (5) 41% (21) (59)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 19% (1) 10% (10) 37% (12) 4% (6) 30% (10) (39)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 11% (9) 6% (14) 37% (12) 5% (5) 41% (21)

(61)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 21% (2) 8% (10) 37% (12) 4% (6) 30% (10)

(40)

Alt. F Year 20 4% (16) 8% (12) 36% (11) 6% (4) 47% (27) (70)

Alt F. Year 50 12% (8) 9% (11) 40% (15) 6% (4) 33% (13) (51)

Alt. E Year 20 6% (14) 8% (12) 34% (9) 6% (4) 46% (26) (65)

Alt. E Year 50 16% (4) 11% (9) 36% (11) 6% (4) 31% (11) (39)

Alt. D Year 20 8% (12) 9% (11) 33% (8) 6% (4) 44% (24) (59)

Alt. D Year 50 20% (0) 13% (7) 32% (7) 6% (4) 30% (10) (28)

Alt. C Year 20 4% (16) 7% (13) 36% (11) 6% (4) 47% (27) (71)

Alt. C Year 50 9% (11) 9% (11) 43% (18) 6% (4) 35% (15) (59)

Alt. B Year 20 4% (16) 8% (12) 35% (10) 6% (4) 47% (27) (69)

Alt. B Year 50 9% (11) 9% (11) 41% (16) 5% (5) 35% (15) (58)

Alt. A Year 20 3% (17) 0% (20) 36% (11) 6% (4) 47% (27) (79)

Alt. A Year 50 7% (13) 11% (9) 41% (16) 7% (3) 34% (14) (55)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Umatilla National Forest – Structural Stages of the Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest makes up a very small portion of the Umatilla’s forest landscape, and 

much of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group is located within existing or proposed 

wilderness, roadless or backcountry areas. In terms of its current condition, the cold upland forest 

is slightly overrepresented in the old forest multi-story stages, but is otherwise fairly close to 

being within the desired condition ranges. All of the alternatives make similar improvements in 

balancing the old forest stages between old forest multi-story and old forest single story. 

Similarly, all of the alternatives except Alternative D seem able to achieve desired conditions 

within 50 years. Alternative D ends up with a small excess of the stand initiation stages after 50 

years. This may be caused by the higher level of regeneration harvesting proposed under 

Alternative D. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within the cold 

upland forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be driven largely by natural 

disturbance effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

132

Table 276. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Cold/SI

DC =

20% – 45%

Cold/SE

DC =

15% - 30%

Cold/UR

DC =

10% - 25%

Cold/OFSS

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/OFMS

DC =

10% - 25%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

30% (0) 21% (0) 18% (0) 0% (5) 30% (5)

(10)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 33% (0) 26% (0) 20% (0) 2% (3) 19% (0) (3)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 40% (0) 22% (0) 19% (0) 7% (0) 12% (0) (0)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 35% (0) 26% (0) 19% (0) 1% (4) 19% (0)

(4)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 40% (0) 22% (0) 19% (0) 7% (0) 12% (0)

(0)

Alt. F Year 20 29% (0) 31% (1) 20% (0) 2% (3) 19% (0) (4)

Alt F. Year 50 46% (1) 19% (0) 18% (0) 7% (0) 10% (0) (1)

Alt. E Year 20 35% (0) 27% (0) 18% (0) 2% (3) 18% (0) (3)

Alt. E Year 50 43% (0) 23% (0) 16% (0) 8% (0) 10% (0) (0)

Alt. D Year 20 31% (0) 31% (1) 18% (0) 2% (3) 18% (0) (4)

Alt. D Year 50 49% (4) 21% (0) 13% (0) 7% (0) 9% (1) (5)

Alt. C Year 20 28% (0) 31% (1) 20% (0) 2% (3) 19% (0) (4)

Alt. C Year 50 45% (0) 18% (0) 19% (0) 8% (0) 10% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 20 28% (0) 31% (1) 20% (0) 2% (3) 19% (0) (4)

Alt. B Year 50 45% (0) 19% (0) 19% (0) 7% (0) 11% (0) (0)

Alt. A Year 20 28% (0) 31% (1) 20% (0) 2% (3) 20% (0) (4)

Alt. A Year 50 43% (0) 19% (0) 20% (0) 7% (0) 11% (0) (0)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Umatilla National Forest - Structural Stages of the Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up over half of the Umatilla’s forest landscape. With the existing 

condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 90, it is also the 

most highly departed of all the potential vegetation groups from the desired conditions. The most 

significant deviations currently are in terms of a very large surplus of understory reinitiation 

stages and a lack of old forest multi-story stages.

With their very ambitious objectives for thinning harvests, Alternatives D and E-Modified 

Departure would likely make the most progress toward the desired conditions in the 20-year 

timeframe. These two alternatives would reduce the total variation from desired conditions to 

about 72 to 74 within 20 years. Alternatives E and E-Modified would be the next best options in 

the near term, as they would drop the dry upland forest’s variation to about 75. Alternative EModified and E-Modified Departure both indicate the best expected results over the 50-year time 

frame. Both of these alternatives would cut the potential vegetation groups current variation 

substantially over the 50-year time frame, to levels of 54 to 55.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

133

Table 277. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Dry/SI

DC =

15% – 30%

Dry /SE

DC =

10% - 20%

Dry /UR

DC =

< 5%

Dry /OFSS

DC =

40% - 65%

Dry /OFMS

DC =

1% - 15%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

12% (3) 26% (6) 50% (45) 4% (36) 8% (0)

(90)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 14% (1) 41% (21) 27% (22) 9% (31) 9% (0) (75)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 17% (0) 43% (23) 15% (10) 18% (22) 7% (0) (55)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 13% (2) 49% (29) 19% (14) 11% (29) 8% (0)

(74)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 16% (0) 44% (24) 14% (9) 19% (21) 7% (0)

(54)

Alt. F Year 20 14% (1) 38% (18) 30% (25) 7% (33) 10% (0) (77)

Alt F. Year 50 18% (0) 40% (20) 19% (14) 13% (27) 9% (0) (61)

Alt. E Year 20 15% (0) 39% (19) 29% (24) 8% (32) 10% (0) (75)

Alt. E Year 50 19% (0) 42% (22) 16% (11) 14% (26) 9% (0) (59)

Alt. D Year 20 16% (0) 40% (20) 26% (21) 9% (31) 9% (0) (72)

Alt. D Year 50 21% (0) 41% (21) 16% (11) 14% (26) 8% (0) (58)

Alt. C Year 20 11% (4) 36% (16) 35% (30) 6% (34) 12% (0) (84)

Alt. C Year 50 14% (1) 38% (18) 25% (20) 11% (29) 12% (0) (68)

Alt. B Year 20 13% (2) 37% (17) 32% (27) 7% (33) 11% (0) (79)

Alt. B Year 50 17% (0) 40% (20) 21% (16) 12% (28) 10% (0) (64)

Alt. A Year 20 11% (4) 39% (19) 31% (26) 7% (33) 11% (0) (82)

Alt. A Year 50 12% (3) 41% (21) 21% (16) 15% (25) 10% (0) (65)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

The total summed variation as an indicator may tend to miss some of the significance in terms of 

the changes expected within the dry upland forest. The alternatives that are more aggressive with 

active restoration would thin a large amount of what is now understory reinitiation stage and thus 

it would be reclassified as stem exclusion stages. In the near term, when looking just at total 

variation as a metric, this merely results in a swap of a large variation in the understory 

reinitiation stages for a corresponding large variation in stem exclusion stages. What is missed in 

terms of the variation scoring is that the stem exclusion stages of the dry upland forest would 

likely represent a much more stable condition, less prone to atypical severe wildfire. The stem 

exclusion stages would also be poised to develop directly into future old forest single story stages,

which are currently lacking. The understory reinitiation stages are very vulnerable to excessive 

fire behaviors, and in the absence of severe fire, they are likely to eventually develop into old 

forest multi-story stages, which are already overrepresented on the landscape. Alternatives D, EModified and E-Modified Departure, which reduce the understory reinitiation stages the most, 

may be superior for the Umatilla National Forest in light of these considerations.

Alternatives A, B and C would be the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired 

conditions for structural stages in the Umatilla’s dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Under Alternatives A, B and C, the percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group in 

each of the structural stages would still be expected to vary from the desired condition ranges by 

a summed total of approximately 79 to 84 points after 20 years. These trends of relatively weak 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

134

performance continue into the 50-year time frame with total variations from desired conditions 

expected to remain around 64 to 68.

Umatilla National Forest – Structural Stages of the Moist Upland Forest

The Umatilla’s moist upland forest component is significant, making up almost 40% of the 

overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 37 points, it is not nearly as highly departed from the desired 

conditions as the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. The largest deviations are in terms 

of surplus old forest multi-story stages and lacking stand initiation and stem exclusion stages. 

Alternatives E and E-Modified Departure would likely make the most progress toward the desired 

conditions within the 20-year timeframe. These two alternatives would reduce the total variation 

from desired conditions to about 28 to 29 points within 20 years, though none of them would 

make any progress in reducing the excess of old forest multi-story stages. Looking out to the 50-

year time frame shows Alternatives D and E as the best performing options with the total 

variation from desired conditions reduced to about 26 to 27 points after five decades. In 

comparison, the next best alternatives in the 50-year horizon, Alternatives F, E-Modified and EModified Departure would likely result in total variation of 30 to 31.

Table 278. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/SI

DC =

20% – 30%

Moist /SE

DC =

20% - 30%

Moist /UR

DC =

15% - 25%

Moist

/OFSS

DC =

10% - 20%

Moist

/OFMS

DC =

15% - 20%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

9% (11) 10% (10) 26% (1) 23% (3) 32% (12)

(37)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 10% (10) 14% (6) 28% (3) 13% (0) 35% (15) (34)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 14% (6) 16% (4) 34% (9) 7% (3) 29% (9) (31)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 12% (8) 15% (5) 25% (0) 13% (0) 35% (15)

(28)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 16% (4) 15% (5) 34% (9) 6% (4) 29% (9)

(31)

Alt. F Year 20 9% (11) 14% (6) 26% (1) 15% (0) 36% (16) (34)

Alt F. Year 50 12% (8) 16% (4) 34% (9) 9% (1) 28% (8) (30)

Alt. E Year 20 11% (9) 15% (5) 28% (3) 14% (0) 32% (12) (29)

Alt. E Year 50 13% (7) 18% (2) 33% (8) 8% (2) 28% (8) (27)

Alt. D Year 20 11% (9) 14% (6) 25% (0) 15% (0) 36% (16) (31)

Alt. D Year 50 17% (3) 20% (0) 8% (7) 28% (8) 28% (8) (26)

Alt. C Year 20 8% (12) 14% (6) 27% (2) 16% (0) 37% (17) (37)

Alt. C Year 50 9% (11) 16% (4) 37% (12) 10% (0) 29% (9) (36)

Alt. B Year 20 8% (12) 13% (7) 27% (2) 14% (0) 37% (17) (38)

Alt. B Year 50 11% (9) 16% (4) 36% (11) 8% (2) 29% (9) (35)

Alt. A Year 20 7% (13) 14% (6) 27% (2) 15% (0) 37% (17) (38)

Alt. A Year 50 8% (12) 18% (2) 36% (11) 9% (1) 29% (9) (35)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

135

All of these alternatives have fairly modest effects on the moist upland potential vegetation 

group. Since the moist upland forest is only moderately departed currently, and the highly 

departed dry upland forest represents a larger portion of the landscape, these results may not 

indicate a complete picture in terms of which alternative is likely to improve forest structure 

stages the best.

Alternatives A, B and C stand out as being the least effective alternatives in achieving the 

structural desired conditions for the Umatilla’s moist upland forest. Under these three alternatives, 

no improvement is indicated, as the structural stages would still vary from the desired condition 

ranges by a summed total of approximately 37 to 38 points after 20 years. These trends of 

relatively weak performance continue into the 50-year time frame, with still virtually no 

improvement in overall potential vegetation group variation expected after 50.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Structural Stages of the Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest makes up about one quarter of the Wallowa-Whitman’s forest landscape, 

and much of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group is located within existing or 

proposed wilderness, roadless or backcountry areas.

Table 279. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time

Period

Cold/SI

DC =

20% – 45%

Cold/SE

DC =

15% - 30%

Cold/UR

DC =

10% - 25%

Cold/OFSS

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/OFMS

DC =

10% - 25%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

14% (6) 10% (5) 41% (16) 1% (4) 34% (9)

(40)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 22% (0) 12% (3) 36% (11) 3% (2) 27% (2) (18)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 31% (0) 11% (4) 32% (7) 5% (0) 21% (0) (11)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 22% (0) 12% (3) 36% (11) 3% (2) 27% (2)

(18)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 32% (0) 11% (4) 31% (6) 5% (0) 21% (0)

(10)

Alt. F Year 20 21% (0) 14% (1) 35% (10) 3% (2) 27% (2) (15)

Alt F. Year 50 34% (0) 10% (5) 31% (6) 5% (0) 20% (0) (11)

Alt. E Year 20 21% (0) 14% (1) 34% (9) 3% (2) 27% (2) (14)

Alt. E Year 50 35% (0) 11% (4) 29% (4) 5% (0) 20% (0) (8)

Alt. D Year 20 22% (0) 14% (1) 34% (9) 3% (2) 27% (2) (14)

Alt. D Year 50 35% (0) 11% (4) 29% (4) 5% (0) 20% (0) (8)

Alt. C Year 20 20% (0) 14% (1) 36% (11) 3% (2) 27% (2) (16)

Alt. C Year 50 33% (0) 10% (5) 32% (7) 5% (0) 20% (0) (12)

Alt. B Year 20 21% (0) 14% (1) 35% (10) 3% (2) 28% (3) (16)

Alt. B Year 50 34% (0) 10% (5) 34% (9) 5% (0) 20% (0) (14)

Alt. A Year 20 20%

(0)

14%

(1)

35%

(10)

3%

(2)

27%

(2)

(15)

Alt. A Year 50 33% (0) 10% (5) 32% (7) 5% (0) 20% (0) (12)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

136

The largest current deviation from desired conditions is in terms of a surplus of understory 

reinitiation and old forest multi-story stages. All of the alternatives make substantial 

improvements in terms of moving the stages toward the historical range of variability, but 

Alternatives D and E are estimated to obtain the best results within both the 20-year and 50-year 

horizons. All of the other alternatives would also substantially reduce the existing condition’s 40-

point total variation. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within the 

cold upland forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be driven largely by natural 

disturbance effects.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Structural Stages of the Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up about half of the Wallowa-Whitman’s forest landscape. With the 

existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 89, it is also 

the most highly departed of all the forest potential vegetation groups from the desired conditions. 

The most significant deviations currently are in terms of a very large surplus of understory 

reinitiation stages and a lack of old forest single story stages. With their very ambitious objectives 

for thinning harvests, Alternatives D, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would likely make 

the most progress toward the desired conditions within the 20-year timeframe. These three 

alternatives would reduce the total variation from desired conditions to about 75 to 76 within 20 

years. Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure version both indicate the best expected 

results over the 50-year time frame. Both of these alternatives would cut the potential vegetation 

group’s current variation substantially over the 50-year time frame, to levels of about 63.

The total summed variation as an indicator may tend to miss some of the significance in terms of 

the changes expected within the dry upland forest. The alternatives that are more aggressive with 

active restoration would thin a large amount of what is now understory reinitiation stage, and thus 

it would be reclassified as stem exclusion stages. In the near term, when looking just at total 

variation as a metric, this merely results in a swap of a large variation in the understory 

reinitiation stages for a corresponding large variation in stem exclusion stages. What is missed in 

terms of the variation scoring is that the stem exclusion stages of the dry upland forest would 

likely represent a much more stable condition, less prone to atypical severe wildfire. The stem 

exclusion stages would also be poised to develop directly into future old forest single story stages,

which are currently lacking. The understory reinitiation stages are very vulnerable to excessive 

fire behaviors, and in the absence of severe fire, they are likely to eventually develop into old 

forest multi-story stages, which are already overrepresented on the landscape. Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure, which reduce the understory reinitiation stages the most, 

may be superior for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in light of these considerations.

Alternatives A and C would be the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired conditions 

for structural stages in the Wallowa-Whitman’s dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Under Alternatives A and C, the percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group in 

each of the structural stages would still be expected to vary from the desired condition ranges by 

a summed total of approximately 85 to 86 points after 20 years. These trends of lagging 

performance continue into the 50-year time frame with total variations from desired conditions 

expected to remain around 77 to 78.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

137

Table 280. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group 

(with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Dry/SI

DC =

15% – 30%

Dry /SE

DC =

10% - 20%

Dry /UR

DC =

< 5%

Dry /OFSS

DC =

40% - 65%

Dry /OFMS

DC =

1% - 15%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

14% (1) 16% (0) 54% (49) 1% (39) 14% (0)

(89)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 15% (0) 43% (23) 25% (20) 7% (33) 10% (0) (76)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 15% (0) 49% (29) 14% (9) 15% (25) 7% (0) (63)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 14% (1) 51% (31) 17% (12) 9% (31) 9% (0)

(75)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 15% (0) 50% (30) 13% (8) 15% (25) 7% (0)

(63)

Alt. F Year 20 14% (1) 36% (16) 33% (28) 4% (36) 13% (0) (81)

Alt F. Year 50 17% (0) 43% (23) 22% (17) 9% (31) 9% (0) (71)

Alt. E Year 20 16% (0) 39% (19) 33% (28) 4% (36) 13% (0) (81)

Alt. E Year 50 19% (0) 46% (26) 22% (17) 9% (31) 9% (0) (71)

Alt. D Year 20 16% (0) 36% (16) 31% (26) 6% (34) 1% (0) (76)

Alt. D Year 50 18% (0) 43% (23) 19% (14) 11% (29) 8% (0) (66)

Alt. C Year 20 12% (3) 34% (14) 37% (32) 4% (36) 14% (0) (85)

Alt. C Year 50 14% (1) 39% (19) 29% (24) 7% (33) 12% (0) (77)

Alt. B Year 20 13% (2) 35% (15) 34% (29) 4% (36) 13% (0) (82)

Alt. B Year 50 15% (0) 42% (22) 25% (20) 8% (32) 11% (0) (74)

Alt. A Year 20 11% (4) 37% (17) 34% (29) 4% (36) 13% (0) (86)

Alt. A Year 50 12% (3) 44% (24) 25% (20) 9% (31) 11% (0) (78)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Structural Stages of the Moist Upland Forest

The Wallowa-Whitman’s moist upland forest component makes up about one quarter of the 

overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 56 points, it is not as highly departed from the desired conditions 

as the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. The largest deviations are in terms of a 

significant surplus of understory reinitiation stages and deficits in stand initiation, stem exclusion,

and old forest single story stages. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

likely make the most progress toward the desired conditions in the 20-year timeframe. These two 

alternatives would reduce the total variation from desired conditions to about 25 or 20 points 

respectively within 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year time frame shows Alternatives D and EModified as the best performing options, with the total variation from desired conditions reduced 

to about 12 points after five decades.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

138

Table 281. Forest structural stages, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/SI

DC =

20% – 30%

Moist /SE

DC =

20% - 30%

Moist /UR

DC =

15% - 25%

Moist

/OFSS

DC =

10% - 20%

Moist

/OFMS

DC =

15% - 20%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

9% (11) 10% (10) 26% (1) 23% (3) 32% (12)

(37)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 10% (10) 14% (6) 28% (3) 13% (0) 35% (15) (34)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 14% (6) 16% (4) 34% (9) 7% (3) 29% (9) (31)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 12% (8) 15% (5) 25% (0) 13% (0) 35% (15)

(28)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 16% (4) 15% (5) 34% (9) 6% (4) 29% (9)

(31)

Alt. F Year 20 9% (11) 14% (6) 26% (1) 15% (0) 36% (16) (34)

Alt F. Year 50 12% (8) 16% (4) 34% (9) 9% (1) 28% (8) (30)

Alt. E Year 20 11% (9) 15% (5) 28% (3) 14% (0) 32% (12) (29)

Alt. E Year 50 13% (7) 18% (2) 33% (8) 8% (2) 28% (8) (27)

Alt. D Year 20 11% (9) 14% (6) 25% (0) 15% (0) 36% (16) (31)

Alt. D Year 50 17% (3) 20% (0) 8% (7) 28% (8) 28% (8) (26)

Alt. C Year 20 8% (12) 14% (6) 27% (2) 16% (0) 37% (17) (37)

Alt. C Year 50 9% (11) 16% (4) 37% (12) 10% (0) 29% (9) (36)

Alt. B Year 20 8% (12) 13% (7) 27% (2) 14% (0) 37% (17) (38)

Alt. B Year 50 11% (9) 16% (4) 36% (11) 8% (2) 29% (9) (35)

Alt. A Year 20 7% (13) 14% (6) 27% (2) 15% (0) 37% (17) (38)

Alt. A Year 50 8% (12) 18% (2) 36% (11) 9% (1) 29% (9) (35)

DC = desired condition; SI = stand initiation; SE = stem exclusion; UR = understory reinitiation; OFSS = old forest single 

story; OFMS = old forest multi-story

Alternatives B and C stand out as being the least effective alternatives in achieving the structural 

desired conditions for the Wallowa-Whitman’s moist upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Under these two alternatives, modest progress is expected, as the structural stages would still vary 

from the desired condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 40 to 41 points after 20 

years. These trends of relatively poor performance continue into the 50-year time frame, with the 

total variations from desired conditions expected to remain around 30 to 32.

Species Composition

The alternatives that result in the closest achievement of the desired conditions for species 

composition groups would result in vegetation that is more ecologically resilient within each 

particular upland forest potential vegetation group. By maintaining and/or restoring the balance of 

shade tolerant, intolerant and intermediate tolerant species that occurred and evolved on a site 

prior to interruption of the historical fire regimes, forests would be better adapted to drought 

stress and disturbance regimes.

Malheur National Forest Species Composition – Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest makes up a very small portion of the Malheur’s forest landscape.

Currently, the largest deviation from desired conditions for species composition is an 

underrepresentation of the shade tolerant species group.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

139

Table 282. Forest species composition, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Cold/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

40% – 60%

Cold/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/Shade

Tolerant

DC =

25% - 50%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

63% (3) 31% (11) 7% (18) (32)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 60% (0) 31% (11) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 60% (0) 29% (9) 11% (14) (23)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 60% (0) 31% (11) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 59% (0) 30% (10) 11% (14) (24)

Alt. F Year 20 62% (2) 28% (8) 9% (16) (26)

Alt F. Year 50 63% (3) 26% (6) 11% (14) (23)

Alt. E Year 20 63% (3) 28% (8) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. E Year 50 65% (5) 24% (4) 11% (14) (23)

Alt. D Year 20 63% (3) 28% (8) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. D Year 50 67% (7) 23% (3) 10% (15) (25)

Alt. C Year 20 61% (1) 30% (10) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. C Year 50 61% (1) 28% (8) 11% (14) (23)

Alt. B Year 20 62% (2) 30% (10) 9% (16) (28)

Alt. B Year 50 62% (2) 27% (7) 11% (14) (23)

Alt. A Year 20 61% (1) 30% (10) 9% (16) (27)

Alt. A Year 50 61% (1) 29% (9) 11% (14) (24)

DC= desired condition

All of the alternatives make similar levels of minimal progress toward increasing the proportion 

of shade tolerant species in the cold upland forest potential vegetation group. The degree of 

variation for the cold upland potential vegetation group is expected to drop to between 26 to 28 

points after 20 years. At year 50, the alternatives are all fairly consistently showing total variation 

of 23 to 25 points. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within the cold 

upland forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be influenced largely by natural 

gradual succession effects along with disturbances.

Malheur National Forest Species Composition – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up the vast majority of the Malheur’s forest landscape. Currently the 

dry upland forest potential vegetation group’s species composition is very close to being within 

the range of desired conditions. Most of the alternatives would do well in terms of maintaining 

these low levels of departure from the historical range of variability over both the 20- and 50-year 

timeframes. Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure would be likely to be completely within 

the desired conditions after 50 years. Conversely, Alternative C would be the least effective in 

terms of maintaining desired conditions, with the total amount of variation expected to increase to 

6 and 10 points at the 20-year and 50-year time horizons respectively.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

140

Table 283. Forest species composition, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

75% – 90%

Dry/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

76% (0) 24% (4)

(4)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 77% (0) 23% (3) (3)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 79% (0) 21% (1) (1)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 79% (0) 21% (1) (1)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 80% (0) 20% (0) (0)

Alt. F Year 20 76% (0) 24% (4) (4)

Alt F. Year 50 76% (0) 24% (4) (4)

Alt. E Year 20 77% (0) 23% (3) (3)

Alt. E Year 50 78% (0) 22% (2) (2)

Alt. D Year 20 77% (0) 23% (3) (3)

Alt. D Year 50 80% (0) 20% (0) (0)

Alt. C Year 20 75% (0) 26% (6) (6)

Alt. C Year 50 73% (2) 28% (8) (10)

Alt. B Year 20 75% (0) 25% (5) (5)

Alt. B Year 50 75% (0) 25% (5) (5)

Alt. A Year 20 75% (0) 25% (5) (5)

Alt. A Year 50 74% (0) 26% (6) (6)

DC= desired condition

Malheur National Forest Species Composition – Moist Upland Forest

Like the cold upland forest, the Malheur’s moist upland forest is a relatively minor component of 

the overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation of 66 points 

from the historical range of variability, it is currently significantly departed from the desired 

conditions. The largest deviation is a substantial surplus of shade tolerant species. All of the 

alternatives would make only modest progress in terms of improving the species composition mix 

in the 20-year timeframe. Alternatives D and E would make the most progress, by reducing the 

total variation from desired conditions to about to 61 within 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year 

time frame shows Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure as the best performing options, with 

the total variation from desired conditions being reduced to about 48 to 50 points after five 

decades. In comparison, Alternatives E and E-Modified would also produce similar results, with 

total variation of 51 to 52 points expected within the same time frame.

Alternatives A, B and C stand out as being the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired 

species composition conditions for the Malheur’s moist upland forest. Under these alternatives, 

little improvement is indicated, as the species composition would still vary from the desired 

condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 63 to 64 points after 20 years. These trends 

of relatively weak performance continue through the 50-year time frame, with total variations 

from desired conditions expected to remain around 58.

None of the alternatives would address the restoration of species compositions very well within 

the time frame of the next expected planning cycle. Maintaining an excess of the moist upland 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

141

forest potential vegetation group in shade tolerant species would likely result in decreased 

ecological resiliency. These more shade tolerant tree species are less able to withstand fire due to 

thinner bark and their branching characteristics readily support torching and active crown fire. 

Shade tolerant tree species of the moist upland forest also tend to be less drought tolerant, and 

more susceptible to attack by certain insects and decay fungi.

Table 284. Forest species composition, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

30% – 60%

Moist

/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

20% - 40%

Moist /Shade 

Tolerant

DC =

10% - 30%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

21% (9) 6% (14) 73% (43)

(66)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 21% (9) 8% (12) 71% (41) (62)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 25% (5) 9% (11) 66% (36) (52)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 21% (9) 8% (12) 71% (41)

(62)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 26% (4) 9% (11) 65% (35)

(50)

Alt. F Year 20 21% (9) 8% (12) 71% (4) (62)

Alt F. Year 50 22% (8) 10% (10) 68% (38) (56)

Alt. E Year 20 21% (9) 9% (11) 71% (41) (61)

Alt. E Year 50 24% (6) 11% (9) 66% (36) (51)

Alt. D Year 20 21% (9) 8% (12) 70% (40) (61)

Alt. D Year 50 26% (4) 10% (10) 64% (34) (48)

Alt. C Year 20 20% (10) 8% (12) 72% (42) (64)

Alt. C Year 50 21% (9) 10% (10) 69% (39) (58)

Alt. B Year 20 20% (10) 8% (12) 72% (42) (63)

Alt. B Year 50 21% (9) 10% (10) 69% (39) (58)

Alt. A Year 20 20% (10) 8% (12) 71% (41) (63)

Alt. A Year 50 20% (10) 11% (9) 69% (39) (58)

DC= desired condition

Umatilla National Forest Species Composition – Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest represents only about 10 percent of the Umatilla’s forest landscape. 

Currently, the largest deviation from desired conditions for species composition is a modest 

excess of stands within the shade intolerant group species group. Overall, the Umatilla’s cold 

upland forest potential vegetation group is only slightly departed from the desired species 

distribution. All of the alternatives make similar levels of minimal progress toward decreasing the 

proportion of shade intolerant species in the cold upland forest. The degree of variation for the 

cold upland potential vegetation group is expected to drop to between 10 to 12 points after 20 

years. At year 50, the alternatives are all fairly consistently showing total variation between 11 to 

14 points. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within the cold upland 

forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be influenced largely by natural gradual 

succession effects along with disturbances.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

142

Table 285. Forest species composition, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Cold/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

40% – 60%

Cold/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/Shade 

Tolerant

DC =

25% - 50%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

70% (10) 10% (0) 20% (5)

(15)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 66% (6) 13% (0) 21% (4) (10)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 66% (6) 15% (0) 19% (6) (12)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 67% (7) 13% (0) 20% (5)

(12)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 65% (5) 16% (0) 19% (6)

(11)

Alt. F Year 20 67% (7) 13% (0) 20% (5) (12)

Alt F. Year 50 67% (7) 14% (0) 19% (6) (13)

Alt. E Year 20 67% (7) 13% (0) 20% (5) (12)

Alt. E Year 50 67% (7) 14% (0) 19% (6) (13)

Alt. D Year 20 67% (7) 12% (0) 20% (5) (12)

Alt. D Year 50 68% (8) 13% (0) 19% (6) (14)

Alt. C Year 20 67% (7) 13% (0) 20% (5) (12)

Alt. C Year 50 66% (6) 15% (0) 19% (6) (12)

Alt. B Year 20 66% (6) 13% (0) 21% (4) (10)

Alt. B Year 50 66% (6) 15% (0) 19% (6) (12)

Alt. A Year 20 66% (6) 13% (0) 21% (4) (10)

Alt. A Year 50 66% (6) 15% (0) 19% (6) (12)

DC= desired condition

Umatilla National Forest Species Composition – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up over half of the Umatilla’s forest landscape. With the existing 

condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 65 points, it is 

currently significantly departed from the desired conditions. The deviation is a substantial surplus 

of intermediate and shade tolerant species, with a corresponding lack of shade intolerant species. 

Alternative E-Modified Departure would likely make the most progress toward the desired 

conditions within the 20-year timeframe. This alternative would reduce the total variation from 

desired conditions to about 37 points within 20 years. Alternatives D and E-Modified would also 

make substantial progress toward rebalancing species composition with total variations of 43 and

49, respectively, expected after 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year time frame shows 

Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure as the best performing options with the total variation 

from desired conditions reduced to about 19 to 25 points respectively after five decades.

Alternative C would clearly be the least effective alternative in achieving the desired species 

composition conditions for the Umatilla’s dry upland forest. Under these alternatives, conditions 

would only improve slightly within the 20-year time frame to a total variation of 62. Little 

improvement is indicated in the mid-term either, as the species composition would still vary from 

the desired condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 59 points after 50 years.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

143

The overall results support the idea that alternatives with robust thinning, regeneration and 

prescribed fire programs could be relatively successful in reversing the negative trends of the dry 

forest’s species composition. However, alternatives that would maintain a large excess of shade 

tolerant species within the dry upland forest would likely result in decreased ecological resiliency. 

These more shade tolerant tree species are less able to withstand fire due to thinner bark, and their 

branching characteristics readily support torching and uncharacteristic severe active crown fire. 

Shade-tolerant tree species of the dry upland forest also tend to be less drought tolerant, and more 

susceptible to attack by certain insects and decay fungi.

Table 286. Forest species composition, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

75% – 90%

Dry/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

45% (30) 55% (35)

(65)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 53% (22) 47% (27) (49)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 62% (13) 38% (18) (31)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 59% (16) 41% (21) (37)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 65% (10) 35% (15) (25)

Alt. F Year 20 50% (25) 50% (30) (55)

Alt F. Year 50 58% (17) 42% (22) (39)

Alt. E Year 20 51% (24) 49% (29) (53)

Alt. E Year 50 59% (16) 41% (21) (37)

Alt. D Year 20 56% (19) 44% (24) (43)

Alt. D Year 50 68% (7) 32% (12) (19)

Alt. C Year 20 47% (28) 54% (34) (62)

Alt. C Year 50 48% (27) 52% (32) (59)

Alt. B Year 20 50% (25) 50% (30) (55)

Alt. B Year 50 56% (19) 44% (24) (43)

Alt. A Year 20 50% (25) 50% (30) (55)

Alt. A Year 50 55% (20) 45% (25) (45)

DC= desired condition

Umatilla National Forest Species Composition – Moist Upland Forest

The Umatilla’s moist upland forest component is significant, making up almost 40% of the 

overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 50 points, it is currently significantly departed from the desired 

conditions. The largest deviation is a substantial surplus of shade tolerant species. Most of the 

alternatives would fail to make progress in terms of improving the species composition mix in the 

20-year timeframe. However, Alternatives D, E and E-Modified Departure would reduce the total 

variation slightly from desired conditions to about 48 to 49 within 20 years. Looking out to the 

50-year time frame shows Alternatives D as the best performing option with the total variation 

from desired conditions being reduced to about 40 points after five decades.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

144

Alternatives A and B are the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired species 

composition conditions for the Umatilla’s moist upland forest. Under these alternatives, 

conditions would be likely to degrade slightly within the 20-year time frame. Little improvement 

is indicated in the mid-term either, as the species composition would still vary from the desired 

condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 47 to 49 points after 50 years.

Table 287. Forest species composition, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

30% – 60%

Moist

/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

20% - 40%

Moist /Shade 

Tolerant

DC =

10% - 30%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

15% (15) 21% (0) 65% (35) (50)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 15% (15) 21% (0) 65% (35) (50)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 17% (13) 20% (0) 63% (33) (46)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 16% (14) 21% (0) 64% (34) (48)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 19% (11) 19% (1) 62% (32) (44)

Alt. F Year 20 15% (15) 21% (0) 65% (35) (50)

Alt F. Year 50 17% (13) 20% (0) 63% (33) (46)

Alt. E Year 20 15% (15) 21% (0) 64% (34) (49)

Alt. E Year 50 18% (12) 20% (0) 62% (32) (44)

Alt. D Year 20 16% (14) 20% (0) 64% (34) (48)

Alt. D Year 50 20% (10) 20% (0) 60% (30) (40)

Alt. C Year 20 15% (15) 21% (0) 65% (35) (50)

Alt. C Year 50 16% (14) 21% (0) 64% (34) (45)

Alt. B Year 20 14% (16) 21% (0) 65% (35) (51)

Alt. B Year 50 16% (14) 20% (0) 63% (33) (47)

Alt. A Year 20 14% (16) 21% (0) 65% (35) (51)

Alt. A Year 50 15% (15) 21% (0) 64% (34) (49)

DC= desired condition

None of the alternatives would address the restoration of species compositions very well within 

the time frame of the next expected planning cycle. Maintaining an excess of the moist upland 

forest potential vegetation group in shade tolerant species would likely result in decreased 

ecological resiliency. These more shade tolerant tree species are less able to withstand fire due to 

thinner bark and their branching characteristics readily support torching and active crown fire. 

Shade tolerant tree species of the moist upland forest also tend to be less drought tolerant, and 

more susceptible to attack by certain insects and decay fungi.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Species Composition – Cold Upland Forest

Much of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group is located within existing or proposed 

wilderness, roadless or backcountry areas. Currently, the distribution of species composition is 

quite close to being within the range of desired conditions. All of the alternatives either maintain 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

145

or make minimal progress toward decreasing the total variation in the cold upland forest potential 

vegetation group over the next 50 years. Relatively modest levels of active management were 

scheduled within the cold upland forest, so the similar results across alternatives may be 

influenced largely by natural gradual succession effects along with disturbances.

Table 288. Forest species composition, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Cold/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

40% – 60%

Cold/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Cold/Shade 

Tolerant

DC =

25% - 50%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

38% (2) 24% (4) 38% (0)

(6)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0) (5)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 44% (0) 24% (4) 32% (0) (4)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0)

(5)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 44% (0) 24% (4) 32% (0)

(4)

Alt. F Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0) (5)

Alt F. Year 50 45% (0) 22% (2) 32% (0) (2)

Alt. E Year 20 40% (0) 24% (4) 37% (0) (4)

Alt. E Year 50 46% (0) 22% (2) 32% (0) (2)

Alt. D Year 20 40% (0) 23% (3) 36% (0) (3)

Alt. D Year 50 47% (0) 21% (1) 32% (0) (1)

Alt. C Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0) (5)

Alt. C Year 50 45% (0) 23% (3) 32% (0) (3)

Alt. B Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0) (5)

Alt. B Year 50 45% (0) 23% (3) 32% (0) (3)

Alt. A Year 20 39% (1) 24% (4) 37% (0) (5)

Alt. A Year 50 45% (0) 23% (3) 32% (0) (3)

DC= desired condition

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Species Composition – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up about half of the Wallowa-Whitman’s forest landscape. With the 

existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 65, it is 

significantly departed from the desired conditions for species composition. The deviation is a 

substantial surplus of intermediate and shade tolerant species, with a corresponding lack of shade 

intolerant species. Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure would likely make the most progress 

toward the desired conditions within the 20-year timeframe. These alternatives would reduce the 

total variation from desired conditions to about 40 to 41 points within 20 years. Alternative EModified would also make substantial progress toward rebalancing the species composition with 

a total variation of 47 expected after 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year time frame shows 

Alternative D as the best performing option with the total variation from desired conditions 

reduced to about 21 points after five decades.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

146

Table 289. Forest species composition, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

75% – 90%

Dry/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

45% (30) 55% (35)

(65)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 54% (21) 46% (26) (47)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 62% (13) 38% (18) (31)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 57% (18) 43% (23) (41)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 63% (12) 37% (17) (29)

Alt. F Year 20 50% (25) 50% (30) (55)

Alt F. Year 50 56% (19) 44% (24) (43)

Alt. E Year 20 52% (23) 48% (28) (51)

Alt. E Year 50 60% (15) 40% (20) (35)

Alt. D Year 20 55% (20) 45% (20) (40)

Alt. D Year 50 67% (8) 33% (13) (21)

Alt. C Year 20 47% (28) 53% (33) (61)

Alt. C Year 50 48% (27) 52% (32) (59)

Alt. B Year 20 49% (26) 50% (30) (56)

Alt. B Year 50 54% (21) 45% (25) (46)

Alt. A Year 20 49% (26) 51% (31) (57)

Alt. A Year 50 53% (22) 47% (27) (49)

DC= desired condition

Alternative C would be the least effective alternative in achieving the desired species composition 

conditions for the Wallowa-Whitman’s dry upland forest potential vegetation group. Under this 

alternative, conditions would only improve slightly within the 20-year time frame to a total 

variation of 61. Little improvement is indicated in the mid-term either, as the species composition 

would still vary from the desired condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 59 points 

after 50 years.

The overall results support the idea that alternatives with robust thinning, regeneration and 

prescribed fire programs should be relatively successful in reversing the negative trends in the dry 

forest’s species composition. However, alternatives that would maintain a large excess of shade 

tolerant species within the dry upland forest would likely result in decreased ecological resiliency. 

These more shade tolerant tree species are less able to withstand fire due to thinner bark, and their 

branching characteristics readily support torching and uncharacteristic severe active crown fire. 

Shade tolerant tree species of the dry upland forest also tend to be less drought tolerant, and more 

susceptible to attack by certain insects and decay fungi.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Species Composition – Moist Upland Forest

The Wallowa-Whitman’s moist upland forest component makes up about one quarter of the 

overall forest landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the historical 

range of variability of 19 points, it is currently moderately departed from the desired conditions. 

The largest deviation is a surplus of shade tolerant species. Most of the alternatives would make 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

147

little if any progress in terms of improving the species composition mix in the 20-year timeframe. 

However, Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure would reduce the total variation slightly 

from desired conditions to about 17 within 20 years. Looking out to the 50-year time frame shows 

Alternatives D, E, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure as the best performing options, with the 

total variation from desired conditions being reduced to about 12 to 13 points after five decades.

Table 290. Forest species composition, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time 

Period

Moist/Shade 

Intolerant

DC =

30% – 60%

Moist

/Intermediate 

Tolerance

DC =

20% - 40%

Moist /Shade 

Tolerant

DC =

10% - 30%

Summed 

Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

27% (3) 27% (0) 46% (16) (19)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 27% (3) 27% (0) 46% (16) (19)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 32% (0) 25% (0) 43% (13) (13)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 20 28% (2) 27% (0) 45% (15) (17)

Alt. E-Modified 

Departure

Year 50 32% (0) 25% (0) 43% (13) (13)

Alt. F Year 20 27% (3) 27% (0) 46% (16) (19)

Alt F. Year 50 29% (1) 25% (0) 45% (15) (16)

Alt. E Year 20 28% (2) 26% (0) 46% (16) (18)

Alt. E Year 50 32% (0) 25% (0) 43% (13) (13)

Alt. D Year 20 28% (2) 27% (0) 45% (15) (17)

Alt. D Year 50 33% (0) 25% (0) 42% (12) (12)

Alt. C Year 20 26% (4) 27% (0) 47% (17) (21)

Alt. C Year 50 26% (4) 27% (0) 47% (17) (21)

Alt. B Year 20 26% (4) 27% (0) 46% (16) (20)

Alt. B Year 50 27% (3) 26% (0) 46% (16) (19)

Alt. A Year 20 26% (4) 27% (0) 47% (17) (21)

Alt. A Year 50 26% (4) 27% (0) 47% (17) (21)

DC= desired condition

Alternatives A, B and C are the least effective alternatives in achieving the desired species 

composition conditions for the Wallowa-Whitman’s moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group. Under these alternatives, conditions would be likely to degrade slightly within the 20-year 

time frame. Little improvement is indicated in the mid-term either, as the species composition 

would still vary from the desired condition ranges by a summed total of approximately 19 to 21 

points after 50 years.

None of the alternatives would address the restoration of species compositions very well within 

the time frame of the next expected planning cycle, though the current level of deviation from 

desire conditions is fairly small. However, maintaining an excess of the moist upland forest 

potential vegetation group in shade tolerant species could result in decreased ecological 

resiliency. These more shade tolerant tree species are less able to withstand fire due to thinner 

bark and their branching characteristics readily support torching and active crown fire. Shade 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

148

tolerant tree species of the moist upland forest also tend to be less drought tolerant, and more 

susceptible to attack by certain insects and decay fungi.

Aspen

Mortality of mature aspen coupled with poor regeneration as a result of fire exclusion and 

continued browsing pressure by deer, elk and cattle are the major processes negatively affecting 

aspen throughout the Blue Mountains region. If these circumstances don’t change, they are 

expected to result in continued vegetation changes, with eventual type conversion from aspen to 

conifers or grassland within the next 80 to 200 years (Strand et al. 2009). Loss of aspen clones at 

a landscape scale would result in decreased biological diversity, with aspen decline cascading into 

losses of vertebrate species, understory vascular plants, and likely species from a myriad of other 

organismal groups (Strand et al. 2009).

All the alternatives have the desire to retain aspen on the landscape by ensuring that late mature, 

declining stands currently in danger of dying out entirely are successfully regenerated. Similarly, 

all alternatives share the desire to see a balanced diversity of age and structure classes existing 

among clones and stands. It is recognized that the attainment of these goals for aspen, will be 

influenced to great deal across all alternatives by processes beyond forest management activities. 

Examples of aspen loss not related to forest management include browsing of aspen seedlings and 

saplings, insects and diseases, and drought related sudden aspen decline. Sudden aspen decline is 

distinct from general age-induced dieback, as it is a sudden, landscape-scale event that can lead to 

loss of most of an aspen stand (Worrall et al. 2008). Results from Hanna and Kulakowski’s (2012) 

study of aspen mortality throughout the western U.S. suggests that aspen die-off is strongly 

associated with recent climatic conditions.

Management approaches to restoring aspen that would be used by all of the alternatives include 

the construction of deer, elk and cattle exclosures, mechanical or prescribed fire regeneration 

treatments, wildland fire use, establishment of new aspen stands using containerized planting 

stock, browse protection, removal of competing conifers, mechanical root stimulation (ripping) 

and the use of genetic variation data to guide management decisions.

Because clonal aspen stands tend to occur as smaller, scattered patches across the landscape, 

implementing stand-alone prescribed burning or mechanical stimulation projects solely for 

increasing regeneration within aspen clones may be difficult due to logistical considerations and 

costs. Within all three National Forests, the alternatives with generally higher harvesting and 

prescribed burning objectives like, D, E, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure may allow for 

more opportunities to use these tools efficiently to simultaneously improve the health, vigor and 

sustainability of aspen populations.

Aspen are very intolerant of shaded growing conditions and conifers that have grown into these 

stands during the period of modern fire suppression bring undesired competition and shaded 

environments to the aspen stands. In some cases these relatively young conifers trees have grown 

in excess of 21 inches diameter. Alternatives A and C, with strict restrictions on the harvesting of 

trees 21 inches diameter and greater, could result in restricting the ability to remove encroaching 

conifers from within these aspen stands. Alternative D would have no such restrictions and 

Alternatives B, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would incorporate specific management 

direction to accommodate these situations. While Alternatives E and F would place restrictions on 

the harvesting of older trees, these restrictions would not be anticipated to restrict aspen 

restoration activities substantially because conifers that are generally targeted for removal would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

149

be those which have encroached relatively recently due to fire suppression (less than 150 years 

old).

Whitebark Pine

All of the alternatives have the same desired conditions for whitebark pine to maintain or increase 

its presence in appropriate high elevation areas. The Pacific Northwest Region has currently 

developed a whitebark pine restoration strategy that contains a comprehensive restoration plan 

(Aubry 2008). This plan includes several possible management strategies, such as collecting 

whitebark pine seed, planting seed or seedlings, thinning competing trees, pruning tree limbs 

infected with blister rust, increasing genetic resistance to blister rust, evaluating areas where 

health, stand conditions, and restoration needs are unknown, and working collaboratively to 

increase understanding of impacts affecting whitebark pine communities.

Under all of the alternatives, these management options would be available, and if fully 

implemented, much degraded whitebark pine habitat and connectivity would be restored. Genetic 

diversity would be conserved across the landscape, resistance to white pine blister rust would be 

increased and populations would exhibit an increase in age class diversity. The risk of mortality 

from mountain pine beetle and stand-replacing fire would be reduced.

Large, high-severity fires have the potential to severely reduce or even eliminate cone-bearing 

whitebark pine across an extensive landscape (Aubry et al. 2008). Conifers that have grown into 

whitebark stands during the period of modern fire suppression often facilitate these types of 

events by changing the fuel characteristics in the area. In some cases, these relatively young 

encroaching conifer trees have grown in excess of 21 inches diameter. Alternatives A and C, with 

strict restrictions on the harvesting of trees 21 inches diameter and greater, could result in 

restricting the ability to remove these encroaching conifers from within whitebark stands. 

Alternative D would have no such restrictions, and Alternatives B, E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure would incorporate specific management direction to accommodate these situations. 

While Alternatives E and F would place restrictions on the harvesting of older trees, these 

restrictions would not be anticipated to substantially restrict whitebark restoration activities 

because conifers that are generally targeted for removal would be those which have encroached 

relatively recently due to fire suppression (less than 150 years old).

Under Alternatives C, E, F and E-Modified, relative to the other alternatives, additional areas 

would be allocated to MA 1B (recommended wilderness). Until final decisions are made by 

Congress, these areas would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The extent of 

recommended wilderness areas included in these alternatives could result in negative impacts on 

the ability to restore whitebark pine by limiting the tools available to conduct active whitebark 

pine management, such as tree planting of blister-rust resistant stock or thinning of competing 

vegetation. Prescribed burning to maintain vegetative types is not permitted in these areas, and 

Forest Service fire management objectives within wilderness or recommended wilderness areas 

call for lightning caused wildfires to fulfill as nearly as possible, their natural role. These 

objectives could increase the risk of undesired mortality of whitebark pine.

Forest Stand Density

Malheur National Forest Stand Density – Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest makes up a very small portion of the Malheur’s forest landscape. With the 

existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 111, it is 

highly departed from the range of desired stand density conditions. The deviation from desired 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

150

conditions stems from a large excess of low-density stand conditions and a corresponding lack of 

high-density stands.

Table 291. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Cold/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

20% – 30%

Cold/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

65% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

88% (58) 12% (53)

(111)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 50% (20) 50% (15) (35)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 32% (2) 68% (0) (2)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 32% (2) 68% (0) (0)

Alt. F Year 20 49% (19) 51% (14) (33)

Alt F. Year 50 50% (20) 50% (15) (35)

Alt. E Year 20 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. E Year 50 53% (23) 47% (18) (34)

Alt. D Year 20 53% (23) 47% (18) (41)

Alt. D Year 50 54% (24) 46% (19) (43)

Alt. C Year 20 46% (16) 54% (11) (27)

Alt. C Year 50 48% (18) 52% (13) (31)

Alt. B Year 20 53% (23) 47% (18) (41)

Alt. B Year 50 49% (19) 51% (14) (33)

Alt. A Year 20 46% (16) 54% (11) (27)

Alt. A Year 50 48% (18) 52% (13) (31)

DC= desired condition

Under all of the alternatives, similar levels of significant progress toward increasing the 

proportion of high-density stands in the cold upland forest potential vegetation group are 

expected within 20 years. The best 20-year results are expected under Alternatives A and C, 

which feature relatively low levels of active management. The degree of variation for the cold 

upland potential vegetation group is expected to drop to around 27 points after 20 years for these 

two alternatives. Looking at the mid-term timeframe shows that across Alternatives A through F, 

progress either slows dramatically, or stops completely. However, Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure show very different expected results in the mid-term, with desired conditions 

essentially being achieved by year 50. Since these two alternatives assumed very little active 

management taking place within the cold upland forest, the results indicate that lack of major 

disturbance and/or active management may be mostly what is needed to address the desired 

conditions for more high-density stand conditions within the cold upland forest.

Malheur National Forest Stand Density – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up the vast majority of the Malheur’s forest landscape. With the 

existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 40, it is 

currently moderately departed from the desired conditions. The largest deviation exists in terms 

of an excess of high-density stand conditions and a corresponding lack of low-density conditions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

151

With its ambitious objectives for thinning harvests, and focus on the dry upland forest, EModified Departure would be likely to make the most progress toward the desired conditions in 

the 20-year timeframe. This alternative would reduce the total variation from desired conditions 

to about 12 points within 20 years. Alternatives D and E-Modified would be the next best options 

in the near term, as they would drop the dry upland forest’s variation to 32 to 34 points. Despite 

the indicated differences in near term performance, all three of these alternatives would seem 

likely to result in similar levels of progress over the mid-term 50-year horizon. They would bring 

the potential vegetation group’s current variation to between 16 to 20 points over the 50-year time 

frame.

Table 292. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

80% – 90%

Dry/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

60% (20) 40% (20)

(40)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 63% (17) 37% (17) (34)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 70% (10) 30% (10) (20)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 74% (6) 26% (6) (12)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 72% (8) 28% (8) (16)

Alt. F Year 20 56% (24) 44% (24) (48)

Alt F. Year 50 59% (21) 41% (21) (42)

Alt. E Year 20 61% (19) 39% (19) (38)

Alt. E Year 50 69% (11) 31% (11) (22)

Alt. D Year 20 64% (16) 36% (16) (32)

Alt. D Year 50 72% (8) 28% (8) (16)

Alt. C Year 20 52% (28) 49% (29) (57)

Alt. C Year 50 51% (29) 50% (30) (59)

Alt. B Year 20 56% (24) 44% (24) (48)

Alt. B Year 50 56% (24) 44% (24) (48)

Alt. A Year 20 55% (25) 45% (25) (50)

Alt. A Year 50 57% (23) 43% (23) (46)

DC= desired condition

Alternatives A, B, C and F are all ineffective in terms of improving the stand density conditions 

of the dry upland forest. All of these alternatives would allow conditions to continue to worsen 

over time and result in increased levels of total variation from desired conditions. Alternative C 

would be the most counterproductive option with total variation expected to increase to 57 and 

then 59 points over the 20-year and 50-year time horizons respectively. Allowing stand densities 

of the dry upland forest to move away from the desired conditions would likely result in 

continued risk of uncharacteristic severe wildfire as well as elevated susceptibility to insects or 

disease as high levels of inter-tree competition are allowed to continue.

Some of the alternatives, would put less emphasis on using mechanical treatments to reduce stand 

densities, and would instead, rely mainly on the use of fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

152

reduce stand densities. However, opportunities to utilize fire within stands already existing in a 

high-density condition would likely be limited by the risk of unintentionally causing undesirable 

high-severity effects. Pretreatment of these dense stands by mechanical means before utilizing 

prescribed fire would probably prove more effective than using fire alone (Kalies and Kent 2016).

Malheur National Forest Stand Density – Moist Upland Forest

Like the cold upland forest, the Malheur’s moist upland forest is a relatively minor component of 

the overall forest landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 36, it is currently moderately departed from the range of desired 

conditions for stand density.

Table 293. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Malheur National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Moist/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

30% – 40%

Moist/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

60% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

58% (18) 42% (18)

(36)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 44% (4) 56% (4) (8)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 29% (1) 71% (0) (1)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 33% (0) 67% (0) (0)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 27% (3) 73% (0) (3)

Alt. F Year 20 34% (0) 66% (0) (0)

Alt F. Year 50 37% (0) 63% (0) (0)

Alt. E Year 20 36% (0) 64% (0) (0)

Alt. E Year 50 40% (0) 60% (0) (0)

Alt. D Year 20 41% (1) 58% (2) (3)

Alt. D Year 50 45% (5) 55% (5) (10)

Alt. C Year 20 31% (0) 69% (0) (0)

Alt. C Year 50 33% (0) 68% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 20 38% (0) 62% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 50 33% (0) 67% (0) (0)

Alt. A Year 20 33% (0) 67% (0) (0)

Alt. A Year 50 35% (0) 65% (0) (0)

DC= desired condition

All of the alternatives show the ability to either achieve or come close to achieving conditions 

close to the historical range over the next 20 years. However, looking at the mid-term timeframe 

shows the progress trend reversing itself to some extent for Alternative D. While all of the other 

alternatives would achieve and maintain the desired conditions over the 50-year time horizon, the 

management regime of Alternative D appears to be counterproductive over the 50-year time 

horizon. These results suggest that management regimes designed to effectively maintain desired 

conditions will necessarily be different from active restoration programs. Maintenance level 

management regimes will likely have to put less emphasis on thinning treatments and shift more 

toward treatments like uneven-aged selection harvesting and/or prescribed fire. Alternative D, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

153

with its more aggressive thinning schedules within the moist upland forest, would be the least 

effective alternative for maintaining the desired conditions for stand densities within the moist 

upland forest over the 50-year timeframe. Under Alternative D, the total variation from desired 

conditions is projected to increase from 3 at year-20 to 10 points at year 50.

Umatilla National Forest Stand Density – Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest represents only about 10 percent of the Umatilla’s forest landscape. With 

the existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 23, it is 

currently only showing a low level of departure from the range of desired stand density 

conditions. The deviation from desired conditions stems from a modest excess of low-density 

stand conditions and a corresponding lack of high-density stands.

Table 294. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Cold/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

20% – 30%

Cold/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

65% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

44% (14) 56% (9)

(23)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 40% (10) 60% (5) (15)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 33% (3) 67% (0) (3)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 41% (11) 59% (6) (17)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 32% (2) 68% (0) (2)

Alt. F Year 20 36% (6) 64% (1) (7)

Alt F. Year 50 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. E Year 20 45% (15) 55% (10) (25)

Alt. E Year 50 40% (10) 60% (5) (15)

Alt. D Year 20 39% (9) 60% (5) (14)

Alt. D Year 50 59% (29) 41% (24) (53)

Alt. C Year 20 35% (5) 65% (0) (5)

Alt. C Year 50 50% (20) 51% (14) (34)

Alt. B Year 20 35% (5) 65% (0) (5)

Alt. B Year 50 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. A Year 20 34% (4) 65% (0) (4)

Alt. A Year 50 50% (20) 50% (15) (35)

DC= desired condition

Alternatives A, B and C, all of which feature relatively low levels of active management, produce 

the best 20-year results. The degree of total variation for the cold upland potential vegetation 

group is expected to drop to around 4 to 5 points after 20 years for these three alternatives. 

However, looking at the mid-term timeframe shows the progress trend reversing across these 

three alternatives, and also within Alternatives D and F. The management regimes in these 

alternatives appear counterproductive in terms of achieving the desired conditions for stand 

density within the cold upland forest. However, Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure) show very different expected results in the mid-term, with desired conditions almost 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

154

achieved by year 50. Since these two alternatives assumed very little active management taking 

place within the cold upland forest, the results indicate lack major disturbance and/or active 

management may be mostly what is needed to address the desired conditions for more highdensity stand conditions within the cold upland forest. Alternative D, with the most aggressive 

timber production schedule, would be the least effective alternative in achieving the desired 

conditions for stand densities within the cold upland forest. Under Alternative D, the total 

variation from desired conditions is projected to increase to 53 points over the 50-year timeframe.

Umatilla National Forest Stand Density – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up over half of the Umatilla’s forest landscape. With the existing 

condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 100, it is currently 

highly departed from the desired stand density conditions. The largest deviation exists in terms of 

an excess of high-density stand conditions and a corresponding lack of low-density conditions. 

With its ambitious objectives for thinning harvests, and focus on the dry upland forest, EModified Departure would likely make the most progress toward the desired conditions in the 20-

year timeframe. This alternative would reduce the total variation from desired conditions to about 

22 points within 20 years. Alternative D would be the next best option in the near term, as it 

would drop the dry upland forest’s variation to 40 points. Alternative D would also produce the 

best results over the mid-term 50-year horizon. Alternative D would bring the potential vegetation 

group’s current variation down to about 6 points over the 50-year time frame.

Table 295. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

80% – 90%

Dry/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

30% (50) 70% (50)

(100)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 54% (26) 46% (26) (52)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 69% (11) 31% (11) (22)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 69% (11) 31% (11) (22)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 71% (9) 29% (9) (18)

Alt. F Year 20 47% (33) 53% (33) (66)

Alt F. Year 50 63% (17) 38% (18) (35)

Alt. E Year 20 51% (29) 49% (29) (58)

Alt. E Year 50 64% (16) 36% (16) (32)

Alt. D Year 20 60% (20) 40% (20) (40)

Alt. D Year 50 77% (3) 23% (3) (6)

Alt. C Year 20 39% (41) 61% (41) (82)

Alt. C Year 50 49% (31) 52% (32) (63)

Alt. B Year 20 45% (35) 55% (35) (70)

Alt. B Year 50 59% (21) 41% (21) (42)

Alt. A Year 20 46% (34) 54% (34) (68)

Alt. A Year 50 60% (20) 40% (20) (40)

DC= desired condition
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

155

Alternatives A, B and C are all significantly less effective in terms of improving the stand density 

conditions of the dry upland forest. All of these alternatives would likely result in only modest 

levels of improvement in the near term. Alternative C would be the least effective option with 

total variation expected to drop to 82 and then 63 points over the 20-year and 50-year time 

horizons respectively. Allowing stand densities of the dry upland forest to move away from the 

desired conditions would likely result in continued risk of uncharacteristic severe wildfire as well 

as elevated susceptibility to insects or disease as high levels of inter-tree competition are allowed 

to persist.

Some of the alternatives, would put less emphasis on using mechanical treatments to reduce stand 

densities, and would instead, rely mainly on the use of fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) to 

manage stand densities. However, opportunities to utilize fire within stands already existing in a 

high-density condition would likely be limited by the risk of unintentionally causing undesirable 

high-severity effects. Pretreatment of these dense stands by mechanical means before utilizing 

prescribed fire would probably prove more effective than using fire alone (Kalies and Kent 2016).

Umatilla National Forest Stand Density – Moist Upland Forest

The Umatilla’s moist upland forest component is significant, making up almost 40 percent of the 

overall forested landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the 

historical range of variability of 30, it is currently moderately departed from the range of desired 

stand density conditions.

Table 296. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Umatilla National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Moist/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

30% – 40%

Moist/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

60% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

55% (15) 45% (15) (30)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 39% (0) 61% (0) (0)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 30% (0) 70% (0) (0)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 43% (3) 57% (3) (6)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 31% (0) 69% (0) (0)

Alt. F Year 20 36% (0) 64% (0) (0)

Alt F. Year 50 38% (0) 62% (0) (0)

Alt. E Year 20 42% (2) 58% (2) (4)

Alt. E Year 50 36% (0) 64% (0) (0)

Alt. D Year 20 41% (1) 59% (1) (2)

Alt. D Year 50 49% (9) 51% (9) (18)

Alt. C Year 20 35% (0) 65% (0) (0)

Alt. C Year 50 36% (0) 64% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 20 35% (0) 65% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 50 37% (0) 63% (0) (0)

Alt. A Year 20 35% (0) 65% (0) (0)

Alt. A Year 50 39% (0) 61% (0) (0)

DC= desired condition
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

156

All of the alternatives show the ability to either achieve or come close to achieving conditions 

close to the historical range over the next 20 years. However, looking at the mid-term timeframe 

shows the progress trend reversing itself to some extent for Alternative D. While all of the other 

alternatives would achieve and maintain the desired conditions over the 50-year time horizon, the 

management regime of Alternative D appears to be counterproductive over the 50-year time 

horizon. These results suggest that management regimes designed to effectively maintain desired 

conditions will necessarily be different from active restoration programs. Maintenance level 

management regimes will likely have to put less emphasis on thinning treatments and shift more 

toward treatments like uneven-aged selection harvesting and/or prescribed fire. Alternative D, 

with its more aggressive thinning schedules within the moist upland forest, would be the least 

effective alternative for maintaining the desired conditions for stand densities within the moist 

upland forest over the 50-year timeframe. Under Alternative D, the total variation from desired 

conditions is projected to increase from 2 at year-20 to 18 points at year 50.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Stand Density – Cold Upland Forest

The cold upland forest represents over 25 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman’s forest landscape, 

and much of the cold upland forest potential vegetation group is located within existing or 

proposed wilderness, roadless or backcountry areas.

Table 297. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Cold/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

20% – 30%

Cold/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

65% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

62% (32) 38% (27)

(59)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 38% (8) 62% (3) (11)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 39% (9) 61% (4) (13)

Alt. F Year 20 48% (18) 51% (14) (32)

Alt F. Year 50 47% (17) 53% (12) (29)

Alt. E Year 20 50% (20) 50% (15) (35)

Alt. E Year 50 50% (20) 50% (15) (35)

Alt. D Year 20 52% (22) 48% (17) (39)

Alt. D Year 50 51% (21) 49% (16) (37)

Alt. C Year 20 48% (18) 52% (13) (31)

Alt. C Year 50 46% (16) 54% (11) (27)

Alt. B Year 20 48% (18) 52% (13) (31)

Alt. B Year 50 46% (16) 53% (12) (28)

Alt. A Year 20 48% (18) 52% (13) (31)

Alt. A Year 50 47% (17) 53% (12) (29)

DC= desired condition
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

157

With the existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 59, 

it is significantly departed from the range of desired stand density conditions. The deviation from 

desired conditions stems from a large excess of low-density stand conditions and a corresponding 

lack of high-density stands. Under all of the alternatives, fairly similar levels of significant 

progress toward increasing the proportion of high-density stands in the cold upland forest are 

expected within 20 years. The best 20-year results are expected under Alternatives A, B and C, 

which feature relatively low levels of active management. The degree of variation for the cold 

upland potential vegetation group is expected to drop to around 31 points after 20 years for these 

three alternatives. Looking at the mid-term timeframe shows that across Alternatives A through F, 

progress either slows dramatically, or stops completely. However, Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure show very different expected results in the mid-term, with continued 

progress toward desired conditions expected to be achieved by year 50. Since these two 

alternatives assumed very little active management taking place within the cold upland forest, the 

results indicate lack major disturbance and/or active management may be mostly what is needed 

to address the desired conditions for more high-density stand conditions within the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Stand Density – Dry Upland Forest

The dry upland forest makes up about one-half of the Wallowa-Whitman’s forest landscape. With 

the existing condition showing a total variation from the historical range of variability of 96, it is 

currently highly departed from the desired stand density conditions. The largest deviation is an 

excess of high-density stand conditions and a corresponding lack of low-density conditions. With 

its ambitious objectives for thinning harvests, and focus on the dry upland forest, E-Modified 

Departure would likely make the most progress toward the desired conditions in the 20-year 

timeframe. This alternative would reduce the total variation from desired conditions to about 18 

points within 20 years. Alternatives D and E-Modified would be the next best options in the near 

term, as they would drop the dry upland forest’s variation to 44 to 46 points. Despite the indicated 

differences in near term performance, all three of these alternatives would seem likely to result in 

similar levels of progress over the mid-term 50-year horizon. They would bring the potential 

vegetation group’s current variation to between 6 to 10 points over the 50-year time frame.

Alternatives A, B, C and F are all significantly less effective in terms of improving the stand 

density conditions of the dry upland forest. All of these alternatives would likely result in only 

modest levels of improvement in the near term. Alternative C would be the least effective option 

with total variation expected to drop only to 82 and then 68 points over the 20-year and 50-year 

time horizons respectively. Allowing stand densities of the dry upland forest to move away from 

the desired conditions would likely result in continued risk of uncharacteristic severe wildfire as 

well as elevated susceptibility to insects or disease as high levels of inter-tree competition are 

allowed to continue.

Some of the alternatives, would put less emphasis on using mechanical treatments to reduce stand 

densities, and would instead, rely mainly on the use of fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) to 

reduce stand densities. However, opportunities to utilize fire within stands already existing in a 

high density condition would likely be limited by the risk of unintentionally causing undesirable 

high-severity effects. Pretreatment of these dense stands by mechanical means before utilizing 

prescribed fire would probably prove more effective than using fire alone (Kalies and Kent 2016).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

158

Table 298. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Dry/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

80% – 90%

Dry/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

5% - 20%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

32% (48) 68% (48)

(96)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 58% (22) 42% (22) (44)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 75% (5) 25% (5) (10)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 71% (9) 29% (9) (18)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 75% (5) 25% (5) (10)

Alt. F Year 20 46% (34) 54% (34) (68)

Alt F. Year 50 59% (21) 41% (21) (42)

Alt. E Year 20 52% (28) 48% (28) (56)

Alt. E Year 50 69% (11) 31% (11) (22)

Alt. D Year 20 57% (23) 43% (23) (46)

Alt. D Year 50 77% (3) 23% (3) (6)

Alt. C Year 20 39% (41) 61% (41) (82)

Alt. C Year 50 46% (34) 54% (34) (68)

Alt. B Year 20 44% (36) 56% (36) (72)

Alt. B Year 50 56% (24) 44% (24) (48)

Alt. A Year 20 44% (36) 56% (36) (72)

Alt. A Year 50 56% (24) 44% (24) (48)

DC= desired condition

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Stand Density – Moist Upland Forest

The Wallowa-Whitman’s moist upland forest component makes up about one quarter of the 

overall forest landscape. With the existing condition showing a total variation from the historical 

range of variability of 2, it is currently essentially within the range of desired conditions for stand 

density. All of the alternatives show the ability to maintain conditions close to the historical range

over the next 20 years. However, looking at the mid-term timeframe shows the progress trend 

reversing itself to some extent for Alternatives D, E, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. The 

management regimes in these alternatives appear counterproductive in terms of maintaining the 

desired conditions for stand density within the moist upland forest over the 50-year time horizon. 

The results for these four alternatives suggest that management regimes designed to effectively 

maintain desired conditions will necessarily be different from active restoration programs. 

Maintenance level management regimes will likely have to put less emphasis on thinning 

treatments and shift more toward treatments like uneven-aged selection harvesting and/or 

prescribed fire. Alternatives E and D, with more aggressive thinning schedules within the moist 

upland forest, would be the least effective alternatives for maintaining the desired conditions for 

stand densities within the moist upland forest over the 50-year timeframe. Under Alternatives D 

and E, the total variation from desired conditions is projected to increase from zero at year 20 to 

26 and 18 points respectively at year 50.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

159

Table 299. Forest stand density class, as a percent of the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group (with amount of variation from the desired condition range in parentheses) by alternative 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Alternative Time Period

Moist/Open 

(Low density)

DC =

30% – 40%

Moist/Closed 

(High density)

DC =

60% - 80%

Summed Total 

Amount of 

Variation

Not applicable Existing 

Condition

41% (1) 59% (1)

(2)

Alt. E-Modified Year 20 41% (1) 59% (1) (2)

Alt. E-Modified Year 50 46% (6) 54% (6) (12)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 20 41% (1) 59% (1) (2)

Alt. E-Modified Departure Year 50 46% (6) 54% (6) (12)

Alt. F Year 20 29% (1) 71% (1) (2)

Alt F. Year 50 43% (3) 57% (3) (6)

Alt. E Year 20 33% (0) 66% (0) (0)

Alt. E Year 50 49% (9) 51% (9) (18)

Alt. D Year 20 36% (0) 64% (0) (0)

Alt. D Year 50 53% (13) 47% (13) (26)

Alt. C Year 20 26% (4) 74 (0) (4)

Alt. C Year 50 39% (0) 61% (0) (0)

Alt. B Year 20 28% (2) 72% (0) (2)

Alt. B Year 50 41% (1) 59% (1) (2)

Alt. A Year 20 28% (2) 72% (0) (2)

Alt. A Year 50 42% (2) 58% (2) (4)

DC= desired condition

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects were analyzed by considering the effects of the alternatives in the 

context of past, present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have occurred 

within the vegetation cumulative effects analysis area. This analysis area consists of the 25 

subbasins (HUC 4) which contain the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

and other lands. The time period into the future considered was 50 years. Present and foreseeable 

future activities that could affect forest vegetation are summarized below:

The three National Forests of the Blue Mountains region are revising their Forest Plans 

simultaneously. These three individual final revised Forest Plans will all contain the same desired 

conditions and will emphasize forest vegetation treatments that change the species composition, 

density, and structure in a similar fashion. With these three National Forests adjoining one 

another, the management direction established with these final revised Forest Plans should 

promote coordinated efforts that will complement each other in contributing to overall movement 

toward the historical range of variability and desired conditions for the restoration of landscape 

resiliency.

The vast majority of the forestland within the Plan Area is federally managed by one of the three 

National Forests. Most of the other forestland within and adjacent to the National Forests is either 

owned by private individuals or forest products companies, with a small amount being managed 

by tribal governments or other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. Timber 

harvesting and many other related silvicultural treatments on forestlands of other ownership are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

160

controlled by State forest practices statutes, as well as a number of State and Federal regulations 

and incentives designed to protect the productivity and environmental quality of natural 

resources. The Forest Service does not have the authority to regulate any activities or their timing 

on lands other than those they administer.

Management objectives on these forestlands of other ownership tend to focus on fuel reduction 

and timber production. These ownerships also tend to be concentrated within the dry upland 

forest areas. The historical harvesting practices of that took place on these lands were similar to 

that which occurred on the National Forest. As a result, much of the old forest structure of these 

areas has been previously harvested, and these lands contribute little of this structural stage to the 

overall landscape. Habitats for whitebark pine and aspen on lands of other ownership are very 

limited. Management practices on adjacent forestlands, which focuses on maintaining low-density 

stand conditions to accelerate sawtimber production or reduce the risk of severe fire behavior,

tend to make it less likely that severe wildland fire or insect outbreaks will develop outside the 

National Forest and subsequently move onto National Forest System lands.

Land uses, subdivision, and development of privately owned forestland within the wildland-urban 

interface is expected to continue to occur only at modest rates and is not expected to significantly 

affect current conditions within the National Forest over the planning horizon.

Actions or the lack of actions that may take place under the various alternatives on National 

Forest System lands may cause direct, indirect or cumulative effects on adjacent lands of other 

ownership. If the conditions of the National Forest forestlands are conducive, insect outbreaks or 

wildfires that typically start small in one or more localized places within the National Forests may 

spread subsequently to additional areas. The effects of these disturbances have the potential to 

spread to and negatively impact adjacent ownerships if large areas within the National Forests 

contain the same host tree species or contain uncharacteristically high forest fuel loads. If 

disturbances develop to a high enough level within the National Forests as a result of favorable 

conditions, the resulting effects could become so great that they are able to overwhelm adjacent 

ownerships, even though those areas had received preventative treatment.

Over much of last planning period, forest restoration efforts in the Blue Mountains have focused 

on addressing a long legacy of fire exclusion and historical timber harvesting practices that have 

created densely stocked stands, mostly at lower elevations. Active management has centered on 

improving the vigor of low-elevation dry forests and reducing fire hazard, primarily with 

mechanical treatments and prescribed fire.

The level of active silvicultural management over the past planning period has largely been 

insufficient to reverse most of the undesirable conditions discussed in the previous sections. The 

abundance of relatively small-scale active management projects has contributed to a growing 

backlog of excess forest growth and continued movement away from the historical range of 

variability. One notable exception to this pattern has been the award of a large-scale 10-year 

Integrated Resource Service Contract by the Malheur National Forest in 2013. This 10-year 

contractual obligation to supply substantial volumes of timber has enabled a pace and scale of 

treatment that has not been utilized since early in the previous planning period. This project could 

provide additional momentum to the planning and implementation of forest management projects 

by the Malheur National Forest for at least the remaining term of the contract. As the service 

contract expands through subsequent annual task orders, a level of certainty is likely to continue 

to develop for local contractors, encouraging their investment in the infrastructure necessary to 

fully accomplish needed restoration work across the Malheur and other eastside Oregon forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

161

However, establishment of a small diameter market to sustain the critical work to restore stand 

structure and composition, along with the continuation of elevated funding levels, will both be 

key elements in sustaining this effort beyond the life of this initiative.

The greatest extent of foreseeable actions connected to the attainment of future forest-restoration 

goals is related to the ongoing Eastside Restoration Strategy. This effort, supported by the Pacific 

Northwest Regional office of the Forest Service, started in 2013 as a way of putting resources 

toward and a focus on some different methods of planning and implementing forest restoration 

projects on the eastside National Forests of Oregon and Washington. Since 2013, the effort has 

supported the development of five Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Projects and five 

Joint Chief’s projects, which combine the forces of the Forest Service and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service to restore forests and reduce fuel loadings across adjoining Federal and 

non-Federal lands in priority areas. The Blue Mountains Restoration Team has recently completed 

the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement and the 

Record of Decision for that implementation project was finalized in March of 2017. The same 

team is currently working on the landscape scale Blue Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, 

which encompasses parts of three National Forests in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and may 

cover up to 610,000 acres of thinning and prescribed fire treatments. All of these planning efforts 

will tend to support the future implementation of the revised Forest Plans.

Other efficiencies, such as the regional Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion covering the 

Pacific Northwest and streamlining consultation for projects working within those design criteria, 

have provided a vehicle for increasing riparian restoration efforts throughout the region.

The National Forests within the Blue Mountains have all implemented some levels of active 

restoration efforts for whitebark pine over the previous planning period. All of the alternatives for 

plan revision would contain desired conditions for whitebark pine to persist on the landscape, so 

restoration activities for this species would likely continue or intensify, contingent upon funding. 

If this tree species is eventually listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species, there could 

be ramifications to the vegetation and fire management programs within the Blue Mountains 

national forests due to additional legal requirements to ensure individual whitebark pines are not 

adversely affected or destroyed by either whitebark pine restoration actions or fire suppression 

activities.

Carbon Sequestration

The movement of carbon between the earth and its atmosphere controls the concentration of 

carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide is important because it is a greenhouse gas and traps 

heat radiation given off when the sun warms the earth. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases 

in the atmosphere can cause the earth to warm. Forests store large amounts of carbon in their live 

and dead wood and soil and play an active role in controlling the concentration of carbon dioxide

in the atmosphere (Ryan et al. 2010). Carbon fluxes between the atmosphere and forests are 

complex, and vary spatially and temporally. The cycle of forest growth, death, and regeneration 

and the use of wood removed from the forest complicate efforts to understand and measure forest 

carbon pools and flows. The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests store 

and sequester approximately 13 percent of the total Pacific Northwest Region carbon and carbon 

dioxide (Heath et al. 2011).

Factors that could potentially influence whether carbon stocks shift from regional carbon sinks to 

carbon sources include increasing temperatures, changes in precipitation, changing disturbance 

regimes, such as more frequent fires, and degradation of forest resiliency that results in net 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

162

decreases of forested areas. Fire and bark beetle outbreaks play a large role in regional carbon 

balances. The current forests of the Blue Mountains are developing, and to some extent, 

recovering from past management practices. Because this period of recovery will eventually end, 

the resulting forest carbon sink will not continue indefinitely. Increased fertilization from 

atmospheric nitrogen deposition and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide may also be 

contributing to forest growth. Both the magnitude of this growth and the future of the carbon sink 

over the next 50 years are uncertain.

Under simulations, eastern Oregon gains ecosystem carbon because of the expansion of forest and 

woodland vegetation, while experiencing more and larger wildfires at the same time (Millar et al. 

2006). However, deforestation, or the conversion of forest land to nonforest cover types, for 

example, by abnormally large and severe wildfires, could have a significant impact on global 

carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently, the different approaches represented in the plan revision 

alternatives could have long-term implications in terms of the potential for carbon sequestration.

As explained by Ryan et al. (2010), the various strategies for storing carbon in forests have 

different associated risks and levels of uncertainty. Retaining forests (which also includes 

regenerating after disturbances) and afforestation both involve low levels of uncertainty regarding 

carbon consequences and therefore low risk to carbon storage—aside from the risks of carbon 

loss in disturbance or that the deforestation will simply happen elsewhere. The carbon benefits of 

using biomass energy and long-lived forest products are also fairly certain, as long as forests 

regenerate. Reducing harvest levels or lengthening harvest intervals involves a bit more risk 

because disturbances would be more likely to occur in forests with higher carbon stores.

Timber and Forest Products

Timber management and harvesting is an important tool for managing tree growth and yields, 

ecosystem diversity, forest insect and disease populations, recreation settings, wildlife habitat, 

and wildfire hazard. Timber harvesting provides forest products that help support local forest 

dependent industries and the communities associated with those industries. It helps meet the 

demands of the public for products such as lumber, pulpwood, firewood, house logs or other 

forms of roundwood. It can also influence the availability and harvesting of special forest 

products.

This section provides an estimate of lands suitable for timber production, harvesting levels in 

relation to long-term sustained yield and allowable sale quantity volume. The timber volumes 

expected to be removed from lands both suitable and not suitable for timber production are 

estimated (timber sale program quantity). The forest products that could be removed from the dry 

upland forest, moist upland forest and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups are 

considered.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this Environmental Impact Statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Improvements in the Methods Used to Estimate Timber Yields Associated with Harvest 

Treatments: Forest Service received numerous comments on the Draft Plan and Environmental 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

163

Impact Statement that expressed concerns over what was perceived as insufficient timber volume 

estimates for allowable sale quantity and timber sale program quantity. In response to these 

comments, the methodology behind the calculation of the estimated timber yields used to 

calculate these volumes was improved. As a result, all of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement timber volumes, for all alternatives, have been revised. The explanation of the methods 

used to calculate the yields has been clarified and brought forward from its previous location in 

an appendix of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Acres of Harvest Treatment as a Key Indicator: The description of harvesting effects that was 

contained within this section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was moved to the 

“Ecological Resilience” section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. This was done to 

improve clarity and readability. Because harvesting treatment acres have already been included 

and discussed as a key indicator within the previous “Ecological Resilience” section, removing 

the same material here eliminates redundancy. This discussion topic was also strengthened within 

the “Ecological Resilience” section to improve clarity and respond to comments questioning the 

role of various silvicultural treatments in terms of enhancing ecological resilience.

Update of Past Timber Harvesting Levels: The figure representing levels of past timber 

harvesting in the “Affected Environment” section (Figure 40) was updated to show more relevant 

and timely information. The figure now portrays the quantity of timber volumes sold by the three 

National Forests from 2007 to 2016.

Revision of Tables Presenting Long-term Sustained Yield, Allowable Sale Quantity, and 

Timber Sale Program Quantity: Between the development of the draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statements, the tables presenting the long-term sustained yield, allowable 

sale quantity, and timber sale program quantity values were revised. This was done to more 

clearly compare and relate allowable sale quantity to long-term sustained yield for a given 

alternative, and also to show what portion of the timber sale program quantity volume was 

contributed by harvesting on lands suitable for timber production and what portion is estimated to 

come from other lands.

Key Assumptions and Methodology

Forest product volumes resulting from harvesting treatments were estimated based on the forest 

vegetation modeling completed with the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool. See the “Forest 

Vegetation” section for more information concerning how that modeling was completed. Timber 

volume yield factors were applied against the model’s harvest acres output to generate total 

volume estimates for the different alternative values of long-term sustained yield, allowable sale 

quantity, and timber sale program quantity. Tables of timber harvest volume yields were 

developed by performing various simulated harvest prescriptions within the Blue Mountains 

variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator model (Dixon 2002, 2008). Plot data from the existing 

forest Continuous Vegetation Survey inventory were categorized in terms of the various 

Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool model for vegetation classes. All of these various forest 

vegetation classes were then harvested within the Forest Vegetation Simulator model via several 

different prescription types, which represented common expected treatments (such as commercial 

thinning, individual tree selection, shelterwood or regeneration harvests). This resulted in an 

estimated yield of merchantable timber expected for each vegetation class/harvest prescription 

combination. Total volume estimates were then generated by multiplying the total acres of each 

specific vegetation state class treated with a particular harvest prescription, times the associated 

estimated yield.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

164

Distinct Forest Vegetation Simulator harvest prescriptions were developed for each national forest 

based on their different minimum merchantability standards. Alternative C is the only alternative 

to propose a strict harvesting diameter limit of 21 inches, while Alternative A would continue the 

portions of the Eastside Screens direction related to old forest. Because many stages of old forest 

are currently underrepresented on the landscape, Alternative A will also effectively result in the 

imposition of a diameter cap requiring the retention of most live trees greater than 21 inches 

diameter. All the other alternatives were designed to implement more flexible approaches to old 

forest conservation. Therefore, different versions of harvest scenarios were also developed to 

represent harvesting under a strict 21-inch diameter limit, as well as harvesting under scenarios 

that would allow degrees of flexibility in that regard. The Forest Vegetation Simulator harvest 

component key files (“kcp” files) with the strict diameter cap built in were used in conjunction 

with allowable sale quantity and timber sale program quantity modelling for Alternatives A and 

C. All long-term sustained yield modelling as well as all other alternative versions of allowable 

sale quantity and timber sale program quantity used the volume yields derived from the harvest 

scenarios without a strict diameter limit.

Other assumptions used with the alternatives modelling include:

• All harvest schedules were designed with consideration of moving toward the overall 

desired conditions for forest vegetation structure, density and species composition.

• Because of the recognized scarcity of old forest structure stages in terms of the desired 

conditions, only uneven-aged management or thinning harvests were modelled within these 

stands.

• Markets were assumed to continue to exist for all products meeting minimum 

merchantability specifications and the full suite of implementation tools was assumed to be 

available including stewardship contracting.

• Firewood, Christmas trees, post and poles, transplants and other personal use products will 

continue to be available to meet public demand. Amounts will be similar to current levels 

and will not vary between alternatives.

Timber and Forest Products – Affected Environment

The Blue Mountains National Forests have a long history of providing timber and other forest 

products to address local community, regional and national needs. Commercial logging began in 

the 1870s when the transcontinental railroad linked the Blue Mountains to national lumber 

markets. Logging accelerated during the 1890s. Timber companies extended railroad lines into 

several drainages and sawmills began to appear across the Blue Mountains (Wickman 1992). 

With the establishment of the national forests, harvest slowed on public lands. National forest 

timber was difficult to access and more costly to acquire. From 1905 until 1916, most commercial 

timber harvest in the Blue Mountains came from private lands. This situation changed in the 

1920s. National forests began offering large timber sales that focused on removal of 

commercially valuable stands of old ponderosa pine. Heavy logging occurred throughout the 

decade and was only abated by the drop in the national economy and the oversupply of lumber 

that occurred in the 1930s (Langston 1995). Logging on the national forests increased again in the 

1940s. During the post-World War II era, communities throughout the Plan Area generally had 

robust economies related in part to a flourishing wood products industry. Harvest levels remained 

relatively high throughout the next four decades (1950s through 1980s) as forest managers raced 

to salvage insect-killed timber and provide lumber for a growing national market.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

165

From its beginning, management of the National Forests emphasized efficient and productive 

forests capable of meeting the nation’s demands into the future. The emerging discipline of 

American forestry at the time held that inferior diseased and decadent trees needed to be removed 

and replaced with young, healthy, rapidly growing trees. Generally, this meant replacing stands of 

slower growing, old ponderosa pine with young, faster growing stands. Logging of ponderosa 

pine was so intense during the logging boom that started in the 1920s that it likely exceeded 

sustainable rates. For example, two large timber sales from the Malheur National Forest made 

2 billion board feet of pine available out of an estimated supply of 7 billion board feet in the 

forest. As harvest of large, old ponderosa pine continued, the availability of large desirable pine 

sawlog trees gradually decreased on the three National Forests. The average ponderosa pine 

harvested from the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in 1912 was 33 inches in diameter at 

breast height. By 1992, the average size harvested was 19 inches diameter. The quantity of 

ponderosa pine harvested also decreased over time. In the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 

57 percent of the timber by volume in 1906 was ponderosa pine; in 1991, ponderosa pine volume 

was less than 20 percent. From the Umatilla National Forest, ponderosa pine was 34 percent of 

the harvest volume in 1931 (Weidman and Silcox 1936) and 16 percent in 1981.

Sharp declines in timber harvesting from federal lands in the Blue Mountains have occurred since 

the 1990s. These declines have primarily been due to federal management changes intended to 

protect wildlife species and encourage the growth of older forests. The amount of timber volume 

harvested from the three Blue Mountains National Forests has declined dramatically during the 

previous planning period, from highs of almost 600 million board feet annually in the early 1990s 

to a current 3-year average annual volume sold of around 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.

Figure 40 displays commercial timber sold volume (personal use permit volumes are not 

included) from the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests from fiscal years 

2007 to 2016.6 The average annual volume sold has declined significantly from 1990 Forest 

Plans’ projected average for the Blue Mountains of 576 million board feet per year to the current 

3-year average annual volume sold of around 100 million board feet per year. The use of evenaged regeneration methods of timber harvest (clearcut, seed tree, and shelterwood) has been 

reduced to less than 5 percent of the acres that were projected in the1990 Forest Plans.

Declines in eastern Oregon Federal timber harvest resulted in substantial reductions in east-side 

volume delivered to Oregon mills over the past 20 years, particularly for ponderosa pine. Unlike 

other regions within the State, in eastern Oregon there is relatively little privately held or State 

forest land to make up for reduced Federal harvesting (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. The processing of “manufactured” board products also decreased by 

approximately 30 percent. There was a reduction in plywood and veneer processing of about 10 

percent, while pulp processing remained has about the same.

 6 Source: U.S. Forest Service Timber Information Manager PTSAR (Administrative Unit Summary) - PTSR202F

reports (excluding personal use permit volume)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

166

Figure 40. National Forest commercial timber volume sold1 over the previous 10 

fiscal years

The decreasing production capacity, labor saving technological changes, and decreases in logging 

have resulted in declines for associated employment. Timber-based businesses have been closing 

and the region has lost valuable forestry infrastructure such as mills, logging equipment and 

expertise. There have been unintended social and economic consequences as well, including loss 

of receipts from timber sales used to support roads and schools (OFRI 2010). 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). A more detailed discussion of social and economic considerations can be found in 

the “Social and Economic Well Being” section of Chapter 3.

Although some economic diversification has taken place, wood products manufacturing remains 

an important part of local economies. There is expanding use and interest in biomass for fuels. 

Timber management continues to be an important tool for managing vegetation to achieve desired 

conditions, including those for wildlife, climate change, and wildland fire management. Without 

the local timber products industry, the capability of the Forest Service to affordably manage 

vegetation would be significantly reduced. A more detailed discussion of how timber harvesting 

is used to improve the forest conditions can be found in the “Ecological Resilience” section of 

Chapter 3 in volume 1.

The three Blue Mountains National Forests have also contributed nontimber forest products, such 

as firewood, mushrooms, posts, and poles to residents and Tribes. For example, in fiscal year 

2016, the National Forests sold about $148,000 of firewood permits, $46,000 of mushroom 

collection permits, and about $9,000 of post and pole permits. These uses help provide 

communities with heat and food, and also represent important connections between people and 

the National Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

167

Growth and Mortality

Hovee et al. (2005) noted that mortality is substantially higher on public rather than private lands 

in eastern Oregon, and on federal lands, mortality far exceeds harvest removals. This same study 

estimated net forest growth (gross growth minus mortality) for eastern Oregon of around 800 

million board feet per year. An analysis of two different data collection occasions of continuous 

vegetation survey plot data indicated a similar annual net growth rate. Across the Blue Mountains 

national forests, the annual gross forest growth and net forest growth have far exceeded 

harvesting levels. These high levels of net growth combined with low levels of harvest removals 

may jeopardize long-term timber resource as well as ecosystem health in general. Excess forest 

growth is currently being removed through competition related mortality, insect and disease 

outbreaks, and wildfires. This growing surplus needs to be removed in a controlled manner to 

move toward and maintain the desired conditions for forest vegetation and timber production. 

Overgrowth reduces individual tree growth, vigor, and may contribute to uncharacteristically 

severe wildfire or insect outbreaks (Raffa et al. 2008; Stine et al. 2014; Millar and Stephenson 

2015).

Lands Tentatively Suitable for Timber Production

The National Forest Management Act requires that National Forest System lands be classified as 

to their suitability and availability for timber harvest and production. Since the adoption of the 

1990 Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, many changes to timber production 

suitability have occurred. These changes include reductions in lands considered suitable for 

timber production due to Forest Plan amendments resulting in major shifts in management 

direction pertaining to riparian areas and old forest. The final adoption of Federal regulations for 

the protection of inventoried roadless areas (36 CFR 294) also resulted in large areas no longer 

being suitable for timber production. As part of the forest plan revision, timber suitability was recalculated to reflect these changes in management direction. Lands suitable for timber production 

form the basis for the calculation of the allowable sale quantity and the long-term sustained yield 

capacity. The first step of the suitability determination is to identify the lands that are tentatively 

(potentially) suitable for timber production.

A timber suitability analysis following the requirements of the National Forest Management Act 

was completed as a part of the planning process. This process is basically a series of subtractions 

of land from the total forest land base using the following four broad categories to identify lands 

not available for timber production:

1. National Forest System lands that have been withdrawn from timber production. These 

are lands designated by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest 

Service for other multiple-use objectives that preclude timber production (such as units of 

the National Wilderness Preservation System and research natural areas).

2. National Forest System lands (exclusive of withdrawn areas) that are not forested, or are 

not capable of producing industrial wood, including lands that are incapable of 

supporting 10 percent tree cover or support less than 20 cubic feet per acre per year; 

administrative sites; and lands maintained in a nonforest condition, such as powerline 

rights-of-way.

3. Forestland physically unsuited for timber production because technology is not available 

to ensure timber production from the land without causing irreversible damage to soils 

productivity, or watershed conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

168

4. Forestland for which there is a lack of reasonable assurance that adequate restocking can 

be attained within five years following regeneration harvesting.

Forestlands remaining after identifying and subtracting these subsets of unsuitable forestlands 

described above are those that are tentatively available for and potentially capable of timber 

production. These are referred to as tentatively suitable forestland. Tentatively suitable forestlands 

represent the maximum number of acres that could be managed for regular and predictable wood 

product outputs (timber production). These acres remain constant as a starting point for the 

development of different alternatives. Table 300 displays lands tentatively suitable for timber 

production by national forest. See the comparison of alternatives in the “Environmental 

Consequences” section below for a display of suitable acres for each alternative.

Table 300. Lands tentatively suitable for timber production

Category Malheur Umatilla WallowaWhitman

1. NFS lands total (acres) 1,700,000 1,400,000 1,800,000

a. Forest land withdrawn from production 101,000 347,000 390,000

b. Non-forest land 215,000 199,000 250,000

c. Potential for irreversible damage 0 0 0

d. No assurance of adequate restocking 139,000 37,000 150,000

2. Total unsuitable land (acres) 455,000 583,000 790,000

3. Tentatively suitable forest land (acres) 1,245,000 817,000 1,010,000

Long-term Sustained Yield

Long-term sustained yield is the maximum amount of timber volume that can be sustainably 

harvested from the lands suitable for timber production under a specific management regime 

consistent with other multiple-use objectives. The key difference between long-term sustained 

yield and the allowable sale quantity (see below) is that long-term sustained yield is estimated 

under the assumption that the lands suitable and managed for timber production exist in a fully 

managed regulated state and the forest vegetation meets desired conditions. Allowable sale 

quantity, on the other hand, is constrained to the time period covered by the plan, so it will reflect 

yields from lands in their current condition that do not exist within the desired conditions. 

Otherwise, the same Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool model was used to project both the 

long-term sustained yield and allowable sale quantity. The forest growth assumptions, suitable 

timber production land base, utilization standards and yield tables used were the same for both 

long-term sustained yield and allowable sale quantity for any given alternative, with two 

exceptions. As discussed above, the yield tables used to determine the allowable sale quantity for 

Alternatives A and C reflect a strict 21-inch diameter limit. However, for the determination of 

long-term sustained yield, it was assumed that the forest vegetation was within our desired 

conditions, so this management direction would no longer be needed. Generally, long-term 

sustained yield was estimated to represent the harvest of the annual net growth from forest lands 

suitable for timber production, assuming those lands are meeting our desired ecological 

conditions and are fully managed. All long-term sustained yield modelling, for all alternatives,

used the volume yields derived from the harvest scenarios without a strict diameter limit.

The Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool was used to estimate the long-term sustained yield 

for each alternative. Multiple model runs were performed for each alternative’s long-term 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

169

sustained yield to smooth the random variation of the modeling results. The models were first run 

for a 200-year period, to ensure all potential vegetation groups were within the desired conditions. 

Multiple iterations were then run for the period from year 201 to 300 and the results were paired 

up with the appropriate timber volume yield tables. The final solution for each alternative’s longterm sustained yield is the average of multiple simulations over the 201 to 300-year model period.

The end results represent the highest level of timber volume output that was able to produce a 

steady timber volume trend line over the modeled period while also maintaining the desired 

vegetation conditions over the entire period. These values were presented as average annual 

volume amounts for each alternative.

Allowable Sale Quantity

Allowable sale quantity is the quantity of timber that may be sold from the land area that is 

designated as suitable for timber production. The allowable sale quantity volume control concept 

enacted by the National Forest Management Act was intended to prevent overcutting beyond 

sustainable forest levels from occurring on suitable timberlands. The allowable sale quantity is 

the upper limit of the amount of timber volume potentially available for harvest on forestlands 

suitable for timber production during a specified time period, usually a decade. Although it is a 

decadal limit, it is most often presented as an average annual volume amount for each alternative. 

This volume is not a guaranteed harvest volume. Allowable sale quantity is the maximum amount 

of volume potentially available from suitable timber production lands. The calculation of 

allowable sale quantity is unconstrained by assumed budget limitations. The actual volume 

offered would be the aggregate of individual project proposals and would be dependent upon a 

number of factors, including annual budget and organizational capabilities. Actual volumes 

offered may also include volumes harvested from lands unsuitable for timber production but 

available for timber harvest, such as riparian management areas and old forest (see the timber sale 

program quantity discussion below). The schedule of harvest treatments behind each alternative’s 

allowable sale quantity volume was modeled with the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool. 

Multiple model runs were performed for each alternative’s allowable sale quantity determination 

to smooth the random variation of the modeling results.

Timber volume removed from suitable timber production lands is described as “chargeable” 

volume if it would be applied toward the decadal allowable sale quantity limit. Chargeable 

volumes include only timber products that meet minimum utilization standards, and are removed 

from lands suitable for timber production as part of a regular timber production program. 

Unplanned salvage volumes, fuelwood, and other nonindustrial wood are not considered 

chargeable volume and are not included in the estimation of the allowable sale quantity.

The estimated harvest schedules behind the allowable sale quantity volumes were not prepared in 

isolation from the other desired conditions and multiple use objectives of the plan alternatives. 

The basis for the harvest schedule is the overall design of the alternatives being considered. 

Analysis of harvest scheduling to determine allowable sale quantity is not limited to being a 

timber volume optimization exercise, but also considered and evaluated the ability of the harvests 

to move toward or maintain a set of desired conditions through sustained silvicultural activity 

over a long time horizon. For example, in addition to providing timber products, these desired 

conditions and related design elements also include reducing the risk of uncharacteristic fire, 

reducing insect and disease susceptibility, providing habitat for specific species and controlling 

the cumulative impact of harvest activity to maintain watershed health. All of these considerations 

provide reasons for timber harvest activities, and also may impose limitations on the harvest 

schedule.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

170

Allowable Sale Quantity, Non-declining Flow, and Departures

Under the standard planning rules, the base harvest schedule used to determine the allowable sale 

quantity for an alternative must not exceed the estimated long-term sustained yield. It also must 

be formulated on the basis that the quantity of timber planned for sale and harvest for any future 

decade is equal to or greater than the planned sale and harvest for the preceding decade. This 

expresses the principle of non-declining flow (or non-declining even flow). The policy of nondeclining flow predates the National Forest Management Act, but was enacted into law under the 

Act in 1976. Scholars studying the historical context of the Act point out that originally the policy 

was largely concerned with preventing harvest levels from declining in the future, after existing 

old-growth stands were converted to regulated second-growth stands (Wilkinson and Anderson 

1987). The policy recognized that Forest Service harvest programs of the mid-twentieth century, 

which were focused on bringing old-growth stands under regulated management, were likely to 

result in an ultimate decline in future timber volumes. The reason for this is that these old stands 

took centuries to grow, and thus, in effect, “stored” very large volumes of timber on the stump. In 

future periods, as these stands were only allowed to grow to a commercial rotation age, they 

would produce less timber volume per acre than their original “conversion” harvest did.

A similar dilemma of sustainability results from the application of the non-declining flow rules 

within the context of some highly altered contemporary forests. As outlined in the “Forest 

Vegetation,” “Ecological Resilience,” “Insects and Disease,” and “Wildland Fire” sections of this 

document, the vast extent of overstocked forest stands currently on the landscape represent a 

threat to the continued resilience and sustainability of the forest. These areas also now contain 

many decades worth of “stored” growth and timber volume, and the non-declining flow rules can 

present an obstacle to their rapid conversion to a lower density, more sustainable condition. This 

is because, if the pace of thinning harvests was greatly increased within the planning horizon, in 

the decades immediately thereafter, as harvests are used to maintain low density conditions, rather 

than create them, these maintenance removals cannot match the timber volumes per acre that 

were removed during the initial thinning.

The sale schedule of Alternative E-Modified Departure departs from the base harvest schedule 

principles outlined above, and thus, differs from Alternative E-Modified in that the harvest 

schedule used to determine the allowable sale quantity was allowed to exceed long-term sustained 

yield for the first two decades, and did not conform to the non-declining flow requirement. All 

other plan components are identical to Alternative E-Modified. The forest planning rules compel 

base harvest schedules to not exceed the long-term sustained yield capacity, and to meet the nondeclining flow requirements unless consideration of a deviation, or “departure,” from the base 

sale schedule is indicated. The National Forest Management Act’s 1982 planning regulations 

direct National Forests to evaluate alternatives with departure sale schedules if any of the four 

conditions below are indicated:

1. It is possible to significantly reduce or prevent high mortality losses from any cause; or,

2. It is possible to improve forest age-class distributions; or,

3. Implementation of the base sale schedule would have a substantial adverse impact upon a 

community in the economic area of the forest; or,

4. It is reasonable to expect that overall multiple-use objectives would otherwise be better 

attained.

The timely reduction of stand density within overstocked areas of the forest along with related 

management of the tree species compositions could help prevent high mortality losses from 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

171

uncharacteristic wildfire or insect and disease outbreaks. Furthermore, when compared to the 

existing forest conditions, the desired conditions for forest structural stages point toward a need 

for significant adjustments to the existing age-class distributions. The current high degree of 

disparity between the desired conditions for forest vegetation, fire regimes, and insect and disease 

susceptibility, as compared to the present state of the forests, indicates that the exploration of a 

departure alternative is warranted. More rapid movement toward the range of desired forest 

vegetation conditions could potentially support better attainment of overall multiple-use 

objectives for watershed, outdoor recreation, range, timber, and wildlife.

Alternative E-Modified Departure’s allowable sale quantity sale schedule was developed for two 

decades without the constraint of producing a non-declining flow. Similarly, it was not designed 

to remain within the long-term sustained yield capacity during that period; however, increased 

harvest under a departure schedule does not impair the future attainment of the long-term 

sustained yield capacity. All of the other alternative allowable sale quantity sale schedules were 

able to demonstrate compliance with the non-declining flow requirement over a 50-year period, 

and their outputs remain within the calculated long-term sustained yield capacities.

Timber Sale Program Quantity

The timber sale program quantity is the predicted volume of timber planned for sale for each 

alternative under a full implementation scenario. Expected timber sale program quantity volume 

is the quantity of timber projected to be sold from lands suitable for timber production, and other 

lands that would allow timber harvesting to be used as a management tool to achieve other 

multiple-use objectives. These expected timber sale program quantity levels vary by alternative 

and are affected by different full implementation budget assumptions. A key difference between 

timber sale program quantity and the allowable sale quantity volumes is that the timber sale 

program quantity includes volumes from all lands, whereas the allowable sale quantity is 

calculated from only those lands suitable for timber production. These lands outside of the land 

base considered suitable for timber production were considered in calculation of the timber sale 

program quantity if harvesting was thought to be a useful and compatible tool to control insect or 

disease susceptibility, to manage fuel loads, to perform experimental harvesting, to improve 

habitat, or otherwise generally help move the overall forest vegetation closer toward desired 

conditions.

The schedule of harvest treatments behind each alternative’s timber sale program quantity volume 

was modeled with the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool. Multiple model runs were 

performed for each alternative’s timber sale program quantity to smooth the random variation of 

the modeling results. Like the allowable sale quantity modeling, these harvest schedules were not 

developed solely as timber optimization exercises, but also considered and evaluated the ability of 

the harvests to move toward or maintain a set of desired conditions over a long time horizon. 

Multiple iterations were run over a several-decade-long period to ensure a relatively steady flow 

of timber resulted (except under Alternative E-Modified Departure) while other desired 

conditions were also being improved or maintained. The general assumption used was that no 

more than 20 percent of the harvest treatments would occur on lands other than the suitable 

timber production base. Overall harvesting levels of individual alternatives were scaled up or 

down in proportion with the assumed implementation budget levels. The final calculation of each 

alternative’s timber sale program quantity harvest schedules represents an annual average 

treatment level over the next 10 to 15 years paired up with the appropriate timber volume yield 

tables to produce the total timber volumes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

172

Timber and Forest Products – Environmental Consequences

Key indicators for timber and forest products include:

• Acres suitable for timber production

• Allowable sale quantity

• Total sale program quantity

Indirect Effects

Lands Suitable for Timber Production for Each Alternative

Timber production suitability was determined for each alternative. Even though Alternative A 

represents a continuation of current management direction, to compare all of the alternatives 

fairly, the suitability for Alternative A was updated and recalculated to reflect the past impacts to 

the 1990 plans by various forest plan amendments and finalization of roadless regulations.

Forestlands remaining after identifying the subset of unsuitable forestlands described above are 

those that are tentatively available for and capable of timber production. Tentatively suitable 

forestlands represent the maximum number of acres that could potentially be managed for regular 

and predictable wood product outputs (like timber production). These acres remained constant as 

a starting point for the development of alternatives. Tentatively suitable lands were then separated 

into two categories based on the different design parameters and objectives for each alternative. 

The lands were identified as:

• Lands suitable for timber production

• Other lands unsuitable for timber production, but available for timber harvest if needed to 

meet other non-timber, multiple-use desired conditions and objectives

Areas that may have been identified as tentatively suitable, but later identified as unsuited for 

timber production during the development of some of the alternatives, include riparian 

management areas, old forest, inventoried roadless areas and other backcountry areas. While 

inventoried roadless areas are not suitable for timber production and Federal regulations generally 

prohibit the cutting, sale, or removal of trees within these areas, circumstantial exceptions would 

allow some limited harvesting options within inventoried roadless areas.

The design of the alternatives further influenced the classification of acres suitable for timber 

production. Table 301 displays the acres suitable for timber production under each of the 

alternatives by national forest. Each alternative started with the areas identified as tentatively 

suitable for timber production. Design parameters for each alternative resulted in a subtraction in 

acres suitable for timber production from the tentatively suitable acres. The main factors/criteria 

resulting in a change from suitable to unsuitable included the different alternative approaches 

with regard to changing classification of the following types of areas to unsuitable: old forest, 

riparian management areas, MA 3A and 3B (backcountry),MA 1B (preliminary administratively 

recommended wilderness areas), and specially designated areas (for example, botanical areas, 

historical areas, or scenic area.). Under most of the alternatives, the objectives of these 

management areas were not considered compatible with regularly scheduled timber production.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

173

Table 301. Acres suitable for timber production and corresponding percentage of tentatively suitable lands

National 

Forest

Tentatively 

Suitable Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified 

Departure

Malheur 1,245,000 780,000

(63%)

770,000

(62%)

530,000

(43%)

1,080,000

(87%)

770,000

(62%)

770,000

(62%)

779,000

(63%)

779,000

(63%)

Umatilla 817,000 380,000

(47%)

420,000

(51%)

260,000

(32%)

610,000

(75%)

420,000

(51%)

420,000

(51%)

429,000

(53%)

429,000

(53%)

WallowaWhitman

1,010,000 590,000

(58%)

530,000

(52%)

310,000

(31%)

770,000

(76%)

530,000

(52%)

530,000

(52%)

558,000

(55%)

558,000

(55%)

Even though Alternative A represents a continuation of current management direction, the area of 

suitable timber production lands is significantly less than that contained in the 1990s Forest Plans.

The suitability for Alternative A was updated and recalculated to reflect the past impacts to the 

1990 plans by finalization of the 2001 roadless area regulations and various other forest plan 

amendments. Alternatives B, E, and F would result in the same number of acres suitable for 

timber production because these alternatives propose similar plan components and management 

allocations that influence suitability. Even though the acres of MA 1B (preliminary 

administratively recommended wilderness areas) and MA 3A and 3B would differ between 

Alternatives B, E, and F, the difference would not result in a substantial change in suitability 

because the acres that would be shifted into or out of recommended wilderness areas would 

remain otherwise classified as unsuitable for timber production. Suitable timber production acres 

would be approximately 50 to 60 percent of the tentatively suitable lands.

Alternative C would result in the fewest acres suitable for timber production because this 

alternative would result in a greater number of acres of recommended wilderness and would 

include wider riparian management areas, both of which would screen out as unsuitable for 

timber production. Alternative C would also retain all of the designated old forest management 

areas from Alternative A, and these areas, along with other old forest stands, would not be 

considered suitable for timber production under Alternative C. Additional areas identified as 

wildlife corridor management areas in Alternative C would also be unsuitable for timber 

production. Under Alternative C, lands suitable for timber production would represent 

approximately 30 percent of the tentatively suitable landbase within the Umatilla and WallowaWhitman National Forests, and over 40 percent within the Malheur National Forest.

Alternative D would result in the highest number of acres suitable for timber production within 

all three National Forests. Under Alternative D, riparian management areas would be narrower 

than any of the other alternatives. Designated old forest management areas would not be used, nor 

would old forest stands be screened out of the tentatively suitable base. Alternative D would 

result in approximately 75 percent of the tentatively suitable base within the Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests being considered suitable for timber production, while the 

Malheur National Forest would designate 87 percent of the tentatively suitable base as timber 

production lands.

Alternative E-Modified and Alternative E-Modified Departure would use the same amount of 

suitable timber production lands. These levels represent a minor increase from the original 

Alternative E across all three National Forests. The main difference in the approach with 

Alternative E-Modified involved dropping the MA 3C Wildlife Corridors and reclassifying some 

isolated fragments of MA 3A and 3B. Both of these changes resulted in some areas changing to 

MA 4A allocation, which allowed those areas to remain within the suitable timber production 

base.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

174

Long-term Sustained Yield

Table 302, Table 303, and Table 304 display the long-term sustained yield capacity by alternative 

for each national forest. Differences between the alternatives are largely the result of the 

differences in the underlying base of lands designated as suitable for timber production. The longterm sustained yield values for Alternative A are based on the suitable timber production acres as 

recalculated after consideration of the amendments to the original 1990 Forest Plans that have

occurred during the previous planning period. Alternative D would result in the highest long-term 

sustained yield across all three National Forests. With its relatively small allocation of lands 

suitable for timber production, Alternative C would have the lowest expected long-term sustained 

yield from these lands across all three National Forests.

As shown in the tables, Alternatives B, E, and F would result in the same level of long-term 

sustained yield within each national forest. This is because these alternatives have the same 

number of acres suitable for timber production. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure would have a long-term sustained yield capacity slightly higher than the original 

Alternative E, since E-Modified’s suitable timber production lands were increased modestly over 

the original Alternative E.

Allowable Sale Quantity

Table 302, Table 303, and Table 304 display the allowable sale quantity by alternative for each 

national forest and compare those values to the long-term sustained yield. Under all of the 

alternatives, allowable sale quantity would be significantly lower than the allowable sale quantity 

levels included in the 1990 Forest Plans. This is largely the result of the recalculation of the 

suitable timber production land as discussed above. General changes in management objectives 

along with updated inventory data, have all contributed to suitable timber production acres and 

associated allowable sale quantity levels being decreased under all of the plan revision 

alternatives as compared to the levels in the original 1990 Forest Plans.

Table 302. Malheur National Forest average annual allowable sale quantity (ASQ), and long-term

sustained yield capacity (LTSYC) in million board feet per year

Type of 

Volume

1990 

Forest 

Plan

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified 

Departure

ASQ 234 59 75 40 128 75 75 80 112

LTSYC 234-plus 112 106 77 157 106 106 111 111

Table 303. Umatilla National Forest average annual allowable sale quantity (ASQ), and long-term 

sustained yield capacity (LTSYC) in million board feet per year

Type of 

Volume

1990 

Forest 

Plan

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified 

Departure

ASQ 124 34 48 24 90 48 48 53 86

LTSYC 184 56 58 37 90 58 58 61 61
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

175

Table 304. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest average annual allowable sale quantity (ASQ), and 

long-term sustained yield capacity (LTSYC) in million board feet per year

Type of 

Volume

1990 

Forest 

Plan

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified 

Departure

ASQ 141 50 57 25 92 57 57 64 85

LTSYC 215 76 74 41 107 74 74 77 77

With the exception of the departure version of Alternative E-Modified, all of the allowable sale 

quantity levels were developed from harvest schedules designed to not exceed long-term 

sustained yield and comply with non-declining flow principles. The allowable sale quantities of 

the departure alternative would be expected to exceed the estimated long-term sustained yield for 

the next planning period.

Alternative D would result in the highest allowable sale quantity across all three National Forests, 

which, in turn, would allow the highest potential volume of timber harvesting from suitable 

production lands. The departure version of Alternative E-Modified would allow the next highest 

allowable sale quantity level, but because the base of land suitable for timber production is 

significantly smaller than Alternative D, this level of allowable sale quantity would exceed the 

estimated long-term sustained yield. The base version of Alternative E-Modified conforms to the 

non-declining flow rules, remains within the limits of the long-term sustained yield, and results in 

the third highest allowable sale quantity for all three National Forests.

On the other end of the spectrum, Alternative C would have the lowest allowable sale quantity 

across all three National Forests. Under Alternative C, the allowable sale quantity would allow an 

average annual volume of about 24 to 25 million board feet to be harvested annually from 

suitable lands from the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests, and up to an average 

annual volume of about 40 million board feet per year from the Malheur’s suitable base.

Timber Sale Program Quantity

Table 305, Table 306, and Table 307 show that under full implementation, Alternative D would 

result in the highest timber sale program quantity across all three National Forests. For the 

Malheur, the projected volume sold from the suitable timber production lands would represent 

about 93 percent of the alternative’s allowable sale quantity limit. The Wallowa-Whitman would 

sell around 96 percent of its allowable sale quantity limit and the Umatilla would sell at its 

allowable sale quantity limit under Alternative D. The high timber sale program quantity volume 

levels associated with Alternative D were modeled under a sustainable non-declining flow 

scenario, but reflect the utilization of a significantly larger base of lands considered suitable for 

timber harvesting.

The second highest timber sale program quantity volumes would be associated with Alternative 

E-Modified Departure. If fully implemented, the accelerated harvesting associated with this 

alternative would produce approximately 94 and 98 million board feet a year from the Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests respectively. The Malheur’s departure alternative 

objective would be over 130 million board feet annually. Both of these high output alternatives 

would represent increases in output of 3 to 5 times what is projected under Alternative A’s noaction scenario. Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure would presumably 

require large increases in timber program budgets and workforce capacity in order to reach these 

full implementation levels.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

176

Table 305. Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by alternative for the Malheur National Forest 

(million board feet per year)

Malheur Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified

Departure

Volume from suitable 

timber production lands

29 36 14 119 64 44 62 112

Volume from other 

forest lands

3 9 2 22 19 14 22 22

Total TSPQ 32 45 16 141 83 58 84 134

Table 306. Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by alternative for the Umatilla National Forest 

(million board feet per year)

Umatilla Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified

Departure

Volume from suitable 

timber production lands

24 31 11 90 47 39 47 86

Volume from other 

forest lands

3 6 3 18 10 8 9 8

Total TSPQ 27 37 14 108 57 47 56 94

Table 307. Timber sale program quantity (TSPQ) by alternative for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest (million board feet per year)

Wallowa-Whitman Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified

Departure

Volume from suitable 

timber production lands

18 25 9 88 52 34 52 85

Volume from other forest 

lands

2 5 2 16 11 7 13 13

Total TSPQ 20 30 11 104 63 41 65 98

Compared to the no-action alternative (Alternative A), Alternatives E and E-Modified would also 

represent significant increases in timber volume sold across all three National Forests. The timber 

sale program quantity of both Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure were based on 

a harvest schedule that placed particular emphasis on the most critical forest restoration needs. 

Alternative E-Modified Departure was specifically designed to thin most all of the 

uncharacteristically dense dry upland forest within a 20-year timeframe. Unconstrained by the 

non-declining flow requirements, this alternative could make the most progress toward removing 

the backlog of growth from the suitable timber production lands over the next planning horizon.

On the other hand, once this backlog of thinning on the suitable timber production base is 

addressed, the out-year modeling showed timber sale program quantity volumes dropping by over 

50 percent as the timber program shifted away from the initial thinning of stands containing high 

volumes per acre. These abnormally dense areas of dry upland forest now contain many decades 

worth of “stored” growth and timber volume. After the harvest schedule of the departure 

alternative completes its accelerated schedule of harvesting in the first two decades; in subsequent 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

177

decades, as harvests are used primarily to maintain low density conditions, these removals cannot 

match the timber volumes per acre that were removed during the initial thinning harvests.

At the other end of the range, the timber sale program quantity objectives of Alternative C would 

mean reductions in timber outputs of 50 percent or more for each of the National Forests

compared to current levels as predicted by the no-action alternative. These objective levels would 

not likely be high enough to match the net annual growth occurring within the suitable timber 

production lands.

Salvage Harvest Effects

The Forest Service definition of salvage harvesting is the removal of dead trees or trees being 

damaged or dying due to injurious agents other than competition, to recover value that would 

otherwise be lost. As the name implies, the main point of salvage harvesting is to utilize the dead 

or dying trees with the idea of minimizing financial losses. The social value of economic and 

other potential resource benefits of salvage harvesting versus potential harmful changes to 

habitats or soil resource conditions has been debated in scientific and policy forums for decades. 

The ecological concerns raised about salvage harvesting typically involve potential effects to 

soils, terrestrial wildlife, riparian systems, and aquatic ecology (Peterson et al. 2009). The 

potential effects to these resource areas are discussed within other sections of this document. 

Salvage harvesting is also discussed in the context of ecological resilience within the “Ecological 

Resilience” section in volume 1.

The practice of salvage harvesting has been conducted for many decades in the National Forests 

of the Blue Mountains, and the practice is allowed under various different constraints across 

alternatives. Several standards and/or guidelines were included in the different alternatives with 

the intent of protecting the wildlife habitat values of snags and post-fire forest conditions. The 

most substantial and restrictive direction affecting salvage harvesting is included as part of 

Alternatives B, C, E and F. All four of these alternatives contain a standard that prohibits salvage 

treatments from removing any snags (standing dead trees) over 21-inches diameter from within 

dry upland or moist upland forests. Additionally, this standard would require salvage harvests to 

retain at least 50 percent of the snags ranging in size from 12 to 21 inches in diameter. In addition 

to this standard, Alternatives B, E and F contain restrictions on salvaging specific to post-fire 

conditions. In addition to the previous restrictions, these standards and guidelines will restrict 

salvage harvest from occurring in at least half of all burned areas, and they will prohibit salvage 

logging within burns of less than 100 acres. The combined effects of these standards and 

guidelines would be to significantly limit the amount of potential salvage harvesting under these 

alternatives.

Alternative D contains none of these specific restrictions, so the appropriate level of salvage 

harvesting would be based on whether the specific proposals were determined to be consistent 

with other plan components. Alternative E-Modified contains none of the above mentioned 

standards or guidelines either, but would include guidelines requiring the level of proposed 

salvage harvesting to be consistent with specific and measurable desired conditions for snag 

retention and post-fire habitat. In the case of Alternative E-Modified, the extent and intensity of 

future salvage harvesting could be scaled up if the underlying disturbance events have been 

shown to be uncharacteristically large or severe, and salvaging would be constrained during 

periods, or within areas where tree mortality events have been uncommon.

The window for recovering the value and merchantable timber volume of trees after they have 

died is often only a few years, as the trees tend to rapidly deteriorate from checking, fungal decay
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

178

and staining as well as wood boring insects (Lowell et. al. 1992). Despite these limits, the 

existence of substantial salvable timber in high-mortality locations is often included in Forest 

Service timber programs because of the opportunities to enhance jobs and income opportunities 

in the local communities that are impacted by events like severe wildfire or insect epidemics. 

However, the actual effect of timber salvaging operations on the overall national forest timber 

program outputs may also depend on whether the salvage volume represents an overall increase 

in output, or is just a substitute for other “green” timber volume that would have otherwise been 

offered.

Another potential side effect of large scale salvage harvesting as part of the timber program is 

that, in the context of the local market, the sudden influx of products at the mills can tend to 

depress prices, thereby affecting the decisions and welfare of private and other timber owners. 

However, even accounting for the negative market effects that significant salvage volume would 

have on prices, Prestemon (2013) showed that northwestern states including Oregon and 

Washington, could potentially generate positive net revenues on National Forest lands, across a 

wide range of potential salvage intensities.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects were analyzed by considering the effects of the alternatives in the 

context of past, present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have or may 

likely occur within the vegetation cumulative effects analysis area. This analysis area consists of 

the 25 subbasins (HUC 4) which contain the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests and other lands. The time period into the future considered was 50 years. The effects that 

past activities have had on the existing timber resources are reflected in the “Forest Vegetation”

existing conditions. Present and foreseeable future activities that could affect forest vegetation are 

summarized below.

The ability of the National Forests within the Blue Mountains to constructively manage forest 

vegetation is partially dependent on the ability to use timber harvesting as a management tool. 

The continued existence of this too depends in part upon the ability to sell forest products to 

manufacturing companies and other private sector partners. If the forest products industry 

continues to decline in areas surrounding the Blue Mountains to the extent that it is more difficult 

to sell forest products, or if stumpage prices decrease substantially, it would negatively affect the 

amount of timber volume that could be feasibly sold during the planning period. If markets 

improve and demand for forest products increases, there will be the desire and support for more 

timber from the National Forests.

The vast majority of the forestland within the Plan Area is federally managed by one of the three 

National Forests. Most of the other forestland within and adjacent to the National Forests is either 

owned by private individuals or forest products companies, with a small amount being managed 

by tribal governments or other federal agencies like the Bureau of Land Management. Timber 

harvesting and many other related silvicultural treatments on forestlands of other ownership are 

controlled by State forest practices statutes, as well as a number of State and Federal regulations 

and incentives designed to protect the productivity and environmental quality of natural 

resources. The Forest Service does not have the authority to regulate any activities or their timing 

on lands other than those they administer.

Management objectives on these largely privately owned forestlands tend to focus on fuel 

reduction and timber production. Actions or the lack of actions that may take place under the 

various alternatives on National Forest System lands may cause direct, indirect or cumulative 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

179

effects on adjacent lands of other ownership. If harvesting programs of the three National Forests 

ramp up significantly, there could be a resulting decrease in stumpage prices or demand for 

privately owned timber resources in the area. Similarly, if Forest Service harvesting is curtailed 

over the planning horizon, the demand for privately owned timber and related harvesting would 

likely increase to some extent. Land uses, subdivision, and development of privately owned 

forestland within the adjacent forestlands is expected to continue to occur only at modest rates 

and is not anticipated to result in any significant curtailment of the availability of timber from 

other sources to local industry.

As related in the discussion above, past timber harvesting and removals have for the most part, 

not kept pace with net rate of growth of timber throughout the Blue Mountains national forests. 

The abundance of relatively small-scale implementation projects has contributed to a growing 

backlog of excess timber growth. One notable exception to this pattern has been the award of a 

large-scale 10-year Integrated Resource Service Contract by the Malheur National Forest in 2013. 

This 10-year contractual obligation to supply substantial volumes of timber has been underway 

for several years now. It has provided, and will continue to provide additional momentum to the 

planning and implementation of timber harvesting projects by the Malheur National Forest for at 

least the remaining term of the contract. The annual timber volume sold target for the Malheur 

National Forest has increased from 29 million board feet in 2012, to a target program of 

approximately 75 million board feet per year currently. As the service contract work expands 

through subsequent annual task orders, a level of certainty is likely to continue to develop for 

local contractors, encouraging their investment in the infrastructure necessary to fully accomplish 

needed restoration work across the Malheur and other eastside Oregon national forests.

The greatest amount of foreseeable actions connected to the future timber and forest products 

outputs of the three National Forests is related to the ongoing Eastside Restoration Strategy. This 

effort, supported by the Pacific Northwest Regional Office of the Forest Service, started in 2013 

as a way of putting resources and a focus on some different methods of planning and 

implementing forest restoration projects on the eastside National Forests of Oregon and 

Washington. Since 2013, the effort has supported the development of five Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration projects and five Joint Chief’s projects, which combine the forces of the 

Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to restore forests and reduce fuel 

loadings across adjoining Federal and non-Federal lands in priority areas. The Blue Mountains 

Restoration Team has recently completed the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of Decision for that implementation project was

finalized in March of 2017. The same team is currently working on the landscape scale Blue 

Mountains Forest Resiliency Project, which encompasses parts of four National Forests in the 

Blue Mountains of Oregon and may cover up to 610,000 acres of thinning and prescribed fire 

treatments, including substantial acreages of commercial harvest of forest products. All of these 

planning efforts will tend to support the future implementation of the revised Forest Plans.

Insects and Diseases

Natural disturbances (including wildfire, insects, diseases, and weather events) play a 

fundamental role in shaping ecosystems and in creating patterns of vegetation at multiple scales. 

Wildfire is generally viewed as having the greatest potential to impact the Blue Mountains 

national forests, but in actuality forest insects and diseases are the most pervasive and important 

agents of disturbance in North American forests, affecting an area almost 50 times larger than fire 

and with an economic impact nearly five times as great (Logan et al. 2003). This section 

discusses the roles and impacts of tree-dependent insects and diseases on the health of the Blue 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

180

Mountains national forests. It examines the risk of tree loss caused by insects and diseases

resulting from current conditions and estimates what insect and disease susceptibility would be if 

forest vegetation conditions were similar to the historical range of variability. The effects of forest 

management activities or lack of management activities as implemented by the alternatives is 

discussed.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Additional background and context information provided pertaining to the insect and 

disease affected environment: In reviewing public comments related to insect and disease issues 

in general, it was apparent that providing additional information and improving the clarity of this 

section would help readers and stakeholders understand the definitions, ideas and context 

surrounding these processes. Additional discussion was added to the “Affected Environment”

section to more clearly explain some of the analysis methodology used and to provide additional 

context.

Insects and Diseases – Affected Environment

Forest health is an ambiguous concept, one that is not well defined scientifically. People have 

wide-ranging views on what constitutes a healthy forest, but most would agree that a healthy 

forest is not expected to be completely free of damaging insects, diseases or other disturbances. 

However, many definitions of forest health do include the ideas that a healthy forest maintains its 

ecological function, diversity and resiliency, and a healthy forest also provides for human needs 

and is not visually dominated by mortality. A healthy forest is one that can meet economic, social 

and ecological functions both now and in the future. The healthy forest concept directs forest 

management to focus more on the forest condition and underlying causes of insect or disease 

issues. Consequently, outbreaks of insect and disease agents are viewed as a symptom of an 

unhealthy forest condition, rather than the “problem” itself (Ciesla 2011).

Beginning in the early 1900s, forest insects and diseases were traditionally considered pests, and 

control was aimed at reducing their effects on host trees, or at reducing population numbers as 

low as possible (Scott and Schmitt 1996). This philosophy is still applied to nonnative insects 

and diseases, such as the balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges piceae) and white pine blister rust 

(Cronartium ribicola), which were inadvertently introduced into the United States from other 

continents, but native insects and diseases are recognized as natural disturbance agents. All native 

insects and diseases play a natural role in the ecosystem within which they evolved. Interactions 

can be very complex between different insect and disease agents and their host tree species, the 

surrounding environment, and each other. Some level of activity by these agents is always 

expected, although the extent and severity of damage can vary in terms of how much area is 

affected and how often effects occur.

When forest conditions are within their historical range of variability, native insects and diseases 

are nearly always present, often remain at low levels, and are of little concern. Such low numbers 

are referred to as “endemic” populations. In these circumstances, they are generally not 

considered pests because they act as natural thinning agents, killing individual trees or small to 

large tree groups. Contemporary thinking in terms of overall forest health and ecosystem 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

181

management now recognizes the importance of an endemic level of insects and diseases

consistent with historical levels of activity within the natural range of variability. Insects and 

diseases play a natural role in the ecosystem. They play a critical role in terms of both terrestrial 

and aquatic habitats and also nutrient cycling. They create snags and down logs needed as habitat.

Trees with decay and witches’ brooms also provide habitat for a variety of forest-dwelling flora 

and fauna including microbes, fungi, invertebrates, small animals, and cavity-nesting birds.

From time to time, significant outbreaks cause rapid changes across the forest. For example, bark 

beetles can build to high populations relatively quickly and can cause widespread tree mortality, 

significantly altering forest conditions. Diseases are more likely to increase gradually or remain at

similar levels over time, depending on forest conditions. Dwarf mistletoes and root diseases are 

ever-present in the forest and are some of the main contributors to growth loss, reduced vigor and 

mortality in their hosts. Insects and diseases often interact, such as when root diseases predispose 

trees to bark beetle attack (USDA Forest Service 2010e).

At times, natural or human-caused events or conditions can cause insects and diseases to increase 

or become more prevalent. This can occur from the high-elevation subalpine forests to the urban 

forests that line the streets of our cities and towns. Fire, wind, and drought can weaken host trees 

and create favorable environments for insects and diseases to attack. Altered age, density, species 

composition, and structural stages can also lead to greater susceptibility and increased disease and 

insect activity. For example, widespread and mostly human caused changes throughout large 

areas of the Blue Mountains national forests, particularly within the dry and moist mixed conifer 

types, have helped to create conditions now dominated by areas of dense, multi-layered shadetolerant grand fir that are more susceptible to many common insect and disease agents (Stine et

al. 2014). Similar circumstances have been noted throughout the interior west, as a century of fire 

protection has produced a steady shift away from open ponderosa pine and western larch forests 

toward denser fir forests. Past harvesting of high-value overstories of larch and ponderosa pine 

has also accelerated this conversion to dense insect and pathogen susceptible forests (Parker et al. 

2006). The dramatic increase in the abundance of grand fir in particular has been noted within 

this region for over twenty years, and this species is particularly susceptible to root pathogens, 

bark beetles, defoliators, and dwarf mistletoe (Hessburg et al. 1994).

There is a multitude of different insect and disease agents currently present and active throughout 

the Blue Mountains area. The following representative major insect and disease agents are 

highlighted in terms of potential impacts and susceptibility factors. All of these agents or groups 

are considered to be among some of the most common and influential insect and disease pests of 

eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington conifers (Shaw et al. 2009). Some of these agents 

are presently producing noticeable impacts within the Blue Mountains national forests, and all 

have a significant potential to produce severe levels of damage based on the highly susceptible 

stand structures and species compositions that are now characteristic of the existing forest 

vegetation condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

182

Table 308. Some major native insect and disease agents of Blue Mountains conifers

Insect or Disease Agent Major Local Host Species

Defoliators; such as western spruce budworm (Choristoneura 

freemani); Douglas-fir tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata)

Douglas-fir, grand fir, subalpine fir

Douglas-fir beetles (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae) Douglas-fir

Fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis) Grand fir, subalpine fir

Spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) Engelmann spruce

Bark beetles in ponderosa pine; such as western pine beetle 

(Dendroctonus brevicomis); mountain pine beetle 

(Dendroctonus ponderosae)

Ponderosa pine

Mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine Lodgepole pine

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium douglasii) Douglas-fir

Western larch dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium laricis) Western larch

Root diseases; such as Armillaria (Armillaria ostoyae); 

Laminated root rot (Phellinus sulphurascens), and Annosus 

(Heterobasidion annosum)

Douglas-fir, grand fir, subalpine fir, 

Engelmann spruce, pine species

Bark Beetles

Numerous bark beetle species exist across the Blue Mountains national forests. Almost all native 

conifers, as well as some deciduous trees, can be attacked to some degree, by bark beetles. Some 

of the most significant species are mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, spruce beetle, fir 

engraver and Douglas-fir beetle. Complex interactions between wildfire, insects, diseases, and 

landscape pattern play major roles in determining the susceptibility of forest lands to bark beetle 

damage (Parker et al. 2006; Stine et al. 2014; Hessburg et al. 2016). Beetle populations and 

corresponding tree mortality generally increase in conjunction with one or more of the following 

conditions: drought, overstocked tree densities, preponderance of host species, simplified 

homogenous landscape patterns, stress caused by other damage agents like root decay fungi or 

defoliating insects, and buildup of fresh, dead, down wood as brood material across large areas.

For example, Waring and Pitman (1985) observed that trees with low vigor were more heavily 

attacked by mountain pine beetle and some produced no defensive resin. Safranyik and Wilson 

(2006) also found host susceptibility to mountain pine beetle attack may be affected by the age, 

species composition, and continuity of mature forest stands. Other scientists have observed that 

lodgepole pine trees in particular are more susceptible as they become older (80 years) and larger 

than 8 inches diameter (Gibson et al. 2009).

Douglas-fir beetle, under typical conditions, prefers to attack trees that are weakened by fire 

scorch, defoliation, windthrow or root disease. Where such stressed and susceptible Douglas-fir 

trees become abundant, populations can build up rapidly and spread to adjacent healthy trees. 

Drought, which also lowers tree resistance, appears to help sustain outbreaks and may play a role 

in initiating outbreaks in some areas. Furniss and Kegley (2014) found that stands most 

susceptible to Douglas-fir beetle are generally mature or older, have a majority of Douglas-fir 

species and are exhibiting above average density.

Research suggests the fir engraver rarely attacks healthy trees, but generally are attracted to trees 

of low-vigor resulting from a variety of conditions including overstocking, root disease, 

defoliation, lightning strikes and drought (Goheen and Hanson 1993; Hessburg, et al. 1994). 

Epidemics of fir engraver are observed most frequently in the Pacific Northwest and California 

and are often associated with periods of drought. Trees infected with root disease or defoliated by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

183

Douglas-fir tussock moth or western spruce budworm are also especially predisposed to attack 

(USDA Forest Service 2010e; Goheen and Willhite 2006). One of the favorite hosts of fir 

engraver, grand fir, has previously never occurred in such abundance (Hessburg et al. 1994; Stine 

et al. 2014). This species shift in the Blue Mountains in the last century away from ponderosa 

pine and western larch and towards more shade-tolerant trees like grand fir, has created hundreds 

of thousands of acres of fir trees, many under stress from overstocking, currently contributing to 

very favorable habitat conditions for fir engraver beetles.

Defoliators

The western spruce budworm is probably the most widely distributed and destructive defoliator 

of coniferous forests in western North America and the Douglas-fir tussock moth is also a major 

defoliator with a history of large outbreaks in the Blue Mountains region. Despite the common 

names western “spruce” budworm and “Douglas-fir” tussock moth, the most preferred host 

species for these defoliators in western North America are grand fir, subalpine fir and Douglas-fir. 

Attacks by the larvae of these insects can cause topkill, reduced growth/vigor or death of the host. 

A single defoliation event does not usually cause tree mortality; however, continued attacks or 

severe abiotic factors, such as weather and drought, combined with continued attacks can cause 

mortality. Trees severely defoliated by these agents may become predisposed to one or more 

species of tree-killing bark beetles (Goheen and Willhite 2006; USDA Forest Service 2010e). A 

preponderance of host species and low tree vigor due to high tree densities are some of the major 

predisposing factors contributing to vulnerability. Reduction in moisture availability has also been 

suggested as an important driver of western spruce budworm outbreaks (Campbell 1993). 

Additionally, dense, multi-layered forest structure makes stands especially vulnerable to 

defoliator outbreaks, as this structure aids larva survival by improving its ability to disperse 

downwards through the canopy layers while avoiding predators (Brookes et al. 1987; Parker et al. 

2006; Maclauchlan and Brooks 2009).

Root Disease

Forest root diseases like laminated root rot and Armillaria root disease are among the most 

difficult disease agents to identify, quantify and manage. Most western conifers are vulnerable to 

one or more of these root diseases, but susceptibility varies greatly among species. Grand fir and 

interior Douglas-fir are highly susceptible to these species of root pathogens (Filip and Schmitt 

1990). As parasites, these fungi cause wood decay, reduced growth, windthrow and outright 

mortality. These fungi can infect healthy trees, but individuals that have already been stressed or 

weakened by other factors can be predisposed to root disease (Wargo and Harrington 1991; Filip 

and Schmitt 1990). Drought has been indirectly associated with conditions favorable for 

development of root disease, by increasing the stress of host trees (Kolb et al. 2016). Similarly, 

frequently bark beetles, including fir engraver, are associated with attacking trees that are 

suffering from root disease.

Dwarf Mistletoe

Dwarf mistletoes are parasitic plants of conifers that obtain almost all of their needs, including 

water, minerals, and nutrients, from their hosts. Fulfilling these resource requirements stresses 

infected trees, causing reductions in growth, cone and seed production and, with high enough 

infection levels, mortality. Tree growth and vigor usually decline when more than half of the 

crown is parasitized. Most trees survive infection for decades, but small trees tend to decline and 

die more quickly than large ones (USDA Forest Service 2010e). Increased mortality among dwarf 

mistletoe infected trees has been observed in stands of high density and during droughts. Parasitic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

184

plants tend to intensify the negative impacts of drought on tree water stress, and tree mortality in 

areas with extensive infection is often three to four times higher than in uninfected areas (Kolb et 

al. 2016).

Landscape Pattern Influences

The vulnerability to negative impacts from all of these insect and disease agents is also being 

exacerbated by the changes that have occurred to the distribution and patterns of forest vegetation 

across the landscape. Forest landscapes that have been simplified and made uniform by either 

large-scale disturbances or past management practices can amplify the spread of future 

disturbances (Parker et al. 2006; Hessburg et al. 2016). Conversely, landscapes that are diversified 

tend to dampen the buildup and spread of large-scale outbreaks (Seidl et al. 2016). Hemstrom 

(2001) observed that generally, forests that are older, composed of larger trees, denser, more 

uniform, or contiguous than would be expected under natural or historical disturbance regimes are 

going to be more vulnerable to mortality from insect and disease. Historically, highly susceptible 

stands of host species were discontinuous and stands of less vulnerable species were common on 

most landscapes. This natural pattern of vegetation localized the extent and duration of many 

insect and disease outbreaks, mostly by limiting available or suitable habitat. Currently, with an 

increasing abundance of susceptible fir dominated stands positioned close to each other, insect 

and disease agents can readily disperse from stand to stand across landscapes (Hessburg et al. 

1994). Many scientists now recognize that large areas of the dry upland forests and mixed conifer 

forests observed in modern-day landscapes have been over-simplified and currently exist in 

highly altered patterns characterized by unusually large expanses of dense, uniform forests 

dominated by vulnerable shade-tolerant species like grand fir (Parker et al. 2006; Stine et al. 

2014; Hessburg et al. 2015; Hessburg et al. 2016). The susceptibility to outbreaks is likely 

currently elevated in many areas of the Blue Mountains where considerably fewer host trees were 

growing 100 years ago.

Climate Change Influences

Climate is another factor influencing insect and disease disturbance regimes and the incidence of 

large disturbance events. Climate influences the geographic distribution, population dynamics, 

and disturbance effects of insects and diseases through either direct environmental impacts on the 

development and survival of insect and disease organisms, or by altering host susceptibility and 

defense capabilities (Peterson et al. 2014). For example, winter temperatures can affect survival 

of insects in temperate zones, while spring/summer temperatures influence insect life cycles.

Insect life cycles depend on a complex interaction of temperature, moisture, and suitable hosts. 

Although outbreak dynamics differ from species to species and from forest to forest, climate 

change appears to be one driving factor for some of the current forest insect outbreaks in western 

North America (Logan et al. 2003; Bentz et al. 2010; Kolb et al. 2016). Warming temperatures 

could increase the potential for insect and disease outbreaks, particularly in areas where insect or 

pathogen activity has been limited by suboptimal temperatures. Warming temperatures can also 

be detrimental to insects, for instance eliminating the prolonged cold period or “cold diapause” 

some insects require to complete development. Temperature influences everything in an insect’s 

life, from the number of eggs laid by a single female, to the insects’ ability to disperse to new 

hosts, to over-winter survival, and developmental timing. Elevated temperatures associated with 

climate change, particularly when there are consecutive warm years, may benefit insects currently 

not viewed as pests and some of our longtime pests may become less important. For many forest 

insect species of current concern (primarily bark beetles), the influence of elevated temperatures 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

185

on outbreak dynamics is most notable at higher elevations and latitudes where some beetles have 

shifted to completing their development in a single year, rather than two or even three years. All 

else remaining constant, this decrease in generation time translates to an increasing rate of 

population growth. Because of effects like these, geographic distributions of insect and diseases 

have changed in the past in response to climate change, and shifts in the north/south range 

distribution or into higher elevations are likely (Bentz et al. 2010).

Climate also influences insect and disease impacts indirectly by modifying vigor and defenses in 

host plants (Bentz et al. 2010; Raffa et al. 2008). Climatic variability can alter stress levels and 

affect the susceptibility of trees to insect attacks and plant diseases. The more extreme weather 

fluctuations predicted by many climate models will have unpredictable effects on insects, 

diseases, and their host plants. Tree mortality in response to heat and drought stress is often 

facilitated by insects and diseases; trees weakened by prolonged drought stress have reduced 

defenses against the insect and disease attacks that eventually kill the tree (Kolb et al. 2016). For 

example, extensive, rapid, mortality of aspen in western Colorado during drought conditions was 

attributed to insects and diseases that normally would have had limited impacts if drought had not 

weakened and predisposed the trees to mortality (Worrall et al. 2010, 2013).

Insects and Diseases – Existing Conditions

Although disturbances such as those caused by native insects and diseases can contribute to 

natural dynamics of forest health, exceptional droughts in combination with other factors, are 

pushing some forests beyond thresholds of sustainability. Uncharacteristically large insect 

outbreaks have become more common in many western forests and are resulting in forest 

mortality beyond the levels of 20th-century experience (Raffa et al. 2008; Millar and Stephenson 

2015). For example, since 1990, native bark beetles have killed billions of trees across millions of 

acres of forest from Alaska to northern Mexico. Although bark beetle infestations are a regular 

force of natural change in forested ecosystems, several of the current outbreaks, which are 

occurring simultaneously across western North America, are the largest and most severe in 

recorded history (Bentz et al. 2009). Forest insects and pathogens are the most pervasive and 

important agents of disturbance in North American forests, affecting an area almost 50 times 

larger than fire and with an economic impact nearly five times as great (Logan et al. 2003).

Outbreak and epidemic dynamics vary between damage agents and from forest to forest, but the 

combination of a few major factors appears to be driving most of the current outbreaks. These 

major factors are changing climatic conditions, in particular elevated temperatures and drought 

combined with an abundance of uncharacteristically dense concentrations of highly susceptible 

tree species. To evaluate the Blue Mountains national forests’ susceptibility and vulnerability to 

insects and diseases, a risk assessment was conducted in 2009 specifically for the Malheur, 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests using forest conditions as depicted by the 

Continuous Vegetation Survey (CVS) forest plot data. Details of the assessment’s methods are 

available in the project record, but the basic approach followed the procedures outlined by 

Schmitt and Powell’s (2005) “Rating Forest Stands for Insect and Disease Susceptibility.” A 

variety of forest stand parameters and factors, such as ecoclass, stand density, host density, stand

composition and structure, and observations for insect and disease activity were used to rate 

susceptibility of forest tree species to the15 most damaging insect and disease agents in the Blue 

Mountains. The predicted percent mortality levels from each insect or disease agent or interaction 

of agents and susceptible tree species combination was applied against the actual volume of that 

tree species occurring on each plot. With CVS data and FVS (Forest Vegetation Simulator) the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

186

total predicted 15-year volume loss for each species was aggregated for each plot and then 

converted to a percent of the total volume occurring on the plot. These results were summarized 

by upland forest potential vegetation group, by National Forest, and by structural stages. This risk 

assessment estimates the level of tree mortality likely to occur over the next 15 years.

Table 309 displays the percent of continuous vegetation survey plots, and by inference, the 

percent of the forest areas that currently exist within each predicted mortality category

(Countryman and Justice 2009). The analysis is for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests combined. Predicted mortality is described as a percentage of loss anticipated 

over a subsequent 15-year period. Taken as a whole, the dry upland forest potential vegetation 

group exhibits the highest current insect and disease risk hazard, compared to the other upland 

forest potential vegetation groups. Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, 

approximately 18 percent of the plots are in the 50 percent plus predicted mortality category and 

23 percent of the plots are in the 25 to 50 percent predicted mortality category. In other words, 

modeling indicates that over 40 percent of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group may 

lose from one quarter to over one-half of its live forest to insect and disease-related mortality over 

the next 15 years. These results are in line with the fact that the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group exhibits the greatest amount of departure from historical forest vegetation 

conditions in terms of stand structure, density, and species composition (see “Ecological 

Resilience” and “Forest Vegetation” sections of Chapter 3). Increased tree densities resulting 

from fire exclusion and suppression, combined with the absence of effective density management 

have resulted in overstocked stands, increased competition between trees for moisture, nutrients, 

and sunlight, decreased tree health, growth, and vigor, altered stand structural stages, and an 

increased proportion of more susceptible tree species. These are all factors that are contributing 

to the current high levels of risk hazard in the dry upland forest.

Table 309. Percent of continuous vegetation survey (CVS) plots within predicted mortality categories 

(percentage of mortality loss) by upland forest potential vegetation group (for the Malheur, Umatilla, 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests combined)

Predicted Mortality by 

Potential Vegetation Group 0-5% 5-15% 15-25% 25-50% 50% Plus

Cold upland forest 

(percent of CVS plots)

32% 40% 18% 8% 2%

Moist upland forest

(percent of CVS plots)

16% 33% 34% 17% 1%

Dry upland forest

percent of CVS plots)

17% 24% 18% 23% 18%

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, only about 1 percent of the plots are in 

the highest 50 percent plus predicted mortality category, but approximately 17 percent of the plots 

are in the 25 to 50 percent predicted mortality category. Within the moist upland forest potential 

vegetation group, the insect and disease risk hazard is not as high as the mortality level predicted 

for the dry upland forest, yet the risk is substantial. Again, these results are consistent with the 

moderately high levels of departure from the historical range of variability for the moist upland 

forest vegetation, particularly in regards to species composition, that are described in detail within 

the Ecological Resilience and Forest Vegetation sections of Chapter 3.

The cold upland forest potential vegetation group exhibits the lowest insect and disease risk 

hazard, compared with the other upland forest potential vegetation groups. This is likely related to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

187

the fact that the cold upland forest potential vegetation group tends to exhibit less departure from 

historical forest conditions in terms of stand structure, density, and species composition.

Table 310 displays the percent of continuous vegetation survey plots, and by inference, the 

percent of the forest areas that are within each predicted mortality category, summarized by 

individual National Forest. Predicted mortality is described as a percentage of live forest lost to 

mortality over a subsequent period of 15 years. The Malheur National Forest exhibits a 

significantly higher level of insect and disease risk hazard, in comparison with the other two 

forests. Within the Malheur National Forest, approximately 28 percent of the plots are in the 50 

percent plus predicted mortality category. Modeling indicates that almost 30 percent of the 

Malheur National Forest might lose over half of its live forest to insect and disease related 

mortality over the next 15 years. This is in addition to the approximately 20 percent in the 25 to 

50 percent predicted mortality category. The difference between the Malheur and the other two 

Forests is likely related to the Malheur National Forest containing a much higher percent of the 

landscape in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, and the lowest percent of the 

landscape in the cold upland forest potential vegetation group.

Table 310. Percent of continuous vegetation survey (CVS) plots within predicted mortality categories 

(percentage of mortality loss) by national forest

Predicted Mortality by 

National Forest 0-5% 5-15% 15-25% 25-50% 50% Plus

Malheur

(percent of CVS plots)

17% 21% 14% 20% 28%

Umatilla

(percent of CVS plots)

20% 30% 29% 20% 2%

Wallowa-Whitman

(percent of CVS plots)

21% 35% 24% 19% 2%

Another assessment dealing with the forest health of the Blue Mountains was also completed 

recently (Jennings 2016). This report was prepared to support an evaluation of the potential to 

designate insect and disease treatment areas on the Blue Mountains national forests in accordance 

with Section 602 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2014 Amendment) of 2003. The 

Jennings (2016) report focused primarily on current trends in bark beetle caused mortality of trees 

in recent years as well as risk of bark beetle caused tree deaths in the near future. Average 

mortality caused by these bark beetles from 2012 to 2015 was found to have increased more than 

13-fold over the average annual mortality of the previous five years and 11-fold over the previous 

ten years. The most important bark beetle species observed to be causing the tree mortality were

mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, Douglas-fir beetle and fir engraver. By analyzing data 

from the “National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment” (Krist et al. 2014), Jennings 

(2016) also concluded that over an area spanning 2.2 million acres of the Blue Mountains national 

forests, approximately 13 percent of the current live tree basal area is categorized likely to be 

killed by bark beetles within the next 11 years. Recently observed levels of tree mortality from 

2015-2017 on the Malheur National Forest support this assessment (see ADS data: 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/forest-grasslandhealth/insects-diseases/?cid=stelprdb5294941).

Recent General Trends

Recent general trends were examined from the Forest Service’s Forest Health and Protection 

report: “Major forest insect and disease conditions in the United States: 2013” (Jenkins 2015). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

188

Aerial surveys are used annually to detect and evaluate forest conditions throughout the nation. 

This report provides an overview and summary for many of the major agents observed, along 

with recent trends. On a national level, looking at bark beetles of the west as an overall group, 

detected mortality has been declining since peaking in 2009. The primary reason for the decline, 

however, was fewer acres reported with mountain pine beetle mortality because large areas of the 

mountain west that were previously affected no longer contain suitable host trees. However, 

within Oregon specifically, mountain pine beetle mortality has been increasing recently. Mortality 

from the western pine beetle has been generally steady in Oregon and Washington. For fir 

engraver beetle, mortality trends had remained generally low up until 2013. Since then, mortality 

from fir engraver has been observed to be increasing in drought prone areas of Oregon. 

Statewide, damage from fir engraver observed in 2015 represented a 6-fold increase over 2013 

levels (Buhl et al. 2016).

In regards to defoliators, acres defoliated from western spruce budworm in the Blue Mountains

climbed rapidly from 2008 to 2011, but have declined markedly in recent years. Early detection 

traps for Douglas-fir tussock moths are set by the Forest Service and cooperators throughout 

eastern Oregon and Washington including the Blue Mountains. This network of traps is intended 

to detect building populations and predict impending outbreaks. Detected population levels have 

been very cyclic and generally increase about every 7 to 10 years. The last serious outbreak of 

Douglas-fir tussock moth in Oregon was in 2011.

Nationally, the spruce beetle epidemic has continued to intensify, particularly in Colorado and 

Wyoming, but spruce beetle populations within Oregon and neighboring regions of Idaho remain 

at endemic levels. The Blue Mountains do not have the large expanses of spruce that Colorado 

and Wyoming have and so do not have the same potential for large outbreaks. Mistletoe and root 

diseases are rarely accurately detected in aerial surveys and those disease agents do not contract 

or expand rapidly from year to year (Jenkins 2015).

A combination of aerial detection and ground surveys was used to characterize recent observed 

activity across Oregon statewide in 2015. The resulting report, “Forest Health Highlights in 

Oregon—2015” (Buhl et al. 2016) contained the following findings: An estimated 1.68 million 

trees were recently killed by insect, disease or animal damage across an area of 698,000 acres. 

The year 2015 was one of the warmest on record for Oregon and the related statewide drought 

conditions likely contributed to this large amount of detected tree mortality. Bark beetles such as 

Douglas-fir beetle, mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, Ips and fir engraver contributed the 

majority of insect-related tree mortality. Also in 2015, a large amount of mountain pine beetle 

mortality was apparent in regions of the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Most 

of Oregon’s observed annual Douglas-fir beetle mortality was centered in the Wallowa Mountains 

of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Oregon’s fir engraver mortality for 2015 was also 

primarily found concentrated in northeast Oregon on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests. As this bark beetle is strongly associated with drought stress, increased 

mortality is expected from fir engraver as competition-induced moisture stress continues to affect 

sites containing dense stands of grand fir.

Diplodia tip blight or pine shoot blight, caused by the fungus Diplodia pinea (syn. Sphaeropsis 

sapinea), was observed on ponderosa pine in many areas of northeast Oregon in 2015. This agent 

is a weak parasite that typically affects trees stressed by drought or other agents at times when 

conditions are ideal for infection and disease development. The primary symptom is “flagging” of 

branch tips, which occurs when the pathogen kills entire current-year shoots leaving obvious 

clusters of brown foliage at branch ends. In contrast to the needle cast diseases, needles affected 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

189

by this disease remain on the tree through the winter. Tree mortality is uncommon, but growth 

loss, branch dieback, and top-kill can occur (Buhl et al. 2016).

Invasive Pest Trends

The sap-sucking insect, balsam woolly adelgid, is a nonnative, invasive pest that has been 

established on the West Coast since 1929. It attacks various true firs in Oregon, primarily the 

subalpine fir in eastern Oregon. It feeds by piercing through bark, causing swelling, dieback on 

stems and branches, and for many trees, outright mortality within 3 to 4 years. Damage from the 

balsam woolly adelgid continues to be widespread and is currently affecting subalpine firs at high 

elevations across eastern Oregon. In 2015, approximately 61,000 acres of damage was mapped 

during aerial surveys. This was similar to the area detected in 2014. Although damage in recent 

years is below the 10-year average of 109,000 acres, infestations are chronic, thus declining 

damage detected in surveys may be due to mortality of preferred hosts (Buhl et al. 2016).

White pine blister rust disease is caused by a nonnative, invasive fungus (Cronartium ribicola). 

White pine blister rust affects all “five-needled” pines, but mainly western white pine and 

whitebark pine in this area. The disease causes formation of resinous cankers that commonly 

girdle the stems of host trees. This results in branch and top mortality of larger trees and it 

frequently kills smaller host trees. Trees infected by the fungus may also be predisposed to 

infestation by mountain pine beetle. White pine blister rust has significantly reduced populations 

of western white pine in the Blue Mountains, and is continuing to adversely affect whitebark pine 

as well. White pine blister rust represents a very significant threat to the vitality and survival of 

whitebark pine in the Blue Mountains, as it does to the species throughout most of its range 

(Aubry et al. 2008).

Susceptibility Reference Conditions

Much of the significance of the susceptibility or hazard modeling efforts as well as the current 

activity levels depends on the context of what level of historic insect and disease susceptibility is 

considered “normal.” Historically many outbreaks were likely severe, but several forest scientists 

have observed that uncharacteristically large insect outbreaks seem to have become more 

common in recent decades in many conifer forest types and they will likely continue to do so, 

particularly in the face of expected climate changes (Mitchell 1988; Logan et al. 2003; Bentz et

al. 2009, 2010; Meddens et al. 2012; Sambaraju 2012; Kolb et al. 2016; Halofsky and Peterson 

2016). Unprecedented range shifts are also becoming more prevalent. For example, mountain 

pine beetle has affected more than 32 million acres of western Canada since 1999, including areas 

at higher elevations and more northern latitudes than indicated by past records (Raffa et al. 2008).

To help provide more perspective regarding what might be considered historically normal levels 

of susceptibility to insects and diseases, Schmitt and Powell (2012) developed insect and disease 

susceptibility reference conditions based on the forest vegetation conditions expected to exist 

within the historical range of variability. For the purposes of this analysis, susceptibility was 

defined as the relative probability (low, moderate, high) of insect or disease agents being present 

and causing disturbance. The same nine insect and disease agent groups that were used in the risk 

hazard assessment of current conditions were evaluated in the context of more natural forest 

vegetation conditions. The resulting ranges are assumed to represent the insect or disease 

susceptibility associated with forest vegetation having little or no departure from reference 

conditions. While these ranges for the insect and disease susceptibility are based on vegetation 

conditions within the historical range of variability, they do also reflect some degree of 

professional judgment. However, they are generally consistent with information from other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

190

published reports characterizing the susceptibility associated with early forest conditions 

(Hessburg et al. 1994; Swetnam et al. 1995). The susceptibility results identified for the various 

insect and disease agents refer to the relative probability of an insect or disease currently being 

present and causing damage, or to the existence of vegetation and site conditions contributing to 

an imminent level of risk.

The Schmitt and Powell (2012) characterization of historical range of variability for insect and 

disease susceptibility, as summarized in Table 311 (next page), indicates that managing forest 

vegetation structure, stand density, and species compositions to more closely resemble the 

historical range of variability would likely lead to stand conditions with low to moderate 

susceptibility to insects and diseases across the majority of the upland forest potential vegetation 

groups. These stand conditions would result in resilient forests capable of tolerating insect and 

disease disturbances while retaining their basic structure, ways of functioning, and their capacity 

for natural recovery.

Insects and Diseases – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

All of the alternatives would manage forest insects and diseases under the concept of integrated 

pest management. Integrated pest management has many definitions, but the Forest Service’s 

1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.3) characterizes it as 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.

Consistent with the principles of integrated pest management, all of the alternatives would make 

various use of silvicultural treatments such as commercial and noncommercial thinning, 

regeneration harvesting, tree planting, and prescribed burning as part of an insect and disease 

management program. Thinning and certain kinds of regeneration harvesting would be used to 

lower stand densities, reduce tree-to-tree competition, increase tree vigor, and thus provide an 

enhanced ability for trees to defend against attacks and infections. These treatments would also be 

used to manipulate species compositions in favor of more resistant species, and to enhance 

overall diversity, and thus, hedge risk. The development or establishment of multiple tree species 

would enhance resistance to host-specific insects or diseases and help ensure some portion of the 

affected forests can survive future outbreaks. Developing age class diversity at multiple scales 

across the landscape with regeneration harvesting and tree planting would dampen the effects of 

insects and diseases that preferentially target larger, older trees, and would ensure that the next 

generation of forest is available to replace stands killed during outbreaks. Treatments that remove 

excesses of multi-storied, layered stands would help mitigate the potential impact from 

defoliators by reducing the multi-storied structures in which some defoliators tend to thrive. 

Additional details about how these different treatments can be applied as resource management 

tools can be found in the “Ecological Resilience” section of Chapter 3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

191

Table 311. Range of expected susceptibility for each potential vegetation group if vegetation 

conditions were within the historical range of variability

Susceptibility to Insect or 

Disease Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest Cold Upland Forest

Defoliators - Low 40% to 85% 5% to 20% 40% to 95%

Defoliators - Medium 15% to 30% 20% to 30% 15% to 25%

Defoliators - High 5% to 15% 35% to 80% 5% to 10%

Douglas-fir beetles - Low 35% to 75% 30% to 60% 45% to 95%

Douglas-fir beetles -

Medium

15% to 30% 20% to 40% 10% to 25%

Douglas-fir beetles - High 10% to 25% 10% to 30% 5% to 10%

Fir engraver – Low 45% to 95% 30% to 70% 35% to 75%

Fir Engraver – Medium 10% to 25% 10% to 20% 20% to 45%

Fir Engraver – High 5% to 10% 20% to 40% 5% to 10%

Spruce beetle – Low 0% 50% to 95% 10% to 30%

Spruce Beetle – Medium 0% 10% to 25% 30% to 50%

Spruce Beetle – High 0% 0% to 10% 20% to 50%

Bark beetles in ponderosa 

pine – Low 

35% to 75% 30% to 65% 55% to 95%

Bark beetles in ponderosa 

pine – Medium

15% to 35% 15% to 30% 5% to 30%

Bark beetles in ponderosa 

pine – High

10% to 20% 15% to 35% 0% to 5%

Mountain pine beetle in 

lodgepole pine – Low 

55% to 90% 30% to 60% 30% to 50%

Mountain pine beetle in 

lodgepole pine – Medium

5% to 35% 25% to 40% 15% to 40%

Mountain pine beetle in 

lodgepole pine – High

0% to 5% 5% to 30% 15% to 40%

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe

– Low 

30% to 60% 30% to 65% 40% to 90%

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe

– Medium

10% to 35% 20% to 45% 20% to 30%

Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe

– High

20% to 35% 10% to 20% 0% to 10%

Larch dwarf mistletoe –

Low 

55% to 95% 5% to 20% 10% to 20%

Larch dwarf mistletoe –

Medium

5% to 30% 15% to 40% 20% to 50%

Larch dwarf mistletoe –

High

0% to 5% 40% to 70% 30% to 60%

Root diseases – Low 35% to 75% 5% to 25% 30% to 65%

Root diseases – Medium 20% to 35% 20% to 40% 20% to 45%

Root diseases – High 5% to 20% 35% to 65% 10% to 20%

Source: Schmitt and Powell (2012)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

192

A degree of sanitation cutting would also be built into many of the silvicultural treatments used to 

manage insect and disease conditions. Sanitation harvesting focuses on the removal of trees that 

have either been infected or attacked, or appear to be in imminent danger from insects or 

pathogens. The main purpose of the sanitation element of the treatments would be to prevent 

these damaged individuals from serving as sources of population build-ups that could spread to 

large numbers of neighboring trees. Trees that have had previous bark beetle attacks, root disease 

infections or other damage can serve as “focus” trees. Some studies of bark beetles have indicated 

that these focus trees may play a role in how endemic beetle populations become epidemic 

(Eckberg 1994). Management of these focus trees while beetle populations are at endemic levels 

may help prevent development of epidemic outbreaks.

However, forest management cannot maintain low levels of vulnerability to insect and disease 

damage in all circumstances. First, not all areas of the forest landscapes will be managed 

intensively enough to result in meaningful changes to factors related to high susceptibility. For 

example, many members of the public value “unmanaged” forests that contain dense areas of 

large and old trees. Current and future insect and disease trends described earlier are expected to 

continue on the vast majority of the areas left untreated each year, until these acres are eventually 

restored to the desired conditions. Second, drought and warm temperatures are major drivers of 

many kinds of insect and disease outbreaks, and forest management by itself cannot entirely 

overcome these climatic effects.

It is also recognized that the types of treatments and strategies that are expected to be effective for 

mitigating susceptibility may be ineffective in terms of controlling outbreaks once they develop. 

There is considerable evidence that suppression of full-scale outbreak or epidemic conditions is 

virtually impossible after they have fully developed (Black 2005). Once an extensive outbreak 

has started, it is unlikely that silvicultural treatments can stop it. For example, under outbreak 

conditions, extreme numbers of bark beetles can overwhelm the defenses of even the healthiest 

trees, so preventative treatments often have little impact at that point. True epidemic conditions 

often only end when there are no more suitable host trees or when environmental conditions 

change.

The changes to forest vegetation conditions expected to occur under each of the alternatives are 

analyzed in detail within the “Forest Vegetation” section. The information presented here is a 

summary of those results. The alternatives that would result in the closest achievement of the 

historical range of variability and desired conditions for structural stages, species composition, 

and stand densities should result in the greatest reduction in insect and disease susceptibility. A 

landscape that contains a diversity of structural stages and species mixes generally consistent with 

that which evolved within the historic disturbance regimes would be more resilient to the effects 

of insect and disease activity.

The cold upland forest potential vegetation group is a relatively minor component of each 

National Forest and much of the cold upland forest has been allocated to management areas that 

would be unavailable for intensive management. The cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group exhibits the lowest insect and disease risk hazard, compared with the other upland forest 

potential vegetation groups. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled 

within the cold upland forest, so the results indicating degrees of change in the forest vegetation 

conditions of the cold upland forest for the different alternatives may be driven largely by natural 

disturbance effects. Therefore, changes to the forest vegetation conditions of the cold upland 

forest are not particularly useful as indicators of significant differences among the different 

management regimes of the alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

193

The Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests both have about half of their forest 

environment represented within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, but they also 

have significant amounts of moist upland forest as well. Their dry upland forest landscapes are 

both currently severely departed from the desired conditions in terms of structural stages, stand 

density and species composition. The moist upland forests of these two forests are moderately 

departed from their desired conditions. The Malheur National Forest is somewhat distinct from 

the other two National Forests, in that it is dominated by dry upland forest and its moist upland 

forest represents only a very small piece of the overall forest landscape. While the species 

composition of the Malheur’s dry upland forest is currently in reasonably good condition, the 

structural stages and stand density conditions are significantly departed from the desired 

conditions. Given that the dry upland forest is the most widely distributed among the Blue 

Mountains national forests, is the most highly departed from the desired vegetation conditions, 

and currently shows the highest levels of susceptibility to insect and disease damage, changes to 

the dry upland forest would seem to be the most relevant indicators of differences between the 

alternatives in terms of overall forest health.

Even if fully implemented, none of the alternatives would be able to completely correct all of the 

imbalances within the dry upland forest vegetation conditions within the next 20 years. However, 

substantial progress, particularly in terms of structural stages and stand density, could be achieved 

by fully implementing several of the alternatives. With its “front-loaded” harvest schedule 

objectives for thinning treatments, combined with a focus on the dry upland forest, E-Modified 

Departure would likely make the most progress toward moderating insect and disease 

susceptibility within the next 20-year timeframe. However, if the tradeoffs of implementing the 

departure schedule are considered too great in terms of either economics or negative side effects

to other resources, then Alternatives D or E-Modified would also be highly beneficial options. 

Either of these alternatives would result in pronounced levels of improvement to the dry upland 

forest over the next 20 years, and associated reductions in overall insect and disease vulnerability. 

These alternatives would also entail considerably lower implementation costs than the departure 

alternatives.

Conversely, Alternatives A, B and C tend to consistently be the least effective in regards to 

addressing the restoration needs of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. Generally, 

these alternatives would result in very little improvement to the significantly departed areas of the 

forest landscape, and in some circumstances, both the dry and moist upland forest vegetation 

conditions would be likely to degrade even further under the relatively limited levels of active 

management proposed by these alternatives. These alternatives would likely result in the 

continuation of relatively high levels of susceptibility to insect and disease damages over the next 

planning period.

The overall results support the idea that alternatives with robust thinning, regeneration and 

prescribed fire programs could be relatively successful in reversing the negative trends of the 

Blue Mountains national forests’ vegetation conditions in terms of species composition, stand 

density and structural stages. However, alternatives that would maintain a disproportionate level 

of dense, overstocked stands, with understories composed of an excessive amount of shade 

tolerant species, would likely result in elevated levels of vulnerability to uncharacteristic insect 

and disease effects in the future.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

194

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects were analyzed by considering the effects of the alternatives in the 

context of past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have occurred within 

the vegetation cumulative effects analysis area. This analysis area consists of the 25 subbasins 

(HUC 4) that contain the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests and other 

lands. The time period into the future considered was 50 years.

The three National Forests of the Blue Mountains region are revising their forest plans 

simultaneously. These three individual revised plans will all contain the same desired conditions 

and will emphasize vegetation treatments that change the species composition, density, and 

structure in a similar fashion. With these three National Forests adjoining one another, the loosely 

coordinated efforts should complement each other in contributing to overall movement toward the 

historical range of variability and desired conditions for the restoration of landscape resiliency. 

Similar conditions for insect and disease susceptibility could be expected to result.

In July 2011, the Forest Service released a science-based strategy (the Western Bark Beetle 

Strategy) in response to the bark beetle infestation across forests of the interior west to ensure 

these forests provide healthy watersheds, stimulate local economies, are resilient to a changing 

climate and are ecologically restored over time. The strategy covered a 5-year period: from fiscal 

year 2011 to fiscal year 2016. The Western Bark Beetle Strategy recognized the bark beetle 

epidemic has been expanding, and infestations have accelerated in recent years across the West. 

The strategy also acknowledged that the situation required an increased response across the West 

and would require prioritized placement of treatments, integration of multiple program funds to 

achieve the maximum amount of priority treatments. The strategy was designed to address each 

of three aspects of the bark beetle situation: human safety, forest recovery, and long-term forest 

resiliency across Forest Service Regions 1 through 6.7 The strategy has fostered an environment 

supportive of aggressively implementing projects to mitigate the effects of bark beetles in the 

western regions of the Forest Service. The strategy has also led to the development of scores of 

research publications and tools to increase the effectiveness of forest management practices and 

knowledge level regarding bark beetle mitigation (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

Large stand-replacing severe wildfires have increased in all three National Forests and on 

adjacent ownerships in recent years. These events are creating extensive areas of regenerating 

forests. There is concern that recent large, stand-replacing fires will synchronize forest 

development and commit landscapes to a future of increased disturbance, such as bark beetle 

outbreaks that require extensive, well-connected forests of host trees. Similarly, as more acres of 

natural conifer regeneration occur after wildfires and substantial bark beetle outbreaks, the risk 

would increase under all alternatives for the types of insects that target young buds, shoots, and 

branches to develop into extremely high populations.

Over much of last planning period, forest restoration efforts in the Blue Mountains have focused 

on addressing a long legacy of fire exclusion and historical timber harvesting practices that have 

created densely stocked stands, mostly at lower elevations. Active management has centered on 

improving the vigor of low-elevation dry forests and reducing fire hazard, primarily with 

mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. The level of active silvicultural management over the 

past planning period has largely been insufficient to reverse most of the undesirable conditions 

discussed in the previous sections. The abundance of relatively small-scale active management 

 7 Regions 1 – 6 in order are the Northern, Rocky Mountain, Southwestern, Intermountain, Pacific Southwest, and 

Pacific Northwest Regions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

195

projects has contributed to a growing backlog of excess forest growth and continued movement 

away from the historical range of variability. Insect and disease outbreaks typically start in one or 

more places and spread in subsequent years to additional areas. The effects of these disturbances 

have the potential to spread to or from adjacent ownerships wherever the same host tree species 

are present. If outbreaks or epidemics develop as a result of favorable conditions on one 

ownership or area, the resulting populations could become so great that they are able to 

overwhelm adjacent areas, even though those areas had received preventative treatment.

One notable exception to the typical pattern of past management has been the award of a largescale 10-year Integrated Resource Service Contract by the Malheur National Forest in 2013. This 

10-year contractual obligation to supply substantial volumes of timber will entail a pace and scale 

of treatment that has not been utilized since early in the previous planning period. This project 

could very likely provide additional momentum to the planning and implementation of forest 

management projects by the Malheur National Forest for at least the remaining term of the 

contract. As the service contract work expands through subsequent annual task orders, a level of 

certainty is likely to continue to develop for local contractors, encouraging their investment in the 

infrastructure necessary to fully accomplish the level of treatments that are needed to effectively 

mitigate insect and disease risks across the Malheur and other eastside Oregon National Forests.

The greatest extent of foreseeable actions connected to the attainment of future forest restoration 

goals of the three National Forests is related to the ongoing Eastside Restoration Strategy. This 

effort, supported by the Pacific Northwest Regional Office of the Forest Service, started in 2013 

as a way of putting resources toward, and a focus on, some different methods of planning and 

implementing forest restoration projects on the eastside National Forests of Oregon and 

Washington. Since 2013, the effort has supported the development of five Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration projects and five Joint Chief’s projects, which combine the forces of the 

Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to restore forests and reduce fuel 

loadings across adjoining Federal and non-Federal lands in priority areas. The Blue Mountains 

Restoration Team has recently completed the Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of Decision for that implementation project

authorizes approximately 17,000 acres of thinning treatments and up to 90,000 acres of 

prescribed burning. The same team is currently working on the landscape scale Blue Mountains 

Forest Resiliency Project, which encompasses parts of three National Forests in the Blue 

Mountains of Oregon and may cover up to 610,000 acres of treatments. All of these planning 

efforts will tend to support the future implementation of the revised Forest Plans and will aid 

efforts to treat lands across ownership boundaries.

The National Forests within the Blue Mountains have all implemented some levels of active 

restoration efforts for whitebark pine over the previous planning period. All of the alternatives for 

plan revision would contain desired conditions for whitebark pine to persist on the landscape, so 

restoration activities for this species would likely continue or intensify, contingent upon funding. 

If this tree species is eventually listed as a Federal threatened or endangered species, there could 

be ramifications to the efforts to control the effects of the invasive white pine blister rust disease 

within the Blue Mountains national forests. The additional legal constraints of the Endangered 

Species Act would entail requirements to ensure individual whitebark pines are not adversely 

affected or destroyed by either whitebark pine restoration actions, or related insect and disease 

management activities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

196

Wildland Fire and Fuels Treatments

Wildland Fire and Fuels – Affected Environment

A wildland fire is any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. Wildland fire 

includes both prescribed fires and wildfires. Prescribed fires are planned wildland fires that are 

ignited by management actions in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations to 

meet specific objectives. A wildfire is an unplanned wildland fire including naturally caused 

ignitions, unauthorized human-caused fires, and escaped prescribed fire projects. Depending on 

the circumstances, wildfires may be managed to minimize impacts to values at risk or they may 

be managed to minimize the impacts of suppression activities on National Forest System lands.

Forest managers now recognize that past management practices have resulted in increased 

accumulations of live and dead vegetation, altered fuel arrangements, and changes in species 

composition (Agee 2003, Agee and Skinner 2005, Campbell 1996 and 2004, Lehmkuhl 1994, 

Parsons and DeBenedetti1979, Skinner 1995). When dead fallen material (including tree boles, 

tree and shrub branches, leaves, and decaying organic matter) accumulates on the ground, it 

increases fuel quantity and may create a continuous fuel bed. When this occurs, surface fires may 

ignite more quickly, burn with greater intensity, and spread more rapidly and extensively than in 

the past (Dennison 2014, Hardy 2005, Williams 2013). Certain land uses, such as grazing, can 

also sometimes reduce fine fuels, which impedes the development of periodic surface fires that 

would typically burn in these areas. Without fire, encroachment of trees into some historical 

savannah and grassland ecosystems may occur.

Ironically, effective fire suppression and exclusion efforts have, in many places, significantly 

altered natural fire regimes (circumstances of fires including frequency, intensity, and spatial 

extent) so that the fires of today tend to be uncharacteristically large and severe (Holsinger et al. 

2016, Campbell 2004, Hessberg 2015, Peterson 2005). Addressing these changes, and the 

challenges they present, requires understanding and acceptance of the role of wildland fire, and 

the adoption of land management practices that integrate fire as an essential ecosystem process. 

The planning process considers the historical role of fire as an ecological disturbance agent. This 

knowledge is used to describe desired conditions and the baseline that future proposals will be 

working towards or maintaining (Powell 2001).

Wildland Fire Regimes

A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in the ecosystem (Agee 1993,

Hann 2004; Heyerdahl 1996 & 2001; Sugihara 2006). It includes the characteristics of frequency, 

severity, and seasonality of fire. The historical fire regime is described according to our 

understanding of the occurrence and behavior of fires that occurred before significant European 

influence began in approximately 1850 (Jaindl et al. 1993). It also includes wildland fires ignited 

by Native Americans. Fire regimes, especially fire frequency and intensity characteristics, 

strongly influence which plant species will tend to dominate in the vegetation complex of a given 

area. Fire has been a significant disturbance process within the Plan Area historically and is 

essential to maintain key ecological processes. An understanding of fire regimes, ecological 

departure from historical reference conditions, and landscape pattern is an important part of 

modern land management. Land managers can mimic many of the effects of fire using 

management actions (timber harvest, prescribed fire, managing wildfire), but not always at the 

same scale or frequency as in historical disturbance regimes. Land managers have the ability to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

197

choose, to some extent, what relationship with fire is desirable (Agee and Maruoka 1994, Brown 

2004, Franklin 2012, Gartner 2008, Graham 2010, Hessberg 2015, Mutch 1993.).

Barrett et al. (2010) recognize five historical fire regimes (I – V). These five regimes include:

I – 0 to 35 year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75 

percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

II – 0 to 35 year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent of 

the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant 

overstory vegetation replaced);

IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 percent 

of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

V – 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

Table 312 displays historical fire regimes for the major vegetation types within the Plan Area and 

ranges of how often and to what degree historical fires exhibited severe fire behavior. Historical 

fire regime refers to the combination of fire frequencies and severities under which plant 

communities evolved and were maintained (Schmidt et al. 2002; Hardy et al. 2001). Frequency is 

expressed as a range of time between fire events. Effects on the dominant vegetation are 

expressed as fire severity and proportion of high severity fire.

Historical fire regimes I to IV were common and integral components of forested ecosystems in 

the Blue Mountains. Fire regime V (200-plus-year fire frequency) was relatively rare in this area 

(Heyerdahl and Agee 1996; Powell 2011).

Noteworthy fire history research has been accomplished within the Blue Mountains (Hall 1977, 

Crane and Fischer 1986, Agee and Maruoka 1994, Maruoka 1994, Heyerdahl and Agee 1996, 

Heyerdahl 1997, Olson 2000, Johnston et al. 2016). These studies have aided local efforts to 

establish historical fire return intervals. Fire size and patch size created within the perimeter of a 

historical fire have been the least studied element of fire history.

Table 312. Severity and frequency of fire (desired condition)

Potential Vegetation 

Group Fire Regime Fire Frequency 

(Years)

Percentage of Fire Behavior 

Typically of High Severity

Cold upland forest IV 100-200 40-80%

Moist upland forest III 30-150 20-40%

Dry upland forest I 5-10 5-15%

Dry upland woodland III 80-160 25-45%

Cold upland shrubland III - IV 30-60 30-100%

Moist upland shrubland II - III 10-40 30-100%

Dry upland shrubland II 20-40 20-80%

Cold upland herbland IV 30-80 55-100%

Moist upland herbland II 20-40 20-80%

Dry upland herbland II 5-20 40-80%

Cool/cold riparian forest III - IV 100-200 40-90%
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

198

The results of this analysis are similar to those identified in broad-scale analyses that included the 

Blue Mountains and similar forest environments (Quigley et al. 1996, Quigley and Arbelbide 

1997, MacDonald et al. 2005, Perry et al. 2011, Stine et al. 2014, Hessburg et al. 2016). The best 

available science (Hall 1977, Crane and Fischer 1986, Agee and Maruoka 1994, Maruoka 1994, 

Heyerdahl and Agee 1996, Heyerdahl 1997, Olson 2000, Johnston et al. 2016) supports the idea 

that the Blue Mountains evolved with frequent, low and mixed-severity fire. Approximately 88 

percent of the Blue Mountains are classified as historical fire Regime I, II, or III, which are short 

to mixed return interval ecosystems (see Table 313). Sixty percent of the Blue Mountains are 

classified Fire Regime I, which are sites historically dominated by low to mixed severity frequent 

fires. Although dominated by low-severity fire behavior historically, approximately 5 to 15 

percent of the acres burned within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group experienced 

high severity fire. Based on modeling of forest inventory data using the Forest Vegetation 

Simulator Fire and Fuels Extension (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003), approximately 40 to 60 

percent of the acres within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group now have the potential 

to support high severity fire behavior under severe fire weather conditions. Increased potential for 

high severity fire in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group is largely due to the 

abundance of multi-storied stands with high stand densities. An increased potential for high 

severity fire in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group threatens the attainment of desired 

conditions for vegetation structure and economic outputs. The potential for high severity fire in 

the moist and cold upland forest potential vegetation groups (Fire Regimes III and IV) is 

currently close to what is estimated for historical levels (Countryman 2008).

Table 313. Percent of each national forest area historically in each wildfire regime

Fire Regime Malheur Umatilla Wallowa-Whitman

I 60 55 53

II 23 3 5

III 15 28 25

IV 2 14 17

V 0 0 0

Wildland Fire Return Interval

The mean fire return interval is defined as the average period of time between fires within

representative stands; that is, cluster scale data (Arno and Peterson 1983) as cited in the 2010 Fire 

Regime Condition Class Guidebook Version 3.0 (National Interagency Fire, Fuels, and Vegetation 

Technology Transfer 2010). For example, if a specific area consists of 10,000 acres and has a fire 

return interval of 100 years, then it would take approximately 100 years for a total of 10,000 acres 

within the area to burn. It does not mean that every acre within the area would have a fire every 

100 years or that only 100 acres would burn each year. Because of the variability of fire 

processes, a specific site within the area could have a fire every 20 years, while other sites might 

not have fire reoccur for periods of greater than 100 years. The fire return interval is a generalized 

indicator of how much fire is or has occurred on the landscape. Higher numbers (longer fire 

return intervals) would mean that there is a greater period of time between fires, less area would 

burn, and there is less fire within the landscape. This is based on the total accumulation of fire 

within a specific area for a period of time.

Table 314 displays estimates of contemporary mean fire return intervals by potential vegetation 

group for each national forest, in comparison to reference conditions. The contemporary fire 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

199

return interval and the departure from reference conditions (LANDFIRE values) (The Nature 

Conservancy 2005) were calculated using the Blue Mountains geographic information systems

database layer for wildfires from 1980 to 2017 and prescribed fire from 2001 to 2017. The Mean 

fire return interval was calculated by dividing the analysis area size by the average acres burned 

per year for each potential vegetation group (see Table 314).

Table 314. Current fire return intervals (in years, since 1980) for each national forest, in comparison 

to reference conditions, by potential vegetation group

Potential 

Vegetation 

Group

Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Blue 

Mountains 

National 

Forests

LANDFIRE 

Reference 

(years)

Blue Mountains 

Forest Plan 

Revision 

Reference (years)*

Cold upland 

forest 99 123 246 161 113 100-200

Whitebark pine 

forest 45 no data 301 182 63 30-120

Moist upland 

forest 249 255 270 256 71 30-150

Dry upland 

forest 616 114 148 213 20 5-25

Juniper 

woodland 43 152 105 75 48 80-160

Dry herbland 108 133 181 144 8 5-20

Dry shrubland 142 226 96 89 74 75-125

Cold herbland** no data no data 147 180 239 30-80

Moist herbland no data 177 198 186 30 20-40

Moist shrubland 163 58 176 100 20 10-40

* The reference values were derived from version 2.1 of the LANDFIRE reference condition modeling manual (The 

Nature Conservancy, 2005) and associated reference condition summary tables. Reference values were also based on 

work by Crane and Fischer (1986), Agee (1993 and 2003), Maruoka (1994), Heyerdahl and Agee (1996), Olson (2000), 

and Catherine Macdonald (2005).

** No data = Potential Vegetation Groups less than 1% of national Forests acres were not modeled.

Fire return intervals within most of the potential vegetation groups currently exceed reference 

condition ranges due to fire exclusion and suppression. This is especially evident in the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group. Estimates of the present fire return interval in the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group is 213 years at the scale of the Blue Mountains. 

Historically, the dry upland forest potential vegetation group was characterized by predominantly 

frequent, low to mixed-severity surface fires occurring every 5 to 25 years. While larger-diameter, 

old ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir typically survived these low-severity fires, most younger, 

smaller-diameter trees and less fire-tolerant species were killed. The historical fire regime created 

and maintained a generally open forest structure, with a small-scale mosaic pattern of clumps or 

patches of trees dominated by large diameter, old ponderosa pines, scattered individual trees, and 

openings that contained an abundance of native grasses and shrubs (Churchill et al. 2013, Larson 

and Churchill 2012, and Franklin et al. 2008). This spatial heterogeneity is a key structural 

element of the historical dry upland forest (Franklin et al. 2008). Crown fires may have occurred

historically in mid- to late-seral closed canopy structural stages. However, these events were 

limited in extent due to the predominance of open canopy forest (Barrett et al. 2010). The 

frequent fires in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group also contributed to relatively low 

fuel loadings. Due to over a century of fire exclusion and suppression, the dry upland forest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

200

potential vegetation group in general has experienced a greater number of missed fires. As a 

result, the dry upland forest potential vegetation group has experienced the greatest amount of 

departure from the historical range of variability.

The estimated current fire return interval is closer to the historical reference condition range in 

the cold upland forest potential vegetation group. The cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group was characterized by stand-replacing fire events that occurred very infrequently, generally 

greater than 100 year return intervals. Due to a fewer number of missed fires, the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group tends to be less departed from the historical range of variability.

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, the estimated current fire return 

interval is approximately 256 years at the scale of the Blue Mountains. Historically, the moist 

upland forest potential vegetation group was characterized by mixed-severity fires occurring 

every 30 to 150 years. Mixed-severity fires alternated between stand-replacing crown fires, which 

killed all trees, to nonlethal, low-intensity surface fires that left patches of living trees. According 

to Perry et al. (2011), mixed-severity fires created a patchiness of forest structure, composition, 

and seral status that could be observed and quantified at an intermediate scale, with patch sizes 

ranging from a few hundredths up to tens or hundreds of acres, depending on local and climatic 

drivers. In forest types that were historically dominated by mixed-severity fire regimes, surface 

and canopy fuels, topography, climatic conditions, and ignitions worked in concert to influence 

variation in fire frequency, severity, spatial extent, and seasonality. The result was a complex 

spatial-temporal mix of low, moderate, and high severity patches. Due to patterns of burning, this 

type of historical fire regime created a complex mosaic pattern across the landscape, resulting in 

high levels of diversity in both plants and animals (Perry et al. 2011; Stine et al. 2014). Due to 

over a century of fire exclusion and suppression, the moist upland forest potential vegetation 

group in general has experienced a fewer number of missed fires than the dry upland forest 

potential vegetation group but a greater number than the cold upland forest potential vegetation 

group. As a result, the moist upland forest potential vegetation group tends to exhibit a relatively 

moderate amount of departure from the historical range of variability.

In most cases, fire has become more frequent since 1980 than in the last 100 year time period 

(ICBEMP 2014) (Hessburg 2006). Some of this is possibly due to variations in the climate, but 

most of the changes are due to the buildup in fuels and increase in multi-storied, dense stands of 

fire vulnerable species. Hessburg et al. (2016) combined a tree-ring-based fire history with 20thcentury area burned showed that changes in the wildfire regime in the Sierra Nevada mountains 

over the last 400 years corresponded with socioecological change, not climate variability. Rarely, 

dry forest landscapes were affected by more severe climate-driven events. Extant dry forests no 

longer appear or function as they once did. Large landscapes are homogeneous in their 

composition and structure, and the regional landscape is set up for severe, large fire and insect 

disturbance events. (Hessburg et al. 2005) The result of having the current, less frequent fire 

return interval in the dry vegetation types is that vegetation and fuel loading can build up and lead 

to more severe and larger fires than historical levels.

Wildland Fire Severity

Fire severity, as discussed in this section, is a measure of the potential effects of fire on 

vegetation. The following definitions and thresholds used are from the Fire Regime Condition 

Class Guidebook version 3.0 and arte consistent with ongoing LANDFIRE definitions:

• Low severity fire: less than 25 percent mortality in the dominant overstory vegetation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

201

• Mixed severity fire: 25 to 75 percent mortality in the dominant overstory vegetation.

• High severity fire: greater than 75 percent mortality in the dominant overstory vegetation.

Continuous vegetation survey (CVS) inventory plot data for the Blue Mountains Plan Area was 

used to estimate potential mortality from fire. The summary of this data for percent high severity 

fire at the scale of each national forest is summarized in Table 315. Values were obtained using 

the FVS fire and fuels extension model.

Table 315. Potential percent high severity fire by potential vegetation group* for each national forest

Potential Vegetation 

Group

LANDFIRE 

Reference Value 

(high severity fire) Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Cold upland forest 84% 55% 52% 55%

Moist upland forest 35% 38% 40% 32%

Dry upland forest 10% 50% 55% 50%

Juniper woodland 37% 89% 100% 94%

* Value: percent of the potential vegetation group that has the potential (based on CVS data) for greater than 75 percent 

basal area loss in the event of a fire at 90th percentile conditions. Greater than 75 percent basal area mortality is defined 

as a high severity fire. Grassland, herbland, and brush potential vegetation groups are modeled as high severity fire 

regimes tending to vegetative replacement fires and as such are not listed.

Table 315 displays the potential for high severity fire effects by potential vegetation group and 

national forest. Fire severity data indicate that under severe fire weather conditions (90th 

percentile), much of the analysis area has the potential for high severity fire effects. The moist 

upland forest potential vegetation group exhibits the least amount of departure from reference 

conditions. Currently, approximately 32 to 40 percent of the moist upland forest potential 

vegetation group in the Blue Mountains national forests has the potential for high severity fire, 

compared to a reference value of 35 percent. Approximately 52 to 55 percent of the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group in the Blue Mountains national forests has the potential for high 

severity fire, compared to a reference value of 84 percent. Even though the cold and moist upland 

forest potential vegetation groups show the potential for a moderate to high amount of high 

severity fire, this amount of fire is consistent with the mixed to infrequent high severity fire 

regimes that historically dominated these systems. Approximately 50 to 55 percent of the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group has the potential for high severity fire, compared to a 

reference condition of 10 percent. This increased potential for high severity fire in the dry upland 

forest potential vegetation group results in increased risk of loss of key ecosystem components. 

High potential for high severity fire can be attributed to stands that have canopy cover greater 

than the desired conditions, an abundance of small diameter understory trees that act as ladder 

fuels and carry wildfire from the ground into the overstory tree crowns, or a level of down woody 

material that exceeds the desired condition.

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire regime condition class is a way of classifying the current degree of change from the natural 

fire regimes and their characteristic vegetation and fuel conditions (Hann 2004, Powell 1998 and 

2001). 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

202

vegetation and the fire frequency/severity. The three fire regime condition classes that can result 

from this type of analysis are described in the table below:

Table 316. Description of fire regime condition classes (Schmidt et al. 2002)

Fire Regime 

Condition 

Class

Description Risk

Condition 

Class 1

Within the natural (historical) 

range of variability of 

vegetation characteristics, 

fuel composition, fire 

frequency, severity and 

pattern, and other 

associated disturbances.

Low Departure 

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are similar to those that occurred prior 

to fire exclusion (suppression) and other types of 

management that do not mimic the natural fire regime 

and associated vegetation and fuel characteristics.

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are 

similar to the structure that existed under the natural 

(historical) fire regime.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g., 

native species, large trees, and soil) is low.

Condition 

Class 2

Moderate departure from the 

natural (historical) range of 

variability of vegetation 

characteristics, fuel 

composition, fire frequency, 

severity and pattern, and 

other associated 

disturbances.

Moderate Departure 

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are moderately departed from historical 

range of variability (more or less severe).

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are 

moderately altered.

• Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to 

moderate.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is 

moderate.

Condition 

Class 3

High departure from the 

natural (historical) range of 

variability of vegetation 

characteristics, fuel 

composition, fire frequency, 

severity and pattern, and 

other associated 

disturbances.

High Departure 

• Fire behavior, effects, and other associated 

disturbances are highly departed from historical range 

of variability (more or less severe).

• Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are 

highly altered.

• Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate to 

high.

• Risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.

As described above, the determination of the three fire regime condition classes for each fire 

regime includes an assessment of the relative amount of departure of current fire 

frequency/severity from the historical natural fire regime (Hann et al. 2003). The degree of 

departure ideally can be thought of as being a product of two major elements: the condition of 

vegetation succession classes and fire frequency/severity. The existing departure of fire severity is 

described qualitatively in this section as a part of the affected environment, but is not analyzed for 

each alternative as a quantitative part of fire regime condition class. In most cases, the departure 

of fire frequency would overwhelm the departure of the vegetation conditions, making 

interpretation of changes in vegetation structure difficult. For the this analysis, the fire regime 

condition class modeling focuses on vegetation so that the effects of proposed management on 

vegetation attributes, such as structure, density, and species composition, can be displayed more 

easily and clearly.

To characterize the fire regime condition class in this analysis, the degree of departure from the 

natural fire regime utilized a vegetation departure index value that focuses on vegetation and does 

not include an evaluation of the current fire severity/frequency as a quantitative part of the score. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

203

The vegetation departure index quantifies the degree to which the vegetation structure, size class 

and stand density have departed from desired conditions. The computation of the vegetation 

departure index values is based on the succession class vegetation departure calculations as 

outlined in the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook (Barrett et al. 2010). 

Vegetation output data from the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool model (ESSA 

Technologies Ltd. 2007) runs for each of the three upland forest potential vegetation groups was 

classified into one of the five vegetation-succession classes (see the “Forest Vegetation” section 

of Chapter 3 for more information on the vegetation modeling). The acres existing in each 

succession class for each potential vegetation group were then expressed as a percentage of the 

total potential vegetation group. Reference values for each succession class were developed based 

on the midpoints of the forest vegetation’s historical ranges of variability. Current and projected 

forest vegetation succession class percentages were compared to the reference values to 

determine the percentage of similarity between the current and reference amounts. The sum of 

these values for all five succession classes is the similarity index. The vegetation “departure” 

index is simply the inverse of the similarity index (100 – similarity index).

Table 317 displays the forestwide vegetation departure index values of the existing forest 

vegetation. The higher values indicate forest vegetation/fuel conditions that are significantly 

departed from the conditions expected under a natural fire regime. The vegetation departure index 

is used in this analysis as an inference of the overall fire regime condition class. The index value 

classes that correspond to the fire regime condition classes include the following:

Low departure (less than 33 percent) Condition Class 1: Composition and structure of forest 

vegetation is similar to the historical range of variation and levels of natural resilience to 

disturbance are generally high. Risk of losing key ecosystem components (e.g., native species, 

forest structure, soil) is minimal to low.

Moderate departure (between 33 and 66 percent) Condition Class 2: Composition and structure of 

forest vegetation is significantly altered from the historical range of variation and the risk of 

losing key ecosystem components ranges from moderate to high. Areas within this class will 

likely need moderate levels of restoration treatments (e.g., fire, mechanical) to be restored to 

resilient conditions.

High departure (more than 66 percent) Condition Class 3: Composition and structure of forest 

vegetation is highly altered from the historical range of variation and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components ranges from high to very high. Areas within this class will likely need 

significant levels of restoration treatments (e.g., fire, mechanical) to be restored to resilient 

conditions.

Table 317. Existing condition vegetation departure index values (zero-100) for each 

national forest

Potential Vegetation Group Malheur Umatilla Wallowa-Whitman

Cold upland forest 54 13 38

Moist upland forest 37 27 23

Dry upland forest 62 60 57

The dry upland forest potential vegetation group consistently exhibits vegetation departure index 

values at the high end of moderately departed, or fire regime condition class 2. These vegetation 

departure index values indicate that vegetation conditions are nearing a highly departed state with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

204

a high risk of loss of key ecosystem functions. Additional discussion can be found in the 

Ecological Resilience and Forest Vegetation sections, but the amount of departure within the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group typically reflects an overabundance of shade tolerant tree 

species, overabundance of high density forest conditions, excess of multi-storied stand structures, 

and a deficit of old and mature fire resistant individual trees. The uncharacteristic condition of the 

dry upland forest potential vegetation group is of particular concern as it represents the dominant 

forest vegetation group across the Blue Mountains national forests.

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, vegetation departure index values vary 

by national forest. Within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, the vegetation 

departure index indicates that most of the moist upland forests are in fire regime condition class 1 

and are within the historical range of variability. These scores indicate that the composition and 

structure of vegetation and fuels are similar to the characteristics exhibited under the natural 

(historical) fire regime and are at low risk of loose of key ecosystem components in the moist 

upland forest potential vegetation group. However, within the Malheur National Forest, the 

vegetation departure index indicates that the moist upland forest vegetation is moderately 

departed and exists in fire regime condition class 2. This score indicates that the composition and 

structure of vegetation and fuels are becoming more departed from the characteristics exhibited 

under the natural (historical) fire regime and are at moderate risk of loose of key ecosystem 

components in the moist upland forest potential vegetation group within the Malheur National 

Forest.

Within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group, vegetation departure index values also 

vary among the three National Forests. The Umatilla National Forest’s cold upland forest

vegetation exhibits a low degree of departure and is in fire regime condition class 1. However, 

within the Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests, the cold upland forest vegetation is 

currently moderately departed and in fire regime condition class 2.

It is important to note that the analysis above was done at a forest-wide landscape scale. 

Assessments completed at smaller spatial scales, like basins, watersheds or sub-watersheds may 

not correspond with these forest level conditions.

These trends and altered forest vegetation conditions of the dry and moist mixed conifer in the 

Blue Mountains are similar to those described for years by numerous forest scientists and 

ecologists including Agee (1993), Quigley et al. (1996), Macdonald et al. (2005), Stine et al. 

(2014), Franklin et al. (2014), Haugo et al. (2015), Hessburg et al. (2005), Hessburg et al. (2015),

Hessburg et al. (2016) and Johnston (2016). Science shows that fire-adapted forests like many of 

those found in the Blue Mountains are dominated by ecosystems that historically evolved with 

frequent, low and mixed severity fire. The vast majority of these forests are classified as historical 

Fire Regime I, II, or III. These are short to medium length fire return interval systems. Much of 

this landscape is currently moderately to highly departed from historical/reference conditions for 

vegetation and fuel conditions.

A small number of scientists contend these views (Williams and Baker 2012), but most scientists 

today agree that these forests neither resemble nor function as they once did. Density and fuel 

loadings within dry and moist conifer forests and landscapes particularly have increased 

dramatically as a result of human activities including decades of wildfire suppression resulting in 

fire exclusion. Wildfire suppression, which was formally adopted as policy by the U.S. Forest 

Service over 100 years ago and became effective in the 1930s, was another major influence. Dry 

upland forests and areas of moist upland forests that historically experienced relatively frequent, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

205

low and mixed severity fires have now missed what would have been a natural recurrence of 

several wildland fires due to decades of fire exclusion and suppression. Tree regeneration that 

naturally would have been thinned by fire continued to grow into dense stands of fire-vulnerable 

species, ultimately forming multi-storied, closed canopy structures. The historically open stands 

within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, with their typical mosaic pattern of tree 

clumps and openings, have now filled in with younger trees, resulting in a more uniform stand 

structure, increased ladder fuels, increased stand densities, increased fuel continuity, and 

decreased variety of spatial patterns. Increased stand densities and a reduction in low severity 

wildfire events on dry and moist sites has also contributed to a shift from fire tolerant tree species, 

such as ponderosa pine or western larch, to more shade tolerant and fire vulnerable species, such 

as grand fir. As a result, large areas of these forests are at significant risk of losing key ecosystem 

components.

Wildland Fire and Fuels Treatments – Environmental Consequences

All of the alternatives use wildland fire in order to maintain public land conditions within the 

historical range of variation while, at the same time, recognizing that other resource and social 

values may determine the appropriate management responses. Managed use of unplanned natural 

wildfire, along with mechanical and other fuels management strategies, may contribute to forest 

conditions that meet desired conditions for the potential natural vegetation types within the Plan 

Area.

Fuel Treatment Management Activities

Reducing fire hazard means returning forests to historic vegetation composition, structure, and 

fire return intervals. In these situations, fuels reduction objectives are largely in line with 

restoration objectives. Therefore, in terms of the amount and pattern of thinning and application 

of fire, prescriptions for fuels reduction projects in fire-prone forests would strive to meet 

restoration objectives.

The forests currently use prescribed burns and mechanical treatments in order to achieve multiple 

objectives, including reduction of activity-generated and natural fuels, wildlife habitat 

improvement, ecosystem restoration, and range betterment. While management techniques 

(including mechanical removal) may be used in order to reduce heavy fuels, they cannot always 

completely replace the ecological role that fire plays. Fire not only reduces the build-up of dead 

and downed fuel, it performs many other critical ecosystem functions. Fire can recycle nutrients 

that might otherwise be trapped for long periods of time in the dead organic matter that exists in 

many environments with slow rates of decay. It can also stimulate the production of nutrients and 

provide the specific conditions (including seed release, soil, light, and nutrients) that are critical 

for the reproduction of fire-dependent species Long et al. 2009, Thomas and Agee (1986), and 

Fieder (2000).

For all alternatives, limitations to landscape-level fire management activities may include funding 

uncertainty, organizational capacity of the Forest Service, species at risk, wildland-urban interface 

issues, sensitive watershed concerns, local and regional fire activity, fuel moistures, and air 

quality issues related to smoke. Fuels treatments, including prescribed fire and management of 

unplanned wildfire, would be utilized under all of the alternatives. However, the level and type of 

management activity would vary by alternative.

Table 318 displays the level of prescribed fire and mechanical fuel-reduction activity associated 

with each alternative by national forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

206

Table 318. Annual acres of fuels treatments for each National Forest by alternative

National 

Forest Activity Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Alt. F

Malheur Prescribed burning 

outside of harvest units

9,500 9,500 9,500 0 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500

Malheur Prescribed burning 

inside of harvest units

5,300 5,300 2,500 5,100 9,400 9,400 14,800 6,200

Malheur Treatment or removal of 

fuels with ground-based 

equipment inside of 

harvest units

1,800 1,800 900 15,400 3,100 3,100 4,900 2,100

Umatilla Prescribed burning 

outside of harvest units

10,000 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Umatilla Prescribed burning 

inside of harvest units

3,900 3,900 1,700 4,000 5,550 5,550 10,700 4,800

Umatilla Treatment or removal of 

fuels with ground-based 

equipment inside of 

harvest units

1,300 1,300 600 12,000 1,850 1,850 3,600 1,600

WallowaWhitmanPrescribed burning 

outside of harvest units

10,500 10,500 10,500 0 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500

WallowaWhitmanPrescribed burning 

inside of harvest units

3,400 3,450 1,550 4,300 7,050 6,975 12,375 4,550

WallowaWhitmanTreatment or removal of 

fuels with ground-based 

equipment inside of 

harvest units

1,100 1,100 500 12,700 2,300 2,325 4,125 1,500

It was assumed in the design of each alternative that all activity-generated fuels would be reduced 

to levels meeting the desired conditions for down wood. The mix of fuels treatments would be a 

combination of thinning, removal of small diameter biomass, mastication, piling and burning, or 

just burning. The three National Forests have averaged a combined 20,000 acres of prescribed fire 

per year over the last 10 years. The Malheur has conducted 6,300 acres of prescribed fire, the 

Umatilla 5,800 acres, and the Wallowa-Whitman 7,400 acres (FACTS Database 10/24/2017).

The level of prescribed burning occurring outside of harvest units would not differ between the 

alternatives, except under Alternative D. Under all other alternatives, prescribed burning outside 

of harvest units would continue at the current rate of approximately 20,000 acres per year within 

the Blue Mountains national forests. The use of prescribed fire outside of harvest units would be 

eliminated under Alternative D. Prescribed fire occurring outside of timber harvest units may or 

may not use thinning or piling as a pretreatment, depending on anticipated fire effects in relation 

to the desired conditions. For example, a proposed prescribed fire in an area that has an 

abundance of multi-storied stands may have a high potential for high severity fire effects. 

However, if the desired condition for the area is low severity fire, it would be necessary to 

complete pretreatments to bring potential effects in alignment with the desired conditions.

Under Alternatives A and B, prescribed burning and the treatment of fuels with ground-based 

equipment within harvest units would continue at the current rate of approximately 16,800 acres 

per year within the Blue Mountains national forests. Under Alternative C, these same treatments 

within harvest units would decrease to approximately 7,750 acres within the Blue Mountains 

national forests due to the decrease in the level of timber harvest. With Alternative D, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

207

treatment of fuels within harvest units would increase substantially to approximately 53,500 acres 

per year due to the substantial increase in timber harvest proposed under this alternative. Under 

Alternative D, the majority of the fuels treatments occurring within the harvest units would be 

accomplished by removal or crushing, instead of burning. With Alternatives E and E-Modified, 

the treatment of fuels using fire and/or ground-based equipment within harvest units would 

increase to approximately 29,200 acres within the Blue Mountains national forests. Under 

Alternative F, the treatment of fuels using fire and/or ground-based equipment within harvest 

units would increase to approximately 20,750 acres within the Blue Mountains national forests. 

Similar to Alternative D, Alternative E-Modified Departure would also substantially increase the 

treatment of fuels within harvest units to about 50,500 acres per year due to the increased levels 

of timber harvesting allowed under this alternative. However, with E-Modified Departure, most 

of the fuel reduction treatments would be accomplished with prescribed fire rather than crushing 

or removal. With all of the other alternatives except Alternative D, the majority of the fuels 

treatments within the harvest units would be accomplished using fire, instead of removal or 

crushing the fuels.

The overall goal of these fuel treatments in the wildland is to not to prevent the occurrence of fire 

or facilitate suppression activities, but rather to create conditions in which fire can occur without 

unacceptably destructive consequences (Reinhardt et al. 2008). Some of the key principles that 

are most important in terms of designing fuel reduction treatments are reducing surface fuels, 

increasing the height to live crown, decreasing crown density, and retaining large trees of fire 

resistant species. Prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and pile burning can all be useful tools to 

achieve these objectives (Agee and Skinner 2005).

The use of mechanical fuels treatments (thinning, crushing, piling, grinding) combined with 

removal of fuels would reduce the total amount of woody fuel on a site and reduce the potential 

fire severity effects on the soil. These activities would also be designed to reduce the average 

distance between ground fuels (reduced ladder fuels) and the lower crown of the trees, thereby 

reducing the potential for crown fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). Thinning of trees while 

emphasizing retention of large fire resistant individuals will reduce average stand density, favor 

less shade tolerant fire resistant species, reduce canopy fuel loads and break up fuel continuity 

within a stand.

However, studies have demonstrated that using either mechanical treatment or prescribed burning 

as standalone treatments is less effective than combining the two. Stephens et al. (2009), 

reporting on the effects of the National Fire and Fire Surrogate study, found that fire performance 

analysis conducted at six western sites, including one in the Blue Mountains, indicated that 

treatments combining mechanical thinning and prescribed fire were the most effective fuel 

treatments in dry forest systems. Similarly, Kalies and Yokum Kent’s (2016) review of 56 

separate science studies addressing fuel treatment effectiveness in eight western U.S. states found 

that overall, the evidence strongly supports that treatments which combine mechanical thinning 

and prescribed burning are effective in reducing fire severity, tree mortality, and crown damage.

Burn treatments alone often have little effect on live stand structure and overall density. 

Mechanical treatments alone, on the other hand, are effective at decreasing basal and stand 

density, but they have little effect in reducing surface fuels and perform poorly as a surrogate for 

fire for the great majority of ecological variables (McIver et al. 2012). Alternatives like C or D,

which lean very heavily toward one approach at the exclusion of the other, will be less effective 

in managing fuels and potential fire behavior while meeting ecological needs than alternatives 

which effectively combine both treatment methods.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

208

In addition to the activities listed above in Table 318, unplanned naturally ignited wildfires may 

also be managed to achieve desired conditions under all of the alternatives. Naturally ignited 

wildfires managed for resource benefits would result from the application of the appropriate 

management response in order to accomplish specific resource management objectives in 

predefined designated areas outlined in fire management plans. In some circumstances, these 

wildfires would be used in order to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as 

possible, be allowed to function in their natural ecological role. The use of unplanned ignitions as 

a tool to meet resource objectives could occur on all acres under all alternatives, as long as those 

fires are moving the landscape towards, or helping maintain, the desired conditions for the area. 

However, only Alternatives C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would contain 

specific objective statements in terms of the number of acres of wildfire managed for resource 

benefits per decade to achieve desired conditions for species composition, stand densities, 

structural stages, fire frequency, fire severity, and fire regime condition class. Management of 

unplanned ignitions is guided by a national forest’s fire management plan. A fire management 

plan is a decision support tool required by federal fire policy that aids decision makers and fire 

personnel in the determination of management response to an unplanned ignition. Alternative C 

contains the greatest acreage objective of unplanned ignitions managed for resource benefits due 

to an increased emphasis on more passive forest management to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternatives B and D would not contain a specific acreage objective for unplanned ignitions 

managed for resource benefits; however, the use of unplanned ignitions managed for resource 

benefits would not be precluded. A complete list of objectives for each national forest is available 

in Appendix A.

Wildland Fire Effects

For all of the alternatives, the continued introduction of fire is vital to the health, functioning, and 

sustainability of the ecosystem. Fire contributes to multiple ecological functions and processes, 

with effects varying depending on fire intensity, severity, and frequency. Intensity, severity, and 

frequency are the defining factors of a fire regime. The use of both planned ignitions (prescribed 

fire) and unplanned ignitions (wildfire) may result in the following effects on vegetation.

Moderate to High-severity Fire Effects

• Varying levels of mortality in both overstory and understory trees, which results in reduced 

tree densities, decreased competition between trees for moisture, nutrients, and sunlight, 

and increased tree health, growth, and vigor of the residual trees.

• Creation of snags and large woody material as surface fuels, which improves wildlife 

habitat values.

• Restoration and/or maintenance of meadow inclusions, grasslands, and shrublands where 

conifers have encroached due to fire suppression/exclusion.

• Stimulation of prolific vegetative regeneration and expansion of tree species such as aspen.

Low to Moderate-severity Fire Effects

• Modified species composition, favoring more fire tolerant tree species with thicker bark 

(ponderosa pine, older grand fir and Douglas-fir).

• Thinning of seedlings and smaller diameter trees.

• Maintenance of historical, low- and mixed-severity fire regimes by periodic reduction of 

accumulated biomass and downed woody debris.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

209

• Scorched tree bark, which can attract bark beetles and increase the risk of attack and 

mortality in the short-term.

• Scorched lower branches of tree crowns, thereby increasing crown base height, decreasing 

the potential for ground fires to transition to crown fires, and reducing fire severity.

• Favoring the spread or deterring the establishment and proliferation of noxious weeds, 

depending on fire frequency, severity, and timing.

• Stimulated vegetative shoot/bud initiation (provided soil moisture remains favorable) that 

results in a more leafy and palatable forage regrowth.

• Sanitizing effect on trees infected with dwarf mistletoe by scorching brooms in the lower 

crowns or by completely killing heavily infected trees.

Litter and duff can have an insulating effect on soil, which acts to lower soil temperatures and 

delay spring growth and herbage. Increased litter and duff can also result in decreased growing 

space for plants and decreased understory productivity. Fire results in reduced litter and duff 

accumulations. Fire, especially in combination with reduced stand densities, results in changes in 

the microclimate on the forest floor, specifically increased sunlight penetration, increased soil 

temperatures, and increased understory productivity. Fire has been shown to result in substantial 

increases in understory productivity and diversity. Low intensity fire in conjunction with reduced 

stand densities my improve overall ecosystem function by increasing rates of decomposition and 

nutrient cycling, water availability, carbon storage, plant diversity, and populations of native 

wildlife species (Kalies and Yokum Kent, 2016). Fire may rejuvenate desirable grasses, 

depending on the species response to disturbance. Fire may also increase seedling establishment 

by aiding in seedbed and site preparation. By decreasing litter and duff accumulation, fire also 

decreases fuel loadings in general and aids in the maintaining of conditions favoring future low 

fire severity fire.

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, tree densities may be reduced by fire, 

although not always in a uniform way. Low- to mixed severity fire may result in a tree 

arrangement consisting of clumps of trees interspersed with openings. Low severity to mixed fire 

is necessary to the maintenance of open, park-like stands dominated by fire resistant species, such 

as ponderosa pine. Low to mixed-severity fire in mixed size and multi-storied stands could favor 

larger diameter trees and create stands with minimal amounts of understory, which perpetuates 

low severity fire Prichard, Peterson, and Jacobsen (2006).

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, planned and unplanned ignitions may 

result in mixed-severity fire events. Mixed-severity fire alternates between stand-replacing crown 

fires that kill all trees and nonlethal, low-intensity surface fires that leave patches of living trees. 

Due to complex burning patterns, this type of fire tends to create a mosaic pattern across the 

landscape. Large openings created by stand-replacing crown fires may result in regeneration of 

more shade-intolerant/fire tolerant and/or early seral tree species.

Within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group, planned and unplanned ignitions may 

result in stand-replacing fire events. Stand-replacing fire events are characterized by crown fire 

that kills most or all of both the overstory and understory trees across large areas.

The emphasis on treating National Forest System lands adjacent to wildland-urban interface areas 

would continue into the foreseeable future. The wildland-urban interface has been defined and 

identified through national efforts and additional wildland-urban interface would continue to be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

210

identified and refined through completion of community wildfire protection plans. Treatments in 

highly departed fire regime condition classes would occur in all alternatives. Effects on forest 

management related to unplanned ignitions do not vary widely among the alternatives. For all of 

the alternatives, the appropriate protection response would be taken where life or values are at 

risk, while meeting the desired conditions.

Effects to Fire Regime Condition Class

The expected changes in fire regime condition class under each of the alternatives would vary 

depending on the combined amount of management activities, including prescribed fire, timber 

harvest, mechanical fuels treatments, and natural changes such as tree growth and succession, 

insect and disease-related mortality, and mortality due to wildfire. Forest vegetation condition 

data from the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool model (ESSA Technologies Ltd. 2007) 

projected over a 20 and 50 year timeframe were analyzed for each of the three upland forest 

potential vegetation groups and then classified into one of five vegetation-succession classes (see 

the Forest Vegetation section of Chapter 3 for more information on the vegetation modeling). The 

vegetation departure index values were then calculated and used to track the effects of the various 

alternatives on the fire regime condition class over time.

Dry Upland Forest – Fire Regime Condition Class

Table 319 through Table 321 display the fire regime condition class vegetation departure index 

values for the Dry upland forest by National Forest and across all alternatives projected over 50 

years.

Table 319. Malheur National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0 to 100) 

for the dry upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62

Year 20 56 54 56 47 51 51 49 53

Year 50 48 46 50 34 38 37 36 43

Table 320. Umatilla National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0 to 100) 

for the dry upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Year 20 57 55 57 49 53 52 51 54

Year 50 48 47 52 40 41 40 40 44
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

211

Table 321. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index

(0 to 100) for the dry upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep.

Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Year 20 58 56 57 50 52 52 51 54

Year 50 54 52 55 45 45 45 45 50

Dry Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group – The dry upland forest makes up the vast 

majority of the Malheur’s forest landscape and represents one-half or more of the Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group of 

these three National Forests, all of the alternatives would result in some reduction in the degree of 

vegetation departure over time, though these conditions would remain consistent with fire regime 

condition class 2. Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure would be the most 

successful in terms of moving the forest vegetation toward low departure from our desired 

conditions. Most of the dry upland forest is naturally characterized under the high-frequency/lowseverity Fire Regime I. These four alternatives would do the most to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic levels of high severity stand replacing fire within the dry upland forest due to 

reduction of mid-seral closed canopy stands, which currently are outside historic levels (Agee 

2003 and 2005, Campbell 1996, Lehmkuhl 1994, Parsons 1979, Skinner 1995). The higher 

amount of harvest thinning, when combined with other fuels treatments and prescribed burning, 

would tend to out-perform Alternatives like C, which rely more heavily on natural unplanned 

wildfires to achieve objectives (Van Mantgem et al. 2016).

Alternative D is somewhat unique in that it would not include objectives for prescribed burning 

outside of harvest units, and it would look for decreased amounts of prescribed burning within 

harvest units. The approach of Alternative D would be to use mechanical treatments like 

mastication or removal as surrogates to wildland fire. However, the lack of wildland fire under 

Alternative D would inhibit other ecological processes. Alternative D would also limit the 

reapplication of fire to maintain stands that have previously have been burn with prescribed fire. 

Based on prescribed fire accomplishments over the last 15 years this could reduce needed burning 

by up to 10,000 acres a year.

One reason that even the alternatives with the most aggressive objectives for active management 

cannot return the dry upland forest to fire regime condition class 1 within 50 years is related to 

the lack of late seral open forests (see related “Old Forest” section in this chapter). For many 

areas that currently have an abundance of mid-aged 90 to 110 year old forests, it will take more 

than 50 years for those forests to grow into larger and older more fire-resistant trees. The proper 

functioning of the dry upland forest’s natural low-severity surface fire regime is very dependent 

on the presence of these structural features.

Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure would result in relatively more reduction of 

stand density and more widespread restoration of natural fine scale patterns of dispersed clumps, 

dense patches and openings. These changes would create conditions more conducive to managing 

future unplanned wildfires as tools to achieve ecological objectives, rather than as unwanted 

incidents to be suppressed. These same low-density stand conditions would also facilitate the 

regeneration and development of more fire, drought, and disease resistant species, which tend to 

be intolerant of the shaded conditions found within high density stands.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

212

Under Alternative C, the fire regime condition class vegetation departure index remains 

moderately high at approximately 50 to 55 through year 50. This represents the highest departure 

index value among all of the alternatives. Forest vegetation conditions of the dry upland forest 

would remain more highly departed from the historical range of variability under Alternative C 

due to the persistence of disproportionately large areas of high stand density, altered species 

compositions, and uncharacteristic stand structures. These unnatural forest vegetation conditions 

would not support the objective of allowing unplanned wildfires to return to their typical role 

within the dry upland forest ecosystem. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components, such as 

native species, large trees, and soil, would be greatest under Alternative C due to the persistence 

of an increased risk of uncharacteristically severe fire behavior.

Moist Upland Forest – Fire Regime Condition Class

Table 322 through Table 324 display the fire regime condition class vegetation departure index 

values for the moist upland forest by National Forest and across all alternatives projected over 50 

years.

Table 322. Malheur National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0 to 100) 

for the moist upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37

Year 20 21 21 21 19 20 16 15 20

Year 50 19 17 18 8 11 10 8 13

Table 323. Umatilla National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0 to 100) 

for the moist upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

Year 20 19 18 18 18 19 17 19 18

Year 50 18 17 17 15 13 14 12 14

Table 324. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index

(0 to 100) for the moist upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23

Year 20 24 23 23 21 22 22 21 22

Year 50 26 24 25 18 19 19 17 22

Moist Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group – The moist upland forest makes up a very 

small portion of the Malheur’s forest landscape and occupies a minority of the Umatilla and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

213

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Across the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, 

all of the alternatives would successfully maintain the forest vegetation at a low-level departure 

condition over time. These low levels of departure from the historical range of variation would be 

consistent with forest vegetation in fire regime condition class 1. The natural fire regime for the 

moist upland forest is more nuanced and complex than the dry or cold upland forests. It is 

generally label as Fire Regime III, which is characterized by variable fire return intervals ranging 

from 35 to 150 years. Severity is typically mixed, with low, moderate and severe fire behavior all 

playing significant roles. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within 

these cold upland forests, so the similar results across alternatives may be driven largely by the 

effects of natural stand development.

Cold Upland Forest – Fire Regime Condition Class

Table 325 through Table 327 display the fire regime condition class vegetation departure index 

values for the Cold upland forest by National Forest and across all alternatives projected over 50 

years.

Table 325. Malheur National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0 to 100) 

for the cold upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. E- Mod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54

Year 20 23 27 23 23 22 21 21 23

Year 50 7 8 8 19 18 5 6 12

Table 326. Umatilla National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index (0-100) for 

the cold upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Year 20 12 12 11 18 14 11 11 14

Year 50 10 11 11 24 16 10 10 13

Table 327. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest fire regime condition class vegetation departure index

(zero-100) for the cold upland forest potential vegetation group

Timeframe Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.

Alt. EMod. 

Dep. Alt. F

Existing 

Condition 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38

Year 20 25 24 24 26 26 25 23 23

Year 50 12 12 12 18 15 13 11 11

Cold Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group – The cold upland forest makes up a very 

small portion of the Malheur and Umatilla’s forest landscape and occupies a minority of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group, all 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

214

of the alternatives would either successfully return the forest vegetation to a low-level departure 

condition or maintain those conditions. These low levels of departure from the historical range of 

variation would be consistent with vegetation in fire regime condition class 1. The natural fire 

regime for much of the cold upland forest would be characterized by relatively infrequent, highseverity fire. Relatively modest levels of active management were scheduled within these cold 

upland forests, so the similar results across alternatives may be driven largely by the effects of 

natural stand development.

Fire Severity Effects

All of the alternatives would have the potential to influence the number of acres of wildfire and 

the associated distribution of severity classes. The VDDT model as used is nonspatial, so no 

analysis of the effects of treatments on fire size was completed. In reality, the spatial location of 

treatment acres relative to landscape and vegetation patterns can influence the size of fires 

(Finney 2001, Reinhardt 2008). It is assumed that the actual treatments implemented would be 

strategically located to leverage the benefit that they would provide in managing towards the 

desired conditions for fire severities and frequencies. Vegetation types that consist of smaller 

diameter, dense, multi-storied, and thinner bark species (alpine fir, spruce) would have a higher 

probability of a mixed or high severity fire.

Fire return intervals are now much longer than those estimated to have occurred historically. 

These changes are most apparent in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. Data 

indicates that the amount of fire has increased in the last 25-year period. Much of the fire that has 

occurred in the warm-dry systems has been high severity fire, as opposed to the low severity fires 

that historically dominated these areas (Dennison 2014, Hardy 2005, Williams 2013.

Fire severity data indicates that, under severe fire weather conditions, much of the area has the 

potential for high severity fire (based on CVS data and the forest vegetation simulator-fire/fuel 

extension modeling). The current potential for high severity fire within the cold and moist upland 

forest potential vegetation groups exhibits the least amount of departure from historical/reference 

values. Even though the cold and moist upland forest potential vegetation groups show the 

potential for a moderate to high amount of high severity fire (32 to 55 percent of each potential 

vegetation group), this amount of fire is consistent with the mixed to infrequent high severity fires 

that historically dominated these systems, however increased length of fire season due to climate 

change may bring this potential to the upper limits of the historic averages at 80 percent. Within 

the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, the potential for high severity fire ranges from 

approximately 50 to 55 percent, which indicates a moderate to high increase in high severity fires, 

compared to historical/reference conditions at 5 to 15 percent as shown in Table 315. This current 

increase in potential fire severity can increase loss of key ecosystem functions, especially with the 

potential for longer fire seasons with increased fire severity effects due to climate change.

Under all of the alternatives, the VDDT predicted acres burned in the fifth decade decreased 

slightly when comparing the acres burned in the second decade. The average acres burned (since 

1980 to 2001, based on actual wildland fire history data) on National Forest System lands in the 

Blue Mountains was about 22,000 acres. With the model, the predicted acres burned increased to 

25,000 acres per year in the second decade, and then decreased slightly to 16,000 acres per year. 

Based on updated analysis from 2001 to 2017 acres burned from wildfire have increased 25,000 

acres per year.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

215

Cold Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group

Within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group, all of the alternatives would result in a 

high proportion of high severity fire through time within all three National Forests. This would be 

within the historical range of variability/desired condition range for the percent of high severity 

fire within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group. High severity fire is the historical 

fire regime within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group. Because only 5 to 10 percent 

of the harvest activities would occur within the cold upland forest potential vegetation group, fire 

severity would not be substantially altered as a result of the alternatives. All of the alternatives 

would utilize wildfire for resource benefits (unplanned ignitions) within the cold upland forest 

potential vegetation group. Long fire seasons do to climate change predictions may move fire 

return interval to the upper ranges of historic occurrences. See climate change section.

Moist Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group

Within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group, Alternatives D and E would result in 

the closest achievement of the desired conditions based on historic fire regimes within all three 

National Forests. With removal of ladder and crown fuels the potential for high severity fire 

would be reduced the most under Alternatives D and E due to the increased levels of timber 

harvest activities, mechanical fuels treatments, and/or use of fire associated with these 

alternatives. The increased levels of harvesting activities under alternatives D and E would result 

in an increased percent of the landscape in open stand densities. Decreased stand densities result 

in decreased crown continuity, decreased fuel loadings, increased wind speeds required to initiate 

and sustain a crown fire, and decreased fire severity. Decreased stand densities would also result 

in regeneration of more shade intolerant/fire tolerant tree species. Although there would be 

substantial reductions in the potential for high severity fire under Alternatives D and E, mixed 

severity fire would maintain a role in the moist upland forest potential vegetation group. Mixed 

severity fire is the historical fire regime within the moist upland forest potential vegetation group.

Dry Upland Forest Potential Vegetation Group

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group within all three National Forests, 

Alternatives D and E would most closely achieve the desired conditions for fire severity within 

each of the three National Forests for those acres treated. Acres treated would range 1-3 percent 

of the forests per year, which is less than needed to move departure to condition class 1 for all the 

Dry Upland Potential Vegetation Group. The potential for high severity fire would be reduced the 

most under Alternatives D and E, and E Modified due to the increased levels of timber harvest 

activities, mechanical fuels treatments, and/or fire associated with these alternatives. The 

increased levels of harvesting activities under Alternatives D, E, and E modified would result in 

an increased percent of the landscape in open stand densities and would create a more open forest 

structure that more closely resembles the forest structure that existed prior to interruption of the 

historical frequent fire regime. A more open forest structure would result in decreased 

competition between trees for moisture, nutrients, and sunlight, increased tree health, growth, and 

vigor, decreased risk of insect attack and mortality, increased spatial heterogeneity, decreased 

crown continuity, decreased fuel loadings, increased wind speeds required to initiate and sustain a 

crown fire, and decreased fire severity. Decreased stand densities would also result in increased 

regeneration of more shade intolerant tree species and closer achievement of the desired 

conditions for species composition. Shade intolerant tree species such as ponderosa pine are 

better adapted to a frequent fire regime, better able to withstand low severity fire, and result in a 

lower fire hazard. Alternatives D and E would result in increased ecological resiliency in the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group by decreasing fire severity across the landscape. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

216

increased percent of the landscape in open stand densities would also aid in the reintroduction of 

low severity surface fire into the ecosystem. Because Alternatives D and E would result in an 

increased number of acres of timber harvest activities and an increased percent of the landscape 

in open stand densities, there would be more opportunities to use wildfire for resource benefits, in 

comparison to Alternative C.

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group within all three National Forests, the 

potential for high severity fire would be highest under Alternative C due to the decreased levels of 

timber harvest activities associated with this alternative. Alternative C would result in an 

increased percent of the landscape in closed stand densities. Increased stand densities would 

result in increased crown continuity, increased fuel loading, decreased wind speeds required to 

initiate and sustain a crown fire, and increased fire severity. Increased stand densities would also 

result in regeneration of more shade tolerant/fire intolerant tree species. In theory, Alternative C 

would rely mainly on the use of fire (planned and unplanned ignitions) to reduce stand densities. 

Rather than harvesting trees to reduce tree densities, trees would be thinned by fire under 

Alternative C. However, due to the high percent of the landscape in closed stand densities and the 

potential for very high levels of mortality and high severity fire effects to other resources such as 

soils, the window or time frame under which fire could and would be managed to achieve the 

desired conditions for stand densities, structural stages, and species composition would be limited 

based on current conditions and the inability to reintroduce fire to meet low severity fire effects.

Other alternatives use mechanical treatment to condition stands for reintroduction of fire, without 

modification of ladder fuels and crown fuels windows application of fire would be more 

restricted. Additionally, the levels of smoke emissions generated under Alternative C would be 

substantially increased, further limiting burn windows and the amount of acres that could be 

burned due to the increased levels of particulate matter generated. Impacts to public health from 

the likelihood of exceeding air quality standards would also substantially limit the amount of 

acres that could be burned under Alternative C. Alternative C would likely result in increased fire 

severity, decreased ecological resiliency, and loss of key ecosystem components and functions 

due to scope and scale of fire severity outside that which historically occurred within the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group.

Cumulative Effects

Potential cumulative effects were analyzed by considering the effects of the alternatives in the 

context of past, present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable future activities that have occurred 

within the vegetation cumulative effects analysis area. This analysis area consists of the 25 sub 

basins (HUC 4) which contain the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

and other lands. The time period into the future considered was 50 years. The effects that past 

activities have had on forest vegetation are discussed in the “Forest Vegetation,” “Timber and 

Forest Products,” and in this section under the History and Affected Environments sections. 

Present and foreseeable future activities that could affect forest vegetation are summarized below.

Human Population Increases and/or Shifts toward Wildland-Urban Interface

For the last several decades, there has been more human development within the wildland-urban 

interface within the Pacific Northwest and specifically in rural Oregon a growth of 22 percent 

(Cohesive Strategy 2001). The trend indicates that people will continue to move to western states 

and build houses adjacent to National Forest System lands, resulting in additional areas 

designated as wildland-urban interfaces during the life of the Forest Plan. Adjacent ownerships 

and inholdings of private property can influence management options for fuels treatments and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

217

prescribed fire. Human development within the wildland-urban interface has had effects on forest 

vegetation by influencing the locations of hazardous fuels reduction treatments. Implementing 

fuels reduction treatments within a wildland-urban interface may postpone or override the 

opportunity for vegetation treatments intended to meet other resource needs in areas located away 

from communities (Collins, Stephens, Moghaddas, and Battles 2010). Public support and 

concerns will also affect fire and fuels projects and may affect the use of fire by limiting fire in 

some areas because of social and political issues and smoke concerns. These trends are likely to 

continue in the future. Additionally, with a greater number of people living and recreating in the 

wildland-urban interface areas, there is a greater probability of more human-caused wildfire 

ignitions that could affect forest vegetation.

Community assistance plans that identify wildland-urban interface areas and opportunities for 

fuels treatments in areas adjacent to national forests would enhance the Forest Service’s ability to 

treat these areas and protect high risk, high value areas. Community wildfire protection plans 

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 would help to 

establish community priorities, recommendations, and develop an action plan and assessment 

strategy for communities at risk. Currently, all of the counties located within the cumulative 

effects analysis area have prepared Community Wildfire Protection Plans, including Baker, 

Umatilla, Grant, Harney, Morrow, Union, Wallowa, Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, Idaho, Nez 

Perce, Walla Walla, Adams, Wheeler, Washington, Crook, Malheur, Gillian, and Deschutes 

Counties. 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. The amount treated annually is difficult to predict due to 

a number of factors, but is predicted to increase.

Carbon Sequestration

Forests are an important part of the global carbon cycle as they help slow the rising of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by storing carbon in forest biomass and soils, as well 

as in some forest products. Carbon fluxes between the atmosphere and forests are complex, and 

vary spatially and temporally. The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

store and sequester approximately 13 percent of the total Pacific Northwest Region carbon and 

carbon dioxide (Figure 41; data obtained from Heath et al. 2011). The Umatilla has the highest 

carbon levels of the three national forests, followed by the Malheur and the Wallowa-Whitman.

Factors that could potentially influence whether carbon stocks shift from regional carbon sinks to 

carbon sources include increasing temperatures, changes in precipitation, changing disturbance 

regimes (such as more frequent fires), and land use that decreases forested area. Carbon stocks 

are affected by disturbances such as wildfires, insect activity, timber harvesting, and weather 

events. USDA Forest Service 2015). How the complex interactions between climate, fire, and 

insect outbreaks will affect the carbon cycle within the Blue Mountains is challenging to quantify 

with any certainty because the science is still developing in this area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

218

Figure 41. Total forest ecosystem carbon (Tg) for the national forests and grassland in the Pacific 

Northwest Region from 2005 to 2013 (USDA Forest Service 2015)

Under simulations, eastern Oregon gains ecosystem carbon as a result of the expansion of forest 

and woodland vegetation, while also experiencing more frequent and larger wildfires (Millar et 

al. 2006). This has implications for carbon sequestration as well as timber production. Timber 

productivity could increase through three mechanisms: through carbon dioxide fertilization, 

through warming in cold climates (which extends growing seasons where precipitation also 

increases), or through precipitation increases under currently water-limited conditions (Fischlin et 

al. 2007). However, the magnitude of these effects remains uncertain. Countering these potential 

increases in timber productivity are the effects of increased fire and insect disturbance.

Mitigation options that can help reduce climate change impacts on carbon include maximizing the 

forests’ capacity to store carbon, decreasing carbon loss potential from disturbance, and utilizing 

biomass for energy. However, these options need to weigh tradeoffs and risks, and must 

ultimately be coupled with adaptation strategies. A forest’s carbon capacity could be maximized 

by retaining large diameter trees or by extending rotation age (AFE 2009). Carbon loss potential 

from disturbance could be decreased through fuels reduction treatments that decrease fire severity 

and increase ecological resiliency. Forest management practices that maintain and increase forest 

area, reduce natural disturbances in the forest, improve forest conditions, and ensure the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

219

appropriate and timely transfer of carbon into wood products lead to increasing overall carbon 

storage (Liu, Han 2009)

Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in three main ways: 

(1) by increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding damage or destruction of forests 

(avoided deforestation), and (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests). Landuse changes, specifically deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global 

scale in forests’ role as sources or sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, 2000). Projects that create forests or improve forest conditions and 

capacity to grow trees tend to increase carbon sequestration. Research by Hurteau and North 

(2009) found that, in wildfire-prone forests, tree-based carbon stocks were best protected by fuel 

treatments that produced a low-density stand structure dominated by large, fire-resistant pines. 

However, other findings suggest that reducing the fraction by which carbon is lost in a wildfire 

requires the removal of a much greater amount of carbon, since most of the carbon stored in 

forest biomass remains unconsumed even by high-severity wildfires (Mitchell et al. 2009). Most 

of the treatments simulated resulted in a reduced mean stand carbon storage.

Climate Change Influences

Of all of the ongoing and foreseeable future actions that have the potential to affect forest 

vegetation within the Blue Mountains, climate change potentially may be the most important 

factor. The effects of climate change may combine with some of the effects that result from 

implementing the alternatives to produce cumulative effects. Although increases in temperature, 

changes in precipitation, higher atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and higher 

nitrogen deposition may change ecosystem structure and function by the end of the 21st century, 

the most rapidly visible and most significant short-term effects on forest ecosystems may be 

caused by altered disturbance regimes (Vose et al. 2012). In general, given the existing condition 

of the forest vegetation within the Blue Mountains, the potential effects (and uncertainties) that 

climate change may have on forest vegetation can be summarized as follows (CCVA Halofsky et 

al. 2017):

• The importance of pine and sagebrush species may increase.

• The forest-steppe ecotone may move north of its present position or up in elevation.

• Ponderosa pine may be found at higher elevations.

• Subalpine and alpine systems are potentially vulnerable, and subalpine tree species may be 

replaced by high-elevation grasslands, pine, or Douglas-fir.

• Juniper woodlands, which have been increasing in recent decades, may be reduced if longer 

and drier summers lead to more wildfire.

• Grasslands and shrublands at lower elevations may increase across the landscape but shift 

in dominance towards more drought-tolerant species.

• Nonnative species, including annual grasses, may increase in abundance and extent.

In the future, climate change is anticipated to contribute to the character of the Blue Mountains 

forests, disturbance regimes, and timber productivity (Schmoldt et al. 1999). At the most 

fundamental level, plant physiology may change in response to increased temperatures and 

carbon dioxide concentrations, in some cases reducing transpiration and water loss. The potential 

for carbon dioxide-induced increases in plant water use efficiency are not well known. There is a 

potential for increased forest growth in areas that become warmer and wetter, and decreased 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

220

growth in areas that become warmer and dryer (Fischlin et al. 2007). Where forest growth 

increases, there could be an accompanying increase in water demand because of higher 

evapotranspiration rates resulting from increased temperatures.

Climate change, primarily through increases in temperatures and carbon dioxide and changes in 

precipitation, could result in shifts in species composition and distributions of forest communities. 

Climate changes have, and could continue to, result in earlier initiation of the growing season, 

longer growing season length, earlier plant senescence, and mismatches between climate 

characteristics and plant phenology. Plant species respond individually to changes in temperature 

and precipitation regimes, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and disturbance regimes. Hence, new 

plant associations may develop in the future as a result of climate change. More broadly, in future 

vegetation simulations produced by Bachelet et al. (2001a), areas of subalpine forest and alpine 

tundra in the Pacific Northwest are projected to decrease as temperatures increase at higher 

elevations (Bachelet et al. 2001b, Shafer et al. 2010). They also project an expansion of forest 

and woodland into areas of eastern Oregon currently dominated by grassland and shrubland as a 

result of projected increases in precipitation, a longer growing season, and increased plant wateruse efficiency produced by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. General 

increases in precipitation could result in expansion of woody species and shifts from grasslands to 

shrublands, or from grasslands and shrublands to woodlands and forests. Conversely, decreases in 

effective precipitation could cause declines in vegetation productivity and shifts from forests, 

woodlands, and shrublands to grasslands and deserts. Some species have the potential to expand 

upslope with increases in temperature. Some native forest species may be displaced where 

climate change favors invasive species. Changes in forest composition, structure, seasonality and 

productivity could have consequences for wildlife species dependent on forested habitats.

Inadequate water availability coupled with drying conditions could contribute to an overall 

increase in the vulnerability of forests to insects, fire, and drought. Recent forest dieback in the 

western United States, and model simulations, indicate that the frequency and magnitude of some 

disturbance events (e.g., drought, wildfire, and insect outbreaks) may be changing (Allen et al. 

2010). The relative influence of climate and fuels on fire behavior and effects varies regionally 

and subregionally across the western United States (McKenzie 2004). However, an increase in 

fire activity is expected for all major forest types in the Blue Mountains under projected climate 

changes (Bachelet et al. 2001, Whitlock et al. 2003, Keeton et al. 2007). A warmer climate has 

already led to more frequent fires, more severe fires, earlier initiation of the fire season, and a 

longer fire season in the western United States (Westerling et al. 2006). Littel et al. (2009) built 

statistical models of the associations between seasonal and annual precipitation, and temperature 

and fire extent for 1916-2002 for the 11 contiguous western states. They found that relatively 

modest changes in mean climate will lead to substantial increases in area burned, particularly in 

crown-fire ecosystems in which distinct thresholds of fuel moisture and fire weather exist (Littel 

2009). For a mean temperature increase of 4 degrees Fahrenheit (expected by the mid-21st 

century), annual area burned by wildfire is expected to increase by a factor of 1.5 to 5. Summer 

temperature forces the change in area burned, likely as a result of overall drought patterns and 

fuel dryness. Large fires (greater than 1,000 acres) account for most of the area burned in the Blue 

Mountains in a given year. Regional-level relationships between climate and fire differ, 

depending on seasonal and annual variability in climatic drivers, fire frequency and severity, and 

the legacy of previous-year climate in live and dead fuels (Spies 2010,Veblen et al. 2000, Hessl 

2004). Current-year drought is typically associated with more area burned, but the effects of 

antecedent conditions differ owing to interactions among climatic effects (Littel 2009). In the 

Pacific Northwest, direct associations exist between fire extent and current-year drought (Hessl 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

221

2004, Wright and Agee 2004, Heyerdahl et al. 2001, Heyerdahl et al. 2008). In the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group and some moist upland forest potential vegetation groups where 

fine fuel production is not limited by climatic variability, short-term synoptic fluctuations in 

atmospheric conditions play an important role in forcing extreme wildfire years (Johnson 1993, 

Gedalof et al. 2005).

In general, there is a greater range of area burned under hot, dry conditions than under cool, wet 

conditions. Whereas cool, wet conditions nearly always lead to reductions in area burned, 

favorable fire conditions do not necessarily lead to increases in area burned. Factors such as 

ignition source, location, fire suppression, and resource availability greatly influence fire size. As 

long as weather conditions continue to be favorable for wildfire, forests will remain flammable 

and ignition and rapid spread could occur at any point during the fire season. It remains to be seen 

how increases in conditions favorable for wildfire could impact the ability to use prescribed 

burning as a management tool.

Insect lifecycles depend on a complex interaction of temperature, moisture, and suitable hosts. 

Although outbreak dynamics differ from species to species and from forest to forest, climate 

change appears to be one driving factor for some of the current forest insect outbreaks in western 

North America. Temperature influences everything in an insect’s life, from the number of eggs 

laid by a single female, to the insects’ ability to disperse to new hosts, to individuals’ over-winter 

survival and developmental timing. Elevated temperatures associated with climate change, 

particularly when there are consecutive warm years, can speed up reproductive cycles and reduce 

cold-induced insect mortality. Additionally, shifts in precipitation patterns and associated drought 

can also influence insect outbreak dynamics by weakening trees and making them more 

susceptible to attacks. For many forest insect species (primarily beetles; notably Ips and 

Dendroctonus species), the influence of elevated temperatures on outbreak dynamics is most 

notable at higher elevations and latitudes where some beetles have shifted to completing their 

development in a single year, rather than two or even three years or, in some cases, have shifted to 

completing multiple generations per year. Halofsky and Peterson (2017) state:

Critical thresholds in ecosystem structure and function may be exceeded in a warmer 

climate. Warmer temperatures may increase the potential for insect and disease 

outbreaks, particularly as a transient response in colder temperate zones where insect and 

pathogen vigor has been limited by suboptimal temperatures (Bentz et al. 2010). Higher 

warm-season temperatures should also increase growth rates for temperate insect 

herbivores, although the rate of increase will vary by species (Bale et al. 2002). For some 

species, faster growth rates and reduced development time could enhance juvenile 

survivorship by reducing predation rates during the larval and nymphal feeding stages 

(Bernays 1997, cited by Bale et al. 2002).

All else remaining constant, this decrease in generation time translates to an increasing rate of 

population growth.

Depending on the magnitude of the temperature increase, which may vary by elevation, high 

elevation forests could be at greater risk to insect infestation than lower elevation forests, where 

warmer temperatures may disrupt the insects’ seasonality. Elevated winter temperatures are 

associated with increased winter survival; however, it should be noted that increased winter 

survival does not always coincide with increased population success based on developmental 

timing. Each process is affected by temperature patterns occurring at different times of the year.

The combined expectations regarding increases in water limitation, wildfire activity, high 

elevation adaptive mountain pine beetle seasonality, and forest vulnerability to drought, fire and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

222

insects, suggest that Blue Mountains forests are likely to be fundamentally affected by altered 

disturbance regimes as the region’s climate changes (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Fire Regime Condition Class

The emphasis on treatments of fire regime condition class 2 and 3 would continue. This is 

applicable to Bureau of Land Management, State lands, and National Forest System lands. In 

general, private lands are dominated by condition class 2 and 3 due to deviations from historic 

fire return intervals in part due to land owner liability in using fire on private lands.

Wildfire and Other Disturbance Mechanisms

Most of the vegetation types in the analysis area have evolved with fire. Fire frequency and 

intensity varied historically by vegetation type, and vast acres of shrub and timber burned each 

year (Agee 1993, Johnston 2016, Heyerdahl 1996). There is evidence that Native Americans used 

fire to herd game and provide feed for stock. According to fire records, in the first half of the 20th 

century an average of 30 million acres burned each decade in the west.8 Before that, settlers 

report seeing vast acreages of blackened land (Gruell 1985). With the settlement of the west came 

the notion that fires were bad (Pyne 2008). Following the fires of 1910, the Forest Service began 

its campaign to suppress wildfires. Instead of fire, settlers employed plows, railroads, saw blades, 

sluice boxes, cattle, sheep, and other accoutrements as disturbance agents. Settlers converted 

many acres of rangelands to farm ground, primarily in the lower elevations, while ranchers grazed 

horses, cattle and sheep on less productive and higher elevation sites. At the turn of the last 

century, livestock grazing occurred throughout the forest, introducing a new disturbance on what 

would later become National Forest System lands. High levels of livestock grazing reduced the 

fine fuels (grasses and shrubs) that carried low severity surface fires, resulting in a substantial 

reduction in fire disturbances on National Forest System lands (Hessburg 2005) .

Timber harvest replaced fire as the major disturbance on the national forest, but it did not affect 

an equivalent number of acres. This has led to a decrease in forests of older age classes and an 

increase in some areas of dense forests of smaller diameter classes. This change in age and size 

classes has resulted in conditions that are less resilient than desired.

Uncharacteristically severe wildfires are on the rise, especially in the dry upland forest potential 

vegetation group Dennison et al. 2014). Over the past 10 years, lightning-caused fires ranged 

from approximately 808 to 2,170 per year in the northwest. Human-caused fires ranged from 

approximately 1,078 to 2,666 fires per year in the northwest.9 More fires are occurring adjacent to 

residential areas as people build more subdivisions and structures along public land boundaries. 

These changes are occurring across the west. A warmer climate will cause an increase in the 

frequency and extent of wildfire in most dry forest and shrubland ecosystems (Westerling et al.

2006, 2011). By around 2050, the annual area burned in most of the Western United States is 

projected to be at least two to three times higher than it is today (Littell et al. 2010; Littell, n.d., 

cited in Ojima et al.2014; McKenzie et al. 2004). The Blue Mountains ecoprovince is also 

expected to experience increased area burn by the mid-21st century. Recent research shows that 

the occurrence of large fires in the western United States has increased since around 1980 

(Dennison et al. 2014). Many dry forests that have not burned for several decades have high fuel 

accumulations, and initial fires may cause uncharacteristic tree mortality compared to low levels 

 8 http://www.nifc.gov/fire_info.html

9 http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_lightng.html
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

223

of mature tree mortality associated with historical surface-fire regime “(Halofsky and Peterson 

2017).

Most of the higher elevation cold upland forest potential vegetation group in the cumulative 

effects area is located in National Forest System lands. Therefore, management activities 

affecting these vegetation types would be initiated by the Forest Service. Much of the cold upland 

forest potential vegetation group is located within existing or proposed wilderness, roadless, or 

backcountry areas. Under all of the alternatives, only approximately 5 to 10 percent of the harvest 

activities in Forest Service System lands would occur within the cold upland forest potential 

vegetation groups. The majority of vegetation effects resulting from management actions within 

the cold forest potential vegetation group would occur as the result of wildfire managed for 

resource benefits. The cold upland forest potential vegetation group was historically characterized 

by infrequent, high severity fire. Any fire, planned or unplanned, could result in stand-replacing 

events with high levels of mortality. If climate change causes fires to increase in size and severity, 

managing wildfires for resource benefits to achieve desired conditions may become more 

difficult. Over the life of any fire, many strategies could be implemented based on safety, values 

at risk, suppression cost, suppression resource availability, and the consistency of predicted fire 

effects with the desired conditions.

Within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group, existing vegetation conditions tend to be 

more highly departed from the historical range of variability due to the historic, frequent fire 

regime and a greater number of missed fires. All of the alternatives would attempt to address, to 

varying amounts, some of the negative effects of the past events that have occurred within the dry 

upland forest potential vegetation group within the cumulative effects analysis area. Under 

Alternatives E-Modified, D and E, the dry upland forest potential vegetation group would be 

expected to exhibit decreased fire-related mortality due to more open stand densities resulting 

from increased levels of timber harvest activities. Approximately 60 to 90 percent of the 

mechanical treatments would occur within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group. 

Under Alternative D, approximately 72 to 77 percent of Forest Service lands within the 

cumulative effects analysis area would contain open stand densities at year 50. Under Alternative 

E, approximately 69 to 70 percent of Forest Service lands within the cumulative effects analysis 

area would contain open stand densities at year 50. Under Alternative E Modified, approximately 

69 to 75 percent of cumulative effects analysis area would contain open stand densities at year 50. 

Under these alternatives, the majority of the landscape would be fairly open. Conditions would be 

conducive to the reintroduction of low severity fire. There would be more opportunities to use 

prescribed fire and to manage unplanned ignitions for resource benefits to achieve desired 

conditions.

Decreased stand densities would also result in regeneration of more shade intolerant/fire tolerant 

tree species. Within the dry forest potential vegetation group, it would be beneficial to increase 

the percent of the landscape in shade intolerant/fire tolerant species because this would result in 

decreased fire behavior and decreased risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire across the 

cumulative effects area. This would also result in decreased fire risk to adjacent land ownerships. 

If climate warms over time and fires increase in size and severity, a landscape dominated by more 

open stand conditions with shade intolerant/fire tolerant tree species would be at decreased risk 

for catastrophic, uncharacteristically severe wildfire and more sustainable and ecologically 

resilient.

Difficulties may arise due to the mixture of land ownerships that occurs within the lower 

elevation, dry upland forest potential vegetation group within the cumulative effects analysis area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

224

Other ownerships adjacent to or surrounded by lands administered by the Forest Service affect 

opportunities to use fire and, therefore, to emulate historical fire effects on large landscapes. In 

general, private landowners use timber harvest rather than fire to manage their vegetation. Fire 

may be used to treat activity fuels, but treatments are often limited in extent and effect. The 

proximity or inclusion of private lands affects, in particular, the use of fire because these fires can 

burn large areas for long time periods depending on the vegetation, fuels, weather, and other 

factors. However, fire management activities can be coordinated with managers of adjacent 

public lands, such as the Bureau of Land Management and adjacent national forests, or other 

agencies. In this case, effects of managing wildfire could extend beyond lands administered by 

the Forest Service.

Restoration activities occurring within the dry upland forest potential vegetation group would 

most likely occur in National Forest System lands, although current grant opportunities exist for 

restoration treatments on private non-industrial lands (Joint Chiefs USDA 2014, Nature 

Conservancy TREX Program) Restoration activities, such as prescribed burning or managing for 

old forest, would be beneficial to the overall functioning of these ecosystems and would improve 

wildlife habitat within these vegetation types. Some vegetation components may take many years 

before noticeable changes occur on the landscape. Other more localized changes would be 

dramatic and immediate. For example, removing large trees affects not only size class 

distributions of forest stands, but also the recruitment of snags over time and would reduce the 

density of large snags on a landscape basis. Given the existing conditions, large tree removal on 

or off National Forest System lands would affect distribution of the large tree component and 

future snags and coarse woody debris at a landscape scale. Therefore, the retention and future 

development of these critical components on National Forest System lands would be essential to 

providing habitat elements needed by many species. Improvements to these components would 

cumulatively affect and improve the conditions within the lower-elevation ponderosa pine, dry 

upland forest potential vegetation groups. Disturbances such as fire, insects, disease, and 

windthrow would migrate across a landscape, depending upon conditions, and may move from 

National Forest System lands to other ownerships or vice versa. Vegetative conditions would have 

a substantial influence on the spread, extent, and direction of disturbances.

All of the proposed forest vegetation treatments would reduce stand density and thereby reduce 

risks from bark beetles for a 15- to 25-year period. These vegetation treatments and prescribed 

fire would enhance ponderosa pine and western larch; however, prescribed fire would increase 

the risk of bark beetle attack in the short-term (1 to 3 years) because bark beetles are attracted to 

fire-killed and fire-damaged trees which would occur as a result of prescribed fire. In the long 

term, tree mortality from prescribed fire and associated insect infestations would work together to 

reduce stand density and reduce the risk of bark beetle infestation for 15 to 25 years. The reduced 

density of conifers would extend the opportunity for seedling ingrowths and herb/shrubcomponent enhancement, which would increase structural complexity and species diversity. 

Complexity and diversity are important in maintaining long-term site productivity (Franklin et al. 

1989).

The forest vegetation treatments would reduce density to a prescribed level on a somewhat 

consistent basis across the treatment areas. Forest vegetation treatments would offer more control 

in achieving desired structural relationships than prescribed fire, whose affects are more random 

and less controlled. In the long term, where species that are more fire-resistant occur, lower stand 

densities would foster the use of prescribed fire to manage fuel loadings Van Mantgen 2016, 

Hessburg 2006. Prescribed fire reduces tree density on a more random and mosaic basis 

depending on fuel distribution, resulting in variations in fire intensity and tree mortality. All of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

225

proposed forest vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would reduce overall fuel loadings, 

increase average stand diameter, favor thicker-barked, self-pruning, early-seral species, and make 

the areas slightly less prone to uncharacteristic effects from wildfire. Such treatments are needed 

for restoration of landscape structure and fuel conditions. Hahn and others, in An Assessment of 

Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997), report that 

“without restoration of landscape structure and fuel conditions, the probability of returning to the 

succession/disturbance regimes that existed historically (that is, the native system) was 

determined to be low.”

Terrestrial Wildlife Species

This section describes the affected environment, existing conditions, and environmental 

consequences of the alternatives on a variety of terrestrial wildlife species. The majority of effects

to wildlife would result from the proposed management of other resources, such as wood fiber, 

motorized access, wildland fire, and livestock grazing. The projected impacts to wildlife from 

various management actions are described in this section, but the actual activities are discussed in 

more detail in their respective sections. Although the life of a forest plan is 10 to 20 years, 

impacts to wildlife are displayed on a decadal basis out to 50 years to clearly depict the trajectory 

for the element being discussed. Different levels of management are proposed for each of the 

alternatives, and each is described in detail in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. Unless otherwise noted, 

the description of effects is only for National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains 

(excluding Hells Canyon National Recreation Area), and therefore references to the Plan Area, 

analysis area, or national forest are to public lands administered by the Forest Service, unless 

specifically noted otherwise.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this

section:

Changes in Species Classification Labels: Some terminology has been changed between the 

Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements to reduce confusion and provide updates based 

on best available scientific information. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement referred to 

“species of conservation concern,” which has a specific definition and process for selection under 

the 2012 Planning Rule that is not applicable to the plans revised under the 1982 Planning Rule. 

To avoid confusion with the 2012 Planning Rule and its implementing regulations, “species of 

conservation concern” is not used in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. See the Preface 

of Volume 1 for more information and the species category definitions in the “Regulatory 

Framework” section on page 228.

Changes to Elk Habitat and Security: Elk habitat and elk security within National Forest 

System lands has been more clearly defined in Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure to account for wildlife corridors that were removed in both of those alternatives, as 

well as now having objectives for moving toward improving both conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

226

Terrestrial Wildlife Species – Affected Environment

The conservation of wildlife species is integral to the maintenance of viable plant and animal 

populations and biological diversity. National Forest System lands administered by the Forest 

Service in the Blue Mountains have long served an important role in supporting a variety of 

wildlife species that are critical to the needs and values of the human population. The diversity of 

Blue Mountains wildlife habitat is outstanding as a result of the abrupt changes in vegetation that 

result from changes in aspect, elevation, temperature, moisture, geology, soil depth, the effects of 

fire, and the management activities and influence of humans. More than 300 wildlife species 

occur in the Blue Mountains (Baydeck 1999, Thomas 1979), many of which are migratory birds 

that occur here seasonally.

Federal land management agencies and the state wildlife agencies share legal co-trustee 

responsibility for the protection and management of wildlife. The Forest Service continues to 

work closely and cooperatively with both the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for the conservation and management 

of wildlife resources, including habitat, within the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests. Such cooperation is important to meet the needs of a growing human population 

that places increasing demands and competing values on resources, which ultimately impact the 

wildlife resource.

Managing ecosystems to sustain terrestrial wildlife species depends on maintaining the 

appropriate mix of habitat quantity, quality, and distribution across the landscape. Most habitats 

for terrestrial wildlife species are shaped by vegetation characteristics, although in some cases it 

is an individual component, such as snags or talus slopes. Landscapes are diverse, highly complex 

systems influenced by many factors, including the interaction of soils, aspect, elevation, climate, 

disturbance events, and humans. Together these influences have shaped vegetative composition 

and patterns that have influenced the distribution and quality of wildlife habitats across the 

landscape (Hessburg et al. 1999).

Fire has historically been a dominant influence in the Blue Mountains (Agee 1993). Fire, insects, 

storms, disease, animals, and plant succession have been the agents most responsible for 

modification of habitat and altering species’ habitat use (Hessburg et al. 1994, Heyerdahl et al. 

2001). Over time, ecosystem conditions fluctuate within some range of variability related to the 

type and intensity of disturbances that occur. The term historical range of variability has been 

used to describe these fluctuations in ecosystems, using conditions prior to Euro-American 

settlement as a reference point (Morgan 2004). Historically, low-elevation forests in the Blue 

Mountains burned frequently (every few years) with low-intensity ground fires, leaving most of 

the large trees alive. In contrast, high-elevation forests usually burned with stand-replacing fires 

that killed most trees but at infrequent intervals (hundreds of years).

The categories and types of wildlife species within the Plan Area reflect the diversity of available 

habitat. Some species, such as mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk, are steeped in local culture 

and tradition and have long been important to the local people and communities. However, many 

nongame species have recently gained more recognition for the economic, aesthetic, and 

ecological values they provide. For example, as a resource, resident and migratory bird species in 

the United States generate more than 85 billion dollars in overall economic output and are 

enjoyed by more than 46 million people (USFWS 2003); however, they are more recognized for 

the ecological values they offer in terms of insect control, pollination, and seed dispersal. Some of 

the wildlife species that occur within the Plan Area are migratory and/or wide ranging and can 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

227

utilize several habitat types, while others are more sedentary and utilize only a single habitat or 

individual component within a habitat type.

Changes in vegetation due to natural and human-caused disturbance have affected terrestrial 

wildlife species and their habitat within the Blue Mountains national forests. For example, early 

timber and fire management strategies within dry forests have resulted in an ecosystem that is 

highly departed from what occurred historically. This leads to concern for the viability of some 

species, such as the white-headed woodpecker, that rely heavily on this ecosystem. Spatial 

characteristics of wildlife habitat, such as patch size and distribution, connectivity, and 

fragmentation, are largely determined by management actions and interactions with fire, insects, 

disease, and other natural disturbances. The extent of human influence within habitats can affect 

patch quality and connectivity and thereby affect wildlife presence and movement across the 

landscape. An example would be the I-84 corridor, which may impede the movement of some 

wildlife species between preferred habitats.

Within the Plan Area, major vegetation types that provide habitat for wildlife species have been 

described by various authors (Hall 1973, Hann et al. 1997, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992, 

Johnson and O’Neil 2001, Thomas et al. 1979). Following procedures found in Powell et al. 

(2007), Countryman (2009) classified 60 plant association groups into 22 potential vegetation 

groups (see “Forest Vegetation,” Timber and Forest Products,” and “Wildland Fire” sections). 

Assessments of the Plan Area have been conducted to establish existing conditions (Countryman 

2008, Countryman 2008a, Countryman and Justice 2010) and to compare to what is considered 

historical range of variability (Countryman and Swanson 2008 (revised 2010), Countryman and 

Justice 2010, Mason and Countryman 2010). In general, changes to vegetation types have been 

most significant in the lower elevations and least significant in the higher elevations, and past 

timber harvest has influenced many vegetation types and associated wildlife habitats. Some 

changes in ecological function have occurred as a result of these changes. Change in ecological 

function helps identify where the potential for active restoration is often higher, such as in 

ponderosa pine, and where the potential is lower, such as in higher elevation spruce-fir and alpine 

tundra types where deviation from historical conditions is less. Approximately 31 percent of the 

Plan Area is in inventoried roadless areas, designated wilderness areas, or other specially 

designated areas that contain representative vegetation types (Countryman 2009a). Inventoried 

roadless and wilderness area qualities offer large areas of wildlife habitat that are relatively 

undisturbed by humans and are especially important for some wildlife species.

Recent habitat assessments of landscape conditions and trends on lands administered by the 

Forest Service within the Blue Mountains have identified several major factors influencing 

change in forested and nonforested habitat conditions that have occurred since early EuroAmerican settlement (Countryman and Justice 2010, Countryman and Swanson 2008 (revised 

2010), Mason and Countryman 2010, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Wisdom et al. 2000, Wissmar 

et al. 1994). Depending upon the vegetation type examined, these factors include fire exclusion, 

timber harvest, road and urban development, livestock grazing, and recreational uses associated 

with a rapidly growing human population, resulting in changed conditions and trends with 

implications for wildlife species that include:

• Changes in forest structure and composition that may contribute to uncharacteristic wildfire 

behavior in lower elevation forest types.

• Roads that fragment habitat and cause disturbance, with densities varying from about 14 

miles per square mile to about 0.3 mile per square mile.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

228

• Competition from invasive plant species that compromises plant diversity and habitat 

quality and connectivity.

• A reduction or degradation of habitats for some wildlife and plant species where human 

impacts have occurred, and/or where natural disturbance regimes have been altered.

• Urban development and infringement into some traditionally important wildlife habitats 

(including big game winter range), typically at lower to moderate elevations.

• A rapidly increasing human population that places uses and demands upon the landscape 

that alter habitat security and cause disturbance to wildlife species.

Regulatory Framework

The three principle laws relevant to wildlife management are the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA) of 1918 (as amended). In addition, the Forest Service Manual directs the Regional 

Forester to identify sensitive species for which viability may be a concern on each National 

Forest (FSM 2670.32). To comply with the previously mentioned laws and regulations, the 

following groups of species were considered in this forest planning process:

• Forest Service Sensitive Species – These are species of concern in the Blue Mountains 

from the 2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Administrative direction exists to 

maintain or improve conditions for sensitive species as addressed in Forest Service Manual 

2670. Currently, 33 terrestrial species identified by the regional forester as sensitive either 

occur or have habitat within the Plan Area.

• Management Indicator Species – The Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision process used 

management indicator species for the purpose of assessing the impacts of the alternatives 

on wildlife and fish populations as directed in the 1982 Planning Rule (CFR 219.19 (a)(1) 

and (2)). The no-action alternative (no change in current management) was evaluated in 

terms of the management indicator species listed in the 1990 Forest Plans. New 

management indicator species were selected and analyzed for the plan revision alternatives.

• Focal Species – Species required by the 2012 planning rule for monitoring purposes. 

Although this plan revision was developed under the 1982 Planning Rule, it is required that 

the plan include a monitoring strategy that addresses the status of focal species as directed 

in the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.12 (c)(1)).

• Migratory Birds – The migratory bird treaty act established an international framework for 

the protection and conservation of migratory birds. This Act makes it illegal, unless 

permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, purchase, deliver for shipment, 

ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or 

carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird.”

• Threatened and Endangered Species – Species listed or proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. The Act requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are 

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect 

the population or habitat of a listed species. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction 

provides additional guidance: identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse 

modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the 

conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed species (FSM 2670.31 (6)).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

229

• Surrogate Species – The implementing regulations (36 CFR 219.19) for the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 call for providing viable populations of native and desired 

nonnative vertebrates. Rather than evaluating the viability of each individual species within 

the Plan Area, a representative (surrogate species) was selected to represent a group of 

species. The surrogate species approach is a credible and scientifically rigorous method to 

assess ecosystem conditions that contribute to the viability of wildlife species. It is 

important to note that surrogate species were referred to as focal species in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement but the name was changed to avoid confusion with focal 

species as defined in the monitoring requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.

Species can fall within one or more of the groups defined above (Table 328). For example, the 

white-headed woodpecker is a region 6 sensitive species, a management indicator species, a focal 

species, and a surrogate species that represents dry forest with medium/large trees. Two of the 

focal species, Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer, are not included in the table because they do 

not have population viability concerns.

Table 328. List and status of species analyzed in this forest planning process

Common Name

Surrogate 

Species Federally Listed Sensitive

Management 

Indicator Species Focal

Gray-crowned rosy-finch Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

Black Rosy Finch No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Spruce grouse No No No No No

Boreal owl Yes No No No No

Pine grosbeak No No No No No

Water vole Yes No No No No

Canada lynx No Yes (threatened) No No No

Moose No No No No No

Northern goshawk Yes No No Yes No

Blue grouse No No No No No

Great gray owl No No Yes (Washington) No No

Long-eared owl No No No No No

Sharp-shinned hawk No No No No No

Rufous hummingbird No No No No No

Williamson's sapsucker No No No No No

Hammond's flycatcher No No No No No

Cordilleran flycatcher No No No No No

Mountain chickadee No No No No No

Yellow-rumped warbler No No No No No

Cassin's finch Yes No No No No

Long-legged myotis No No No No No

Silver-haired bat No No No No No

Hoary bat No No No No No

Northern flying squirrel No No No No No

Vaux's swift No No No No No

Pileated woodpecker Yes No No Yes Yes

Chestnut-backed chickadee No No No No No

Brown creeper No No No No No
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

230

Common Name

Surrogate 

Species Federally Listed Sensitive

Management 

Indicator Species Focal

Winter wren No No No No No

Golden-crowned kinglet No No No No No

Ruby-crowned kinglet No No No No No

Townsend's warbler No No No No No

Varied thrush No No No No No

American marten Yes No No Yes No

Fisher No No No No No

Flammulated owl No No No No No

White-headed woodpecker Yes No Yes (both states) Yes Yes

White-breasted nuthatch No No No No No

Pygmy nuthatch No No No No No

Rubber boa No No No No No

Calliope hummingbird No No No No No

Dusky flycatcher No No No No No

Western bluebird Yes No No No No

Chipping sparrow No No No No No

Dark-eyed junco No No No No No

Purple finch No No No No No

Pine siskin No No No No No

California myotis No No No No No

Fringed myotis Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

Long-eared myotis No No No No No

Fox sparrow Yes No No No No

Lazuli bunting No No No No No

Upland sandpiper Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

American kestrel No No No No No

Lewis's woodpecker Yes No Yes (both states) Yes No

Three-toed woodpecker No No No Yes No

Black-backed woodpecker Yes No No Yes No

Olive-sided flycatcher No No No No No

Western wood-pewee No No No No No

Peregrine falcon Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Gray wolf No Yes (endangered) Yes (both states) No No

Wolverine Yes Yes (proposed) Yes (both states) No No

Pygmy horned lizard No No No No No

Side-blotched lizard No No No No No

Striped whipsnake No No Yes (Washington) No No

Ferruginous hawk No No No No No

Golden eagle Yes No No No No

Prairie falcon No No No No No

Mourning dove No No No No No

Common nighthawk No No No No No

Common poorwill No No No No No
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

231

Common Name

Surrogate 

Species Federally Listed Sensitive

Management 

Indicator Species Focal

White-throated swift No No No No No

Black-billed magpie No No No No No

Rock wren No No No No No

Lark sparrow Yes No No No No

Brewer's blackbird No No No No No

Western small-footed myotis No No No No No

Yuma myotis No No No No No

Spotted bat No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Pallid bat Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Ash-throated flycatcher Yes No Yes (Washington) No No

Pinyon jay No No No No No

Sagebrush lizard No No No No No

Night snake No No No No No

Gray flycatcher No No Yes (Washington) No No

Loggerhead shrike Yes No No No No

Green-tailed towhee No No Yes (Washington) No No

Merriam's shrew No No No No No

Desert horned lizard No No No No No

Greater sage-grouse No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Sage thrasher Yes No No No No

Brewer's sparrow No No No No No

Black-throated sparrow No No No No No

Sage sparrow No No No No No

Pygmy rabbit No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Black-tailed jackrabbit No No No No No

Sharp-tailed grouse No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Long-billed curlew No No No No No

Burrowing owl No No No No No

Horned lark No No No No No

Oregon vesper sparrow No No No No No

Western meadowlark No No No No No

Preble's shrew No No Yes (Washington) No No

White-tailed jackrabbit No No No No No

Sagebrush vole No No No No No

American badger No No No No No

Pronghorn No No No No No

Mountain goat No No Yes (Washington) No No

Rocky Mountain bighorn 

sheep Yes No No No No

California bighorn sheep Yes No No No No

Northern harrier Yes No No No No

Swainson's hawk No No No No No

Short-eared owl No No No No No
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

232

Common Name

Surrogate 

Species Federally Listed Sensitive

Management 

Indicator Species Focal

Grasshopper sparrow No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Townsend's big-eared bat Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Mountain quail No No Yes (Washington) No No

Yellow-billed cuckoo No No No No No

Western screech-owl No No No No No

Black-chinned hummingbird No No No No No

Broad-tailed hummingbird No No No No No

Red-naped sapsucker Yes No No No No

Willow flycatcher No No No No No

Red-eyed vireo No No No No No

Barn swallow No No No No No

Black-capped chickadee No No No No No

Veery No No No No No

Orange-crowned warbler No No No No No

Yellow warbler No No No No No

American redstart No No No No No

MacGillivray's warbler Yes No No No No

Wilson's warbler No No No No No

Yellow-breasted chat No No No No No

White-crowned sparrow No No No No No

American goldfinch No No No No No

Water shrew No No No No No

Inland tailed frog Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Black swift Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

Great blue heron No No No No No

Black-crowned night-heron No No No No No

Wood duck Yes No No No No

Harlequin Duck Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Bufflehead No No Yes (Oregon) No No

Common goldeneye No No No No No

Barrow's goldeneye No No No No No

Hooded merganser No No No No No

Common merganser No No No No No

Bald eagle Yes No Yes (both states) No No

Western toad No No No No No

Columbia spotted frog Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

Northern leopard frog No No No No No

Painted turtle Yes No Yes (Oregon) No No

Spotted sandpiper No No No No No

American bittern No No No No No

Virginia rail No No No No No

Marsh wren Yes No No No No

Tricolored blackbird No No Yes (Oregon) No No
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

233

Common Name

Surrogate 

Species Federally Listed Sensitive

Management 

Indicator Species Focal

Yellow-headed blackbird No No No No No

Sandhill crane No No No No No

Black-necked stilt No No No No No

American avocet No No No No No

Greater yellowlegs No No No No No

Willet No No No No No

Wilson's snipe Yes No No No No

Wilson's phalarope No No No No No

Bobolink No No Yes No No

Eared grebe Yes No No No No

Blue-winged teal No No No No No

Northern shoveler No No No No No

Northern pintail No No No No No

Green-winged teal No No No No No

Canvasback No No No No No

Redhead No No No No No

Ring-necked duck No No No No No

Lesser scaup No No No No No

Ruddy duck No No No No No

Terrestrial Species Viability

The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife 

habitat to maintain viable populations of native and desirable nonnative vertebrate species and 

conserve all listed threatened or endangered species populations (36 CFR 219.19). The 1982 

regulations define a viable population as one for which the number and distribution of 

reproductive individuals would “insure its continued existence.” Considerable new science has 

developed since the original Forest Plans were completed concerning the viability of a wide array 

of wildlife species that are present within the Blue Mountains forest plan revision Plan Area

(Lehmkuhl et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 2000, Raphael et al. 2001). In addition, methods for 

assessing species viability have evolved (Soule 1987, Marcot et al. 2001, Beissinger and 

McCullough 2002, Suring et al. 2011), and choosing which species to assess that best represent 

other species has changed considerably. Andelman et al. (2001) conducted a review of viability 

assessments conducted under the National Forest Management Act and concluded that there was 

no single accepted or standardized approach for viability analysis, and the debate continues at the 

national level. Comprehensive viability analysis requires significant data inputs on species 

demography and life history that are, to this day, unavailable for most species (Ruggiero et al. 

1994). The fact that a species occurs in an area is indicative of its persistence, but species 

generally are tolerant of a range of environmental conditions, resulting in increasingly 

complicated predictions when using models (Haufler et al. 1996).

We used the surrogate species approach to evaluate species and ecosystem viability following 

direction and guidance provided by Pacific Northwest Region Planning (USDA Forest Service 

2010).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

234

The surrogate species approach is intended to inform the management of sustainable ecosystems, 

and it is not expected that the population dynamics of a surrogate species would necessarily 

represent the population dynamics of another species (Lambeck 1997). The concept of surrogate 

species differs from management indicator species described in the 1982 planning regulations 

written to implement the National Forest Management Act (36 CFR 219.19). The use of 

management indicator species was considered a means of evaluating the effects of management 

actions on a suite of species whose population trends were assumed to reflect changes in habitat 

amount and quality that result from management actions (Suring et al. 2011). This assumption 

and the management indicator species concept have been called into question in the past two 

decades (Landres et al. 1988, Andelman et al. 2001). As a result, the management indicator 

species concept evolved to the more robust concept of surrogate species in the late 1990s 

(Lambeck 1997). Surrogate species are now considered a more appropriate approach in 

addressing species and ecosystem viability (Wiens et al. 2008, Suring et al. 2011).

The approach used to evaluate the ecological conditions capable of sustaining viable populations 

of wildlife species is described in detail in Suring et al. (2011) and Gaines et al. (2017). In 

summary, an eight-step process was used to assess the ecological conditions capable of sustaining 

viable populations of terrestrial wildlife species. The process included:

1. identification of species with potential viability concerns,

2. description of source habitats, and other important ecological factors,

3. organizing species into groups,

4. selection of surrogate species for each group,

5. development of surrogate species assessment models,

6. application of the surrogate species assessment models to evaluate current and historical 

conditions,

7. development of conservation strategies, and

8. designing monitoring and adaptive management.

Following the application of species screening criteria, 175 species were identified as species 

with potential viability concerns within the Plan Area. Those 175 species were then aggregated 

into 10 families (these are not phylogenetic families) and 23 groups based primarily on their 

habitat associations. Next, 23 surrogate species (78 percent birds, 13 percent mammals, 9 percent 

amphibians) were selected for use in the Blue Mountains Forest Plan revision viability 

assessments, based on risk factors and ecological characteristics (Wales et al. 2011).

Surrogate species are grouped according to habitat associations (Table 328). Additionally, the 

table associates all of the sensitive, federally listed, and MIS/Focal species for the Blue 

Mountains to groups and families. Based upon knowledge of ecological relationships of the 

species evaluated, the smallest number of groups possible was chosen that still allow a 

meaningful aggregation of species and habitats reflecting important patterns in source habitats. 

Groups were then aggregated into families to help describe how similar groups of species are 

related to each other. Families include one or more groups that are associated with similar broad 

scale vegetative conditions. These generalized vegetative conditions are often used by managers 

to interpret broad scale patterns and trends. By using a hierarchical evaluation of species, groups, 

and families, the analysis process addresses single- and multi-species needs as well as identifying 

broad-scale patterns of habitat change, as did Wisdom et al. (2000).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

235

Analysis Assumptions

Several overriding assumptions are used throughout this assessment. A key assumption is that 

managing for the historical range of variability across ecosystems will result in maintaining 

viability for most species. Therefore, if management activities can produce conditions close to or 

within historical range of variability, species that are adapted to these conditions will have a 

stronger likelihood of persistence (Aplet and Keeton 1999, Landres et al. 1999, Swanson et al. 

1994). Use of historical range of variability relies on two concepts: that past conditions and 

processes provide context and guidance for managing ecological systems today, and that 

disturbance-driven spatial and temporal variability is a vital attribute of nearly all ecological 

systems. Approximating historical conditions for source habitats provides a management strategy 

likely to sustain diverse surrogate species, even for those species where little information is 

available (Hunter et al. 1988, Landres et al. 1999, Swanson et al. 1994). Similarly, because of 

limited understanding about ecosystems, approximating past conditions offers one of the best 

means for predicting and reducing impacts to current ecosystems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). 

Therefore, if the amount and structure of source habitats are within historical range of variability, 

associated wildlife species will have a greater likelihood of sustainability than if the amount and 

structure of source habitats are outside historical range of variability (Raphael et al. 2001, Spies et 

al. 2006).

Throughout this analysis, acres of potential vegetation groups, road miles, acres of treatments, 

etc., are all best estimates based on the information available at the time. Change in forested 

vegetation was simulated using the vegetation dynamics development tool (VDDT) model (see 

the Forest Vegetation, Timber Resources, and Wildland Fire sections for detailed discussion of 

VDDT). The analysis using these estimates is intended to indicate the relative differences 

between alternatives and is not intended to predict absolute amounts of activities, outputs, or 

effects.

The use of the surrogate species approach is a credible and scientifically rigorous method to 

assess ecosystem conditions that contribute to the viability of wildlife species (Gaines et al. 

2017). The baseline conditions for Surrogate Wildlife Species in the Blue Mountains Plan 

Revisions Plan Area are presented in Wales et al. (2011) and give reasonable approximations of 

conditions at the scale of a watershed (10th Code HUC) that are influencing surrogate species 

habitats and populations. Trends in population viability were determined at the national forest 

scale.

Modeling future habitat trends for a select group of surrogate wildlife species required several 

assumptions, most importantly, that habitat associations for each species were adequately 

represented by the identified model states, and that the effects of forest management treatments 

were adequately reflected in effects on habitat conditions (Lambeck 1997, Wiens et al. 2008).

The long-term sustainability of a surrogate species is assumed to be representative of a group of 

species with similar ecological requirements, and this group is assumed to respond in a similar 

manner to environmental change (Suring et al. 2011). By providing for adequate amounts and 

distribution of habitat and managing risks for surrogate species, it is assumed that the ecological 

conditions needed to maintain viability of other associated species will also be provided (USDA 

Forest Service 2010).

It is also assumed that implementing projects following the guidance of the Forest Plan would 

impact at least one individual of each species during the plan period. Disruptions to an 

individual’s normal behavior patterns, such as breeding, foraging, and sheltering, are considered 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

236

impacts to that individual. For example, it is assumed that wildland fire would be used as a 

management tool to help achieve desired conditions outlined in the Forest Plan. Inherently the use 

of fire will disrupt the normal behavior of species due to smoke and could actually cause 

mortality in less mobile species, such as land snails. Snags and down logs are also vulnerable to 

loss from fire (Bagne et al. 2008, Randall-Parker and Miller 2002). It is reasonable to assume that 

during the plan period at least some snags/down logs that provide shelter, nest sites, plucking 

posts, or foraging structure for various species would be lost, therefore disrupting an individual’s 

behavior.

Another example would be ground nests. Although considered a random event (Jensen et al. 

1990) with a low probability of occurrence (Beck and Mitchell 2000), Fondell and Ball (2004) 

documented that the nests of grassland species in Montana were destroyed by livestock trampling. 

Since domestic livestock would graze within the national forests, it is likely that at least some 

individuals would be disturbed. Likewise, prescribed burning in the spring season would be 

expected to consume nests and kill young or eggs of some ground nesting birds.

Although Hamann et al. (1999) focused on birds, other authors (Boyle and Samson 1985, Gaines 

et al. 2003, Taylor and Knight 2003) have documented the impacts of recreation on wildlife, 

which include the continuum of responses from habituation at one extreme to habitat 

abandonment at the other. Whether it is a snowmobile that disturbs a wolverine’s foraging 

behavior or a hiker scrambling up a talus slope crushing a snail, individual animals will most 

likely be impacted by recreational activity during the life of the plan.

Forest plans do not actually authorize site-specific activity but provide the umbrella under which 

projects would be designed and implemented. Project level analysis would be based on current 

and more site-specific information about existing conditions where the actions would be 

proposed. Historical conditions, current conditions, and desired conditions would be analyzed at a 

finer scale of resolution to better predict project outcomes. As such, it is assumed that the 

conditions presented in this analysis are representative of conditions as a whole across the 

national forest; however, there are sites within the national forest that, when analyzed at the 

project scale, would not be representative of the bigger picture (for example, grazing intensity on 

an individual allotment that may exceed what would be presented for the national forest as a 

whole).

The Forest Service developed alternatives that have desired conditions for vegetation that strive 

to be within the bounds of the historical range of variability. The potential to diminish biological 

diversity is greater if current and anticipated conditions are outside and remain outside the 

historical range of variability. As stated previously, the effects described in this Environmental 

Impact Statement are designed to show the relative differences between alternatives but not 

precisely predict the amount or location of management activities that would occur during the 

plan period should an alternative be selected for implementation.

Terrestrial Species Viability – Environmental Consequences

This analysis describes how alternatives contribute to, address, or mitigate patterns of habitat 

alteration and fragmentation and wildlife disturbance, and identifies terrestrial source habitat that 

occur at levels less than estimates for the historical, forest-wide scale. The discussion includes 

how alternatives address:
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

237

• progress towards achieving habitat desired conditions

• species that have a viability concern

• species affected by human influences

In particular, the analysis focuses on species and their habitats where sustainability may be 

affected and/or where the species has status as a Federal threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species or as a Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.

Changes in wildlife habitat occur at several scales and at differing intensities depending on the 

home range size and habitat requirements of individual species. The desired conditions are the 

same for the plan revision alternatives, while management area designations, standard and 

guidelines, and the anticipated amount and rate of progress towards achieving desired conditions 

vary. Therefore, effects analyses for wildlife are broad, forest-wide, and programmatic by design. 

The effects from probable management activities that could potentially affect wildlife 

communities can be grouped into three broad categories:

1. Source habitat abundance: Source habitats were defined as those providing 

characteristics of macro-vegetation that contribute to stationary or positive population 

growth (Wisdom et al. 2000). Source habitats are distinguished from habitats simply 

associated with species occurrence and may or may not contribute to long-term 

population persistence (Wisdom et al. 2000). The macro-habitats used by each of the 

species considered in our assessment were described using cover type and structural stage 

(Wales et al. 2011). Source habitats included in the habitats used for reproduction, 

movement, and cover (e.g., protection, thermoregulation) are described by Johnson and 

O’Neil (2001), other primary literature, and professional judgment.

Habitat changes from management activities would affect wildlife. Restoration, 

regeneration, and forest health goals exist for each alternative. The management activities 

needed to achieve those goals could include timber harvest; fuel treatments; livestock 

grazing; road reconstruction, maintenance, and decommissioning; prescribed fire; 

managed wildland fire; planting; and other similar activities. The Vegetation Dynamics 

Development Tool, a modeling program, was used to project changes in vegetation from 

management actions as well as natural disturbances (wildfire, insects and diseases).

2. Habitat quality factors: For many surrogate species, the quality of source habitat was 

assessed based on information such as the density of snags and logs, patch size of source 

habitat, or amount of shrubs. Based on plan components of each alternative the potential 

effects of these habitat quality factors for each surrogate species was evaluated.

3. Other risk factors: Risk factors attributed to human activities were identified from 

literature review and/or species experts (Wales et al. 2011). Based on the plan 

components for each alternative, the influence of these factors was evaluated for each 

surrogate species.

General Effects of National Forest Management

What follows is a description of general effects to wildlife habitat from other resource 

management activities. Although the amount or distribution of these activities differs by 

alternative, the general types of effects from the activities would be the same for all alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

238

Timber Harvest

Timber harvest activities would alter vegetation components that comprise habitat for almost all 

terrestrial species. Harvesting can change vegetation composition, density, size, amounts, and 

distribution, and move successional trend toward or away from historical range of variability. 

These changes in vegetation can have positive or negative effects on different species (Bunnell et 

al. 1997, Zwolak 2009). For example, past harvest of late old structure pine was detrimental to the 

white-headed woodpecker, a species that depends on large trees and snags, but may have been 

beneficial for other species, such as the fox sparrow, that prefer open, brushy habitats (Finch et al. 

1997). Post-fire salvage logging can reduce the use of an area by cavity-nesting species, such as 

the black backed woodpecker, that evolved with fires where trees were not removed (Cahall and 

Hayes 2009) but may result in more favorable conditions for Lewis’s woodpecker (Saab et al. 

2007).

The mechanical processes involved in timber harvest often cause disturbance to wildlife because 

of equipment use or human presence. In areas where roads are built and maintained for long-term 

use, vehicle access can increase threats to some wildlife species (Forman 2000, Frair et al. 2008, 

Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Snags are usually removed adjacent to roads for safety reasons, 

and roads provide ready access to people wanting firewood (Bate et al. 2007). This reduces the 

habitat for species that require snags/logs. The timing of activities can also have different effects. 

For instance, localized harvest activities may disturb elk calving during a relatively short period 

in the spring, but not at other times of the year.

Fire Management

Fire management activities change vegetation. Fire use or its exclusion can change vegetation 

composition, density, size, and amount and distribution of both live and dead material, as well as 

successional trends (Kennedy and Fontaine 2009).

Long-term fire exclusion causes an increase in vegetation quantity above levels that were 

historically present. In white-headed woodpecker habitat, this has caused a reduction in habitat 

quality because of increasing tree density and higher composition of shade-tolerant tree species 

(Altman 2000). Long-term fire exclusion in the same type of habitat has benefitted other species, 

such as the pileated woodpecker, that prefer multi-storied tree stands and abundant snags and logs 

for feeding sites (ibid). The timing of fire can have different effects. Historically, fire created 

disturbance that altered vegetation at fairly regular intervals and at intensities that varied by 

potential vegetation group (Saab et al. 2007). Vegetation and animals evolved with fire, which is a 

common disturbance in many environments. As discussed, the change in vegetation resulting 

from fire can have positive or negative effects on different species depending on fire intensity, 

frequency, and timing.

Alternatives vary in the tradeoffs of fire risk to vegetation change. Potential effects to wildlife 

habitat and species from fire management will vary by alternative theme and management area 

assignments.

Livestock Grazing

Domestic livestock grazing directly competes with wildlife for the use of available forage. 

Grazing results in plant defoliation, mechanical changes to soil and plant material, and nutrient 

redistribution (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997). These and other factors also influence successional 

trends. Succession is affected by the grazing frequency (times grazed), intensity (amount of plant 

removal), and opportunity (time the plant needs to meet its physiological growth needs). Timing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

239

(spring, summer, and/or fall) of grazing can also have different effects on vegetation, such as 

reduction of flowering parts or physical damage to plants if conditions are too wet in the spring. 

Grazing can alter the density and composition of herbaceous and shrub vegetation, which can 

have either a positive or negative effect on wildlife (Bock et al. 1993, Finch et al. 1997, Short and 

Knight 2003). Vegetation is sometimes altered to increase forage for livestock, which also 

increases forage for some wildlife species.

The presence of livestock can affect some wildlife species by attracting cowbirds in open forest 

settings, which lay eggs in (parasitize) other bird nests (Friedmann 1963). The presence of 

livestock may be giving cowbirds an ecological advantage over other bird species in the area 

(Goguen and Mathews 1998). In all cases, it is important to distinguish between historical and 

current livestock impacts. For example, some species, such as mule deer (Clements and Young 

1997, Mule Deer Working Group 2003), and some bird species that rely on shrubs for nesting 

may have actually benefitted from the early heavy grazing in the West (Saab et al. 1995).

Grazing by domestic sheep can increase the risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep. 

Bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to pneumonia caused by Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae

carried by domestic sheep (Besser et al. 2012). The disease, which has negligible effects to

domestic sheep, is usually fatal to bighorn sheep. Transmission of the disease can occur when 

bighorn sheep and domestic sheep occupy the same area (Coggins 2002, Clifford et al. 2009).

Road and Trail Construction and Use

The majority of roads constructed on National Forest System lands during the last 50 years have 

been developed primarily for timber management activities. Historically, trails were developed 

for livestock management activities, mining, and fire lookout access. More recently, however, 

trails have been constructed for recreational activities.

Construction and use of roads and trails removes vegetation from the travel surface. This removal 

directly reduces the amount of vegetation that can be used as habitat and indirectly affects 

adjacent habitat (Frair et al. 2008). The relative effects of roads on wildlife depend on the 

interaction of topography, vegetation type and condition, and frequency of human use (Edge and 

Marcum 1991). One of the primary direct effects is increased human access to areas. Improved 

access increases mortality risk, fragmentation of habitat, and displacement/avoidance responses 

(Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Access can increase the risk of nonnative plants becoming 

established, and many of these plants are not used as habitat or forage by native wildlife. Access 

on roads and trails can be restricted during certain times of the year to reduce or eliminate these 

effects; however, the increasing human population trend for Oregon is likely to continue, and 

growth will likely increase human use of public lands during all seasons of the year.

Minerals Management

Mining exploration and development can influence wildlife in a number of ways, including road 

construction to mineralized areas, increased human interaction, and loss of vegetation that was 

used as habitat (Wilcove et al. 1998). Mining at the turn of the twentieth century influenced 

extensive areas and resulted in considerable changes to the landscapes where it occurred. 

Dredging of areas like Sumpter Valley left a highly scarred landscape that is just recently 

beginning to recover. Some of the first roads constructed were to gain access to mineral deposits. 

Mining operations have different requirements for support facilities and access. In areas where 

mineral reserves justify the construction of a mill, impacts may include buildings, equipment, 

utilities, tailings, and human presence. Today most mining is in the form of placer mining. Even 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

240

though significant mineral exploration and development operations must be approved by the 

authorized officer, these activities are still a ground-disturbing activity with a higher level of 

human activity that is not always compatible with wildlife.

The scale of mineral development has differing effects on habitat and displacement/avoidance 

associated with the extent, timing, and duration of activities. Exploration activities are usually 

brief compared to mineral production, which can displace wildlife for many years in some cases. 

Some mining activities use or produce toxic material. If improperly handled, this material can 

cause mortality to wildlife.

The ability to access minerals would be the same for each alternative; therefore, effects to habitat 

and wildlife species would not vary. Mineral development is a function of worldwide market

values. Areas with unique characteristics which cannot be protected by existing regulations may 

be withdrawn from mineral exploration or development by Congress or administratively. No 

lands have been identified for administrative withdrawal through plan revision, although land 

allocation decisions could indirectly influence mineral withdrawals in the future, depending on 

Congressional action.

Recreation

Recreation is a function of social demands related to desired, available, and provided experiences 

on National Forest System lands. Developed and dispersed camping can decrease the habitat 

capability for some species (Cole and Landres 1995). Wildlife species that require snags are 

usually negatively affected by hazard tree removal (for safety reasons) and firewood collection. 

Long-term use of dispersed sites can modify the vegetation that wildlife species depend on. 

Wildlife disturbance or disruption from recreation during breeding/nesting periods can also occur 

(Boyle and Samson 1985, Saab 1998).

Winter recreation, such as cross-country skiing and snowmobiling, can stress wintering animals 

during deep snow periods (Eckstein et al. 1979, Goldberg 2010, Goodrich and Berger 1994). 

Over-the-snow trails provide some animals with access to areas they usually cannot use during 

the winter because of deep snow conditions (Bunnell et al. 1990).

The increasing human population trend for Oregon is likely to continue. Likewise, the public 

desire for differing recreational activities will continue to increase. This increase in recreation use 

has resulted in increased conflicts with wintering wildlife, particularly big game. Most big game 

winter ranges have motorized access restrictions to reduce stress to wildlife during periods of 

deep snow; additional restrictions for big game winter ranges are not anticipated.

Though none of the alternatives would actively promote an increase in recreational use of 

National Forest System lands, in all likelihood, recreation demand within the National Forests 

will increase during the plan period as the human population increases.

General Effects of Nonnative Plants

Over time, many nonnative plants have been introduced into the Plan Area. Some plants were 

intentionally introduced while others were not. Nonnative plants change the value of wildlife 

habitat by displacing native plant species. Some nonnative species are not usable by native 

wildlife species as habitat or forage, and their presence decreases the habitat carrying capacity. 

Some nonnative plants influence fire regime and create conditions that may cause areas to burn 

more frequently. An increasing fire frequency can cause a reduction in woody species that are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

241

valuable as habitat. Additionally, nonnative plants compete with native vegetation for moisture, 

nutrients, and space, all of which can reduce habitat quality and quantity.

Surrogate Species

It is important to note that surrogate species were referred to as focal species in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement but the name was changed to avoid confusion with focal species 

as defined in the monitoring requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.

The surrogate species assessment is intended to assist in the development of forest plans by 

helping frame the goals and desired conditions for ecosystems within the landscape, the 

management focus for implementing the plan, the anticipated accomplishments during the life of 

the plan, and the development of standards and guidelines where the risks and/or threats were not 

sufficiently ameliorated through other plan components. This section examines how the 

management alternatives for forest plan revision either contribute to or mitigate the changing 

patterns of habitat alteration and fragmentation and disturbance to wildlife.

A detailed analysis for these species (Wales et al. 2011) is in the project record but, in general, 

existing source habitats were more than 40 percent of the historical median at the watershed scale 

(Denoël and Ficetola 2007, Olson et al. 2004, Radford et al. 2005, Svancara et al. 2005, Tear et al. 

2005, With and Crist 1995), were adequately distributed across the landscape, and threats/risks 

had been reduced to an acceptable level. Because the threats and risks are similar for several 

surrogate species, they are grouped by risk factor (Table 329).

Existing Condition – Surrogate Species Viability

Evaluation of the current conditions within the assessment area documented reductions in the 

viability outcomes (Table 330) for nearly all surrogate species compared to historical conditions 

(Wales et al. 2011). The species for which current viability outcomes are most similar to historical 

viability outcomes on the Umatilla National Forest include the northern goshawk, American 

marten, peregrine falcon, and lark sparrow. Species for which current viability outcomes have 

departed the most from historical viability outcomes on the Umatilla National Forest include the 

Cassin’s finch, western bluebird, white-headed woodpecker, and ash-throated flycatcher. The 

species with the least departure between current and historical viability outcomes on the Malheur 

National Forest include the northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, and lark sparrow. The 

species with the greatest degree of departure between current and historical viability outcomes on 

the Malheur National Forest include the boreal owl, Cassin’s finch, white-headed woodpecker, 

Western bluebird, fox sparrow, Lewis’s woodpecker, wolverine, and ash-throated flycatcher. On 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest the species whose current viability outcomes are most 

similar to the historical viability outcomes include the northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, lark 

sparrow, and water vole. Species whose current viability outcomes departed the most from the 

historical outcomes on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest include the Cassin’s finch, whiteheaded woodpecker, western bluebird, and wolverine.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

242

Table 329. A list of wildlife surrogate species addressed in the viability assessment for the Blues 

Forest Plan revision and their habitat associations and risk factors

Surrogate Species Habitat Associations Risk Factors

American Marten Cool/Moist Forest with mediumlarge treesRoad density, Timber harvest,

created openings, habitat loss

Ash-throated Flycatcher Juniper Woodland Grazing, habitat loss

Bald Eagle Riparian Human Disturbance, habitat loss

Black-backed Woodpecker Post-fire Road Density, Post-fire Harvest, 

habitat loss

Boreal Owl Alpine/Boreal Forest - Snags Road Density, habitat loss

Cassin Finch Forested habitats with mediumlarge treesGrazing, habitat loss

Columbia Spotted Frog Riparian Invasive species, grazing, road 

density, habitat loss

Fox Sparrow Open-forest/Early successional Grazing, habitat loss

Lark Sparrow Woodland/Grass/Shrub-Grassland Invasive species, Grazing, habitat 

loss

Lewis’s Woodpecker Post-fire Road Density, habitat loss

MacGillivray’s Warbler Riparian Grazing, invasive species, habitat 

loss

Marsh Wren Wetland Invasive Species, Habitat loss

Northern Goshawk Forested habitats with large trees Human disturbance, loss of old 

forest habitat

Northern Harrier Woodland/Grass/Shrub-Grassland Grazing, human disturbance, habitat 

loss

Peregrine Falcon Habitat generalist/Cliff Human disturbance, habitat loss

Pileated Woodpecker Cool/Moist Forest with mediumlarge trees and snagsRoad density, habitat loss

Rocky Mountain Tailed 

Frog

Riparian Grazing, road density, invasive 

species, habitat loss

Sage Thrasher Woodland/Grass/Shrub-ShrubsteppeInvasive species, Road density, 

habitat loss

Water Vole Riparian Grazing, habitat loss

Western Bluebird Open-forest/All forest with snags Road Density, Grazing, habitat loss

White-headed Woodpecker Dry Forest with medium-large trees 

and snags

Road Density, habitat loss

Wilson’s Snipe Wetland Habitat loss

Wolverine Habitat generalist Winter recreation, Road density, 

habitat loss
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

243

Table 330. Current and historical viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the 

Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Surrogate Wildlife 

Species

Malheur

Historic

Malheur

Current

Umatilla

Historic

Umatilla

Current

WallowaWhitman

Historic

WallowaWhitman

Current

American Marten B/C D/E A A A B

Ash-throated Flycatcher A D A D * *

Bald Eagle A B B C B C

Black-backed 

Woodpecker A C A C A B

Boreal Owl B E A C A C

Cassin’s Finch A D A C/D A D

Columbia Spotted Frog A C A C A B

Fox Sparrow A D A C A C

Lark Sparrow B B B B A A

Lewis’s Woodpecker A C/D A C A C

MacGillivray’s Warbler A C A C A C

Marsh Wren A B A B A B

Northern Goshawk A A A A A A

Northern Harrier A B A B A B

Peregrine Falcon * * B B/C B B/C

Pileated Woodpecker A A A B A C

Rocky Mountain Tailedfrog * * A B A C

Sage Thrasher B C B C B C

Water Vole A B A B A A

Western Bluebird A D A D A D

White-headed 

Woodpecker A E A E A E

Wilson’s Snipe A B A B A B

Wolverine A E B C/D A D

* Did not assess due to very limited habitat or species is not present on the National Forest

Environmental outcomes defined in Raphael et al. (2001) were used as a basis to describe five 

viability outcomes. These outcomes were calculated for current and historical conditions for each 

surrogate species to assess changes in habitat conditions. The term “suitable environment” refers 

to a combination of source habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and 

demographic performance of a surrogate species. The viability outcomes are based on departure 

from historical conditions. The five viability outcomes we used were:

1. Outcome A—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the 

species throughout the assessment area. Habitat abundance is high relative to historical 

conditions. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions 

provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intraspecific interactions for the 

surrogate species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

244

2. Outcome B—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the 

species. Suitable environments are of moderate to high abundance relative to historical 

conditions, but there may be gaps where suitable environments are absent or present in low 

abundance. However, any disjunctive areas of suitable environments are typically large 

enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species 

to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Species with this outcome are likely well 

distributed throughout most of the assessment area.

3. Outcome C—Suitable environments moderately distributed across the historical range of the 

species. Suitable environments exist at moderate abundance relative to historical conditions. 

Gaps where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance are large 

enough such that some subpopulations may be isolated, limiting opportunity for intraspecific 

interactions especially for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for which this is 

not the historical condition, reduction in the species’ range in the assessment area may have 

resulted. Surrogate species with this outcome are likely well distributed in only a portion of 

the assessment area.

4. Outcome D—Suitable environments are low to moderately distributed across the historical 

range of the species. Suitable environments exist at low abundance relative to their historical 

conditions. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be 

self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the 

suitable environmental patches for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for 

which this is not the historical condition, reduction in species’ range in the assessment area 

may have resulted. These species may not be well distributed across the assessment area.

5. Outcome E—Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance 

relative to historical conditions. Suitable environments are not well distributed across the 

historical range of the species. For species with limited dispersal ability there may be little or 

no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in 

potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of 

such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the species’ range from historical 

conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition 

since the historical period. Surrogate species with this outcome are not well distributed 

throughout much of the assessment area.

There is a need to address the viability concerns for surrogate species identified in the assessment 

of the current conditions (Wales et al. 2011). By addressing the habitat needs and risk factors 

identified for surrogate species, ecological conditions capable of supporting viable populations of 

all native and non-native desirable wildlife species, including Pacific Northwest Region sensitive 

species, would be enhanced. Some key findings of the assessment include:

• Riparian habitats are important for a wide variety of the surrogate species assessed. A 

strategy that protects and restores riparian habitat, including addressing the effects of roads 

and domestic grazing, is needed.

• Late-successional and old forest habitats are generally below their historical range of 

variability. In some forest types, such as the dry and mesic forests, active restoration of oldforest habitat is needed to restore important habitat structures (like large trees) and to 

reduce risk of habitat loss due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires.

• One of the primary reasons for species viability outcomes being reduced is the widespread 

influence of roads. Roads decrease habitat effectiveness by increasing human access, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

245

resulting in displacement/avoidance responses from wildlife. Roads also increase wildlife 

mortality risk, fragment habitat, increase sediment runoff, facilitate the spread of invasive 

species, and are associated with reduced snag densities. Restoring habitat effectiveness, by 

reducing the effects of roads, is important for several surrogate wildlife species.

• Restoring the connectivity of wildlife habitats is an important strategy for addressing the 

effects of climate change on wildlife populations, especially within riparian habitats. 

Habitat connectivity is a function of the amount of habitat, the spatial arrangement, and 

how human activities influence the effectiveness of the habitat. Roads are known to 

influence the connectivity and effectiveness of habitat for surrogate wildlife species.

• The availability of large and old trees and large snag habitat is generally lacking in many 

forest types because of past management practices and altered disturbance regimes. 

Restoration of these key habitat components is important for several surrogate wildlife 

species.

The Region 6 terrestrial species viability assessment process (USFS 2010) was used to model and 

evaluate alternatives C, E-Modified, and E-Departure. This approach is described in detail in 

Suring et al. (2011), Wales et al. (2011), and Gaines et al. (2017). The terrestrial species viability 

assessment process was completed for the Plan Area in order to determine the baseline conditions 

for each of the surrogate species (Wales et al. 2011) and to identify risk factors that influence the 

viability of surrogate wildlife species (Table 330). These habitat and risk factors were addressed 

in each of the alternatives and used to evaluate how each alternative contributes to or detracts 

from the viability of surrogate wildlife species. Alternatives A, B, D, E, and F were qualitatively 

analyzed using information from modeled habitat trends and plan components.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

Surrogate wildlife species were assessed at two spatial scales. Direct, indirect and cumulative 

effects were assessed for each species using the watershed (10th Code HUC) as an evaluation 

unit, considering all land ownerships within the watershed (Suring et al. 2011, Wales et al. 2011). 

Individual watershed results were then used to determine a most-likely viability outcome for each 

alternative and for each national forest (Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Malheur National 

Forests). The current and estimated historic viability outcomes were quantitatively and 

qualitatively assessed for each surrogate species (see Wales et al. 2011, Appendix B) in order to 

establish baseline conditions upon which changes to habitat and risk factors could be compared 

and evaluated.

Future habitat trends were modeled for the following surrogate species: American marten, blackbacked woodpecker, boreal owl, Cassin’s finch, fox sparrow, Lewis’s woodpecker, northern 

goshawk, pileated woodpecker, western bluebird, and white-headed woodpecker (Appendix C). 

These trends were modeled to assess habitat conditions at 20 and 50 years in order to qualitatively 

estimate how different management alternatives would contribute to or detract from the viability 

of surrogate species. Other risk factors that influence the viability of surrogate species were 

assessed in the short term (no more than 20 years) and the long term (no more than 50 years) 

using the management direction for each alternative to develop a set of assumptions (Appendix 

D) about how each of the alternatives would influence habitat, risk factors, and the viability 

outcomes for each of the focal species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

246

Key Indicators

Key indicators were used to evaluate the effect of each alternative on the viability of surrogate 

wildlife species (Table 331). Species were grouped according to the primary risk factor (key 

indicator) influencing viability (grazing, motorized access, old forest, riparian, snags). Effects are 

discussed in terms of how each alternative influences the key indicators for each group. While 

there may be effects outside of these key indicators, this approach provides a way to focus the 

analysis and display the relative differences between alternatives in light of the predominant risk 

factors that influence viability and can also be influenced by our management actions.

Table 331. Key indicators used to assess the viability of surrogate wildlife species

Viability Group/Issue Surrogate Wildlife Species Key Indicators

The viability of wildlife 

species associated with 

old forest structures

Wildlife species associated with old 

forest structures

• Cold and Moist Forests (northern 

goshawk, pileated woodpecker, 

American marten, Boreal owl, 

Cassin’s finch)

• Dry and Mesic Forests (pileated 

woodpecker, northern goshawk, 

white-headed woodpecker, Cassin’s 

finch)

• The amount and patch-size of oldforest habitats.

• The effect of roads on old-forest 

habitat effectiveness.

• Management direction that 

addresses habitat and risk factors.

The influence of 

motorized access on 

the viability of wildlife 

species sensitive to 

human disturbances

Wildlife species that are sensitive to 

human disturbances that result 

from motorized access

• Nonwinter (wolverine, northern 

goshawk, American marten, bald 

eagle, peregrine falcon)

• Winter (wolverine, bald eagle)

• Measurements of road density and 

the zone of influence.

• Management direction that 

addresses habitat and risk factors.

The influence of 

livestock grazing on the 

viability of wildlife 

species

Surrogate wildlife species 

influenced by grazing (ash-throated 

flycatcher, MacGillivray’s warbler, 

Western bluebird, Cassin’s finch, fox 

sparrow, lark sparrow, northern 

harrier)

• Effects of grazing on the viability and 

habitat of surrogate species.

• Management direction that 

addresses habitat and risk factors.

The influence of forest 

management on the 

viability of surrogate 

wildlife species 

associated with riparian 

habitats

Surrogate wildlife species associated 

with riparian habitats (water vole, bald 

eagle, MacGillivray’s warbler, 

Columbia spotted frog, Rocky 

Mountain tailed frog, marsh wren, 

Wilson’s snipe)

• Vegetation management within 

riparian management areas.

• Grazing effects to riparian habitat 

conditions.

• Road density and Zone of Influence 

on riparian habitat effectiveness.

The influence of forest 

management activities 

on the viability of 

surrogate wildlife 

species dependent on 

snag habitat

Surrogate wildlife species dependent 

on snag habitats (pileated 

woodpecker, white-headed 

woodpecker, black-backed 

woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, 

western bluebird, boreal owl)

• Availability of snag habitat.

• Roads densities.

• Management direction that 

addresses habitat and risk factors.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Old Forest Associated Surrogate Wildlife Species

Forest activities that directly influence the viability of old forest dependent surrogate species 

include: the loss of old forest habitat from fire (Healy et al. 2008), vegetation treatments (e.g. 

timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire) that affect forest structure (e.g., canopy closure, snags, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

247

downed wood)(Healy et al. 2008, Wisdom and Bate 2008), management of roads that influences 

habitat effectiveness (Gaines et al. 2003), and protection of riparian areas which are an important 

element of old forest habitats for some species (e.g., bald eagles). Species in this group include 

the northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker, American marten, boreal owl, white-headed 

woodpecker, and Cassin’s Finch.

Alternative A – No Action

Overall, this alternative limits active management in existing old forest areas, emphasizing shortterm habitat protection for old forest closed-canopy species instead of active forest restoration 

and hazard fuels reduction.

This alternative provides for the viability of old forest species through a system of Old Forest 

Management Areas (MA-4C Old Forest). MA-4C in this alternative is comprised of generally 

smaller patches on fewer acres as compared to alternative C, the only other alternative with MA4C designated. These small patches of old forest habitat function similarly to habitat islands, and 

are highly susceptible to disturbances such as fire, insects, and tree diseases, with no redundancy 

or replacement habitat in the event they are lost. This system was based on minimizing the effects 

of protection of old forest habitat on timber harvest levels. This system was deemed inadequate to 

provide for the viability of old forest species and thus Forest Plans were amended with the eastside screens (USDA Forest Service 1995). The intent was for the east-side screens to provide 

interim direction until Forest Plans were revised.

The matrix or area in-between the small islands of old forest habitat is managed primarily through 

even-aged timber production, with some protections for elements of old forest habitat, such as 

snags and downed wood. However, the combination of roads and timber harvest generally results 

in these areas having snag habitat below levels that would maintain viable populations of snag 

dependent wildlife species. Again, the management direction in the original Forest Plan was 

deemed inadequate, thus additional direction was adopted through the east-side screens (USDA 

Forest Service 1995). The east-side screens restrict the cutting of live trees larger than 21 inches 

in diameter.

With the continuation of the east-side screens, the implementation of this alternative includes a 

standard to protect active goshawk nests and post-fledgling areas. Additionally, connectivity 

corridors are to be identified and managed for at the project level. The plan components designed 

for goshawk and connectivity would all likely be beneficial to other species associated with large 

tree closed canopied forests.

The implementation of this alternative would likely not reduce the negative effects of roads on 

old forest and snag habitat more so than the other alternatives. Alternative A includes a road 

density standard on the Malheur National Forest and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest per 

management area, while, the Umatilla National Forest describes road densities as a desired 

condition. Additionally, cross-country motor vehicle use is currently only restricted on the 

Umatilla National Forest.

This alternative would maintain favorable viability outcomes on all three National Forests for 

northern goshawk and pileated woodpecker as it limits the use of mechanical treatments and 

active forest restoration. Although habitats for these species decline through year 50, habitats 

remain with the historical range of variability. Viability outcomes for boreal owl and Cassin’s 

finch would improve across all three forests under this alternative, although not as much as under 

some of the other alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

248

This alternative, similar to Alternative B, would result in no improvement in the viability outcome 

for surrogate species associated with more open-canopied old forest habitats within dry forests 

(e.g., white-headed woodpecker) because forest restoration treatments would only occur at a 

limited spatial scale. The percent of single story dry upland old forest at year 50 on all three 

forests would range from 9-15 percent, compared to 16-20 percent for Alternative E-Modified 

Departure. The desired condition for that potential vegetation group is 40-65 percent. Under this 

alternative, white-headed woodpeckers on all three forests would have a viability outcome of E, 

meaning that suitable habitat is highly isolated and there is little or no possibility of population 

interactions among suitable patches of habitat, resulting in potential for extirpations within many 

of the patches and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would maintain or increase the viability 

outcomes of most old forest surrogate wildlife species with the exception of the pileated 

woodpecker on the Malheur and the American marten on the Wallowa-Whitman. However, the 

old forest habitat provided by this alternative may not maintain viable populations of old forest 

surrogate wildlife species associated with large tree open-canopied forests. This alternative does 

not emphasize restoration of landscape resiliency to reduce the loss of old forest habitats to 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires. This alternative would not result in the restoration of habitat

effectiveness by reducing the negative effects of roads on old forest habitats.

Alternative B

As with all the plan revision alternatives, the desired conditions describe the abundance of 

different structural stages including older and larger tree forests to be within the range of 

variation, though the rate and amount of vegetation treatments is less than the other plan revision 

alternatives except Alternative C.

In Alternative B there are no Old Forest Management Areas (MA 4C) though there are guidelines 

to provide larger patches of old structure stands to prevent fragmentation of these habitats. 

Similar to Alternatives C, D, E, and F, there is a guideline to prohibit the construction of new 

motor vehicle routes in old forest stands.

Similar to Alternatives A and C, the plan components designed for goshawk would all likely be 

beneficial to other species associated with large tree closed canopied forests. Protection measures 

for large trees (21 inches diameter and larger) are less than Alternatives A and C because the 

guideline allows exceptions for trees that compete with hardwoods, early seral species, and in 

cases of hazard trees or fuel reductions. Snag habitat along roads would continue to be depleted 

through fuel wood gathering and danger tree management in all alternatives.

Similar to Alternative A, habitat abundance for surrogate species associated with large tree closed 

canopied forests (boreal owl, goshawk, pileated woodpecker) generally remains about the same 

through year 50 and remains within the range of variability. Habitats for surrogate species 

associated with large tree open-canopied forest increase, but because forest restoration treatments 

would occur at a limited spatial scale, viability outcomes would not improve.

Summary: The effects of this alternative to old forest species are very similar to Alternative A, 

although the percent of single story dry upland old forest at year 50 would be even less at 8-12 

percent, as compared to 9-15 percent. The desired condition for that potential vegetation group is 

40-65 percent. The implementation of this alternative would likely result in relatively high or 

moderate viability outcomes for surrogate species associated with closed-canopy, multi-layered 

late-successional and old forest habitats, at least in the near term (less than 50 years). However, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

249

this alternative would not improve the viability outcomes for surrogate species associated with 

more open-canopied old forest habitats within dry forests (white-headed woodpecker) because 

forest restoration treatments would only occur at a limited spatial scale. In addition, this 

alternative does not focus on landscape-scale forest restoration that has been identified as an 

important climate change adaptation to maintain old forest habitats in the long term (more than 50 

years) (Lawler et al. 2014).

Alternative C

This alternative provides for the viability of old forest species through a system of Old Forest 

Management Areas (MA4C Old Forest) that encompass 451,900 acres across the Plan Area

(Umatilla: 95,200 acres, Malheur: 205,400 acres, Wallowa-Whitman: 106,300 acres). This 

alternative limits active management in existing old forest areas, emphasizing short-term habitat 

protection for old forest species instead of active forest restoration and hazard fuels reduction (as 

in Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure). Under Alternative C, no commercial 

harvest would occur in old forest management areas (MA 4C) and only prescribed fire and 

treatment of smaller diameter trees for fuel reduction would be allowed.

The implementation of this alternative includes plan components for several key elements of old 

forest habitat. For instance, this alternative includes a standard to protect known cavity and nest 

trees, to protect all snags 21 inches diameter and larger, and retain 50 percent of snags 12 to 20 

inches diameter. The plan components designed for goshawk would likely be beneficial to other 

species associated with large tree closed canopied forests.

The implementation of this alternative would decrease the negative effects of roads on old forest 

habitat. Desired Conditions for MA3C (Wildlife Corridor) would result in a road density of 1.0 

mile per square mile on about 6.5 percent of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the 

Malheur National Forest, and about 10 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Similar 

to Alternatives B, D, E, and F, Alternative C includes a standard that would prohibit new road and 

trail construction within existing old forest. This management direction would reduce roadassociated risk factors to surrogate species such as displacement from key habitats, loss of snags 

for safety and firewood cutting, and fragmentation of old forest patches.

This alternative would result in moderate to high viability outcomes for surrogate species 

associated with closed-canopy, multi-layered late-successional and old forest habitats both within 

boreal forests (American marten, boreal owl) and moist forests (northern goshawk, pileated 

woodpecker) as it limits the use of mechanical treatments and active forest management.

However, the percent of old forest for all potential vegetation groups on all three forests at year 

50 would be 21-31 percent, compared to 23-34 percent as in Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure. That is likely because, under this alternative, the potential to use timber 

harvest as a tool to manage for old growth has been largely eliminated. Treatments would be 

confined to thinning trees less than 8 inches in diameter which would make it difficult to achieve 

desired stand densities and species composition in the majority of old forest stands. Higher stand 

densities would result in greater competition between trees and increased susceptibility to crown 

fire and insect outbreaks. Without the ability to use timber harvest, vegetation treatments would 

have to rely on prescribed fire and wildfire to reduce stand densities and alter species composition 

and forest structure. However, fire is an inexact tool and results are much less predictable than 

those of harvesting. Much of the dry upland forest potential vegetation group currently exists in 

closed stand densities and it would be unrealistic to expect to achieve low or mixed severity fire 

without first using a pretreatment of thinning or timber harvest. As a result, relying solely on the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

250

effects of fire could lead to substantially higher levels of mortality across all age and size classes, 

including large and old trees.

This alternative would not improve the viability outcomes for surrogate species associated with 

more open-canopied old forest habitats within dry forests (white-headed woodpecker, western 

bluebird) because forest restoration treatments would only occur at a limited spatial scale. Forest 

restoration treatments (mechanical thinning and prescribed fire) that retain large trees and restore 

spatial heterogeneity have been shown to increase the presence and abundance of surrogate 

species associated with open-canopied old forest habitats within dry forests (Gaines et al. 2007, 

2010).

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would result in moderate to high viability 

outcomes for surrogate species associated with closed-canopy, multi-layered late-successional 

and old forest habitats, at least in the near term (less than 50 years). However, this alternative 

would not improve the viability outcomes for surrogate species associated with more opencanopied old forest habitats within dry forests (white-headed woodpecker) because forest 

restoration treatments would only occur at a limited spatial scale. In addition, this alternative does 

not focus on landscape-scale forest restoration that has been identified as an important climate 

change adaptation to maintain old forest habitats in the long term (more than 50 years) (Lawler et 

al. 2014).

The greatest benefit to old forest surrogate species in this alternative is probably the reduction in 

road-related risks that would occur due to the lower road densities within wildlife corridors. 

However, this risk reduction would only occur on the 6.5-11 percent of the each forest that is 

designated as MA 3C.

Alternative D

Alternative D emphasizes active management using mechanical treatments rather than prescribed 

fire and has an increased area where motor vehicle use is suitable compared to other alternatives

(Appendix A).

Habitat abundance for species associated with larger tree closed canopied forests declines to 

levels below those estimated for all other alternatives. The percent of old forest for all potential 

vegetation groups on all three forests at year 50 would be 20-30 percent, compared to 21-31

percent as in Alternative C and 23-34 percent as in E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. The 

difference in single story dry upland old forest at year 50 would be even greater under this 

alternative at 11-16 percent, as compared to 15-20 percent under Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure.

Because this alternative includes few plan components for several key elements of old forest

habitat, both in open and closed-canopied habitats, these habitats are less likely to provide 

important habitat components such as large trees, snags, and overall habitat effectiveness. For 

example, this alternative does not include a specific land management area allocation for old 

forest and old forest would be included as lands designated as suitable for timber production. 

Most importantly, this is the only alternative that does not include any standards or guidelines 

related to the management of individual live large diameter or old trees.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would improve the viability outcome for old 

forest surrogate wildlife species that are associated with open-canopy dry forest with large tree 

structure such as the white-headed woodpecker, although not as much as Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure would. This is likely because while this alternative schedules more 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

251

timber harvest, it does not focus the treatments on overstocked dry forest as intently as 

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. Viability outcomes for old forest surrogate 

species associated with closed-canopy multi-layered forests would likely be somewhat reduced 

but would remain within the historical range of variability. However, because this alternative 

includes few plan components for several key elements of open and closed old forest habitat, 

habitat effectiveness would be reduced.

Alternatives E and F

The main difference between Alternatives E and F is the amount of vegetation treatment. 

Alternative F involves approximately the same amount of vegetation treatment as Alternative B,

but the other plan components, standards, guidelines, and management areas would be the same 

as Alternative E.

These alternatives are similar to Alternative D and provide fewer plan components for older 

forests, snags and large trees, although there is a guideline for protection of trees with older tree

characteristics. Similar to Alternatives B, C, and D, there is a guideline to prohibit the 

construction of new motor vehicle routes in old forest stands. These alternatives also include 

fewer acres of land that are suitable for motor vehicle use than Alternatives A, B, D, E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure. On the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests there are 

limited acres in MA 4C, Wildlife Corridor (21,600 acres Umatilla, 6,500 acres WallowaWhitman). Road densities are reduced in these areas (less than 1 mile per square mile), and 

vegetation treatments would retain at least 40 percent canopy cover.

Habitats for species associated with larger tree closed canopied forests decline less than 

Alternative D, but to a greater degree than Alternative B. Conversely, habitats for species 

associated with larger tree open-canopied forests increase more than Alternative B, but less than 

Alternative D, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. The lack of plan components to protect 

important habitat features such as large snags, trees, and the potential for increased habitat 

fragmentation may lead to less effective habitat for species associated with old forest.

Summary: For all three forests, the implementation of these alternatives would improve the 

viability outcome for old forest surrogate wildlife species that are associated with open-canopy 

dry forest with large tree structure such as the white-headed woodpecker, but to a lesser extent 

than Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure because there would be less active 

restoration. The percent of dry upland forest old forest single story at year 50 would be 4-7 

percent less than under Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure but 2-4 percent 

greater than under Alternative C. Viability outcomes for old forest surrogate species associated 

with closed-canopy multi-layered forests would likely be reduced, but would remain within the 

historical range of variability. However, because this alternative includes few plan components 

such as retention of large or old trees, for several key elements of old forest habitat, both in open 

and closed-canopied habitats, habitat effectiveness would be reduced.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

The restoration approach that is emphasized in dry forests is described in desired conditions, 

which focus on moving landscape patterns and disturbance regimes toward their historical range 

of variability (Noss et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010a, Franklin and Johnson 

2012). These alternatives would result in the greatest increase in open canopy old forest habitat in 

the dry upland forest at 50 years. In addition, by strategically locating restoration treatments, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

252

risk of loss of old forest habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires could be reduced (Finney 

2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007).

For some old forest surrogate species, such as the white-headed woodpecker, conservation 

assessments have recommended the use of stand-level treatments to restore habitat because 

current habitat is well below historic levels (Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). 

Research on the effects of restoration treatments on birds has shown that treatments that retain 

large trees and promote within-stand structural variability can have positive effects on surrogate 

bird species, including the white-headed woodpecker and western bluebird (Gaines et al. 2007, 

Gaines et al. 2010). The implementation of these alternatives would result in the implementation

of restorative treatments within dry forests, creating potentially favorable conditions for whiteheaded woodpeckers, improving their viability outcomes throughout the Plan Area and on each of 

the national forests.

For old forest surrogate species associated with closed-canopy, multi-layer forest conditions (e.g., 

American marten, northern goshawk, pileated woodpecker), viability outcomes would be reduced 

by forest harvest treatments occurring in this habitat. However, desired conditions based on the 

historical range of variability for closed-canopy, multi-layered forest habitats would result in 

viability outcomes that would be maintained at relatively high levels (Table 333 through Table 

335) on the Umatilla National Forest, and at slightly lower levels on the Wallowa-Whitman

National Forest.

The implementation of these alternatives includes plan components for several key elements of 

old forest habitat. For instance, desired conditions and guidelines for snag habitat (see Snag 

Associated Surrogate Species) state that snags should be managed within the historical range of 

variability in vegetation management treatments. Unlike Alternatives A, B, and C, this alternative 

does not explicitly prohibit the harvest of 21-inch trees. However, Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure do include a guideline for the retention and recruitment of old trees, large 

trees, and legacy trees, with some exceptions for insects, disease, fuel reduction, hazards, density 

management, and species composition.

These alternatives includes limited management direction that would reduce the effects of 

motorized access (see “Surrogate Species influenced by Motorized Access”) on surrogate wildlife 

species that are associated with old forest habitats.

Summary: Given the combination of vegetation treatments in dry upland forest and the 

guidelines for snags, old trees, and large trees, these two alternatives would likely provide the 

greatest contribution toward improving the viability outcome for old forest dependent surrogate 

wildlife species that are associated with open-canopy dry forest with large tree structure such as 

the white-headed woodpecker. Viability outcomes for old forest surrogate species associated with 

closed-canopy multi-layered forests would be somewhat reduced compared to other alternatives, 

but still maintained at relatively high levels (Table 333 through Table 335). The restoration 

approach emphasized in this alternative would create more resilient stands and landscapes, and 

could reduce the loss of old forest habitats to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. However, this 

alternative has limited emphasis on reducing the effects that roads have on old forest-associated 

surrogate wildlife species.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Motorized Access and Surrogate Wildlife Species

Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads influence the viability of surrogate wildlife 

species. These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

253

critical periods, and the risk of mortality caused by collisions with vehicles (see Wisdom et al. 

2000 and Gaines et al. 2003 for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence 

wildlife). The effects of motorized access can occur year-round, including winter when 

snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

The influence that roads currently have across the Plan Area is extensive. The road density 

outside of wilderness areas is 3.5 miles per square mile on the Umatilla, 4.2 miles per square mile 

on the Malheur, and 3.7 miles per square mile on the Wallowa-Whitman. High road densities 

reduce the viability outcomes for several surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011). 

Additionally, on the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman, off-route motor vehicle traffic is not 

restricted except in select locations. Surrogate species that are particularly sensitive to motorized 

disturbance include wolverine, northern goshawk, American marten, bald eagle, and peregrine 

falcon. Effects specific to winter recreation were analyzed for the wolverine and bald eagle.

Alternative A – No Action

Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects 

of roads on surrogate species habitat. The current management direction for roads is limited. 

Standards for road densities vary by management areas on the Malheur and the WallowaWhitman and off-route motor vehicle travel is generally allowed. Currently the Umatilla Forest 

Plan includes open road density in terms of a desired condition and off-route motor vehicle travel 

is limited to designated routes.

Road-associated risk factors to surrogate species such as displacement from key habitats, risk of 

mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods would 

continue at current levels.

Overall, this alternative would provide a level of habitat effectiveness for surrogate species that is 

similar to B, D, E, F, and less than Alternatives C, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure.

Summary: This alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the population viability 

of surrogate species that are sensitive to motorized disturbance. The alternative includes limited 

management direction to reduce the effects of roads on habitat effectiveness. This alternative does 

not alter the current effects that summer and winter motorized trails have on habitat effectiveness 

for surrogate wildlife species.

Alternative B

Open motor vehicle route density would change from a standard and/or guideline in Alternative A 

to a desired condition depending on the management area and winter elk habitat. General Forest 

(MA 4A) management would have a desired condition of an open route density of 2.4 miles per 

square mile. The desired condition for open motor vehicle route density in motorized backcountry 

management areas is 1.5 miles per square mile. Winter elk habitat also has a desired condition of 

1.5 miles per square mile.

This alternative includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of existing motorized 

access on surrogate species and their habitats.

As compared to Alternative A, the area suitable for summer motor vehicle use would increase by 

about 7 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests, and change little on the WallowaWhitman National Forest. The area suitable for winter over-the-snow vehicle use decreases by 

less than 5 percent on all National Forests. Winter recreation is a risk factor for wolverine (Wales 

et al. 2011).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

254

Alternative B includes a guideline that would prohibit new road and trail construction within 

existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would reduce 

road-associated risk factors to surrogate species such as displacement from key habitats, risk of 

mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to 

the population viability of surrogate species that are sensitive to motorized disturbance because it 

includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of roads on habitat effectiveness. 

Similar to Alternative A, this alternative does not alter the current effects that summer and winter 

motorized trails have on habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species.

Alternative C

The implementation of Alternative C would provide the greatest reduction in the effects of 

motorized access on surrogate wildlife species. Desired Conditions for MA3C (Wildlife Corridor) 

would result in road density of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5 percent of the Umatilla 

National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and about 10 percent of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Alternative C would reduce the area designated as suitable 

for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on the Malheur, and 53 

percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forest compared to the current condition. In addition, 

Alternative C includes a standard that would prohibit new system road and trail construction 

within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would 

reduce road-associated risk factors to surrogate species such as displacement from key habitats, 

risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods.

This alternative would also address risk-factors to surrogate wildlife species associated with 

winter motorized access such as the potential for displacement from key habitats or disturbance 

during critical time periods (such as wolverine denning). This alternative would reduce the 

amount of area suitable for winter motorized access by 30 percent on the Umatilla, 28 percent on 

the Malheur, and 38 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forests compared to the current 

condition. It does not designate any backcountry-motorized management areas and 505,000 acres 

are recommended for wilderness.

Summary: The implementation of Alternative C would make the greatest contribution to the 

viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species influenced by risk factors associated with both 

summer and winter motorized access because the area suitable for motorized use would be much 

less than under other alternatives. However, the widespread influence of existing roads across the 

Plan Area would continue to limit the viability outcomes for some surrogate wildlife species

(such as wolverine Table 333 through Table 335).

Alternative D

This alternative responds to requests for more public motor vehicle access. This alternative results 

in more areas suitable for summer and winter motor vehicle use compared to the other 

alternatives. In this alternative, the desired conditions for open motor vehicle route density in 

General Forest (MA-4A) is 3 miles per square mile or less.

As compared to Alternative A, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 10 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests, and change 

little on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The percent change in area suitable for winter 

motor vehicle use changes little.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

255

Alternative D includes a guideline that would prohibit new road and trail construction within 

existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to 

the population viability of surrogate species that are sensitive to motorized disturbance because it 

provides more areas suitable for summer and winter motor vehicle use as well as higher open 

motor vehicle use compared to the other alternatives. Risks caused by motorized travel is highest 

in this alternative as compared to all other alternatives.

Alternatives E and F

The main difference between Alternatives E and F is the amount of vegetation treatment. There is 

no difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives, however the 

amount of human disturbance during restoration treatments will be greater in Alternative E, as 

acres treated per year is higher.

These alternatives includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of motorized 

access on surrogate species and their habitats. These alternatives contains no desired conditions 

for open-road densities in General Forest (MA-4A), although there are designated small amounts 

of wildlife corridor (MA 3C) linking high quality, unroaded wildlife habitats, which has a desired 

condition of open motor vehicle route density of less than 1 mile per square mile. However, the 

area in this management area is less than 22,000 acres on only the Umatilla National Forest and 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest combined.

As compared to the no action alternative, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor 

vehicle use would increase by about 8 percent on the Malheur National Forest and decrease by 

less than 10 percent on both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. For both these 

alternatives, the percent change in area suitable for winter over-the-snow vehicle use change little 

on the Malheur National Forest, and decrease by less than 10 percent on both the Umatilla and 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Winter recreation is a risk factor for wolverine (Wales et al. 

2011).

Alternatives E and F include guidelines that would prohibit new road and trail construction within 

existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas.

Summary: These alternatives includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of 

roads on habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species. Risks caused by motorized travel in 

both these alternatives is likely similar to Alternatives A and B. Risk remains high as little change 

is expected in motorized travel as compared to the existing condition. On the Malheur, risks to 

surrogate species could actually increase due to the increase in area suitable for motor vehicle 

use.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

These alternatives includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of motorized 

access on surrogate species and their habitats. Management direction for roads would include no 

net increase in road miles in key watersheds. The amount of area designated as suitable for 

summer motorized use would decrease by 2 percent on the Umatilla, increase by 5 percent on the 

Malheur, and decrease by 4 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The area suitable 

for winter-motorized access would be reduced by 7 percent on the Umatilla, 2 percent on the 

Malheur, and 5 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

256

This alternative includes a guideline to increase elk security in elk priority areas. We cannot 

estimate future road densities within elk priority areas but they will be reduced from the current 

condition to meet objectives for elk security. Exact locations of road closures would be 

determined by site-specific analyses and depend on other competing uses of the national forest 

and available funding.

Summary: These alternatives includes limited management direction to reduce the impact of 

motorized access on habitats for surrogate wildlife species. The widespread influence of existing 

roads across the Plan Area would continue. As a result, the risk factors associated with motorized 

access would continue to reduce the viability of some surrogate wildlife species (e.g., see 

wolverine, Table 333 through Table 335). However, these two alternatives would likely provide 

the second greatest contribution toward the population viability of surrogate species, after 

Alternative C, due to the amount of area suitable for summer and winter motor vehicle use and 

the incorporation of the elk priority areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Livestock Grazing and Surrogate Wildlife Species

Grazing can influence habitats of surrogate wildlife species by removing key habitat elements 

(such as dense shrubs for MacGillivray’s warbler and fox sparrow), especially in riparian habitats, 

altering disturbance regimes that maintain habitat structure (like frequent fires in dry forests and 

grasslands keep open canopy for western bluebird), and influence the availability of important 

prey items (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 2017). To address the potential effects on surrogate 

wildlife species, the management direction regarding grazing in riparian habitat and upland 

habitats for each alternative was assessed. Surrogate wildlife species influenced by grazing

include the ash-throated flycatcher, MacGillivray’s warbler, Western bluebird, Cassin’s finch, fox 

sparrow, lark sparrow, and northern harrier.

Alternative A – No Action

Alternative A would continue current Forest Plan direction as amended by PACFISH and INFISH 

requirements. This alternative has similar objective levels for numbers and locations of cattle and 

sheep as Alternatives B, E, and F, although utilization rates are higher.

Presently, some riparian habitats are in poor condition due to the effects of past and current 

grazing. The plan direction for this alternative would have little effect on altering the distribution 

of livestock that would allow riparian habitats to recover.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would likely make a relatively low 

contribution to viability for surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing 

because it contains limited management direction for riparian habitat to reduce the negative 

effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition, and would not change the number, 

grazing intensity or distribution of livestock.

Alternative B

Implementation of alternative B would continue the trend towards improved rangeland vegetation 

conditions at about the same rate as Alternative A. This alternative is similar in objective levels 

for numbers and locations of cattle and sheep as Alternatives A, B, E, and F. Overall there will 

likely be a slow to moderate rate of progress toward achieving rangeland vegetation desired 

conditions. Alternative B would create a Guideline that grazing after wildland fire should be 

managed so as not to cause a trend away from the key species desired condition. In the long term, 

forage vigor and quality may be improved (RNG-1-G-43).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

257

Grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective than Alternatives EModified or E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS 

components. The 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS, which is applicable to these two additional 

alternatives, provides additional protection measures (GM-3G) in the riparian management areas 

as compared to all other alternatives.

Summary: Similar to Alternative A, the implementation of this alternative would likely make a 

relatively low contribution to viability for surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by 

domestic grazing because it contains limited management direction for riparian habitat to reduce 

the negative effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition, and would not change the 

number, grazing intensity or distribution of livestock.

Alternative C

The risk factors associated with grazing are widespread across the Plan Area and influence the 

viability outcomes for several surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011). This alternative 

would classify riparian habitats and subwatersheds with listed fish species as unsuitable for cattle 

grazing, benefiting riparian associated wildlife species. Presently, many riparian habitats are in 

poor to moderate condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction for 

this alternative would make a considerable improvement on altering the distribution of livestock 

that would allow riparian habitats to recover.

Alternative C would reduce the number of cattle and sheep animal unit months from 37,800 to 

4,200 for Umatilla National Forest, from 123,500 to 62,200 for Malheur National Forest, and 

from 81,500 to 29,500 for Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. This reduction in animal unit 

months is significantly greater than any of the other alternatives. In addition, this alternative 

would designate much fewer acres as suitable for grazing (43,000 acres for Umatilla; 675,000 

acres for Malheur; 157,000 acres for Wallow-Whitman). This alternative reduces the risk factors 

associated with grazing and improves viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species that are 

influenced by grazing, including those associated with grassland-shrubland habitats (Table 333

through Table 335), on each of the National Forests and across the Plan Area.

Alternative C proposes that grazing after wildland fire should be deferred until vegetation 

recovers to a condition where grazing will not cause the percent composition of native species to 

be reduced (cause a likely downward trend in key species) (RNG-1-G-43). This generally will be 

a minimum of 5 years, but could be up to 10 years depending on the extent and severity of the fire 

and other factors.

Summary: The risk factors associated with grazing are widespread across the Plan Area and 

influence the viability outcomes for several surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011; 

Appendix A). This alternative provides the greatest contribution toward reducing the risk factors 

associated with grazing and improves viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species on each of 

the national forests and across the Plan Area due to the reduced acres suitable for grazing, the 

reduced animal unit months, and the post-fire rest requirements.

Alternative D - Livestock Grazing and Surrogate Wildlife Species

Alternative D would use desired conditions to address livestock grazing and rangeland vegetation 

rather than the standards and guidelines proposed for all other alternatives. Riparian management 

areas are the narrowest of all alternatives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

258

Acres suitable for grazing vary by national forest. On the Umatilla, the acreage would be slightly 

less for Alternative D than for Alternative A and the same as Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F. On the Wallowa-Whitman, acres suitable for grazing would be greater 

for Alternative D than under Alternatives A, B, E, and F, but less than Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure. On the Malheur, the acreage suitable for grazing under Alternative D 

would be greater than Alternatives A, E, and F, but less than under Alternatives B, E-Modified, 

and E-Modified Departure.

Animal unit months would also vary by national forest. On the Umatilla, animal unit months 

under Alternative D would be similar to Alternatives A, B, E, and F, but less than Alternatives EModified, and E-Modified Departure. On the Wallowa-Whitman, animal unit months under 

Alternative D would be greater than Alternatives A, B, E, and F, but less than Alternatives EModified, and E-Modified Departure. Alternative D’s projected rate of progress toward achieving 

rangeland vegetation desired condition is slow on the Malheur National Forest and moderate on 

the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective for Alternative D than for 

Alternative E-Modified or E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy components.

Summary: The risk factors associated with grazing are widespread across the Plan Area and 

influence the viability outcomes for several surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011; 

Appendix A). This alternative would provide the least protective measure for surrogate wildlife 

species across the Plan Area. Even though this alternative has fewer acres identified as suitable 

for grazing and fewer animal unit months than Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure, the narrow riparian management areas and less protective grazing utilization 

guidelines would make it less effective in reducing the effects of grazing and creating more 

resilient landscapes than the other plan revision alternatives. This alternative does not reduce the 

risk factors associated with grazing and likely would not contribute to improving the viability 

outcomes for surrogate wildlife species on each of the national forests and across the Plan Area.

Alternatives E and F

These alternatives are similar in objective levels for numbers and locations of cattle and sheep as 

Alternatives A and B, although utilization rates in the uplands are more similar to E-Modified and 

E-Modified Departure. Alternatives E and F propose that grazing after wildland fire should be 

managed so as not to cause a trend away from the key species desired condition (RNG-1-G-43). 

This may include growing season deferment for one or more years following wildland fire.

Under Alternatives E and F, the rate of progress toward achieving rangeland vegetation desired 

condition is moderate on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman. On the Malheur, the rate of 

progress is slow to moderate. This is a faster rate of recovery than under Alternatives A, B, and D, 

but slower than under Alternatives E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure. This is because 

grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective in Alternatives E and F than 

Alternative E-Modified or E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains 

ARCS components.

Summary: The implementation of these alternatives would make a moderate contribution to 

viability for surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. These alternatives 

would adjust livestock distribution and grazing intensity to protect unique habitats such as 

riparian areas and wetlands, and this alternative would include management direction that could 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

259

make habitats that are sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient. However, the 

grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective than those of Alternative EModified or E-Modified Departure.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

These alternatives includes ecologically based desired conditions for upland non-forest habitats 

(rangeland and alpine habitats) and guidelines to protect unique habitats. These alternatives 

would include an increase in the allowable animal unit months (49,200 for Umatilla; 133,200 for 

Malheur; 112,000 for Wallowa-Whitman) but would reduce the upland allowable forage 

utilization to 40 percent. These changes from the existing condition would improve the condition 

of grasslands, reducing the impacts of grazing on surrogate wildlife species associated with 

grassland-shrubland habitats.

These alternatives includes management direction for grazing in riparian habitats to improve 

riparian habitat condition. Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor to moderate condition due 

to the effects of past and current grazing. The plan direction would likely improve the viability 

outcomes for riparian-associated surrogate species whose habitats are influenced by grazing. The 

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (2018), as described in Alternatives 

E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, provides additional protection measures (e.g. GM-3G) in 

the riparian management areas as compared to all other alternatives.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure propose that grazing after wildland fire 

should be managed so as not to cause a trend away from the key species desired condition 

(Guideline LGRM-4G). This may include growing season deferment for one or more years 

following wildland fire.

Summary: The implementation of these alternatives would make a moderate contribution to 

viability for surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by domestic grazing. This 

determination is based on management direction for riparian habitats that would reduce the 

effects of grazing and improve riparian habitat condition. These alternatives would adjust 

livestock distribution and grazing intensity to protect unique habitats such as riparian areas and 

wetlands, and this alternative would include management direction that could make habitats that 

are sensitive to the effects of climate change more resilient. Although not as beneficial as 

Alternative C, these alternatives would provide greater benefit to surrogate wildlife species than 

other alternatives due to the additional riparian protection measures and the faster rate of progress 

toward achieving desired conditions.

Direct and Indirect Effects Snag Habitat Associated Surrogate Wildlife Species

Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, whiteheaded woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and western bluebird.

The availability of large snags (generally greater than 20 inches diameter) across the landscape 

has been reduced below historic levels by past management practices, especially within dry and 

mesic forests (Hessburg et al. 1999, Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck et al. 

2013).

Some forest activities directly influence the availability of habitat for snag-dependent surrogate 

species. These include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), hazard tree 

reduction that causes the loss of snag habitat along roads and at recreation sites (Bate et al. 2007, 

Hollenbeck et al. 2013, Wisdom and Bate 2008), and removal of snags during timber harvest for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

260

safety reasons (Wisdom and Bate 2008). In addition, the alteration of natural disturbance regimes 

can have considerable influence on the availability of snag habitat.

All alternatives have plan components for protection of known cavity or nest trees. Additionally, 

all alternatives except Alternative D have additional measures to protect bat maternity and roost 

sites, which may be snags.

Protection measures for prohibiting firewood collection in riparian management areas will 

maintain important habitat features for several surrogate species. The risk to larger snags (21 

inches diameter and larger) from firewood harvest is currently ameliorated on all three national 

forests by restricting harvest to within 300 feet of a road and to snags less than 20 inches diameter 

per the firewood collection permit. Alternatives B, C, E, and F contain a standard to protect all 

snags 21 inches diameter and larger, including firewood collection. Alternatives D, E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure contain no restrictions on snag size for firewood collection.

Post-fire snag protection measures would ensure some areas of each wildfire would be 

unharvested, and thus provide a diverse distribution of post-fire snag densities. Several studies 

have found that in recently burned forests, black-backed woodpecker nest sites were found at 

higher densities and had higher nest success in areas with high densities of standing snags, and 

unsalvaged areas (Haggard and Gaines 2001, Saab and Dudley 1998, Saab et al. 2009). Partially 

salvage-logged wildfires in Idaho contain fewer black-backed woodpecker nests but more Lewis's 

woodpecker nests than unlogged areas (Saab et al., 2002; Saab et al., 2004). Retaining larger 

snags during salvage will benefit species such as Lewis’s woodpecker and white-headed 

woodpeckers as these species are found to prefer larger snags for nesting. Additionally, many 

studies have found that larger diameter snags remain standing longer (Bull, 1983; Morrison and 

Raphael, 1993; Harrington, 1996; Ganey and Vojta, 2005)

Alternative A – No Action

The existing Forest Plan management direction for snag habitat to address the potential loss of 

habitat in timber sale operations was based on snag densities that more recent science has shown 

would not provide for viable populations of snag dependent species. This alternative includes a 

diameter limit on the size of snags cut for firewood as in Alternatives B, C, E, and F as there is a 

standard to protect all snags 21 inches diameter and larger.

Existing management plans provide limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects of roads on 

surrogate species habitats, such as the loss of snag habitat, because current management direction 

for roads is limited.

Summary: Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protections for snag dependent wildlife 

that remain below the historical capacity. The negative effects of roads on the loss of snag habitat 

would not be addressed. The viability outcomes for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species 

would likely not be improved.

Alternative B

The implementation of this alternative includes a standard to protect known cavity and nest trees, 

all snags 21 inches diameter and larger, and retain 50 percent of snags 12-20 inches diameter. 

This standard would apply wherever mechanical treatments occur, including in post-fire timber

harvest areas. This alternative contains a guideline to retain live old forest trees 21 inches 

diameter and larger with few exceptions. Protection of larger trees will provide more potential 

large snags in the future.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

261

There are desired conditions for snag densities based on the historical range of variability, which 

are the same as described in Alternatives C, D, E, F. This alternative includes a diameter limit on 

the size of snags cut for firewood as in Alternatives A, C, E, and F as there is a standard to protect 

all snags 21 inches diameter and larger.

This alternative includes limited management direction to reduce the effects of motorized access 

on surrogate species and their habitats. Open motor vehicle route density would change from a 

standard and/or guideline in Alternative A to a desired condition depending on the management 

area. The guideline to prohibit new roads or trails within old forest stands will reduce the 

potential for loss of snags due to firewood removal and safety considerations.

Summary: Overall, this alternative would provide snag protections for snag dependent wildlife, 

although the negative effects of roads on the loss of snag habitat would not be addressed. The 

viability outcomes for snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species would likely be improved from 

Alternative A because snag densities would be based on the historical range of variability.

Alternative C

Alternative C includes a standard to protect known cavity and nest trees, to protect all snags 21 

inches diameter and larger, and retain 50 percent of snags 12-20 inches diameter. This standard 

would apply wherever mechanical treatments occur, including in post-fire timber harvest areas. 

This alternative contains a standard to retain live old forest trees 21 inches diameter and larger, 

with few exceptions. Protection of larger trees will provide more potential large snags in the 

future.

Implementation of Alternative C would reduce the loss of snag habitat associated with roads. The 

area suitable for motor vehicle use is less than in any other alternative. Desired Conditions for 

MA3C (Wildlife Corridor) would result in road density of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5 

percent of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and 

about 10 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. In addition, Alternative C includes a 

standard that would prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest and high 

elevation riparian areas.

Summary: The implementation of Alternative C would provide management direction to retain 

all large snags and somewhat reduce the loss of snag habitat along roads by reducing road 

densities in some areas. This alternative would provide a relatively high contribution to the 

viability of snag-dependent surrogate wildlife species compared to the other alternatives because 

it protects known cavity and nest trees, all snags greater than 21 inches, and retains 50 percent of 

snags 12 to 20 inches in diameter, which is more snag retention than any other action alternative.

Alternative D

This alternative has no standard or guideline prohibiting the harvest of trees or snags greater than 

21 inches diameter or trees with old forest characteristics. However, like Alternatives B, C, E, and 

F, there are desired conditions for snag densities based on the historical range of variability, which 

are the same as described in Alternatives C, D, E, and F.

All alternatives have plan components to protect of known cavity or nest trees, though this 

alternative does not have an additional guideline to protect bat maternity and roost sites, which 

may be snags.

This alternative includes the least management direction to reduce the effects of motorized access 

on surrogate species and their habitats. Bate et al. (2007) and Wisdom and Bate (2008), found that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

262

snag numbers were lower adjacent to roads due to removal for safety considerations, removal as 

firewood, and other management activities (Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate (2008), 

Hollenbeck et al. 2013).

This alternative has no plan components in post-fire habitats. Salvage harvest will likely reduce 

habitat for species associated with post-fire habitat, especially those that prefer high densities of 

larger snags.

Summary: Overall, the risks to snags will likely be highest under Alternative D so this 

alternative would be least favorable for snag-dependent species. Surrogate species associated with 

snags may have reduced habitat quality across the plan area due to the higher road densities and 

fewer standards and guides that protect snags. The viability outcomes for snag-dependent 

surrogate wildlife species would likely not improve.

Alternatives E and F

Snag protection guidelines for mechanical treatment activities that occur within dry or cool moist 

forest habitat, retain all snags 21 inches diameter and larger and 50 percent of the snags from 12 to 

21 inches diameter, except for the removal of danger/hazard trees. A similar guideline would also 

apply in post-fire habitats. This direction is similar to that of Alternatives B and C.

The desired conditions for snag densities based on the historical range of variability are the same 

as described in Alternatives C, D, E, and F. This alternative includes a diameter limit on the size 

of snags cut for firewood as in Alternatives A, B, and C as there is a standard to protect all snags

21 inches diameter and larger.

Under this alternative there are no standards or guidelines prohibiting the harvest of trees 21 

inches diameter and larger, although there are guidelines to retain older trees (either addressed by 

age (Alternative F) or tree characteristics (Alternative E).

Summary: Overall, the effects of these alternatives on snag associated surrogate wildlife species 

will likely be similar to Alternative B because there are limited protection measures of large snags 

and trees during all vegetation management projects including salvage harvest and there is limited 

management direction to reduce the effects of motorized access on surrogate species and their 

habitats.

Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure

Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure include desired conditions and guidelines to 

restore the abundance and spatial arrangement of snags that are 10-20 inches diameter and larger 

than 20 inches diameter. The desired conditions are based on estimates of the range of variability 

for each habitat type (Mellen-McLean et al. 2009) applied at the landscape scale and 

commensurate with the disturbance regimes. Over time, these alternatives should restore large 

snags to their historic levels.

The desired conditions also set levels for snag habitat in post-fire landscapes. In addition, 

guidelines would limit post-fire salvage treatments in situations where desired conditions for 

post-fire habitats are not met, and limit post-fire salvage treatments to fire events larger than 100 

acres (expect in some circumstances in the wildland urban interface). The implementation of this 

management direction should restore the abundance and spatial arrangement of habitat for snagassociated surrogate wildlife species and improve their viability outcomes.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

263

Summary: Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure include management direction 

based on restoring the abundance and spatial arrangement of snag habitat based on estimated 

range of variability, including post-fire landscapes. These alternatives would focus on restoring 

disturbance regimes within dry forests that influence the availability and condition of snag 

habitat. However, these alternatives includes limited management direction that would reduce the 

loss of snag habitat associated with roads (Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck 

et al. 2013), and has limited protection of large trees or snags. These alternatives should provide 

the greatest benefit to species associated with large snags in the long term because forest 

vegetation treatments will accelerate the development of large trees, which will eventually make 

large snags. However, these alternatives are probably less beneficial to species that use small 

snags than Alternative C, which having less harvest, would produce more competition, disease, 

and snags.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Riparian Associated Surrogate Wildlife Species

Forest activities that directly influence the quality and availability of habitat for riparian 

dependent surrogate species include management of roads, recreation sites, grazing, and 

vegetation treatments that occur within riparian habitats (Wisdom et al. 2000, Gaines et al. 2017).

Alternative B, similar to alternatives C, D, E, and F includes direction under the Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (2008). This older Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy, does not include as many protective measures for rangeland and riparian 

condition as the newer Strategy (2018) prescribed in the two additional alternatives, Alternatives 

E-Modified and E-Modified Departure.

Alternative A – No Action

The description of the PACFISH and INFISH riparian management objectives as described in 

Appendix A would be considered the desired conditions. These riparian conditions would remain 

similar to the desired conditions described in the 1990 Forest Plans.

In this alternative, management direction for watersheds and riparian habitats is not consolidated 

into one consistent set of plan components (that is, direction is in both the existing Forest Plan

and in the PACFISH and INFISH amendment). Standards and guidelines would limit 

management activities allowed to occur within riparian habitats. This alternative includes smaller 

(compared to other alternatives except D) riparian management area widths along intermittent 

streams, lakes, and ponds.

The implementation of this alternative would not reduce the effects of roads on riparian habitats. 

Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protection for riparian associated wildlife that is 

similar to alternative D, but less than the other alternatives.

Conditions that contribute to viability of surrogate species would be maintained at levels below 

the historical capability and viability outcomes would not be considerably improved.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would likely make a relatively low 

contribution to the viability of riparian dependent surrogate wildlife species. This alternative 

lacks effective and clear management direction to reduce the negative effects of roads on riparian 

habitat for surrogate wildlife species. More rigorous riparian management direction included in 

other alternatives (e.g., GM-3G in E-Modified), which better protects riparian habitats, would 

better address potential effects of climate change and cumulative effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

264

Alternative B

This alternative proposes to manage riparian conditions through riparian management areas, 

identified as MA 4B. Similar to all plan revision alternatives there are several standards and 

guidelines that will protect and restore riparian habitats.

The riparian management area width would be the same as those used for riparian habitat 

conservation areas in key and priority watersheds for PACFISH and INFISH and would apply 

throughout the Plan Area. Habitats for fish species with management concerns (at-risk species) 

would be managed consistent with the 2008 Regional Aquatic Restoration and Conservation 

Strategy.

Within riparian management areas, the guideline for maximum percent utilization of both woody 

and herbaceous vegetation is 40 percent, which is the highest of all alternatives. Protection 

measure for prohibiting firewood collection in riparian management areas will maintain important 

habitat features for several wildlife species. Additionally, trees felled for safety in riparian 

management areas shall be retained onsite.

Summary: Overall, this alternative would provide habitat protection for riparian associated 

wildlife that is similar to alternatives E and F, but less than Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure. The viability outcome for surrogate wildlife species would likely improve, 

although not to the same degree as those alternatives with the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS 

components.

Grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective than Alternative E-Modified 

or E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS components. This 

alternative has limited management direction to reduce the impacts of roads on riparian habitats.

Alternative C

The influence of roads across the Plan Area is extensive and reduces the viability outcomes for 

several riparian habitat-associated surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011; Table 333

through Table 335). The implementation of this alternative would have the greatest reduction in 

the negative effects of roads on surrogate wildlife species. Desired Conditions for MA 3C 

(Wildlife Corridor) would result in road densities of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5 percent 

of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and about 10 

percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. In addition, Alternative C includes a standard 

that would prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest and high elevation 

riparian habitats. This management direction would reduce road-associated risk factors to 

surrogate species such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with 

vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods.

The risk factors associated with grazing are widespread across the Plan Area and influence the 

viability outcomes for several riparian habitat-associated surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 

2011; Table 333 through Table 335). Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor to moderate 

condition due to the effects of past and current grazing. Alternative C would reduce the number of 

cattle and sheep animal unit months (to 4,200 for Umatilla National Forest; 62,200 for Malheur 

National Forest; 29,500 for Wallowa-Whitman National Forest). This alternative would classify 

riparian habitats and subwatersheds with listed fish species as unsuitable for cattle grazing, 

benefiting riparian associated wildlife species. This alternative includes a relatively high amount 

of area (Umatilla 499,800 acres (36 percent), Malheur 368,000 acres (22 percent), WallowaWhitman 727,500 acres (40 percent)) designated as riparian management areas, where 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

265

management activities would emphasize restoration and maintenance of riparian and aquatic 

habitat objectives. This alternative reduces the risk factors associated with grazing and improves 

viability outcomes for riparian-associated surrogate wildlife species that are influenced by 

grazing (Table 333 through Table 335) on each of the national forests and across the Plan Area.

Summary: The influence that roads and grazing currently have across the Plan Area is 

widespread and reduces the viability outcomes for several riparian-associated surrogate wildlife 

species (Wales et al. 2011). Alternative C would reduce risk factors to riparian-associated wildlife 

species and include management direction to protect and restore riparian habitats. This would 

result in improvement in viability outcomes for riparian-associated surrogate species on each 

national forest and across the Plan Area (Table 333 through Table 335). This alternative would be 

most beneficial to riparian dependent species due to the decreased road densities, reduction in 

animal unit months and elimination of grazing in riparian habitats and subwatersheds with listed 

fish.

Alternative D

The approach to management of riparian conditions would be similar to Alternative B in that 

riparian management areas (MA 4B) would be designated where they occur within general forest 

(MA 4A), although these areas would be the narrowest of all alternatives and thus the area in MA 

4B is the lowest of all alternatives.

Alternative D proposes higher utilization within riparian management areas as compared to other 

alternatives. Utilization in these riparian areas is up to 40 percent for both woody and deciduous 

vegetation. Additionally, with the exception of Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure, this alternative proposes the most animal unit months. The higher level of utilization 

and number of livestock will likely lead to a greater degree of herbivory and trampling within the 

riparian areas.

Summary: The implementation of this alternative would likely make a relatively low 

contribution to the viability of riparian dependent surrogate wildlife species. This alternative has 

the narrowest riparian management areas, which would reduce the protection and restoration of 

riparian habitats. Grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective than in 

Alternative E-Modified or E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains 

Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy components. This alternative has limited 

management direction to reduce the impacts of roads on riparian habitats. Additionally, this 

alternative would not emphasize landscape restoration that would reduce the potential effects of 

uncharacteristically severe fires on riparian habitats.

Alternatives E and F

These alternatives proposal for managing riparian conditions is the use of riparian management 

areas with the same desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and riparian management area 

widths proposed for Alternative B. Alternative F has guidelines for grazing utilization that are 

slightly less restrictive than Alternative E.

The 2008 Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy in Alternatives E and F will provide 

protection for riparian habitats that would be stronger than alternative B with the addition of 

stricter livestock grazing utilization guidelines for most watersheds. However, this older strategy

does not include as many protective measures for rangeland and riparian condition as the 2018 

Blue Mountains ARCS prescribed in Alternatives E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

266

The maximum utilization for both woody and deciduous vegetation is prescribed at 25 percent 

within bull trout spawning and rearing reaches and 40 percent for all other watercourses including 

anadromous fish reaches. These utilization guidelines are in between Alternative B and C and 

similar to alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure and would likely lead to improved 

habitats for riparian associated surrogate species.

Summary: These alternatives would likely enhance the viability outcomes for riparian-associated 

surrogate wildlife species, though likely less than Alternatives C, E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure. Grazing utilization guidelines in the riparian areas are less protective than Alternatives 

E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, which are using the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy components.

Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure

These alternatives include an ecologically based strategy for aquatic and riparian ecosystems 

(Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy 2018) that addresses many of the 

risk factors that influence viability outcomes for riparian-associated surrogate wildlife species. 

This includes management direction for vegetation management, grazing, and roads. Vegetation 

management within riparian management areas (Umatilla 237,500 acres (17 percent), Malheur 

192,900 acres (11 percent), and Wallowa-Whitman 360,100 acres (20 percent)) would emphasize 

the attainment of aquatic and riparian habitat objectives. This would maintain or restore riparian 

vegetation that provides key habitat for riparian-associated surrogate species.

These alternatives include management direction for grazing in riparian habitats to improve 

riparian habitat condition. Presently, many riparian habitats are in poor to moderate condition due 

to the effects of past and current grazing. The management direction under these alternatives 

would likely improve the viability outcomes for riparian-associated surrogate species whose 

habitats are influenced by grazing. The 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS also includes standards that 

road maintenance and new road construction shall be designed to minimize adverse effects to 

threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate aquatic species and that riparian management 

areas include portions of watersheds where aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive 

primary management emphasis. These standards will provide significant benefit to riparian 

species.

These alternatives include limited management direction to address the effects of motorized 

access on surrogate species habitats. Management direction for roads would include no net 

increase in road miles in key watersheds and a standard for no net loss of elk security. There 

would be reductions in road densities within elk priority areas. However, the exact amount and 

locations would depend on site-specific analyses. There are 39 key watersheds covering 570,000 

acres on the Umatilla National Forest, 35 key watershed covering 563,800 acres on the Malheur 

National Forest, and 70 key watersheds covering 931,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest. The influence that roads currently have across the Plan Area is extensive and 

reduces the viability outcomes for several surrogate wildlife species (Wales et al. 2011; see 

wolverine Table 333 through Table 335).

Summary: These alternatives would enhance the viability outcomes for riparian-associated 

surrogate wildlife species. These alternatives would provide management direction so that 

vegetation management would emphasize the attainment of aquatic and riparian objectives. These 

alternatives includes management direction that would reduce the impacts of grazing and improve 

riparian habitat conditions. However, these alternatives have limited management direction to 

reduce the impacts of roads on riparian habitats. It is likely that Alternatives E-Modified and E-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

267

Modified Departure would provide the greatest benefit to riparian species due to the inclusion of 

the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS followed by Alternative C due to the reduced road densities and 

wider riparian buffers.

Climate Change and Surrogate Wildlife Species

The anticipated climatic changes to eastern Oregon environments are likely to result in a variety 

of effects to wildlife populations and their habitats (Stine et al. 2014, Halofsky and Peterson 

2017). A striking conclusion reached from several climate change studies is the degree of change 

to wildlife habitats and populations that has already occurred (Lawler and Mathias 2007, Root et 

al. 2003). A variety of responses of wildlife to changing climatic conditions have occurred or are 

anticipated to occur including changes in species distributions, changes in the timing of breeding 

and other activities, changes in pathogens and invasive species distributions, changes in survival 

and extinction risks, and changes in the interactions among species (Gaines et al. 2012, Stine et 

al. 2014). To aid in the assessment of the effects of climate change and forest management 

activities on surrogate wildlife species the Climate Change Sensitivity Database (CCSD 2013) 

was used to determine the vulnerability of each species and the particular effects that climate 

change might have given their life history. The vulnerability ratings for the surrogate wildlife 

species assessed for the Blue Mountains plan revisions showed 11 (48 percent) are highly 

vulnerable to the effects of climate change, 10 (43 percent) have a moderate rating, and 2 (9 

percent) have a low vulnerability rating (Table 332).

Climate Change and Old Forest Species

The sensitivity of old forest associated surrogate wildlife species to the effects of climate change 

were identified as medium for pileated woodpecker, and high for northern goshawk and American 

marten (CCSD 2013). The primary effect of climate change is likely to be the loss of old forest 

habitats due to altered disturbance regimes (CCSD 2013).

Since the mid-1980s, the size and intensity of large wildfires in the western United States have 

increased markedly (Westerling et al. 2006, Westerling 2016), due, in part, to a reduction in fuel 

moisture driven by increased temperature and lower snowpack. In the interior Columbia Basin, 

Littell et al. (2009) predicted that the area burned is likely to double or even triple by 2050. 

Climate-driven changes in fire regimes would likely be the dominant driver of changes to forests 

and old forest habitats in the western United States over the next century (McKenzie et al. 2004).

Challenges to habitat reserves can occur in ecosystems that are influenced by fire as research has 

shown that wildfires greatly influenced the amount and location of old-forest habitats across the 

landscape (Hessburg et al. 1999, 2007, 2015). In addition, as climate changes old forest 

associated species may need to adjust their ranges to find suitable climatic conditions and a static 

reserve network may not accommodate these movements (Araujo et al. 2004, Carroll et al. 2009, 

Carroll et al. 2010).

The forest restoration approach that is emphasized in dry forests in alternatives D, E, F, EModified, and E-Modified Departure represents the implementation of an adaptive strategy to 

create landscapes more resilient to climate change (Spies et al. 2010, Halofsky and Peterson 

2017). Landscape-scale restoration has been identified as an adaptive strategy to maintain latesuccessional and old forest habitat structure (Lawler et al. 2014). The emphasis on restoration of 

resiliency would result in landscapes, including disturbance regimes, which are more resilient to 

climate change through the application of restoration treatments in priority locations (Noss et al. 

2006, Spies et al. 2006, Gaines et al. 2010, Franklin and Johnson 2012). By strategically locating 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

268

restoration treatments, fire behavior can be altered to be more similar to native disturbance 

regimes and the risk of loss of old forest habitat to uncharacteristically severe fires can be reduced 

(Finney 2001, Finney et al. 2006, Ager et al. 2007, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007). In addition, 

implementation of these alternatives would include greater use of managed fire to achieve desired 

conditions for restoration and resiliency (Noss et al. 2006, Franklin and Johnson 2012). A 

landscape restoration approach is not emphasized in alternatives A, B, or C and these alternatives 

would result in a less resilient landscape than the other alternatives.

Table 332. Climate change vulnerability ratings for wildlife species assessed in the Blue Mountains 

Forest plan revision

Wildlife Species Vulnerability Rating Specific Climate Impacts

American marten High Changes to habitat distribution and amount

Ash-throated Flycatcher Medium Changes to habitat distribution and amount

Bald eagle Low Changes to fish populations

Black-backed Woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Boreal owl High Associated with habitat sensitive to climate 

change

Cassin’s finch High Changes to extreme temperatures and dry air

Columbia spotted frog High Changes to wetland and riparian habitats

Fox sparrow Medium Changes to habitat distribution and amount

Lark sparrow Medium Changes to habitat distribution and amount

Lewis’s woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Macgillivray’s Warbler Medium Changes to habitat distribution and amount

Marsh wren High Riparian habitats high sensitivity to climate 

change

Northern goshawk High Changes to food supply and suitable habitat

Northern harrier Medium Changes in the distribution and amount of 

primary habitat

Peregrine falcon Low Generalist with high mobility

Pileated woodpecker Medium Loss of habitat due to altered disturbance 

regimes

Rocky Mountain tailed-frog High Loss of habitat, changes to stream 

temperatures

Sage thrasher Medium Changes in the distribution and amount of 

primary habitat

Water vole High Riparian habitats high sensitivity to climate 

change

Western bluebird High Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes. Changes from competition with other 

cavity nesters.

White-headed Woodpecker Medium Changes to habitat from altered disturbance 

regimes

Wilson’s snipe High Riparian habitats high sensitivity to climate 

change

Wolverine High Changes in persistence of spring snow used 

for denning
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

269

Climate Change and Motorized Access Effects to Species

The sensitivity of surrogate wildlife species to climate change, and that were used to assess the 

effects of motorized access, is rated as low for the bald eagle, and high for the American marten, 

northern goshawk, and wolverine (Table 332 CCSD 2013). An important climate change 

adaptation that has been recommended for wildlife is to reduce the effects of roads on habitat to 

restore habitat resiliency to the effects of climate change (Gaines et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014, 

Dwire and Sabine Mellmann-Brown 2017). By reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats 

(especially riparian and wetland habitats) can become more resilient to the effects of climate 

change, and habitat connectivity can be restored allowing wildlife to adjust their ranges as 

conditions change.

The management direction for roads provided in Alternative C would provide the greatest 

reduction in motorized access related risk factors for surrogate species followed by alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure. Alternatives B, E, and F include limited management 

direction to improve to habitat effectiveness for surrogate wildlife species by reducing road 

impacts and densities. Alternative A represent no change from the current condition and 

Alternative D would actually decrease habitat effectiveness relative to the existing condition.

Climate Change and Grazing Associated Species

Habitats that are particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change include riparian areas 

(including wetlands) and alpine areas (Lawler et al. 2014). A management adaptation to make 

these habitats more resilient to climate change is to reduce the effects of non-climatic stressors 

(such as roads, intense grazing, etc.)(Lawler et al. 2014).

Alternatives A, B, D, E, and F have limited management direction that would restore the 

resiliency of habitats that are sensitive to climate change. Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure include management direction that would help to restore the resiliency of habitats that 

are sensitive to climate change. Alternative C would provide the greatest reduction in risk factors 

to surrogate wildlife species that are associated with grazing, making habitat more resilient to the 

impacts of climate change.

Climate Change and Snag Associated Species

Surrogate wildlife species associated with snag habitats include the pileated woodpecker, whiteheaded woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, and Lewis’s woodpecker and the western 

bluebird. The woodpecker species have a medium sensitivity rating to climate change, while the 

western bluebird has high sensitivity (Table 332, CCSD 2013). The primary effect anticipated 

from climate change is the loss of habitat due to altered disturbance regimes that result in 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires. The increase in fire associated with climate change could 

create a short-term gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term reduction (80-100 years, Harrod 

et al. 1998) as snag attrition occurs.

Because alternative A does not focus on landscape scale restoration, the restoration of 

disturbances regimes would not be emphasized. Thus, habitat for snag dependent surrogate 

wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances associated with 

climate change, loss of snag habitat from relatively intense timber harvest, and loss associated 

with roads as snags are cut for firewood and to reduce hazard trees. The increase in fire associated 

with climate change could create a short-term gain in snag habitat followed by a long-term 

reduction (80-100 years, Harrod et al. 1998) as snags attrition occurs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

270

Alternative B focuses on restoring landscapes, their functions and their processes and to create 

resilient landscapes that are adaptable to climate change. The rate of restoration treatments is 

similar to Alternative A, which leads to slow improvement in landscape resiliency. The restoration 

approach that is emphasized in Alternative B would occur more slowly than Alternatives D, E, E 

Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F for the dry forests. However, this alternative would result 

in stands, landscapes, and disturbance regimes that are closer to the historic range of variability 

and are more resilient to climate change than under Alternative A.

Alternative D has the highest rate of restoration treatments of all the alternatives. However, 

because there are few protection measures for snags and large trees, habitat for snag dependent 

surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances 

associated with climate change, loss of snag habitat from relatively intense timber harvest, and 

loss associated with roads as snags are cut for firewood and to reduce hazard trees. The increase 

in fire associated with climate change could create a short-term gain in snag habitat followed by a 

long-term reduction (80-100 years, Harrod et al. 1998) as snags attrition occurs.

The restoration approach that is emphasized for the dry forests in alternatives E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F would result in stands, landscapes, and disturbance regimes that are 

closer to the historic range of variability and are more resilient to climate change. In addition, 

these alternatives includes the use of managed fire to achieve desired conditions for landscape 

restoration and resiliency. Because forest disturbances such as fire, insects, and diseases directly 

influence the availability of snag habitat over time, restoration of disturbance regimes to mimic 

natural processes would aid in restoring snag habitat.

Climate Change and Riparian Associated Species

Many of the riparian associated surrogate species are rated as high sensitivity to climate change 

(CCSD 2013) and riparian habitats are considered vulnerable to the anticipated effects of climate 

change (Lawler et al. 2014,). The primary effect anticipated from climate change is the loss of 

habitat, reduced connectivity of riparian habitats due to altered hydrologic and disturbance (fire) 

regimes (Lawler et al. 2014, Dwire and Mellmann-Brown 2017), and increased water 

temperatures (Stine et al. 2014, Isaak et al. 2016).

The emphasis of Alternative A is on timber management. Because this alternative does not focus 

on landscape scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances regimes would not be emphasized. 

Thus, habitat for riparian dependent surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate 

due to increased disturbances associated with climate change and some loss of riparian habitat 

from timber harvest. In addition, an important adaptation for climate change for riparian habitats 

is to restore their resiliency by reducing the negative effects of roads (Lawler et al. 2014). 

However, this alternative has limited management direction to reduce road effects on riparian 

habitats and does not emphasize watershed restoration.

The management direction in Alternative B would emphasize the protection and restoration of 

riparian habitats by reducing the non-climate stressors and enhancing the resiliency of these 

habitats. However, this alternative has limited management direction to reduce road effects on 

riparian habitats.

Alternative C includes management direction to protect and restore riparian habitats that would 

increase their resiliency to the effects of climate change. In addition, this alternative would make 

the greatest contribution to reducing road-related effects to surrogate species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

271

The management direction in Alternative D would provide the narrowest riparian management 

areas, which would reduce the protection and restoration of riparian habitats. The emphasis of this 

alternative is on relatively intensive timber management. Because, this alternative does not focus 

on landscape scale restoration, the restoration of disturbances, habitat for riparian dependent 

surrogate wildlife is likely to be lost at an accelerated rate due to increased disturbances 

associated with climate change and some loss of riparian habitat from timber harvest. However, 

this alternative has limited management direction to reduce road effects on riparian habitats and 

does not emphasize watershed restoration.

The landscape restoration approach that is emphasized in Alternatives E and F would result in 

landscapes, including disturbance regimes that are more resilient to climate change, though 

important riparian habitat protection measures are not included (e.g. GM-3G). However, these 

alternatives have limited management direction to reduce road effects on riparian habitats.

The management direction in Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

emphasize the protection and restoration of riparian habitats by reducing the non-climate stressors 

and enhancing the resiliency of these habitats. These alternatives would make some progress 

toward reducing road effects on riparian habitats, albeit less than Alternative C.

Summary for Surrogate Species

For the 23 species modeled for the existing condition within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests (see Table 334 and Table 335), and the 22 species modeled for the Malheur 

National Forest (see Table 333), the lack of open late old structure, especially in ponderosa pine, 

and the lack of early successional stages were identified as habitats of concern. Both have also 

been identified in the literature as concerns.

Environmental outcomes defined in Raphael et al. (2001) were used as a basis to describe five 

viability outcomes. These outcomes were calculated for current and historical conditions for each 

surrogate species to assess changes in habitat conditions. The term “suitable environment” refers 

to a combination of source habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and 

demographic performance of a surrogate species. The viability outcomes are based on departure 

from historical conditions. The five viability outcomes we used were:

1. Outcome A—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the 

species throughout the assessment area. Habitat abundance is high relative to historical 

conditions. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions 

provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intraspecific interactions for the 

surrogate species.

2. Outcome B—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the 

species. Suitable environments are of moderate to high abundance relative to historical 

conditions, but there may be gaps where suitable environments are absent or present in low 

abundance. However, any disjunctive areas of suitable environments are typically large 

enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species 

to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Species with this outcome are likely well 

distributed throughout most of the assessment area.

3. Outcome C—Suitable environments moderately distributed across the historical range of the 

species. Suitable environments exist at moderate abundance relative to historical conditions. 

Gaps where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance are large 

enough such that some subpopulations may be isolated, limiting opportunity for intraspecific 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

272

interactions especially for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for which this is 

not the historical condition, reduction in the species’ range in the assessment area may have 

resulted. Surrogate species with this outcome are likely well distributed in only a portion of 

the assessment area.

4. Outcome D—Suitable environments are low to moderately distributed across the historical 

range of the species. Suitable environments exist at low abundance relative to their historical 

conditions. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be 

self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the 

suitable environmental patches for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for 

which this is not the historical condition, reduction in species’ range in the assessment area 

may have resulted. These species may not be well distributed across the assessment area.

5. Outcome E—Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance 

relative to historical conditions. Suitable environments are not well distributed across the 

historical range of the species. For species with limited dispersal ability there may be little or 

no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in 

potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of 

such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the species’ range from historical 

conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition 

since the historical period. Surrogate species with this outcome are not well distributed 

throughout much of the assessment area.

Although it is anticipated that all species would remain viable for any of the alternatives, some 

alternatives show a higher likelihood for improved species viability than others. The following 

tables are intended to display the relative ranking of each alternative in addressing the viability 

concerns of the representative surrogate species.

Of the species that are highly departed from historic conditions, three of the species are associated 

with either early successional or more open habitats. Both of these habitat distributions are 

generally below what would be expected on the landscape. Swanson et al. (2010) called it the 

forgotten stage of forest succession and it has been identified by some as important in the 

conservation of bird species (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003, Fontaine et al. 2009). Both of these 

habitats would be created at higher levels for Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, and E-Modified 

Departure. These same three species are also all affected by grazing associated changes in 

vegetative structure. The threat from grazing would be greatest from Alternative D based on more 

acres being available for grazing, while the threat from the level of vegetative structure alteration 

would be greatest from Alternatives A and B. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

273

Table 333. Viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the Malheur National Forest in short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 

50 years) time periods. Current and historical outcomes were not modeled over time.

Surrogate Wildlife Species1

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

American Marten Short B/C D/E C C D D C D D D

American Marten Long No data No data C C C C C C/D C C

Ash-throated Flycatcher Short A D D D D D D D D D

Ash-throated Flycatcher Long No data No data D C D D D D D D

Bald Eagle Short A B B A/B B B B B B B

Bald Eagle Long No data No data B A/B B B B B B B

Black-backed Woodpecker Short A C C B/C C C C C C C

Black-backed Woodpecker Long No data No data C B C C C C C C

Boreal Owl Short B E C D C C C D C/D C/D

Boreal Owl Long No data No data C D B B C D C C/D

Cassin’s Finch Short A D C C C C C C C C

Cassin’s Finch Long No data No data C C B B B/C B/C B B

Columbia Spotted Frog Short A C C C C C C C C C

Columbia Spotted Frog Long No data No data C B C C C C C C

Fox Sparrow Short A D D D D D D D D D

Fox Sparrow Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Lark Sparrow Short B B B B B B B B B B

Lark Sparrow Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Lewis’s Woodpecker Short A C/D C/D C C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D

Lewis’s Woodpecker Long No data No data C/D B/C C C C C C C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Short A C C C C C C C C C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Long No data No data C B C C C C C C

Marsh Wren Short A B B B B B B B B B

Marsh Wren Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Northern Goshawk Short A A A A B B A B B B

Northern Goshawk Long No data No data A A B B A B B B

Northern Harrier Short A B B A/B B B B B B B
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

274

Surrogate Wildlife Species1

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Northern Harrier Long No data No data B A B B B B B B

Pileated Woodpecker Short A A A A A A A A/B A Alt F

Pileated Woodpecker Long No data No data B A B B B B B B

Sage Thrasher Short B C C C C C C C C C

Sage Thrasher Long No data No data C B C C C C C C

Water Vole Short A B B B B B B B B B

Water Vole Long No data No data B A B B B B B B

Western Bluebird Short A D D D C/D C/D D D C/D D

Western Bluebird Long No data No data D D C C D C/D C/D D

White-headed Woodpecker Short A E E E E E E E E E

White-headed Woodpecker Long No data No data E E D D E E D D

Wilson’s Snipe Short A B B B B B B B B B

Wilson’s Snipe Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Wolverine Short A E E E E E E E E E

Wolverine Long No data No data E D E E E E E E

1. Rocky Mountain tailed-frog not present on the National Forest. Peregrine falcon not assessed due to limited habitat..

Table 334. Viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the Umatilla National Forest in short (less than 20 years) and long (less than 

50 years) time periods

Surrogate Wildlife Species

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

American Marten Short A A A A A A/B A A A A

American Marten Long No data No data A A/B A A/B A A A A

Ash-throated Flycatcher Short A D D D D D D D D D

Ash-throated Flycatcher Long No data No data D D C D D D D D

Bald Eagle Short B C C C C C C C C C

Bald Eagle Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Black-backed Woodpecker Short A C C C C C C C C C

Black-backed Woodpecker Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Boreal Owl Short A C C C C C/D C C C C
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

275

Surrogate Wildlife Species

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Boreal Owl Long No data No data C C C C/D C C C C

Cassin’s Finch Short A C/D C C C C C C C C

Cassin’s Finch Long No data No data C C C B B B B B

Columbia Spotted Frog Short A C C C C B/C C C C C

Columbia Spotted Frog Long No data No data C C B B/C C C C C

Fox Sparrow Short A C C C C C C C C C

Fox Sparrow Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Lark Sparrow Short B B B B B B B B B B

Lark Sparrow Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Lewis’s Woodpecker Short A C C C C C C C C C

Lewis’s Woodpecker Long No data No data C C C C C B B C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Short A C C C C C C C C C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Long No data No data C C B C C C C C

Marsh Wren Short A B B B B B B B B B

Marsh Wren Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Northern Goshawk Short A A A A A A A A A A

Northern Goshawk Long No data No data A A A B A A A A

Northern Harrier Short A B B B A/B B B B B B

Northern Harrier Long No data No data B B A/B B B B B B

Peregrine Falcon Short B B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Peregrine Falcon Long No data No data B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Pileated Woodpecker Short A B B A B B B B B B

Pileated Woodpecker Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Rocky Mountain Tailed-frog Short A B B B B B B B B B

Rocky Mountain Tailed-frog Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Sage Thrasher Short B C C C C C C C C C

Sage Thrasher Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Water Vole Short A B B B B B B B B B

Water Vole Long No data No data B B A B B B B B
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

276

Surrogate Wildlife Species

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Western Bluebird Short A D D D D D C/D C/D C/D D

Western Bluebird Long No data No data C C D C C C C C

White-headed Woodpecker Short A E E E E E E E E E

White-headed Woodpecker Long No data No data E E E E E D D E

Wilson’s Snipe Short A B B B B B B B B B

Wilson’s Snipe Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Wolverine Short B C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D

Wolverine Long No data No data C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D C/D

Table 335. Viability outcomes for surrogate wildlife species assessed on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in short (less than 20 years) and long 

(less than 50 years) time periods

Surrogate Wildlife Species1

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

American Marten Short A B B B B B B B B B

American Marten Long No data No data C C B C/D C C C C

Bald Eagle Short B C C C B/C C C C C C

Bald Eagle Long No data No data C C B/C C C C C C

Black-backed Woodpecker Short A B B C C B B B B B

Black-backed Woodpecker Long No data No data B C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Boreal Owl Short A C C C C C/D C C C C

Boreal Owl Long No data No data B B C C/D B B B B

Cassin’s Finch Short A D D D C D C/D C C C/D

Cassin’s Finch Long No data No data C C C C/D C B B C

Columbia Spotted Frog Short A B B B B B/C B B B B

Columbia Spotted Frog Long No data No data B B A/B B/C B B B B

Fox Sparrow Short A C C C C C C C C C

Fox Sparrow Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Lark Sparrow Short A A A A A A A A A A

Lark Sparrow Long No data No data A A A A A A A A

Lewis’s Woodpecker Short A C C C C C C C C C
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

277

Surrogate Wildlife Species1

Time 

period Historical Current Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EMod.Alt. EMod. Dep. Alt. F

Lewis’s Woodpecker Long No data No data C C C C C B B C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Short A C C C C C C C C C

MacGillivray’s Warbler Long No data No data C C B C C C C C

Marsh Wren Short A B B B B B B B B B

Marsh Wren Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Northern Goshawk Short A A A A A B B B B B

Northern Goshawk Long No data No data A A A C B B B B

Northern Harrier Short A B B B A/B B B B B B

Northern Harrier Long No data No data B B A B B B B B

Peregrine Falcon Short B B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Peregrine Falcon Long No data No data B/C B/C B B/C B/C B/C B/C B/C

Pileated Woodpecker Short A C C C C C C C C C

Pileated Woodpecker Long No data No data C C C C C C C C

Rocky Mountain Tailed-frog Short A C C C C C/D C C C C

Rocky Mountain Tailed-frog Long No data No data C C B C C C C C

Sage Thrasher Short B C C C C C C C C C

Sage Thrasher Long No data No data C C B C C C C C

Water Vole Short A A A A A A A A A A

Water Vole Long No data No data A A A A A A A A

Western Bluebird Short A D D D D D C/D C/D C/D D

Western Bluebird Long No data No data D D D C/D C/D C C C/D

White-headed Woodpecker Short A E E E E E E E E E

White-headed Woodpecker Long No data No data E E E E D D D D

Wilson’s Snipe Short A B B B B B B B B B

Wilson’s Snipe Long No data No data B B B B B B B B

Wolverine Short A D D D D D D D D D

Wolverine Long No data No data D D C D D D D D

1. The ash-throated flycatcher was not assessed due to very limited habitat on the National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

278

It is uncertain if there is a level of upland grazing that would still allow adequate vegetative 

structure for these three species. For example, Saab et al. (1995) reported that Cassin’s finch 

responded negatively to heavy grazing and showed no response to moderate grazing. They also 

reported that the fox sparrow responded negatively to heavy and variable grazing. The studies 

used for both species referred to riparian habitats. Holechek et al. (1999) found confusion exists, 

even among range professionals, as to what heavy and moderate grazing intensity mean and that 

heavy grazing, as reported in the stocking studies they reviewed, averaged 57 percent utilization 

of primary forage species and that moderate averaged 43 percent. However, when using the best 

explanation of these terms (as given by Klipple and Bement, 1961) moderate grazing in 

coniferous forest rangelands was between 35 and 45 percent of forage (ibid).

Large snags are important to several species. Past management may have led to a reduction of 

snags and it will take time to replace them on the landscape, but the mechanism to do so for 

Forest Service management activities is in place for all alternatives. Open motor vehicle route 

density was also considered a threat to snag retention, mostly associated with the harvest of snags 

for firewood. Currently, there is a restriction on the removal of large-diameter snags for personal 

firewood use. However, it is recognized that large-diameter snags near open motor vehicle routes 

would continue to be vulnerable to illegal firewood removal, resulting in a loss of current snags 

and of future large-diameter logs. The loss of this habitat component would be most prevalent in 

areas with high open motor vehicle route densities. As such, Alternative C would have the lowest 

risk to roadside snag densities, followed by Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure.

Management direction designed to achieve desired vegetative conditions in the Forest Plan is 

intended to result in long-term terrestrial wildlife source habitat conditions within the predicted 

historical range of variability. The rationale for using historical range of variability for this 

purpose is that biodiversity is assumed to persist, albeit with fluctuations in populations, through 

centuries or millennia of disturbance and recovery (Aplet and Keeton 1999). Even with the 

predictions of climate change, historical range of variability presents the greatest potential to 

respond to expected change. Approximating historical conditions for source habitats provide a 

management strategy likely to sustain diverse focal species, even for those about which we know 

little (Hunter et al. 1988, Landres et al. 1999, Swanson et al. 1994). Similarly, because of limited 

understanding about ecosystems, approximating past conditions offers one of the best means for 

predicting and reducing impacts to current ecosystems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). Therefore, if the 

amount and structure of source habitats are within their historical range of variability, associated 

wildlife species will have a greater likelihood of sustainability than if the amount and structure of 

source habitats remain outside their historical range of variability (Raphael et al. 2001, Spies et al. 

2006).

Based on the analysis, it appears unlikely that changes in threats are of sufficient magnitude to 

override the importance of source habitat in determining species viability. Although a slight 

reduction in source habitat for some of these species occurs, especially for Alternatives A and C, 

by the end of the fifth decade, the trend in source habitat is either stable or upward. There is a 

large degree of uncertainty however, especially for the three open habitat species, and therefore 

all plan revision alternatives should require monitoring of both habitat and risk factors over time. 

Since the pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker are focal species, monitoring are 

required for these species. The boreal owl (Umatilla only), western bluebird, Cassin’s finch, and 

fox sparrow will be monitored for trends in source habitat and risk factors.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

279

Surrogate Species Not Modeled

Approximately half of the species modeled for current viability outcomes were not modeled for 

Alternative B, since it was determined that a reliable way to project and quantify future changes 

did not exist (Wales et al. 2011). For example, several species were associated with very limited 

habitat on National Forest System lands (e.g., northern harrier) or habitats that had little active 

management within them (ash-throated flycatcher). There also was a group of species that were 

not modeled for existing conditions. Although it was not possible to model viability, a qualitative 

analysis of forest plan components (desired conditions and standards and guidelines) for the 

alternatives indicated they would be sufficient to reduce threats and improve habitat for most of 

these species, thereby improving the likelihood of continued viability for all of the alternatives. 

For example, species associated with riparian areas would receive protection based on the desired 

conditions for aquatic habitat and watershed function (see Appendix A 1.1 Watershed Function),

which describe a desire for continued improvement in abundance and quality of riparian areas. 

Standard and guidelines also would provide protection (for a complete list see Wales et al. 2011)

Detailed analysis of all these species for Alternative B is available in Wales et al. (2011). None of 

the species in this group that initially had viability concerns would be expected to have increased 

concern because of implementing Alternative B (Wales et al. 2011). Since none of the other 

alternatives differ substantially from alternative B regarding risk to or loss of habitat for these 

species, they have not been analyzed further.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Wildlife Species

Special management emphasis is given to species for which there is a documented viability 

concern. Species listed in compliance with the Endangered Species Act are placed in one of four 

categories based on viability concerns: threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate. The 

Forest Service has a legal requirement to maintain or improve habitat conditions for these 

federally listed species to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Currently, there are two 

threatened and endangered terrestrial wildlife species (Canada lynx and gray wolf) and one 

species that is currently proposed for listing (wolverine) that either occur or have habitat present 

within the Plan Area. Threatened and endangered species are of particular concern because of 

their status and their need for special management attention.

Projects implemented under the Forest Plan collect more site-specific resource information for the 

project area. Biological evaluations and assessments that provide detailed analysis of potential 

effects from each project are required for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species 

and those included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. Historical conditions, 

current conditions and desired conditions are analyzed at a finer scale of resolution to better 

predict project outcomes. A determination of effects for these species would have to be made for 

any future project under the direction of the Forest Plan.

As indicated in the “Surrogate Species” section, a basic assumption is that the surrogate species 

represent ecological conditions that provide for viability of other species in the group and that 

surrogate species represent the species group (see Table 329) such that, by providing for adequate 

amounts and distribution of habitat and managing risks for surrogate species, the ecological 

conditions needed to maintain viability of other associated species would be provided (USDA 

Forest Service 2010). Some species were analyzed in detail as surrogate species in the viability 

assessment (Wales et al. 2011). Although some of these surrogate species had low viability 

scores, there was no indication that implementing any of the alternatives would threaten the 

viability of any of those species to the extent that would cause a trend towards Federal listing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

280

What follows is a description of the broad potential effects at the national forest level for species 

currently listed in compliance with the Endangered Species Act within the Plan Area. In some 

cases, standards and guidelines have been included to improve safeguards for certain habitat 

features of some species. All alternatives assume that direction given in Forest Service Manual 

2670 and Handbook 2609 will be followed.10 While the surrogate species analysis addressed 

viability for all species in the Plan Area, some additional information on specific species has been 

added below.

Canada Lynx

The Canada lynx was listed as a threatened species in March 2000 (USFWS 2000). Critical 

habitat was designated in November 2006, and then was revised in 2009 (USFWS 2009). A 

recovery plan has not been published; although a Recovery Outline (USDI 2005) was released in 

September of 2005 (Recovery Outlines carry no regulatory authority). This outline identified 

northeast Oregon/southeast Washington as peripheral areas defined as areas that contain few 

verified historical or recent records of lynx. Records are sporadic and usually associated with 

periods when there were unprecedented cyclic population highs in Canada, such as the early to 

mid-1960s and/or 1970s. There is no evidence of long-term presence or reproduction that might 

indicate colonization or sustained use of these areas by lynx. However, some of these peripheral 

areas may provide habitat enabling the successful dispersal of lynx between populations or 

subpopulations. At this time, we simply do not have enough information to clearly define the 

relative importance of secondary or peripheral areas to the persistence of lynx in the contiguous 

United States (USDI 2005).

Due to a lack of data, the historical and current status of resident lynx populations in the Blue 

Mountains is uncertain. Only nine museum specimens exist for Oregon- all from 1897-1927 

(McKelvery et al. 2000). Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site indicates that 

there are “at least 247 bounty records of lynx from 12 counties in the state,” Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife indicated that the lynx is very rare and is known from only 17 verified 

specimens recorded between 1897 and 1993 and that Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

records, maintained since 1922, show that four of these individuals were taken during trapping. 

Only three specimens are recorded for southeastern Washington; one from the Blue Mountains 

(1931) and two from arid grasslands in 1962 and 1963 (McKelvery et al. 2000). These most 

current specimens in the Blue Mountains were found in anomalous habitats within several years 

of peak lynx populations in western Canada (ibid)

In August 2013, the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service revised the Canada 

Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy that was initially established in 2000. The Blue 

Mountains national forests are listed as unoccupied based on the completion to protocol of the 

National Lynx Survey. The Conservation Agreement further states that the Forest Service agrees 

that forest plans in states where lynx are listed should include guidance to conserve lynx for those 

portions of administrative units identified as occupied lynx habitat. Direction included in an 

August 2006 memorandum (USFWS 2006) indicated that “...the lynx should not appear on 

species lists for proposed Federal actions on national forests determined to be unoccupied by 

 10 For example Forest Service Handbook 2670.21 Threatened and Endangered Species 1. Manage National Forest 

System habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to achieve recovery objectives so that special 

protection measures provided by the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. Or FSH 2670.22 Sensitive 

Species 1. Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or 

endangered because of Forest Service actions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

281

lynx. Compliance with section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is not required for the lynx 

under this circumstance.”

Effects from Each Alternative on Canada Lynx

Canada lynx were identified as a surrogate species representing boreal forests (USDA Forest 

Service 2010), but because of their rarity in the Blue Mountains were not used in that capacity for 

the plan revision effort. Instead, the boreal owl and the water vole were selected to represent other 

species, including lynx, in the boreal forest group. According to Witmer et al. (1998), the two 

issues identified for lynx in the Columbia Basin, were (1) conservation of appropriate mosaics of 

seral stages in boreal forest habitat, and (2) harvest and human disturbance.

Lynx require early seral stage boreal forest habitats for foraging and relatively small patches of 

late-successional forest to provide for denning opportunities. Analysis for the two surrogate 

species for the cold forest (see Table 329) resulted in decreasing the level of concern (boreal owl) 

or maintaining a low level of concern (water vole) regarding their viability (see Table 333 through 

Table 335). This would indicate that at the broad scale, habitat for the lynx is being maintained or 

moved towards historical range of variability. This is also supported by the vegetation analysis 

(see the “Forest Vegetation,” “Timber and Forest Products,” and “Wildland Fire” sections) which 

indicates that the early seral stage is close to the low range of historical range of variability and 

that the late successional stage of cold forest is above historical range of variability for multistoried stands. This coupled with the fact that there is little active timber harvest anticipated in the 

cold forest for any alternative should result in the maintenance of lynx habitat throughout the life 

of the plan. The Blue Mountains are considered unoccupied by resident lynx (USDA Forest 

Service 2006) and a change in suitable habitat on the fringe of lynx range would not be expected 

to have any impact on the lynx population, therefore implementing any of the alternatives would 

have no impact to the Canada lynx.

Gray Wolf

Second only to humans in adapting to climate extremes, gray wolves once ranged from coast to 

coast and from Alaska to Mexico in North America. Records indicate all wolves were eliminated 

from the Blue Mountains in the early 1900s after Euro-American settlement. In January 1995, 

wolves from Canada were transplanted to the Salmon River drainage in central Idaho. In the 

winter of 1998-99, a collared wolf from this population (B-45-F) moved into northeast Oregon, 

eventually being captured by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in March 1999 near the 

Middle Fork of the John Day River and returned to Idaho (ODFW 2005 (updated 2010)). Another 

collared wolf, from the White Cloud pack in Idaho, was killed on the freeway just south of Baker 

City, Oregon in May 2000 (ibid). Wolves have successfully colonized portions of Idaho and more 

recently have become established in northeast Oregon, confirming that suitable wolf habitat exists 

in the Blue Mountains.

On May 5, 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule (as directed by 

Congressional legislative language in the enacted Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations bill) reinstating 

the Service’s 2009 decision to delist biologically recovered gray wolf populations in the Northern

Rocky Mountains, including a portion of Oregon and Washington. Wolves in Oregon located west 

of Highways 395-78-95 and in Washington east of Highway 97-17-395 remain protected by the 

Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the lead management agency for 

wolves that occur west of Highways 395-78-95 (OR) and Highways 97-17-295 (WA) and all 

provisions of the Endangered Species Act apply.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

282

Currently gray wolves are considered endangered west of highway 395 in the Blue Mountains 

and east of 395 they are included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (see Figure 

42) and managed under the wolf management plan for Oregon (ODFW 2005, updated 2010). For 

the Malheur National Forest, the wolf would be considered federally listed on 43 percent of 

National Forest System lands. For the Umatilla National Forest, the wolf would be considered 

federally listed on only 20 percent of National Forest System lands. The wolf would be included 

on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List throughout the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently monitoring eleven wolf packs. 

Currently there are no known packs within the Malheur National Forest. On the Umatilla there is 

one unnamed estimated use area that includes area to the west of State Highway 395, the area 

where wolves are listed as Federally Endangered. The remaining wolf packs are currently using 

areas east of State Highway 395, where they have been delisted.

Based on the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf Recovery Plan (USFWS 1987), three key wolf 

habitat components are necessary: (1) year-round prey base of ungulates and alternative prey, (2) 

secluded denning and rendezvous sites, and (3) open spaces with minimal exposure to humans. 

Wisdom et al. (2000) suggested four major challenges to wolf conservation within the Interior 

Columbia Basin: excessive mortality from humans, mortality related to roads, displacement from 

habitat by human activities, and population isolation. The Oregon wolf management plan 

recognized that “human tolerance has been and remains the primary limiting factor for wolf 

survival.”

Effects from Each Alternative on Gray Wolf

The gray wolf was included in the habitat generalist group, which was represented by the 

wolverine as a surrogate species. Like other species in this group, wolves are sensitive to risk 

factors that can cause disturbance.

Because wolves are habitat generalists that hunt and den in a wide variety of vegetation types, the 

alternatives would have little effect on the amount and distribution of habitat used by wolves or 

their prey species (USFWS 2003). Gray wolf populations are primarily limited by nonhabitat 

factors, such as direct interaction with humans that cause mortality (Bangs et al. 1998) and to a 

lesser degree denning disturbance (ODFW 2005 [updated 2010]). In some areas, wolves are 

capable of occupying habitats with few conflicts that might be considered marginal based on 

human population densities and land management practices. However, most of the known wolf 

mortality that has occurred within the population has been in response to livestock depredations. 

Wolves that have a history of livestock depredations are lethally controlled by agents of USDAAPHIS Wildlife Services. Most of the depredation problems in Oregon have been within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Wolves are most vulnerable to disturbance while denning and rearing pups. Wolf interaction with 

humans is perhaps most influenced by human accessibility to remote habitats. Several researchers 

have documented the effects of roads, and other human activities on wolves (Thiel 1985, Mech 

1989, Carroll 2003, Carroll et al. 2006, Larsen and Ripple 2006). Two measures have been used 

to assess impacts to wolves; motorized disturbance and acres suitable for cattle and sheep 

grazing.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

283

Figure 42. Status of the gray wolf in reference to the national forests within the Blue Mountains
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

284

Alternative A – No Action

Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects 

of roads on wolves. The current management direction for roads is limited standards for road 

densities that vary by management area on the Malheur and the Wallowa-Whitman and off-route 

motor vehicle travel is generally allowed. On the Umatilla, open road density is a desired 

condition and off-route motor vehicle travel is limited to designated routes.

This alternative would not change the current level of summer motorized trail use, thus would not 

change the impacts to habitat effectiveness for wolves. Road-associated risk factors such as 

displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance 

during critical time periods would continue.

Overall, this alternative would provide a level of habitat effectiveness for wolves that is similar to 

Alternatives B, D, E, and F but less than Alternative C, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure.

There would be no change in area considered suitable for livestock grazing and thus no change in 

the potential for wolf conflict with domestic livestock.

Alternative B

Open motor vehicle route density would change from a standard and/or guideline in alternative A 

to a desired condition depending on the management area. General Forest (MA 4A) management 

would have a desired condition of an open route density of 2.4 miles per square mile. The desired 

condition for open motor vehicle route density in motorized backcountry management areas 

would have a desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile. Winter elk habitat would have a 

desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 7 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests, and change 

little on the Wallowa-Whitman.

Alternative B includes a guideline that would prohibit new system road and trail construction 

within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would 

reduce road-associated risk factors such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from 

collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods.

This alternative is very similar to Alternative A in terms of the amount of area suitable for 

livestock use and would not represent an appreciable change in the potential for conflict with 

livestock as compared to the current condition.

Alternative C

The implementation of Alternative C would reduce the effects of motorized access on wolves 

through the designated amount of area in different management areas. Desired Conditions for 

MA3C (Wildlife Corridor) would result in road density of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5

percent of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and 

about 10 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Alternative C would reduce the area 

designated as suitable for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on 

the Malheur, and 53 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forest compared to the current 

condition. In addition, Alternative C includes a standard that would prohibit new road and trail 

construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management 

direction would reduce road-associated risk factors to the gray wolf such as displacement from 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

285

key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time 

periods.

Alternative C would also reduce the potential for conflict with domestic livestock the most. It 

proposes the least amount of area considered suitable for domestic livestock grazing.

Alternative D

This alternative responds to requests for more public motor vehicle access. This alternative results 

in more areas suitable for summer motor vehicle use compared to the other alternatives as 

management allocations emphasize areas where active management may occur. In this 

alternative, the desired conditions for open motor vehicle route density in General Forest (MA4A) is 3 miles per square mile or less.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 10 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla, and about one percent on the 

Wallowa-Whitman.

Similar to other plan revision alternatives, Alternative D includes a guideline that would prohibit 

new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This 

management direction would not increase road-associated risk factors such as displacement from 

key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time 

periods for gray wolves. However, risk to motorized travel is highest in this alternative as 

compared to all other alternatives.

This alternative is very similar to Alternative A in terms of the amount of area suitable for 

livestock use and would not represent an appreciable change in the potential for conflict with 

livestock as compared to the current condition.

Alternatives E and F

The main difference between Alternatives E and F is the amount of vegetation treatment. There is 

no difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives. However, the 

amount of human disturbance during vegetation treatments will be greater in Alternative E, as 

acres treated per year is higher.

These alternatives contain no desired conditions for open-road densities in General Forest (MA4A), although there are designated small amounts of wildlife corridor (MA 3C) linking high 

quality, unroaded wildlife habitats which have a desired condition of open motor vehicle route 

density of less than 1.0 mile per square mile. However, the area in this management area is less 

than 22,000 acres on only the Umatilla and the Wallowa-Whitman combined.

As compared to the Alternative A, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle 

use would increase by about 8 percent on the Malheur and decrease by less than 10 percent on 

both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman.

Similar to other plan revision alternatives, Alternatives E and F include guidelines that would 

prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. 

This management direction would not increase road-associated risk factors such as displacement 

from key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical 

time periods for gray wolves.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

286

Risk from motorized travel in both these alternatives is similar to Alternatives A and B. Risks 

remains high as little change is expected in motorized travel as compared to the existing 

condition.

The widespread influence of existing roads across the Plan Area would continue to limit the 

viability outcome for wolves. However, the greatest threat to the viability of gray wolves, though 

impacted by motorized access, is most likely due to mortality caused by interaction with humans 

(ODFW 2015).

This alternative is very similar to Alternative A in terms of the amount of area suitable for 

livestock use and would not represent an appreciable change in the potential for conflict with 

livestock as compared to the current condition.

Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure

The main difference between these alternatives is the amount of vegetation treatment. There is no 

difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives. However, the amount 

of human disturbance during vegetation treatments will be greater in Alternative E-Modified 

Departure, as acres treated per year is higher.

Under these alternatives, management direction for roads would include no net increase in road 

miles in key watersheds and a standard to increase elk security within elk priority areas. The 

amount of area designated as suitable for summer motorized use would decrease minimally on the 

Umatilla, increase by 5 percent on the Malheur, and decrease by 4 percent on the WallowaWhitman. It is anticipated that the creation of additional elk security under these alternatives 

would encourage elk to remain on public land where they would be accessible to wolves as 

opposed to spending time on private land where tolerance for wolves is low.

Summary

All plan revision alternatives have standards and guidelines designed to minimize conflict 

between wolves and livestock as well as minimize disturbance to denning wolves. In addition, all 

plan revision alternatives include guidelines that would prohibit new road and trail construction 

within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would not 

increase road-associated risk factors such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality 

from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods for gray wolves.

Alternatives C, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure would be most beneficial to wolves in 

terms of reducing effects from motorized disturbance. Alternative C would reduce the area 

designated as suitable for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on 

the Malheur, and 53 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest compared to the current 

condition. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would have little change in the 

amount of area suitable for summer vehicle use as compared to the current condition but they are 

expected to improve elk distribution by reducing motorized disturbance within elk priority areas, 

which could be beneficial to wolves. Alternative C may have the greatest positive impact to 

wolves because in addition to reducing motorized disturbance, this alternative would also greatly 

reduce the number of acres suitable for domestic livestock use, potentially reducing the risk of 

interaction with livestock that could lead to lethal removal of wolves. However, there is no 

anticipated reduction in the prey population for the wolf so implementing the plan may affect 

individuals but would continue to provide for the viability and persistence of the wolf during the 

plan period.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

287

Wolverine (Proposed Species)

The North American wolverine became a Federal proposed species February 4, 2013. The 

wolverine was evaluated as a surrogate species for the habitat generalist group, which included 

the gray wolf and the peregrine falcon. It is sensitive to risk factors that can cause disturbance 

(Copeland et al. 2007, Gaines et al. 2003, Krebs et al. 2007) as are the other species in this group.

Wolverines are considered habitat generalists, and their home ranges are so large that they are 

usually measured in hundreds of square miles rather than thousands of acres. Recent radio 

telemetry studies of wolverines in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia (Krebs et al. 2007) 

and the United States (Copeland 1996, Copeland et al. 2007, Squires et al. 2007) indicate that 

wolverines are wide-ranging, inhabit remote areas near timberline, and are sensitive to human 

disturbance at natal and maternal den sites. Interestingly, Aubry et al. (2007), in their historical 

review of wolverine distribution in the west, concluded that wolverines detected in Oregon in 

recent decades “probably represent extreme dispersal events that were not representative of selfsustaining populations” because “there is no evidence of wolverine occurrence in eastern 

Washington or Oregon currently.” Edelmann and Copeland (1999) indicated that of the 150 

sightings for Oregon, at least some of them occurred in the Wallowa Mountains. Using remote 

cameras and bait stations Magoun et al. (2011) recently documented at least three individuals in 

the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. It is still uncertain, 

however, if breeding takes place in the Blue Mountains Plan Area.

Suitable wolverine habitat in Oregon occurs in the high-elevation forests of the Cascade Range, 

the Blue Mountains, the Wallowa Mountains, and the Ochoco Mountains. Habitat areas for 

wolverines are usually isolated and described as patchy, often separated by large areas of 

unsuitable habitat. The assessment model (Wales et al. 2011) identified source habitat as the cool 

moist and cold dry (including white-bark pine) potential vegetation groups above 4,000 feet in 

elevation. Alpine cirques with boulder fell fields offer the primary denning habitat for wolverines 

in Idaho, and may also do so in Oregon (Magoun and Copeland 1998). Montane coniferous 

forests, suitable for winter foraging and summer kit rearing, may only be useful if connected with 

subalpine cirque habitats required for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging 

(Copeland 1996).

Similar to other large mammalian carnivores in the Rocky Mountains (e.g., Ursus arctos, Canis 

lupus), the current distribution of wolverines may be determined more by intensity of human 

settlement than by biophysical factors such as vegetation type or topography (Banci 1994, Carroll 

et al. 2001, Kelsall 1981). Thus, specific habitat needs are not as important as reducing human 

disturbance, particularly in natal den sites (subalpine talus cirques) during the denning period.

Effects from Each Alternative on Wolverine

Motorized recreation and the use of forest roads may influence the habitat use and populations 

wolverines. These potential effects include displacement from key habitats, disturbance during 

critical periods, and the risk of mortality caused (see Wisdom et al. 2000 and Gaines et al. 2003 

for a complete list of road and trail associated factors that influence wolverine). The effects of 

motorized recreation and roads can occur during the non-winter period or during the winter 

period when snowmobiling or ski-trail grooming occurs.

Forest activities that influence the recovery of wolverines includes management of human access 

that can displace these species from important seasonal habitats or increase the risk of wolverinehuman interactions. Several researchers have documented the effects of roads, and other human 

activities on wolverines (Carroll et al. 2001, Copeland et al. 2007, Krebs et al. 2007, Raphael et 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

288

al. 2001, Rowland et al. 2003, Wisdom et al. 2000). For this reason, the discussion of effects to 

wolverine will focus on motorized disturbance.

Alternative A –No Action

Implementation of this alternative would have limited opportunity to reduce the negative effects 

of roads on wolverine habitat. The current management direction for roads is limited standards 

for road densities that vary by management area on the Malheur and the Wallowa-Whitman and 

off-route motor vehicle travel is generally allowed. On the Umatilla, open road density is a 

desired condition and off-route motor vehicle travel is limited to designated routes.

This alternative would not change the current level of winter or summer motorized trail use, thus 

would not change the impacts to habitat effectiveness for wolverines. Road-associated risk factors 

such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and 

disturbance during critical time periods would continue at the current level.

Overall, this alternative would provide a level of habitat effectiveness for wolverines that is 

similar to B, D, E, and F but less than Alternatives C, E Modified, and E-Modified Departure.

Alternative B

Open motor vehicle route density would change from a standard and/or guideline in Alternative A 

to a desired condition depending on the management area. General Forest (MA 4A) management 

would have a desired condition of an open route density of 2.4 miles per square mile. The desired 

condition for open motor vehicle route density in motorized backcountry management areas 

would have a desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile. Winter elk habitat would have a 

desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 7 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests, and change 

little on the Wallowa-Whitman. The percent change in area suitable for winter over-the-snow 

vehicle use decreases by less than 5 percent on all National Forests. Winter recreation is a risk 

factor for wolverine (Wales et al. 2011).

Alternative B includes a guideline that would prohibit new road and trail construction within 

existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would not increase

road-associated risk factors such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from 

collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods.

The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the recovery 

of wolverine populations and habitat restoration. This alternative does not alter the current effects 

that summer and winter motorized trails have on habitat effectiveness for wolverine.

Alternative C

The implementation of Alternative C would reduce the effects of motorized access on wolverine 

through the designated amount of area in different management areas. Desired Conditions for 

MA3C (Wildlife Corridor) would result in road density of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5

percent of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and 

about 10 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Alternative C would reduce the area 

designated as suitable for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on 

the Malheur, and 53 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forest compared to the current 

condition. In addition, Alternative C includes a standard that would prohibit new road and trail 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

289

construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management 

direction would not increase road-associated risk factors to the wolverine such as displacement 

from key habitats, risk of mortality from collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical 

time periods.

This alternative would also address the risk factor of winter motorized access which has the 

potential to cause displacement from key habitats or disturbance during critical time periods (e.g., 

denning). This alternative would reduce the amount of area suitable for winter motorized access 

by 30 percent on the Umatilla, 28 percent on the Malheur, and 38 percent on the WallowaWhitman national forests compared to the current condition.

The implementation of Alternative C would likely make limited improvements to the viability 

outcomes for the wolverine influenced by risk factors associated with both summer and winter 

motorized access.

Alternative D

This alternative responds to requests for more public motor vehicle access. This alternative results 

in more areas suitable for summer and winter motor vehicle use compared to the other 

alternatives as management allocations emphasize areas where active management may occur. In 

this alternative, the desired conditions for open motor vehicle route density in General Forest 

(MA-4A) is 3 miles per square mile or less.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle us 

would increase by about 10 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla, and change little on the 

Wallowa-Whitman. The percent change in area suitable for winter motor vehicle use changes 

little. Winter recreation is a risk factor for wolverine (Wales et al. 2011).

Alternative D includes a guideline that would prohibit new road and trail construction within 

existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction would not increase

road-associated risk factors such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from 

collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods for wolverine.

The implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the recovery 

of wolverine populations and habitat restoration. This alternative includes limited management 

direction to reduce the effects of roads on habitat effectiveness for these species. This alternative 

does not alter the current effects that summer and winter motorized trails have on habitat 

effectiveness for this species. Risk associated with motorized travel is highest in this alternative 

as compared to all other alternatives.

Alternatives E and F

The main difference between Alternatives E and F is the amount of vegetation treatment. There is 

no difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives. However, the 

amount of human disturbance during vegetation treatments will be greater in Alternative E, as 

acres treated per year is higher. These alternatives include limited management direction to 

reduce the effects of motorized access on these species and their habitats. These alternatives 

contain no desired conditions for open-road densities in General Forest (MA-4A), although there 

are designated small amounts of wildlife corridor (MA 3C) linking high quality, unroaded wildlife 

habitats which have a desired condition of open motor vehicle route density of less than 1.0 mile 

per square mile. However, the area in this management area is less than 22,000 acres on only the 

Umatilla and the Wallowa-Whitman combined.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

290

As compared to the Alternative A, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle 

use would increase by about 8 percent on the Malheur and decrease by less than 10 percent on 

both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman. For both these alternatives, the percent change in area 

suitable for winter over-the-snow vehicle use change little on the Malheur and decrease by less 

than 10 percent on both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman.

Alternatives E and F do include guidelines that would prohibit new road and trail construction 

within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. This management direction may reduce 

road-associated risk factors such as displacement from key habitats, risk of mortality from 

collisions with vehicles, and disturbance during critical time periods for wolverine.

These alternatives do not alter the current effects that summer and winter motorized trails have on 

habitat effectiveness for this species. Risk from motorized travel in both these alternatives is 

similar to Alternatives A and B. Risks remains high as little change is expected in motorized 

travel as compared to the existing condition.

The widespread influence of existing roads across the Plan Area would continue to limit the 

viability outcomes for wolverine. As a result, the risk factors associated with motorized access 

would likely continue to reduce the viability of wolverine (see wolverine, table 333 through table 

335).

Alternatives E Modified and E-Modified Departure

Under these alternatives, management direction for roads would include no net increase in road 

miles in key watersheds and a standard requiring that road maintenance and new road 

construction shall be designed to minimize adverse effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, 

or candidate aquatic species. In addition, there is a standard to increase elk security in elk priority 

areas under these alternatives. The amount of area designated as suitable for summer motorized 

use would decrease minimally on the Umatilla, increase by 5 percent on the Malheur, and 

decrease by 4 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman. The area suitable for winter-motorized access 

would be reduced by 7 percent on the Umatilla, 2 percent on the Malheur, and 5 percent on the 

Wallowa-Whitman.

Summary

In montane habitats in the southern latitudes, wolverines remain at high elevation throughout the 

year, avoiding lower elevation habitats with xeric conditions (Copeland et al. 2010). Several 

authors have attributed this to human influence (Carroll et al. 2001, May et al. 2006, Rowland et 

al. 2003). Carroll et al. (2001) found areas with road densities less than 1 mile per square mile to 

be strongly correlated with the presence of wolverine. Rowland et al. (2003), in a test of the 

Raphael et al. (2001) model, found that road density was a better predictor of wolverine 

abundance than amount of habitat when applied at the watershed scale.

Alternative D would provide the least benefit to wolverine compared to other alternatives. Risk 

associated with motorized travel is highest in this alternative as compared to all other alternatives. 

This alternative results in more areas suitable for summer and winter motor vehicle use compared 

to the other alternatives and it has the highest desired condition for road density within MA 4A.

Alternative C would provide the greatest reduction in the risk of encounters between wolverines 

and humans, because it has the most area in backcountry management areas. Additionally, 

Alternative C establishes MA 3C which is intended to be managed for linkages between large 

blocks of backcountry. This alternative would also significantly reduce the risk factor of winter 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

291

motorized access which has the potential to cause displacement from key habitats or disturbance 

during critical time periods (like denning). This alternative would reduce the amount of area 

suitable for winter motorized access by 30 percent on the Umatilla, 28 percent on the Malheur, 

and 38 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forests compared to the current condition.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would not be as beneficial as Alternative C, 

but would provide some mitigation of road-related risk factors. While the amount of area suitable 

for motorized use would be similar to the existing condition, standards under these alternatives 

would mitigate the creation and impacts from new roads. These standards would benefit 

wolverine in areas where their range overlaps with key watersheds, elk priority areas, and 

federally listed aquatic species.

The sensitivity of wolverine to the effects of climate change are considered high (McKelvey et al. 

2011, Gaines et al. 2012). Because the extent of persistent spring snow cover has constrained 

current and historical distributions, then it is reasonable to assume that it will also constrain the 

wolverine’s future distribution (Copeland et al. 2010 and Aubry et al. 2007).

An important climate change adaptation that has been recommended is to reduce the negative 

effects of non-climate related stressors such as the effects of roads (and trails) on habitat (Gaines 

et al. 2012, Lawler et al. 2014). By reducing the negative effects of roads, habitats can become 

more resilient to the effects of climate change, and habitat connectivity can be restored allowing 

wolverines to adjust their ranges as conditions change.

All plan revision alternatives incorporate a standard that prohibits management activities near 

denning sites of wolverines and other threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species. 

Although there is a high to moderate level of concern for viability under all alternatives and 

individuals may be impacted, overall management direction of any of the alternatives would 

contribute to habitat conditions for viability and persistence of this species.

Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Sensitive species are defined as those plant and animal species identified by the regional forester 

for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density and habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (Forest Service Manual 2670.5). Management of sensitive species 

“must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing” 

(Forest Service Manual 2670.32). The regional forester is responsible for identifying sensitive 

species and shall coordinate with Federal and state agencies and other sources, as appropriate, in 

order to focus conservation management strategies and to avert the need for Federal or state 

listing as a result of national forest management activities.

Many of the terrestrial wildlife species from the Pacific Northwest Region Sensitive Species List 

(2011) were included in the 209 species of concern identified by Wales et al. (2011). Surrogate 

species were then selected that best represented the habitats and risk factors associated to a group 

of wildlife species, including Pacific Northwest Region Sensitive Species (table 336). Thus by 

addressing habitats and risk factors for surrogate species, these factors are also addressed for 

sensitive species, and a wide range of other wildlife species. The effects analysis for surrogate 

species was based on the viability assessment process (see USDA Forest Service 2006, Suring et 

al. 2011, Gaines et al. 2017) so that each alternative was evaluated for its ability to contribute to 

the viability of surrogate species. Additional and more detailed effects analyses for Pacific 

Northwest Region sensitive species are required for project level planning.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

292

Table 336. Special status species for the Blue Mountains (from the 2011 Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List), their associated surrogate species, habitat groups and risk factors

Habitat Group Risk Factors Surrogate 

Species

Pacific Northwest 

Region Sensitive Birds 

and Mammals

Pacific Northwest 

Region Sensitive 

Invertebrates

Boreal Forest Loss of large trees and 

snags, Road density

Boreal Owl Wallowa Rosy-Finch, 

Black Rosy Finch

Western 

Bumblebee, 

Lustrous Copper

Cool-Moist Forest/ 

Medium-Large 

Trees

Road density, Created 

openings, Loss of large 

trees and snags, 

American 

Marten, Pileated 

Woodpecker

Not applicable Humped coin. 

Shiny Tight Coil

All Forest 

Communities/ 

Medium-Large 

Trees

Grazing, Loss of large 

trees, Loss of old forest, 

Human disturbance, 

Fire exclusion

Cassin’s Finch, 

Northern 

Goshawk

Great Gray Owl Fir Pinwheel, 

Johnson’s 

Hairstreak

Dry Forest/ 

Medium-Large 

Trees

Loss of large trees and 

snags, Fire exclusion

White-headed 

Woodpecker

White-headed 

Woodpecker

Meadow Fritillary

All Forest

Communities/ 

Open Forest

Loss of large trees and 

snags, Fire exclusion

Western Bluebird Fringed Myotis Not applicable

Open Forest/ PostfireRoad density, post-fire 

timber harvest

Black-backed 

Woodpecker, 

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker

Lewis’s Woodpecker Not applicable

Open Forest/ Early 

Successional

Grazing Fox Sparrow Not applicable Not applicable

Woodland/ Grass/ 

Shrub

Domestic sheep 

grazing, fire exclusion, 

cattle grazing, human 

disturbance

bighorn sheep, 

lark sparrow

striped whipsnake, spotted 

bat, pallid bat, ashthroated flycatcher

Barry's hairstreak, 

Intermountain 

sulphur

Grass/Shrub Grazing, invasive 

species, human 

disturbance

northern harrier, 

sage thrasher

gray flycatcher, greentailed towhee, greater 

sage-grouse, pygmy 

rabbit, sharp-tailed grouse, 

Preble's shrew, mountain 

goat, grasshopper sparrow

western 

bumblebee, Great 

Basin fritillary, 

salmon coil

Riparian/Large 

Tree

Loss of old forest, 

human disturbance

bald eagle, rocky 

mountain tailed 

frog

Rocky Mountain tailed 

frog, bufflehead, bald 

eagle, Harlequin duck

Shiny tight coil

Riparian/ Pond/ 

Small Lake/ 

Backwater/ 

Wetland /Open 

Water/ Wet 

Meadow

Invasive species, 

grazing, road density, 

human disturbance, fire 

exclusion

marsh wren, 

Wilson’s snipe, 

Columbia 

spotted frog 

Columbia spotted frog, 

painted turtle, tri-colored 

blackbird, bobolink

Meadow fritillary

Riparian/ Shrubby 

Deciduous

Grazing MacGillivray’s 

warbler

Mountain quail Silver-bordered 

fritillary, Yuma 

skipper

Open Forest/ 

Woodland/ Grass/ 

Shrub/ Cave

Loss of snags, loss of 

large trees, loss of 

riparian, loss of roost 

sites, human 

disturbance, 

Insecticides

Fringed myotis, 

pallid bat, 

Townsend’s bigeared bat

Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

pallid bat, spotted bat

Not applicable

Habitat Generalist/ 

Cliff

Human disturbance Peregrine falcon Peregrine falcon, black 

swift

Not applicable

Habitat Generalist Road density, winter 

recreation

Wolverine Gray wolf Not applicable
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

293

Effects from Each Alternative on Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester’s sensitive species were not analyzed individually, but instead were 

analyzed either as a surrogate species or were included in a surrogate species group. For example, 

the bald eagle was found to have a low level of concern for viability on the Malheur and the 

Umatilla National Forests and a moderate level of concern for viability on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest (table 331). There was no increase in the level of concern between the existing 

condition and any of the alternatives indicating that although individual bald eagles may be 

impacted by implementing the alternatives, none would cause a trend toward Federal listing. 

Another example would be the tri-colored blackbird which was represented by the marsh wren, or 

the pygmy rabbit represented by the sage thrasher. Both of the surrogate species had either a low 

or moderate concern for viability which was not increased in any of the alternatives, indicating 

that although individuals of a species may be impacted, none of the alternatives would cause a 

trend toward Federal listing.

It is assumed that species in groups (Table 328) where there is no increase in the level of concern 

for viability of the representative surrogate species (Table 329, Table 330, and Table 331) would 

not trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability. Detailed discussions for these 

species or their representative surrogate species can be found in Wales et al. (2011). Those species 

identified as “fine scale” species (FS in Table 336) usually have very limited occupied habitat or 

are locally endemic and are most appropriately addressed at the project level, where the finer 

scale of analysis allows appropriate identification of their habitats. For example, the shiny 

tightcoil is only sensitive in Washington, which represents 22 percent of the analysis area, over 

half of which is in areas not identified for active management. Although associated with 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir vegetation types, it is the talus slopes within these forest types to 

which they are most closely associated, resulting in a portion of the landscape that cannot be 

mapped at the forest scale. Such habitats are identified as Special Habitats (1.13) and 

management would be towards the desired condition, which is that they remain on the landscape 

and provide high quality habitat for associated species.

Cumulative Effects

Surrogate Species

Boreal owl habitat was estimated by Wisdom et al. (2000) to have decreased by 61 percent within 

the Columbia River Basin, but only by 3 percent in the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting 

Unit compared to historical conditions, resulting in a stable trend for the species in the Blue 

Mountains. Much of their preferred habitat in the Blue Mountains is within National Forest 

System lands, and therefore few cumulative effects are anticipated from lands under private, state, 

or other Federal administration. At the broad scale, Nature Serve ranks the boreal owl as 

apparently secure (N4) in the United States. The effects of climate change, although uncertain, 

indicate that a reduction in habitat for this species will probably occur during the next 50 to 100 

years within the Blue Mountains.

Cassin’s finch is distributed from British Columbia southward and into Mexico during winter. 

Throughout the conifer belts of North America’s western interior mountains, Cassin’s finch can 

be one of the most common and conspicuous breeding birds (Hahn 1996).This finch is considered 

a year round resident in Oregon and regionally they are commonly found breeding throughout the 

mountainous west. Wisdom et al. (2000) did not address this species but rather the Hammonds 

flycatcher, which was placed in the same group as this finch (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

Wisdom et al. (2000) estimated a 42 percent decrease in source habitat within the Columbia River 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

294

Basin, and a 34 percent decrease in the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit compared to 

historical conditions for the Hammond’s flycatcher. At the broad scale, Nature Serve ranks the 

Cassin’s finch as secure (N5) in the United States and apparently secure (S4) in Oregon. Although 

the Cassin’s finch is associated with open forested stands, which may be more abundant on 

private lands, they are associated with larger trees, which may not be more abundant on private 

lands (see “Old Forest” section). No information exists to indicate that management of lands 

under private, state, or other Federal administration would change; therefore, if the downward 

trend in habitat within the Blue Mountains as given by Wisdom et al. (2000)is a result of 

management off-forest, then this continued cumulative effect would be expected.

Western bluebirds breed throughout much of the western United States, Mexico, and 

southwestern Canada. Apparent declines in numbers of this species in the Pacific Northwest and 

British Columbia, especially in regions west of the Cascade Range, have generated concern. This 

was one of the species modeled by Raphael et al. (2001) for the Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Interior Columbia Basin, which resulted in an outcome 

of C currently for National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management administered lands 

but changed to a B outcome for two of the alternatives in 100 years and remained the same for 

one alternative. At the broad scale, Nature Serve ranks the western bluebird as secure (N5) in the 

United States and apparently secure (S4) in Oregon. Western bluebirds respond positively to 

artificially constructed nest boxes (Brawn and Balda 1988) and bluebird enthusiasts in 

Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia have established trails of nest boxes in an effort to 

reestablish local breeding populations. Cassidy and Grue (2000) estimated that in Washington, 

more than 57 percent of population occurs on private as opposed to public lands. Continued 

expansion of residential/industrial areas and changes in agricultural practices could continue to 

impact suitable areas for breeding and foraging. Some western bluebirds migrate to California 

and Baja California in winter (DeGraaf et al. 1991) and conditions on these wintering grounds if 

similar to the above, could affect the status of populations.

Fox sparrows are one of North America’s most geographically variable birds with 18 subspecies 

divided into 3 or 4 distinct groups with equally variable life-history characteristics across its 

range (Weckstein et al. 2002). Because of its preference for shrubby habitats, fox sparrow 

probably responds well to the more intensive timber management that occurs on private land, so 

in this sense the cumulative impacts would be positive. There is no indication that management of 

lands under private, state, or other Federal administration would change appreciably from current; 

therefore, few cumulative effects are expected. At the broad scale, Nature Serve ranks the fox 

sparrow as secure (N5) in the United States and apparently secure (S4) in Oregon. The fox 

sparrow is migratory, and as such is more likely to be affected by changes in climate, which may 

result in a phenology mismatch as described by Jones and Cresswell (2009).

Lewis’s woodpecker is found throughout ponderosa pine forests in the western United States. The 

species is migratory within the northern portion of its breeding range with most individuals 

leaving summer areas during winter. Migratory movements to areas outside of breeding range 

probably occur annually but vary considerably in magnitude from year to year (Tobalske 1997). 

Species may winter outside of the breeding range in large numbers one year, but may be almost 

completely absent from the same areas the next. No data on distances and routes for marked 

individuals exists. Relatively short-distance migrations (0 to 20 kilometers) occur within the 

breeding range (Bock 1970, Tashiro-Vierling 1994) and longer-distance migrations (100 to 1,000 

kilometers or more) probably occur for individuals breeding in the northern portion of the range. 

Exact distances are largely unknown due to their irregular movements as breeding and wintering 

habitat varies and the species is opportunistic in its foraging habits (Bock 1970). Wisdom et al. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

295

(2000) in evaluating the migratory population within the Columbia Basin found that source 

habitat for this species had the largest negative relative change of any of the species they 

analyzed. Wisdom et al. (2000) evaluated what is termed secondary source habitat in this 

analysis, and attributed the decline primarily to a basin-wide change from old-forest ponderosa 

pine to mid-seral structural stages. They also recognized the loss of cottonwood/willow old forest 

structure due to a change in the historical hydrological regime. The current direction on federally 

administered lands would be to manage towards more old-forest within ponderosa pine, but much 

of the low elevation dry forest is on private lands (ODFW 2006) and is most likely to remain in 

non-old forest conditions. The vast majority of the cottonwood/willow habitat also occurs on 

private lands and will probably continue to be managed at an earlier seral structure than preferred 

by this species. Climate change may actually provide a short term benefit to this species because 

of the predicted increase in individual tree mortality due to stress (van Mantgem et al. 2009) as 

well as a warmer climate that has already lead to more frequent and severe fires in the western 

United States (Westerling et al. 2006), increasing the primary habitat for this species. Association 

with agricultural settings likely exposes Lewis’s woodpecker to herbicides and insecticides 

(Abele et al. 2004, Tashiro-Vierling 1994), which could have potential negative effects.

Because habitats on a whole are projected to increase in the Blue Mountains for all alternatives, 

public lands should contribute to viability within the region. The effects of climate change, 

although uncertain, indicate that a change in habitat for terrestrial species will occur during the 

next 50 to 100 years within the Blue Mountains. If the anticipated increase in fire severity and 

frequency due to drier conditions occurs, this could lead to an improvement, at least in the short 

term, in habitat for the western bluebird and fox sparrow, while reducing habitat for the boreal 

owl.

Bighorn sheep are native to western North America, from British Columbia to Mexico. Within 

this range, several subspecies occur. Populations have been greatly reduced throughout its range 

from a once very common abundance. It has been estimated that half the bighorn sheep habitat 

within the Columbia River Basin, is currently unoccupied (Wisdom et al. 2000). Disease 

transmission between domestic sheep and wild sheep is considered the greatest threat to wild 

sheep populations. There are private lands where domestic sheep currently graze immediately 

adjacent to public lands. Additionally, domestic sheep are a common 4-H project, which may also 

place them within foray distances of existing and/or future wild sheep range increasing the risk of 

disease spreading to wild sheep populations. These represent potential risks to wild sheep that the 

Forest Service has no influence over.

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species

The gray wolf has circumpolar distribution in the northern latitudes. It occurs in Europe, Asia and 

North America. In North America, it is considered common in Alaska and most of Canada. Within 

the recovery areas of the U.S., populations have been increasing, with the largest populations in 

Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Eastern Oregon has recently been colonized by wolves 

thought to have originated in Idaho. Gray wolf populations are increasing in eastern Oregon and 

this trend is likely to continue during the short term due to high prey populations, decreasing open 

motor vehicle route density across the Blue Mountains and management direction to protect 

denning wolves. As populations increase wolves will continue to disperse into new areas, 

eventually increasing contact with human populations and activities. Habitat does not appear to 

be limiting, and therefore the greatest threat is mortality due to interaction with humans. The legal 

and illegal killing of individuals, both on and off public lands is of concern. Hunting in Idaho 

could potentially pressure more individuals to relocate to Oregon. Increased livestock depredation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

296

and interaction with humans could lead to lethal removal of individuals by the state game 

department as well as the illegal shooting of individuals, which has already occurred. Over the 

long term, human social pressures will likely restrict the distribution of wolves to areas of limited 

human occupation and away from concentrated domestic livestock production. In the end, the 

cumulative effect of human tolerance and persecution will have to change to achieve long-term 

successful recovery.

The wolverine has circumboreal distribution. In North America, it extends across Canada and 

Alaska, and uses forested and nonforested environments. In the western U.S., wolverine are 

known to occur in Washington, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Wisdom et al. (2000) estimated a 

14 percent increase in source habitat within the Columbia River Basin with more than 80 percent 

of the watersheds in the Blue Mountains ecological reporting unit (6) showing an increase of 

more than 100 percent in source habitat compared to historical conditions. Raphael et al. (2001) 

evaluated wolverine habitat across the Columbia Basin and showed that likely habitat for 

wolverine occurred more in the northern Blue Mountains than the southern parts (e.g., Malheur 

National Forest).

Since most wolverine habitat is found on remote, high-elevation National Forest System lands, 

few cumulative effects are expected from lands under private, state, or other federally 

administered lands. Probably the greatest threat to wolverines is the ever-increasing disturbance 

from activities such as snowmobiling, heli-skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. Recent 

advances in snowmobile technology capabilities has raised concerns about their ability to access 

previously isolated areas (Wisdom et al. 2000) where natal denning may be occurring. Although 

none of the alternatives attempts to expand this type of recreation in the future, it is anticipated 

that expansion of such activities will occur.

As with most species that inhabit high elevation habitats of the Blue Mountains, climate change is 

of concern, but more so with the wolverine. Spring snow cover, which has been shown to strongly 

correlate with wolverine denning locations and year-round movement, is also correlated to 

dispersal pathways across the landscape (Copeland et al. 2010, Schwartz et al. 2009). This 

bioclimatic niche (Copeland et al. 2010) is likely to continue to be strongly impacted by global 

climate change (Mote et al. 2005), threatening wolverine throughout their geographic distribution 

as spring snow cover may decrease.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Many sensitive species of birds, especially those that are migratory, have ranges that encompass 

landscapes outside of the national forest. As such, they are exposed to threats beyond the control 

of the Forest Service. For example, the use of insecticides and other agrochemicals associated 

with cultivation practices has been identified as one of the main threats to the upland sandpipers 

on their wintering grounds in South America (Vickery et al. 2010). Many of the riparian 

associated species have been impacted by loss of habitat to agriculture, especially in the lower 

valley bottoms. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in cooperation with other government 

agencies has developed programs and strategies to improve riparian habitats on non-federally 

administered land (ODFW 2006). Some species, such as buffleheads and Harlequin duck are 

migratory and can be legally hunted throughout the flyway.

Wormworth and Mallon (2006) suggest that projected changes in vegetation shifts caused by 

climate change could affect bird species. They project that alpine vegetation communities within 

the arctic would likely be reduced. Although there is a high degree of uncertainty, this same 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

297

projected change would likely occur within the Blue Mountains resulting in the loss and 

fragmentation of habitat.

The vast majority of greater sage-grouse habitat in Oregon does not occur on National Forest 

System lands, but on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (71 percent) and 

private lands (21 percent). The Baker Population of greater sage-grouse (Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest) occurs mostly on private lands where there are limited regulatory mechanisms 

making it uncertain as to whether state-recommended conservation measures and practices will be 

applied on the majority of lands supporting this population. It is assumed that Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, will continue to provide incentives to private landowners for the 

conservation of sage-grouse habitat. Implementation of the Oregon BLM greater sage-grouse plan 

will cumulatively benefit sage-grouse habitat. Hunting will continue to be a cumulative impact, 

but at the current level is not considered a threat to the breeding population (Hagen 2011).

Climate change will have an important influence on sage-grouse habitats, as the various scenarios 

predict increasing temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide, and severe weather events all of 

which favor cheat grass expansion and increased wildfire activity (Miller et al. 2011). Increase 

temperature predictions suggest that sagebrush habitats could be replaced with other woody 

vegetation causing further decline in sage-grouse habitats (Bradley 2010, North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative 2010).

Management Indicator Species – Affected Environment

Species are generally selected as management indicator species in order to estimate the effects of 

each alternative on fish and wildlife populations. The planning rule states that certain vertebrate 

and/or invertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management 

indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated. These species shall be selected 

because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities 

(CFR 219.19(a)(1)). Management indicator species can be chosen from five categories of species:

• Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and Federal lists

• Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped

• Nongame species of special interest

• Species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned 

management programs

• Additional plant or animal species selected because their population changes are believed 

to indicate the impacts of management activities on other species of selected major 

biological communities or on water quality

The terrestrial management indicator species selected during the last plan revision effort (1990) in 

the Blue Mountains were selected because their habitat requirements encompassed a broad range 

of conditions. For the 1990 Forest Plans, the Forest Service identified 24 different species or 

groups of species as management indicator species. It was anticipated that by selecting and 

managing for these species the needs of all of the other fish and wildlife species would be 

adequately met. In the 1990 Forest Plans, there was one general objective for management 

indicator species: to provide for the habitat requirements of the selected management indicator 

species and maintain viable populations of management indicator species. However, the 1982 

National Forest Management Act regulations do not make a direct link between management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

298

indicator species and viability. Attempts to do so in individual plans have been problematic. 

Simply stated, population trends of management indicator species are not expected to mirror 

trends of other species.

The Blue Mountain forest plan revision process used management indicator species for the 

purpose of assessing the impacts of the alternatives on wildlife and fish populations under

procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule (CFR 219.19 (a) (1) and (2)). The no-action alternative (no 

change in current management) was evaluated in terms of the management indicator species 

listed in the 1990 Forest Plans. New management indicator species were selected and analyzed 

for the plan revision alternatives. Detailed rationale for selecting management indicator species 

for alternatives other than Alternative A is found in the project record. What follows is a 

description of the management indicator species for the no-action alternative, the management 

indicator species that are common to all alternatives, and the management indicator species 

common only to plan revision alternatives. Table 337 is a listing of management indicator species 

selected for analysis by forest and by alternatives.

Table 337. Management indicator species for each national forest

Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator 

Species 1990 Plan

Management Indicator 

Species Revised Plan

Malheur

American marten Yes No

Northern three-toed woodpecker Yes No

Primary excavators Yes No

Pileated woodpecker Yes Yes

Rocky Mountain elk Yes No

White-headed woodpecker No Yes

Mule deer No Yes

Umatilla

American marten Yes No

Northern three-toed woodpecker Yes No

Primary excavators Yes No

Pileated woodpecker Yes Yes

Rocky Mountain elk Yes Yes

White-headed woodpecker No Yes

Wallowa-Whitman

American marten Yes No

Northern three-toed woodpecker Yes No

Primary excavators Yes No

Northern goshawk Yes No

Pileated woodpecker Yes Yes

Rocky Mountain elk Yes Yes

White-headed woodpecker No Yes

Estimating the population density, let alone population trend, for most any vertebrate species is at 

best problematic (Bart et al. 2004). Animals often are difficult to capture or observe, they are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

299

harmed in the process, or the associated costs and effort of making absolute counts or censuses 

are prohibitive (Gibbs 2000). Failure to detect a species’ presence in an occupied habitat patch is 

a common sampling problem when the population size is small, individuals are difficult to 

sample, or sampling effort is limited (Gu and Swihart 2004). Because accurately estimating 

absolute population size is difficult, ecologists frequently rely on indices of population size that 

they monitor over time as a surrogate for monitoring changes in actual population size (Gibbs et 

al. 1998).

Few long-term data sets exist for the analysis area. Monitoring of wildlife populations and 

habitats has been lacking or poorly implemented on national forests due largely to the lack of 

capacity or commitment to fund data collection, management, and analysis (Manley et al. 2006). 

Population estimates for some of the hunted species, such as elk and mule deer, are available 

through the state wildlife agencies. Breeding bird surveys and Christmas bird counts represent the 

only long-term data available to assess broad scale trends in most bird species. Breeding Bird 

Surveys provide some information regarding status of bird species and the Data is categorized 

into three credibility ratings. Altman (2000) indicated that 31 routes were at least partially located 

within the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Although the breeding bird surveys

provides a huge amount of information about regional population change for many species, there 

are a variety of possible problems with estimates of population change from breeding bird survey 

data. Limitations of both methods for discerning population trends have been addressed (Sauer et 

al. 2008). For example, the year-to-year variation in abundance at any one locale may not indicate 

overall population decline but simply reflect a lack of detection on the part of the surveyor (Sauer 

et al. 1994) or abandonment on the part of the birds of one location for another.

The Christmas Bird Count data referred to in this document was generated using the number of 

birds reported per party hour; a measure of the amount of time spent searching for birds or the 

amount of effort expended. This is one way to standardize Christmas Bird Count data over time. 

Some years, there may have been many people counting birds, while other years there may have 

been fewer participants in the field. As Christmas bird count participation fluctuates (and as the 

number of Christmas bird count circles increases), raw count numbers may also fluctuate (more 

counters can often lead to more birds reported). This is one method for correcting the differences 

in effort over time.

A combination of factors, including experience with implementing forest plans during the last 

decade, court rulings, scientific discourse concerning management indicator species (Andelman 

and Fagan 2000, Landres et al. 1988, Niemi et al. 1997, Roberge and Angelstam 2004, Wiens et 

al. 2008), and better understanding of the role of management indicator species have refined how 

management indicator species are viewed in planning. Management indicator species have always 

been defined as useful in assessing management effects, but the array of species actually selected 

often was driven by a desire to have a representative of each habitat that occurred on the national 

forest and not to assessing management effects (Hayward et al. 2004). Some of the confusion 

surrounding management indicator species results from the misperception that management 

indicator species is a special designation, resulting in more protection for the species. The reality 

is that management indicator species are simply yardsticks to measure the impact to habitats at 

risk in the alternative phase of planning and then to measure how well the Revised Forest Plan is 

accomplishing what it said it would accomplish and to verify that the chosen management 

indicator species are responding in the manner predicted. With the focus on management issues, 

not every habitat will nor should be represented by a species on the management indicator species 

list.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

300

The Planning Rule (CFR 219.35(a) and (b)) has directed the Forest Service to use the best 

available scientific information during forest land management planning. As such the following 

analysis will try to incorporate new scientific information into the analysis of Management 

Indicator Species, especially the concept that they are meant to be measures of how well the 

forest plan is meeting its desired conditions by focusing management direction developed in the 

alternatives, providing a means to analyze effects on biological diversity, and serving as a reliable 

feedback mechanism during forest plan implementation (Hayward et al. 2004).

Management indicator species are no longer considered an appropriate approach to addressing 

species viability. See surrogate species section for discussion on population viability.

Management Indicator Species – Environmental Consequences (Alternative A)

The American marten, primary cavity excavators including the pileated and Northern three-toed 

woodpecker, and Northern goshawk are all either surrogate species or are included in a family 

group that is represented by a surrogate species. The American marten, pileated woodpecker, and 

northern goshawk are surrogate species. The Northern three-toed woodpecker is in the post-fire 

habitat group, which is represented by the Lewis’s woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker 

surrogate species. Please refer to the “Surrogate Species” section for further discussion.

Management Indicator Species – Environmental Consequences (Plan Revision

Alternatives)

Four species were chosen as management indicator species for the revised plan: white-headed 

woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, Rocky Mountain elk (Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla) and 

mule deer (Malheur). All four of these species were also identified as focal species in the 

monitoring plan. White-headed woodpecker and pileated woodpecker were also selected as 

surrogate species to represent their habitat group and so effects to population viability for these 

two species are covered in the surrogate species section.

Rocky Mountain Elk

Elk have been identified as a hunted species that is of interest throughout the Plan Area. Both 

Oregon (ODFW 2003) and Washington (Fowler 2001) have developed management plans 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.

All three 1990 Forest Plans selected elk as a management indicator species. The WallowaWhitman National Forest chose elk because it “is a highly-valued game animal and is selected as 

a management indicator species because of the quality of habitat diversity, the interspersion of 

cover and forage areas, and the security of cover provided” (USDA Forest Service 1990b). The 

Umatilla National Forest selected this species for general forest habitat (USDA Forest Service 

1990a) and The Malheur National Forest stated that it was chosen because it was a commonly 

hunted species (USDA Forest Service 1990).

Rocky Mountain elk were selected as a management indicator species and a focal species for the 

new planning effort for the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests and will be used to 

represent security areas/motorized use management. After review of several other forest plan 

revision efforts (Caribou, Medicine Bow, Payette, Boise, Sawtooth, Uinta, and Wasatch-Cache 

National Forests) and reviews of the intent of a management indicator species (Cooperrider 2002; 

Niemi et al. 1997; Owen 2010), it was decided that although hunted species such as elk do not 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

301

truly meet the criteria to fulfill the purpose of management indicator species (changes in 

populations can be directly attributed to Forest Service management), they are very important 

both socially and economically and, as such, should be carried forward. Because elk occur in 

every habitat type and at virtually every elevation across the Blue Mountains, they are a useful 

species to monitor the effectiveness of motor vehicle use management and the change in 

availability of secure habitat. Open motor vehicle route density is a key element in determining 

whether elk remain in an area after the hunting seasons have started. If open motor vehicle route 

density is high, and hiding cover is low, elk will move until secure areas are found. Open motor 

vehicle route density is often the easiest and most effective attribute to manage since hiding cover 

criteria may take many years to meet the desired future condition. In addition, fine scale attributes 

like hiding cover are better managed at the project scale rather than at the landscape level.

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 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 both 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 vulnerability during hunting season. The metric of one half mile from open motorized routes 

is validated by research from Starkey Experimental Forest and others that identified this distance 

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 for 

areas between 0.4 and 0.6 miles 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 et al. 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

302

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 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 if there were 

no open motorized routes. The presence of cattle may also influence elk habitat selection. Studies 

have demonstrated elk avoidance of cattle during summer (Coe et al. 2001 and Coe et al. 2005).

Rocky Mountain Elk Population Trend – According to CFR 219.19(a)(6), “Populations trends 

of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to habitat determined. 

This monitoring will be done with State fish and wildlife agencies, to the extent practicable.” All 

three national forests rely on survey data collected by state fish and wildlife agencies [Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW)] for population numbers and trend analysis of all game species. Additionally CFR 

219.19(a)(1) states, “These species shall be selected because their population changes are 

believed to indicate the effects of management activities.”

Although two of the 1990 Forest Plans referred to populations and predicted changes, all three 

1990 Forest Plans acknowledged that populations of elk are influenced by many factors, such as 

predation, hunting, disease, competition with other animals, weather, etc., and that “habitat 

effectiveness might decline but have no influence on the number of elk”(USDA Forest Service 

1990b). Population management through hunting has the greatest influence on population trends. 

Most elk populations reach a social carrying capacity (the willingness of landowners and local 

residents to accept elk) well before they reach their environmental carrying capacity (ODFW 

2003a). Habitat in general and conifer vegetation types specifically have not proven to be a 

limiting factor for population expansion in the Blue Mountains.

Figure 43 displays the estimated population and management objectives for game management 

units that have at least 10 percent of the Malheur National Forest within the boundary. This 

includes Desolation, Northside, Murderers Creek, Beulah, Malheur River, and Silvies. It would 

appear that most years the total management objective for the national forest is being met or 

exceeded. For 2001, data was missing for three of the six geographic management units, but 

based on estimates for 2000 and 2002 the management objective for 2001 was probably met or 

exceeded as well. As of 2016 the total population for these units has remained stable at 10,350 

elk.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

303

Figure 43. Estimated elk population for game management units within the Malheur 

National Forest compared to the management objective for 1990-2010 (asterisk 

indicates data missing for at least one game management unit)

Figure 44 and Figure 45 display the management objective and estimated population for those 

game management units that contain at least 10 percent of the Umatilla National Forest within 

unit boundaries. This includes Desolation, Heppner, Ukiah, Wenaha, Mt. Emily, and Walla Walla 

in Oregon. The Umatilla National Forest also extends into Washington, incorporating all or 

portions of game management units Dayton, Lick Creek, Mountain View, Tucannon, and Wenaha. 

The Wenaha and Mountain View herds are interstate herds and the best population data for 

Wenaha is actually from Oregon (Fowler 2010). Therefore, data for Wenaha was not included in 

Figure 45.

As displayed in the figures, the management objectives for the two states were not been met 

during much of the last decade. The Wenaha unit in particular was documented as having low calf 

survival for multiple years, largely attributed to predation (Fowler 2001, ODFW 2003a, ODFW 

2006, Johnson 2011). However, population estimates from 2016 show that the elk population has 

increased across the Umatilla National Forest with a total of 20,100 elk in the Oregon portion of 

the Forest and 5,717 elk in the Washington population.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

304

Figure 44. Estimated elk population for Oregon game management units within the 

Umatilla National Forest compared to the management objective for 1990-2010

Figure 45. Estimated elk population for Washington game management units within 

the Umatilla National Forest compared to the management objective for 1999-2010 

(asterisk indicates data is not available for at least one game management unit)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

305

Figure 46 displays the estimated population and management objectives for those game 

management units that have at least 10 percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest within 

the unit boundaries. These units include Minam, Imnaha, Catherine Creek, Keating, Pine Creek, 

Lookout Mountain, Snake River, Chesnimnus, Sled Springs, Starkey, Sumpter and Desolation. As 

of 2016, the population for these units has continued to increase and remains above the 

management objective at 26,472.

Figure 46. Estimated elk population for Oregon game management units within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest compared to the management objective for 1990-

2010

Cover and Forage - Forest stand density and structure correspond to the amount and quality of 

cover and forage available to elk. Analysis of elk habitat and historical range of variability 

analysis of vegetation suggests there has been an increase in cover and a potential decrease of 

quality forage (see “Forest Vegetation” section for more detail). Stand density has increased from 

historic levels (before 1900) and large (20 inches 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 

security areas (including hiding cover) has been identified as being important to maintain a 

socially acceptable distribution of elk (Thomas et al. 1979, Wisdom et al. 1986, Rowland et al. 

2005). The distribution of forage and hiding cover (patch size and spacing) varies by potential 

vegetation group across the Plan Area.

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 that is privately owned has been converted to agricultural lands, residential use, or rural 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

306

residences. As a result, elk no longer have access to or are unwanted on many of their traditional 

winter ranges in the Blue Mountains. 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 non-traditional times, such as late summer. This situation reduces opportunities for 

hunter harvest on public lands and has led to damage to crops, fences, and pastures on private 

lands. Damage to 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 2006 and 2007).

Elk Security in Areas of Motor Vehicle Access – Sites with high nutritional resources are often 

selected by elk, but may not be used as often as expected if located near open routes used by 

motorized vehicles. Motorized use on Forest Service lands, during all seasons, is one of the most 

consistent variables in determining distributions of elk, and has increased over the past two 

decades. In addition, shed antler hunting in late winter/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 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.

Table 338 displays the amount of elk security present on each forest. Elk security has been 

defined here as areas greater than one half mile from open motorized routes and at least 250 acres 

in size. The Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman provide elk security on a small percentage of the 

forest (17 percent and 31 percent respectively). The majority of mapped elk security on the 

Wallowa-Whitman is located within wilderness areas. While some of this wilderness provides 

high elevation summer range for elk, the amount of elk security is likely overestimated because 

some of it may not actually function as elk habitat due to the abundance of granite cliffs and rock 

outcrops that do not provide forage. The Umatilla National Forest provides a greater amount of 

elk security than the other two forests (43 percent), with over half of it existing outside of 

wilderness areas.

Table 338. 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) by National Forest*

National 

Forest

Acres of Elk 

Security

Acres of Elk Security 

excluding Wilderness

Percent of 

National Forest

Percent of National 

Forest excluding 

Wilderness

Malheur 286,850 216,597 17% 13%

Umatilla 606,888 336,632 43% 24%

WallowaWhitman557,808 202,475 31% 11%

*Analysis was completed at the HUC10 and HUC12 scale using National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD). The analysis on the 

Wallowa-Whitman excluded Hells Canyon Natural Resource Area.

Effects from Alternative A to Rocky Mountain Elk

Methods – Rocky Mountain elk habitat was analyzed within the Blue Mountains during the 1990 

planning effort using a habitat model developed by Thomas et al. (1979, 1988). Though the 

winter habitat model developed by Thomas et al. (1988) was never intended for application on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

307

spring-summer-fall ranges, it has been widely applied on non-winter ranges. Elk management on 

National Forest System lands has centered on providing hiding and thermal cover (ODFW 1989, 

Sally 2000, Smith and Long 1987, Thomas et al. 1988, Winn 1985). A large body of research has 

been conducted during the 27 years since publication of these models and this research needs to 

be incorporated into a new model. For example, Cook et al. (2005) found little justification for 

retaining thermal cover as a primary component of habitat evaluation models for elk, and 

postulated that it may be time to shift attention towards the relationships between herd 

productivity and nutrition-based attributes of habitat.

The indicators used to describe elk habitat conditions in the no-action alternative include: habitat 

effectiveness index, cover and forage ratio, road density, and hiding and thermal cover. Habitat 

effectiveness index uses quality of cover, cover and forage, and open roads to indicate the 

effectiveness of elk habitat. Optimum habitat has a value of 1.00.

Forage is defined as areas having less than 40 percent canopy cover. Forage is available in 

grasslands, meadows, and riparian areas, and also within forested areas where grasses, sedges, 

forbs, and shrubs grow. Elk and deer also consume lichen, leaves, and bark from trees, especially 

during winter months. Optimum amounts of forage prepare elk and deer for winter survival.

Optimum elk habitat was defined as 40 percent cover and 60 percent forage (40:60 ratio) 

(Thomas 1979). Cover, in this ratio, is a combination of satisfactory and marginal cover. 

Satisfactory cover is greater than 70 percent canopy cover, marginal cover is 40 to 70 percent 

canopy cover, and forage has less than 40 percent canopy cover (Thomas et al. 1988).

The 1990 Forest Plans recognize that the habitat effectiveness index model was designed for 

habitat analysis at the subwatershed level or 3,000 to 15,000 acres in size but stated that for 

“planning purposes and analysis and comparison of alternatives, the habitat effectiveness index 

has been used to give a forest wide picture of habitat conditions for elk. Forestwide application of 

the model has masked the more subtle differences between alternatives during the 50-year 

planning horizon. However, generalized differences between alternatives can be addressed and 

are discussed below...” (USDA Forest Service 1990). The 1990 Forest Plans also recognized that 

the forest wide analysis did not account for the size or distribution of habitat components, but 

assumed that forage and cover areas were properly distributed throughout the national forest and 

were of usable size (USDA Forest Service 1990a). All three 1990 Forest Plans recognized that 

only those lands that have the potential for active management would be modeled. Since the 1990 

Forest Plans were implemented, the habitat effectiveness index model has gone from being a 

computer model in a disk operating system (Ager and Hitchcock 1994) to a model in ArcGIS.

The ArcGIS model developed for the Blue Mountains national forests was used for this analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects – Elk populations are expected to remain abundant due to their 

social and economic importance, management emphasis by state wildlife agencies, and the 

adaptability of the species. Altering the amount of cover, forage, and security across the landscape 

may affect body condition and result in changes in pregnancy and parturition rates. However, 

those effects are likely imperceptible in relation to the effects of predation and hunter harvest that 

ultimately limit elk populations. While habitat quality is not currently limiting elk populations, 

forest management does influence the distribution of elk across the landscape. Accordingly, this 

discussion will focus on the effects to forage, cover, and security because those are the primary 

habitat components that influence elk habitat selection.

The forest plan revision effort has classified vegetation into broad categories of either forested, 

woodland, herbland, or shrubland. The classification is further broken out as upland or riparian. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

308

The forested groups are classified into potential vegetation groups and densities of open or closed 

(Countryman 2007), which correspond to canopy covers of 40 percent or more in the dry 

vegetation group and 60 percent or more in the moist and cold vegetation groups. Within the 

Vegetation Dynamic Development Tool model, vegetation is broken into structural stages, which 

were then classified as whether they met the needs for hiding or thermal cover. Using these break 

downs could overestimate the amount of satisfactory cover compared to the original definitions 

(using 60 percent instead of 70 percent), but should still provide an accurate portrayal of total 

cover since they reflect the combination of marginal cover and satisfactory cover. However, it 

may also lead to an overestimate of the amount of forage, because in the moist and cold 

vegetation groups, open stands would be considered forage stands but could have canopy covers 

up to 59 percent, exceeding the definition of forage areas as being those of less than 40 percent 

canopy cover. Table 339 displays the results based on Vegetation Dynamic Development Tool 

modeling and resulting acres that would meet elk cover requirements based on the potential 

vegetation group.

Table 339. Percent of the forested landscape that would meet cover and forage requirements for 

Rocky Mountain elk by Potential Vegetation Group based on VDDT modeling*

Elk Habitat Cold Forest

(percent)

Moist Forest

(percent)

Dry Forest

(percent)

Hiding cover 50-60 45-55 5-10

Thermal cover 40-50 30-40 10-15

Forage 25-30 25-35 75-95

* Results from historical range of variability Vegetation Dynamic Development Tool model (years 200 to 500 average)

Dry forest thermal = 40-plus percent canopy cover

Moist and Cold forest thermal = 60-plus percent canopy cover

In order to project alternative A, the no-action alternative, the existing condition was calculated 

by national forest for each of the management areas previously identified as having a habitat 

effectiveness index or cover requirement (see project record for detailed discussion) (see Table 

340). Satisfactory cover in two of three management areas within the Malheur National Forest 

and one of three within the Umatilla National Forest is below the desired condition, but overall 

cover and the habitat effectiveness index are at or above the desired condition.

For alternative A, the existing habitat effectiveness index was calculated using the existing 

management strata (i.e., 3a, A10, 1, etc.) and the current cover-forage map. Because projections 

for the future are not spatial, no attempt was made to calculate a habitat effectiveness index for 

future decades. The amount of cover and forage at the end of each decade was calculated for each 

potential vegetation group and treatment strata (Active, Reserve, Wilderness) and then 

proportioned back out to the management areas identified in Table A-1 (Appendix A) to produce 

projected cover based on potential vegetation group and management area (see Table 341). It is 

assumed that if open motor vehicle route density remained constant then changes in cover would 

reflect changes in habitat effectiveness index. A slight improvement in satisfactory cover is noted 

for those management areas currently below desired conditions (Table 340); however, they still 

remain below desired conditions. As pointed out by Powell (2005; revised 2008), it may be 

difficult to achieve satisfactory cover based on potential vegetation group, especially on the 

Malheur National Forest where dry forest types are more abundant.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

309

Table 340. Current habitat effectiveness index (HEI) and cover percentages by national forest and management area compared to current desired 

condition (optimum habitat has a value of 1.0)

National

Forest

Management Area HEIS1 HEIR2 HEIF3 HEIC4 HEI

Cover

HEI

Current Cover 

Desired Condition

Satisfactory Marginal Total Satisfactory Marginal Total

Malheur MA 1, MA 2, MA F22 0.23 0.38 0.5 0.55 39% 3%* 30% 33% 40% 12% 20% 32%

MA 20, MA 20B, MA 

21

0.69 0.86 0.5 0.59 65% 8% 39% 47% 70% NA NA 40%

MA 4A, MA F20, MA 

F21

0.62 0.45 0.5 0.53 52% 2%* 27% 29% 50% 10% 15% 25%

Umatilla A10,C4,F4 0.64 0.57 0.5 0.72 60% 21% 27% 48% 60% 15% 15% 30%

C3,C3A,C8 0.67 0.64 0.5 0.58 60% 7%* 34% 41% 79% 10% 20% 30%

C7,E2 0.56 0.52 0.5 0.65 56% 14% 33% 47% 45% 10% 20% 30%

E1 0.62 0.40 0.5 0.50 50% 0% 64% 64% 30% NA NA NA

WallowaWhitmanMA 1, MA1 W 0.62 0.45 0.5 0.65 55% 15% 35% 50% 50% NA NA 30%

MA 3, MA 3A, MA 18 0.62 0.56 0.5 0.65 58% 12% 29% 41% 74% NA NA NA

1. HEIS derived from the size and spacing of cover and forage areas

2. HEIR derived from the density of roads open to vehicular traffic

3. HEIF derived from the quantity and quality of forage

4. HEIC derived from cover quality

*Values are below desired conditions

Table 341. Projected cover percentages by national forest, management area, and decade for alternative A compared to current desired condition

National 

Forest Management Area

Cover Decade 2 Cover Decade 5 Current Cover Desired Condition

Satisfactory Marginal Total Satisfactory Marginal Total Satisfactory Marginal Total

Malheur MA 1, MA 2, MA F22 6%* 34% 40% 6%* 31% 37% 12% 20% 32%

MA 20, MA 20B, MA 21 13% 40% 53% 12% 37% 49% NA NA 40%

MA 4A, MA F20, MA F21 3%* 29% 32% 3%* 28% 31% 10% 15% 25%

Umatilla A10,C4,F4 23% 22% 45% 20% 13%* 33% 15% 15% 30%

C3,C3A,C8 8%* 24% 32% 7%* 15% 22% 10% 20% 30%

C7,E2 20% 30% 50% 17% 21% 38% 10% 20% 30%

E1 0 36% 36% 0% 18% 18% NA NA NA

WallowaWhitmanMA 1, MA 1W 18% 28% 46% 15% 20% 35% NA NA 30%

MA 3, MA 3A, MA 18 15% 24% 39% 13% 18% 31% NA NA NA

*Values are below desired conditions
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

310

According to Table 341, even though the desire is to move towards historical range of variability, 

the amount of treatment that could alter cover is so small (less than one percent per year) that in 

the first decade, cover remains close to what was envisioned in the 1990 Forest Plan. Open motor 

vehicle route density is not expected to increase above what was currently modeled for the habitat 

effectiveness index results previously discussed (see Table 340). This, coupled with the projected 

cover, would result in maintaining the current habitat effectiveness indices. Therefore, no 

significant change in elk distribution would be expected based on Forest Service management 

actions.

Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F

Rocky Mountain elk were selected as a management indicator species and a focal species to 

represent the effects of Forest Service management on motorized disturbance and elk security. 

For the purposes of this analysis, elk security has been defined as areas greater than one half mile 

from a road and greater than 250 acres in size following the methods of Hillis (1995). Hillis 

recommended that an area contain a minimum of 30 percent elk security to be effective. The 

presence of vegetative cover and topography can ameliorate some of the impacts from roads but 

they were not analyzed at this landscape scale due to the difficulty in mapping an accurate layer 

of hiding cover. Project level planning will analyze finer scale distribution of cover and forage 

likely using a model that incorporates nutrition and roads variables. It is not expected that the 

different plan revision alternatives would have a measurable impact to the elk population given 

the influence of other factors such as predation and hunting. However, Forest Service actions, in 

particular access management, can greatly influence elk distribution. For these reasons, the 

following discussion will focus on the effects to elk from motorized disturbance.

Alternative B

Open motor vehicle route density would change from a standard and/or guideline in Alternative A 

to a desired condition depending on the management area. General Forest (MA 4A) management 

would have a desired condition of an open route density of 2.4 miles per square mile. The desired 

condition for open motor vehicle route density in motorized backcountry management areas 

would have a desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile. Winter elk habitat would have a 

desired condition of 1.5 miles per square mile.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 7 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla NFs, and change little on the 

Wallowa-Whitman. Like other plan revision alternatives, Alternative B includes a guideline that 

would prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian 

areas.

Alternative C

The implementation of Alternative C would reduce the effects of motorized access on elk through 

the designated amount of area in different management areas. Desired Conditions for MA3C 

(Wildlife Corridor) would result in road density of 1.0 mile per square mile on about 6.5 percent 

of the Umatilla National Forest, about 11 percent of the Malheur National Forest, and about 10 

percent of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Alternative C would reduce the area designated 

as suitable for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on the 

Malheur, and 53 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman national forest compared to the current 

condition. Like other plan revision alternatives, Alternative C includes a standard that would 

prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

311

Alternative C would have the greatest reduction in road density although not necessarily in the 

areas where forage will be created.

Alternative D

This alternative responds to requests for more public motor vehicle access. This alternative results 

in more areas suitable for summer motor vehicle use compared to the other alternatives as 

management allocations emphasize areas where active management may occur. In this 

alternative, the desired conditions for open motor vehicle route density in General Forest (MA4A) is 3 miles per square mile or less.

As compared to the no action, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use 

would increase by about 10 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla, and change little on the 

Wallowa-Whitman.

Similar to other plan revision alternatives, Alternative D includes a guideline that would prohibit 

new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. 

Disturbance to elk from motorized travel would be highest in this alternative as compared to all 

other alternatives. The widespread influence of existing roads across the Plan Area would 

continue to negatively influence elk distribution.

Alternatives E and F

The main difference between Alternatives E and F is the amount of vegetation treatment. There is 

no difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives. However, the 

amount of human disturbance during vegetation treatments will be greater in Alternative E, as 

acres treated per year is higher.

These alternatives contain no desired conditions for open-road densities in General Forest (MA4A), although there are designated small amounts of wildlife corridor (MA 3C) linking high 

quality, unroaded wildlife habitats which have a desired condition of open motor vehicle route 

density of less than 1.0 mile per square mile. However, the area in this management area is less 

than 22,000 acres on only the Umatilla and the Wallowa-Whitman combined. As compared to the 

no action alternative, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use would 

increase by about 8 percent on the Malheur and decrease by less than 10 percent on both the 

Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman.

Similar to other plan revision alternatives, Alternatives E and F include guidelines that would 

prohibit new road and trail construction within existing old forest or high elevation riparian areas. 

Disturbance from motorized travel in both of these alternatives is similar to Alternatives A and B.

Risks remains high as little change is expected in motorized travel as compared to the existing 

condition. The widespread influence of existing roads across the Plan Area would continue to 

negatively influence elk distribution.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

The main difference between these alternatives is the amount of vegetation treatment. The 

increased pace of vegetation treatments under Alternative E-Modified Departure would increase 

the likelihood that forage would be enhanced and desired condition reached within elk priority 

areas.

There is no difference in the direction for motorized access between these alternatives. However, 

the amount of human disturbance during vegetation treatments will be greater in Alternative E-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

312

Modified Departure, as acres treated per year is higher. Under both alternatives, the amount of 

area designated as suitable for summer motorized use would decrease minimally on the Umatilla, 

increase by 5 percent on the Malheur, and decrease by 4 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman.

Under both alternatives, management direction for roads would include no net increase in road 

miles in key watersheds and a guideline to increase elk security within elk priority areas. It is 

anticipated that the creation of additional elk security under these alternatives would encourage 

elk to remain on public land where they would be accessible to the public as opposed to spending 

time on private land where tolerance for elk is low. Priority areas were delineated by Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife based on the 

ability to affect elk distribution.

We cannot estimate future road densities within elk priority areas but they will be reduced from 

the current condition to meet objectives for elk security. Exact locations of road closures would 

depend on other competing uses of the forest and available funding.

Summary

All plan revision alternatives will move toward desired condition, though E-Modified Departure 

the fastest. Desired condition will provide a distribution of cover and forage that approximates 

historical range of variability.

Alternative C would have the greatest effect in terms of reducing motorized disturbance, 

potentially leading to a more desirable distribution of elk. This alternative would reduce the area 

designated as suitable for summer motor vehicle use by 45 percent on the Umatilla, 38 percent on 

the Malheur, and 53 percent on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest compared to the current 

condition. However, alternative C has the least amount of vegetation treatments and would not 

necessarily create forage in areas where elk would utilize it. The relative benefit of this alternative 

would depend on prescribed fire and wildfire to create forage in close proximity to areas with less 

motorized disturbance.

Alternative B would result in increased negative effects from motorized disturbance, potentially 

exacerbating poor elk distribution. This alternative responds to requests for more public motor 

vehicle access. This alternative results in more areas suitable for summer and winter motor 

vehicle use compared to the other alternatives as management allocations emphasize areas where 

active management may occur. In this alternative, the desired conditions for open motor vehicle 

route density in General Forest (MA-4A) is 3 miles per square mile or less. As compared to

Alternative A, the percent change in area suitable for summer motor vehicle us would increase by 

about 10 percent on the Malheur and Umatilla, and change little on the Wallowa-Whitman.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would have little change in the amount of 

area suitable for summer vehicle use as compared to the current condition but they are expected 

to improve elk distribution by reducing motorized disturbance within elk priority areas. The 

increased pace and scale of vegetation treatments under alternative E-Modified Departure would 

increase the likelihood that forage would be enhanced and desired condition reached within elk 

priority areas. Both of these alternatives would provide a more strategic approach to elk habitat 

management by reducing disturbance to elk in areas most likely to influence their distribution and 

provide more opportunities for forage enhancement where it is most likely to be used by elk.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

313

Mule Deer – Malheur National Forest

Similar to the discussion for Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are a hunted 

species and do not truly meet the criteria to fulfill the purpose of management indicator species 

(where population change can be directly attributed to Forest Service management). Because they 

are important both socially and economically, mule deer were selected as a management indicator 

species and a focal species for the new planning effort only for the Malheur National Forest 

(Gouchner 2010). They were selected to represent security areas/motor vehicle use management 

and the herbaceous understory of early successional and opened canopy dry forest.

Mule Deer Distribution – Mule deer are extremely adaptable and can be found in all major 

climatic and vegetation zones of the Western United States except the arctic, tropics and extreme 

deserts (Boyd and Cooperrider 1986). Mule deer are native to Oregon and typically are found east 

of the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range. Vernon Bailey (1936) estimated Oregon’s mule deer 

population to be 39,000 to 75,000 animals from 1926 to 1933. Mule deer populations increased 

through the 1930s and 1940s, peaking during mid-1950s, mid-1960s and in the mid-1970s. 

Fluctuations in mule deer populations can be attributed to several factors that directly or 

indirectly affect habitat. Drought conditions reduce forage and cover values, while severe winter 

weather conditions can result in large losses of deer.

Mule Deer Habitat – Oregon’s deer management plan (ODFW 2003a) describes mule deer 

habitat in eastern Oregon:

The most important deer habitats in Eastern Oregon are summer habitat (including areas 

needed for reproductive activities) and winter habitat. Preferred summer habitat provides 

adequate forage to replace body reserves lost during winter and to maintain normal body 

functions. Summer habitat also includes areas specifically used for reproductive 

purposes. These areas must have an adequate amount of succulent vegetation, offering 

highly nutritional forage. In addition, areas used for reproduction should provide isolation 

from other deer, security from predators and minimal competition from other ungulates. 

Summer habitat areas are common throughout Eastern Oregon, and can be found in areas 

varying from lowland agricultural lands to high elevation mountain areas.

Winter habitat is found predominately in lower elevation areas of Eastern Oregon. These 

areas usually have minimal amounts of snow cover and provide a combination of 

geographic location, topography, and vegetation that provides structural protection and 

forage. Due to the low nutritive values of available forage during the winter, deer are 

forced to rely on their body reserves acquired during the summer for winter survival.

Deer habitat has changed dramatically during the last 100 years. Overgrazing by livestock during 

the late 1800s and early 1900s resulted in rangelands that were dominated by shrubs and forb 

species more favorable for deer, and populations increased (ODFW 2003b). Mule deer numbers 

in general have decreased during the past decade across the western United States, which is partly 

explained by mule deer’s need for early and mid-successional habitats; habitats that are being lost 

due to a lack of disturbance either from fire and/or mechanical (timber harvest) treatment. Similar 

patterns were noted in most western states (Unsworth et al. 1999). Increased fire suppression 

activities allowed the encroachment of woody vegetation resulting in old decadent shrub plants 

that have less nutritional value for deer, the loss of desirable shrub and forage species, and the 

loss of forested areas that were maintained as opened canopy under natural fire regimes and 

provided for the growth of many important deer browse plants (Hayden et al. 2008).

Nutritional intake is a critical component of deer biology. Mule deer, like elk, are somewhat of a 

habitat generalist, although deer have a more selective diet, selecting higher quality forage than 

elk (ODFW 2003b), mostly forbs and shrubs/trees (Bartmann 1983, Findholt et al. 2004). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

314

Findholdt et al. (2004) suggested this lack in flexibility could result in increased competition for 

forage resources with cattle and elk when densities of these animals are high or forage production 

is low. Because the emphasis currently on National Forest System lands is to manage towards 

historical range of variability, it was felt that mule deer would respond to the improvement in the 

understory in the dry forest because of the movement towards more open canopy as well as the 

increase in early seral stages.

Along with a concern for improving forage conditions for mule deer, is the concern of 

maintaining adequate security areas (Vavra et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a). 

Mule deer reaction to human disturbance is slightly different from elk (Taylor and Knight 2003). 

Deer are found closer to roads than elk on shared ranges, which may be a result of mule deer 

avoidance of elk (Johnson et al. 2000, Wisdom et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a). Human 

disturbance still results in reducing the quality of habitat for mule deer and therefore they were 

selected to indicate the effectiveness of motor vehicle use management and secure habitat change. 

Where road density is high, and security cover is low, deer will move until secure areas are found. 

Open-road density is often the easiest and most effective attribute to manage since hiding cover 

criteria may take many years to meet the desired future condition.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F to Mule Deer Habitat

Figure 47 displays the amount of forest structure (open forest, early successional) within the dry 

potential vegetation group that is anticipated to provide forage for mule deer. Mule deer use other 

forest types and successional stages so this figure does not capture all forage that would be 

available to mule deer. However, it should provide a reasonable approximation of the differences 

between alternatives relative to the amount of forage available over time. In the first decade, there 

does not appear to be a large difference between alternatives. After the first decade, alternatives D 

and E provide slightly more forage than the other alternatives. After four decades, the amount of 

forage begins to decrease under all alternatives. Alternative C provides the least amount of forage 

while alternative D provides the greatest amount.

Figure 47. Acres of mule deer forage areas within the Malheur National Forest by alternative for 

the first five decades
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

315

On the other hand, when comparing the amount of area that provides security, Alternatives C, E 

modified, and E departure would provide larger areas with reduced road-related human 

disturbance than the other alternatives. Non-motorized use is emphasized in Alternative C by 

designating the most recommended wilderness (MA 1B) as well as backcountry nonmotorized

(MA 3A) and wildlife corridors (MA 3C). Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure do 

not have wildlife corridors but they do designate elk priority areas wherein the focus will be on 

reducing road-related human disturbance. Finally, hiding cover within the areas to be actively 

managed is still important (Germaine et al. 2004). Reynolds (1969) indicated that deer need areas 

of heavy stocking levels (in excess of 160 square feet of basal area in immature stands) to provide 

escape and security cover. Cover continues to be important in the presence of human disturbance 

as mule deer, unlike elk, probably hide rather than flee disturbance (Vavra 2009). Alternative C 

would provide the greatest amount of hiding cover over time. Alternative D, which provides the 

greatest increase in forage, provides the least amount of hiding cover. Considering the tradeoffs 

between all of the alternatives, in all likelihood either Alternative E-Modified or E-Modified

Departure would provide the best combination of increased forage while maintaining security 

areas for mule deer.

Mule Deer Population Trends – According to the Planning Rule (CFR 219.19(a)(6)), 

“Population trends of the management indicator species will be monitored and relationships to 

habitat determined. This monitoring will be done in conjunction with State fish and wildlife 

agencies, to the extent practicable.” The Malheur National Forests would rely on survey data 

collected by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) for population numbers and 

trend analysis of all game species.

Vernon Bailey (1936) estimated Oregon’s mule deer population to be 39,000 to 75,000 animals 

from 1926 to 1933. Between 1990 and 2001, populations of mule deer were consistently below 

the management objective for Oregon (ODFW 2003b). This continues to be the case for mule 

deer within the Malheur National Forest as well (figure 48). As of 2016, there were an estimated 

35,532 mule deer within the wildlife management units (Beulah, Desolation, Murderer’s Creek, 

Northside, and Sumpter) that encompass the Malheur National Forest.

Many mule deer ranges will no longer support historical deer population levels, in part due to 

reduction of habitat caused by human development and changes in land use (Mule Deer Working 

Group 2003). Moderate population increases may be attained in some units with careful 

management; however, a return to the high deer population levels present in the 1950s, 60s and 

70s probably will not occur due to changes to habitat and public acceptance (ODFW 2003a).

Fluctuations in mule deer populations can be attributed to many factors including drought, which 

reduces forage and cover values, and severe winter weather that result in large losses of deer. 

Both factors can cause poor deer condition and result in lower deer survival. In contrast, years of 

adequate moisture and mild winters will normally result in increased deer populations. Predation 

has recently been acknowledged as a contributor to suppressing deer populations (ODFW 2006, 

Robinson et al. 2002).

Mule deer numbers are held in check by hunting, both sport and depredation. State wildlife 

departments can change the number of harvest permits allocated, season lengths, and sex to be 

harvested by game management units, all of which affect populations. Although improvement is 

anticipated, especially in forage conditions, for all alternatives, the total number of acres that 

would be treated in the dry potential vegetation group probably wouldn’t be enough to cause a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

316

perceptible increase in populations that could be attributed to Forest Service management 

activities. It is assumed that mule deer populations would remain stable for all alternatives.

Figure 48. Estimated population of mule deer in comparison to the management objective 

for those units within the Malheur National Forest between 1999 and 2010

Domestic Livestock Grazing in Relation to Management Indicator and Focal Species

Forest Service regulations from the 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.20) related to forest 

planning and grazing states:

In forest planning, the suitability and potential capability of National Forest System lands 

for producing forage for grazing animals and for providing habitat for management 

indicator species shall be determined as provided in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

Lands so identified shall be managed in accordance with direction established in forest 

plans.

(a) Lands suitable for grazing and browsing shall be identified and their condition and 

trend shall be determined. The present and potential supply of forage for livestock, wild 

and free-roaming horses and burros, and the capability of these lands to produce suitable 

food and cover for selected wildlife species shall be estimated. The use of forage by 

grazing and browsing animals will be estimated. Lands in less than satisfactory condition 

shall be identified and appropriate action planned for their restoration.

Consistent with 36 CFR 219.20(a), this analysis will supplement the Rangeland Resources 

section to identify capable management indicator and focal species habitat on National Forest 

System lands and where source habitat is coincident with open domestic livestock grazing 

allotments. The “Rangeland Resources” section identified rangelands that were in less than 

satisfactory condition. National Forest System lands that exist outside open allotments, while 

important to management indicator species, are not addressed here as they are not affected by 

domestic grazing animals. For detailed analysis in this section, the following criteria must be met:
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

317

1. Management indicator and focal species source habitat must occur within open domestic 

grazing allotments

2. Domestic livestock grazing must pose a direct or indirect effect that either (a) is measurably 

contributing to the less than satisfactory condition of capable management indicator/focal 

species habitat within an open allotment, and/or (b) measurably threatens the ability to restore 

capable habitat.

The following discussion assesses each management indicator and focal species relative to these 

criteria: (a) and (b).

Domestic Livestock Grazing in Relation to Pileated Woodpecker – The pileated woodpecker 

is a management indicator species for the medium/large trees in the cool moist potential 

vegetation group. While pileated woodpecker habitat does occur within open allotments (criteria 

1), livestock grazing is not identified as a major threat to pileated woodpecker habitat. Threats to 

pileated woodpecker habitat from livestock impacts are believed to be incidental and limited to 

localized areas where livestock tend to congregate. The majority of pileated habitat typically 

provides sparse or little livestock forage, an indication that grazing, should it be present, has a 

low likelihood of posing a risk to development or maintenance of source habitat characteristics, 

such as large tree development or dense conditions.

Domestic Livestock Grazing in Relation to White-headed Woodpecker – The white-headed 

woodpecker is a management indicator and focal species for the medium/large trees in the open 

and mature ponderosa pine and mixed ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests in the Blue Mountains. 

Past timber harvest has had the most significant impact on suitable habitat for white-headed 

woodpeckers (Wisdom et al. 2000). Large numbers of unregulated livestock in the early to mid1900s resulted in a loss of fine fuels and created extensive areas of mineral soil that resulted in 

numerous successful conifer seedlings becoming established (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, 

Borman 2005). Grazing is not identified as a direct risk or threat to white-headed woodpeckers 

(Garrett et al. 1996, Wales et al. 2011, Wisdom et al. 2000), although it may indirectly influence 

some of the factors affecting white-headed woodpecker source habitat (Altman 2000). For 

example, grazing is believed to have some localized effects to the development of younger forests 

and aspen stands, including incidental trampling of reproducing tree seedlings. It can also result 

in localized areas of increased soil erosion, and increases the potential for introduction and spread 

of invasive weeds and other nonnatives. However, livestock grazing does not affect the presence 

and abundance of large tree structure (living and dead) on the landscape. White-headed 

woodpecker habitat does occur within open allotments (criteria 1) within the Blue Mountains, but 

impacts are believed to be incidental and limited to localized areas and not a measurable threat to 

the restoration of capable management indicator species habitat identified as in less than 

satisfactory condition

In summary, while management indicator species source habitat for both the pileated and whiteheaded woodpecker occurs within open allotments, livestock grazing does not measurably 

contribute to the less than satisfactory condition of management indicator species source habitat 

within an open allotment, nor would it measurably threaten the ability to restore source habitat. 

As such, no further analysis of grazing impacts to pileated or white-headed woodpeckers will be 

done.

Domestic Livestock Grazing in Relation to Rocky Mountain Elk – Rocky Mountain elk were 

chosen as a management indicator and focal species for security areas/cover. While Rocky 

Mountain elk security habitat does occur within open allotments (criteria 1), livestock grazing is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

318

not identified as a major threat to security habitat. Elk are an adaptable species and somewhat of a 

generalist in their use of habitat and forage (Cooperrider 2002). Regarding their habitat overall, 

and specifically foraging habitat, many studies have indicated that grazing management can have 

either positive or negative impacts on their habitat (Wambolt et al. 1997, Halstead et al. 2002, 

Torstenson et al. 2002, Findholt et al. 2004, Damiran 2006, and Vavra 2009). Elk habitat does 

occur within open allotments (criteria 1) and it is believed that livestock grazing across the range 

of the species within the Blue Mountains may have some effects to the quantity and quality of 

forage available to elk, although not to security habitat.

Domestic Livestock Grazing in Relation to Mule Deer – Mule deer were selected to represent 

forage conditions in the dry forest understory and, to a lesser degree, security areas and motor 

vehicle use management. Mule deer, like elk, are considered a habitat generalist, although deer 

have a more selective diet and tend to select higher quality forage than elk (ODFW 2003b). At 

times this less flexible diet, which comprises mostly forbs and shrubs/trees (Bartmann 1983, 

Findholt et al. 2004), could result in increased competition for forage resources with cattle and 

elk (Findholt et al. 2004). As with elk, several studies have indicated that grazing management 

can have either a positive or negative effect on mule deer habitat (Damiran 2006, Findholt et al. 

2004, Kie et al. 1991, Loft et al. 1987, Torstenson et al. 2006, Vavra 2009, Willms et al. 1980). 

Mule deer habitat does occur within open allotments (criteria 1), and it is believed that livestock 

grazing across the range of the species within the Blue Mountains may have some effects to the 

quantity and quality of forage available to mule deer.

In summary, habitat for both Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer occurs within open allotments 

and livestock grazing may contribute to less than satisfactory conditions of their habitat. Although 

some differences do exist in their responses to livestock grazing, for the most part deer and elk 

are very similar. As such, both will be analyzed together, assuming the responses would be the 

same unless specifically noted.

The dominant forage of cattle, elk, and deer includes shrubs, forbs and grasses (Findholt et al. 

2004). The time of year and the order in which species (cattle, elk or deer) graze determines what 

resource is utilized (Coe et al. 2005). Findholt et al. (2004) concluded the following: 1) elk will 

utilize more grasses and sedges than forbs and shrubs in pastures not previously grazed by cattle; 

2) elk will utilize more resources and more evenly than deer and cattle; 3) elk responded to a 

decline in available lichens by increasing their consumption of grasses and sedges, which 

increased the competition between cattle and elk; and 4) the competition between elk and cattle 

also increased during the late summer. Skovlin et al. (1968) found that both elk and mule deer 

used pastures not grazed by cattle more than any of the cattle-grazed pastures, with use declining 

as cattle stocking rate increased. They found less of an effect by cattle on mule deer than on elk. 

Coe et al. (2005) found that deer and elk alike selected different resources when cattle were 

present and may also move out of pastures where cattle had been released.

Not all lands that are suitable as forage areas for elk and deer are subjected to domestic livestock 

grazing. However, wild ungulate use is not restricted to these areas and therefore must be 

accounted for on all lands, even those managed for domestic livestock grazing. As with domestic 

livestock, meadows and grasslands provide the most efficient forage areas for elk (Ager et al. 

2003, Collins and Urness 1983, Wickstrom et al. 1984,), especially in early spring, while overall 

forage is limited on summer range. Also, elk may leave an area being grazed by cattle, but will 

often return to a pasture after cattle leave (Yeo et al. 1993).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

319

Nutritional status is a key factor in the welfare of individual animals and hence elk herd 

productivity (Johnson et al. 2005). Therefore, the quantity and quality of forage available for deer 

and elk populations is an important factor in determining habitat effectiveness (Beck et al. 1997, 

Roloff 1997). Especially important is the quality of forage available in the fall to store fat 

reserves for winter and in the spring to replace fat reserves and satisfy gestation requirements 

(Cook et al. 2004). Damiran (2006) indicated that moderate grazing by livestock and elk has little 

effect on the subsequent nutrient intake rate of cattle, deer, and elk in mixed-conifer rangelands 

during the late summer in northeast Oregon. It is important to keep in mind that it is the plant 

community and the health of the plants themselves that must be the ultimate measure of use by 

herbivores (Vavra 1992). Utilization levels that do not exceed long-term utilization of 40 percent 

probably do not have negative effects on plant health. As such, it is anticipated that those 

alternatives with utilization levels of 40 percent or less will continue to provide quality forage for 

elk and deer. Alternative C would be the best at providing for the needs of elk and deer, followed 

by Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. As Vavra and Riggs (2010) point out, 

interactions of ungulates and their environment is very complex, so other aspects such as timing 

of grazing can also affect the quality and quantity of forage available for deer and elk (Clark et al. 

2000, Westenskow-Wall et al. 1994). Also, on some public lands, developments, such as roads, 

trails, and campgrounds, and disturbance from recreational and management activities, 

increasingly influence available forage by causing elk and deer to abandon forage areas due to 

disturbance (Wisdom et al. 2005, Wisdom et al. 2005a).

According to the range analysis (see “Livestock Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation” section),

an evaluation of monitoring data shows a recovery in terms of native species composition 

beginning in the mid-1900s and continuing until about the turn of the century. Since 2000, 

improvement has slowed for reasons that are unclear; however, it may be related to factors such 

as weather (e.g., precipitation timing and amounts) or the cumulative effects from other impacts 

such as fire (both exclusion and occurrence), forested vegetation management (including canopy 

cover, invasion into historical grassland or shrublands, as well as opening of forest canopy in 

some areas), and could even be somewhat related to climate change.

Some sites may or may not improve with improved grazing management. For example, some 

upland bunchgrass plant communities have been invaded by cheatgrass and/or invasive species 

(Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) and since currently there is not a feasible means of eliminating 

cheatgrass, these sites may have passed the threshold where recovery is achievable. It has also 

been suggested that early spring or late fall use by wild ungulates, such as elk or deer, are known 

to impact bunchgrass communities by heavy and improperly timed grazing such that the more 

palatable, and early growing (e.g., cool-season or C-3) species have been negatively impacted 

(Briske and Richards 1994).

Riparian areas are also of concern as they not only provide forage areas for both elk and deer, but 

also a source of hiding cover for deer (Loft et al. 1987). Monitoring data conducted as part of the 

PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion effort (Archer et al. 2009) have indicated that, on a broad 

scale, there has been a recovery for many of the parameters most closely associated with livestock 

grazing effects. Analysis of this data for the Blue Mountains national forests also indicates a 

favorable trend in many of the parameters important to deer and elk; however, this has not 

occurred to the extent that sites fully meet desired conditions. The rate of recovery may also not 

be in the time frame desired. Additionally, it is recognized that localized areas may be lagging 

behind in recovery, but it is anticipated that they will be dealt with at the project level.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

320

A broad scale assessment of available forage was completed by calculating pounds per acre of 

forage for each plant association group. The basic data for this was derived from the plant 

association guides completed for the Blue Mountains (Johnson 1987 and Johnson and Clausnitzer 

1992). It should be remembered that these estimates are coarse, and even though a single number 

was used to calculate potential forage, the reality is that production can be variable and influenced 

by site specifics, such as the seral stage of vegetation being analyzed or annual variations due to 

precipitation. A further caveat is that total herbaceous production was estimated, which probably 

overestimates what would actually be palatable forage.

In summary, the available information indicates an excess of forage production that is capable of 

meeting the current and projected needs for permitted livestock, as well as for large wild ungulate 

populations, and for providing for the basic needs of the plants, soils, and other rangeland 

resources. This analysis was conducted at the landscape scale and it is recognized that there may 

be site-specific conflicts that are believed to be generally small in scope and extent. Project 

planning will deal with potential conflicts at that scale.

Considering the previous discussion, it would appear that proposed stocking levels for any of the 

alternatives would leave sufficient residual biomass available for wild ungulates on lands 

considered suitable foraging areas. However, livestock do not make uniform use of suitable 

rangeland, but rather graze in a pattern that varies in a gradient from higher use in the more 

preferred lower slopes and near water, to near zero use in areas with steeper slopes or farther from 

water. As such, actual utilization across suitable range may vary from the proposed utilization 

levels to zero percent, but would average perhaps 20 to maybe 40 percent.

Alternative C would have the least impact on suitable habitat for elk and deer because the least 

amount of suitable foraging habitat coincides with proposed domestic livestock grazing areas. 

The proposed utilization level is below the threshold where utilization levels may impact the 

forage base, indicating that few if any site specific areas would be negatively impacted. Other 

plan revision alternatives would have similar effects from domestic livestock grazing because 

proposed utilization levels are not expected to reduce the health of the forage base. Although 

Alternative D has more acres subject to domestic livestock grazing, the proposed utilization level 

is at or below the risk level of plant health reduction.

Cumulative Effects to Management Indicator Species

The clearest concept of a management indicator species would be a species highly associated with 

a specific habitat type (Niemi et al. 1997) and home ranges small enough to be influenced mostly 

by management activities on National Forest lands (Hayward et al. 2004, Landres et al. 1988, 

Owen 2010). Few species, however, are unaffected by events that are not controlled by the Forest 

Service. As such, the cumulative effects described below have the potential of influencing 

populations of those species.

Several of the species analyzed as management indicator species for the various forest plan 

alternatives include game species managed by state wildlife departments. These departments can 

change the number of harvest permits allocated, season lengths, and sex to be harvested, which 

can affect population levels. Cumulative effects not only include harvest regulations of 

management indicator species, but also changes in harvest regulations for predators of 

management indicator species. For example, prohibiting the use of dogs to harvest mountain lions 

in Oregon has led to an increase in mountain lion populations, which may affect some local elk 

and deer populations (ODFW 2006). Access to other non-federal and federal ownerships during 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

321

the hunting season can also influence populations. Most game management units contain multiple 

ownerships, which influences the ability to achieve population objectives.

The elk priority areas in Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure identify areas where 

reducing road-related human disturbance will be a priority throughout the life of the plan. These 

areas were delineated in conjunction with state wildlife agencies with the intent of shifting elk 

distribution to public land where they are available to the public instead of occupying private land 

where they can become a nuisance to farmers, ranchers and others. However, the extent to which 

elk remain on public land is also influenced by factors outside the control of the Forest Service. 

Elk distribution will also be influenced by the quality of forage available on other lands as well as 

the extent to which landowners and state wildlife management agencies discourage elk through 

deterrents such as fencing, hazing, and damage hunts.

Some of the species spend a portion of their time outside of the National Forest boundary. The 

northern goshawk and Lewis’s woodpecker, are partial migrants (Wisdom et al. 2000) that most 

likely winter off of the national forest. Still others occupy habitats that occur abundantly on 

private lands, like the white-headed woodpecker, which inhabits ponderosa pine or the northern 

flicker which inhabits juniper. Vegetation management on other ownerships has not necessarily 

featured the retention of preferred habitat attributes for these species (large trees and snags) in the 

past, and may not in the future. Wisdom et al. (2000) estimated a 62 percent reduction in source 

habitat for the white-headed woodpecker from historical conditions in the Columbia River Basin 

and a reduction of 79 percent in the Blue Mountains.

Other species like the northern (American) three-toed woodpecker and pileated woodpecker have 

much of their preferred habitat on lands administered by the Forest Service. Wisdom et al. (2000) 

estimated a 21 percent decrease in source habitat basin-wide for the pileated woodpecker, but 

found more than a 100 percent increase in source habitat in the Blue Mountains Ecological 

Recovery Unit from historical to current times, indicating that few cumulative effects would be 

anticipated from lands under private, state, or other federal administration within the Blue 

Mountains.

Other Species

Bighorn Sheep

The analysis of effects to bighorn sheep did not rely on the surrogate species approach due to the 

predominant influence of disease on their population viability. There are two subspecies of 

bighorn sheep in Oregon and Washington: California (Ovis canadensis californiana) and Rocky 

Mountain (Ovis canadensis canadensis). Both subspecies, often referred to generically as “wild 

sheep”, inhabit the Plan Area, and the state wildlife agencies responsible for their management 

have been careful to keep the subspecies separate according to generally accepted historical 

distributions for the respective subspecies. Historically, California bighorn sheep occurred in 

central and southeastern Oregon, the eastern slope of the Cascade Range in Washington, portions 

of British Columbia, California, Nevada, southwestern Idaho, and possibly western Nebraska. 

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep historically occurred in northeastern Oregon, central Idaho, 

Montana, Wyoming, southwestern Alberta, southeastern British Columbia, eastern Utah, and 

Colorado, and possibly portions of New Mexico (Toweill and Geist 1999). Both subspecies were 

extirpated from Oregon and Washington by the early 1900s, with the exception of the last few 

Rocky Mountain bighorns that died in Oregon around 1945. The current range represents an 

increase in occupied habitat since the 1940s as a result of reintroductions. However, much of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

322

historical range is still unoccupied. These species are not well distributed within the Plan Area, 

but were chosen as a surrogate species to represent grass/shrub environment.

Primary Threats to Species Viability

A viable population is one that survives fluctuations in demographic, genetic, and environmental 

conditions and maintains its vigor and potential for evolutionary adaptation over a long period of 

time (Soule’ 1987). Generally, the Forest Service’s role in wildlife management is focused on 

conserving, protecting, or manipulating habitat to ensure that habitat exists, and is available and 

capable of supporting viable populations of native and desired non-native wildlife species. 

Bighorn sheep represent an exception in that the Forest Service not only administers a substantial 

amount of habitat for this species, but also administers a livestock grazing program that can 

directly or indirectly affect bighorn populations through the potential for disease transmission. 

Although several factors affect bighorn sheep populations and habitat, the potential for disease 

transmission from domestic sheep or goats represents the most significant factor that can be 

effectively managed on National Forest System lands.

Wildfire and invasive nonnative plants can alter habitat for bighorn sheep. Fire can rejuvenate 

forage and create connectivity between patches of source habitat. The exclusion of fire can reduce 

available habitat as plant succession reduces sight distance, and changes the context and 

effectiveness of escape terrain. Invasive plants can replace native vegetation, rendering foraging 

areas unusable for bighorn sheep. Predators, primarily cougars, can focus on bighorn sheep and 

suppress recruitment at a localized scale. These and other factors combine to alter the habitat and 

population dynamics of bighorn sheep, but the Forest Service has limited capability to influence 

these factors. The Forest Service has direct administrative control over the potential for disease 

transmission from permitted domestic livestock to bighorn sheep. Although sheep and goats 

associated with hobby farms, pets, pack animals, and weed control also represent possible disease 

vectors, the Forest Service has no or limited management authority over these activities. 

Therefore, the focus of this analysis is around the potential risks from permitted domestic sheep 

grazing. The use of domestic goats for recreational packing is also addressed.

Disease Transmission from Domestic Sheep and Goats

Technically “diseases” are not transmitted; rather, pathogens (bacteria, viruses) are what actually 

get exchanged from a shedding host to a recipient host. Disease may result from the way a 

recipient host’s immune system responds to the insult of the pathogen(s). In the case of bighorn 

sheep, the pathogens are generally bacteria to which bighorns are naïve, and pneumonia is the 

disease that results as the recipient host’s immune system produces mucus in an effort to expel the 

pathogens. This over-production of mucus impedes proper respiratory function and pneumonia 

takes hold, which is often fatal to bighorn sheep. However, for ease of discussion, this process is 

commonly referred to as “disease transmission.”

Some aspects of bighorn sheep behavior contribute to the probability that they will make contact 

with or associate with domestic sheep or goats when occupying the same landscapes. First is the 

basic social or herding behavior of members of the subfamily Caprinae (includes goats and 

sheep). The tendency to seek out and associate with animals of similar form and appearance 

creates an attraction between sheep and goat species (Onderka et al. 1988, Schommer and 

Woolever 2001). The reasons behind this attraction is not as important as the fact that it occurs, 

and such behavior often results in close association when a domestic sheep or goat gets separated 

from its herd or owner and encounters wild sheep.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

323

The second behavior that contributes to association in the wild is “foraying” by bighorn sheep. A 

foray is any short-term movement by a bighorn sheep from and back to an established home 

range. Both sexes exhibit foraying behavior, which can occur at any time of the year. However, 

the large proportion of forays occur with males during the breeding season (rut) from early 

November through mid-December. Foray probabilities were determined from more than 54,000 

telemetry locations in the Hell Canyon complex, and showed that rams are greater than nine times 

more likely than ewes to embark on forays. Of the individuals that exhibited foraying behavior in 

the Hells Canyon data set, 90 percent were rams and 10 percent were ewes (Carpenter et al. 

2014). On Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administered lands in Idaho, bighorn sheep were 

documented to have traveled nearly 50 miles, including through towns and across major rivers 

(Coggins 2002). Telemetry data has shown that desert bighorn sheep regularly cross the broad 

valleys that separate the majority of desert mountain ranges (Krausman et al. 1996, Schwartz et 

al. 1986). Although many examples of longer forays exist, the forays from the Hells Canyon data 

set generally did not exceed thirty-five kilometers. Figure 49 and Figure 50 are graphs showing 

the distribution of summer forays by distance, for ewes and rams respectively.

The summer season is when authorized domestic sheep and goats would be on allotments within 

the Plan Area; therefore, this analysis focuses on the summer season. The probability of 

association between domestic sheep or goats and wild sheep increases where suitable habitats are 

well connected and these connections overlap with areas used by domestic sheep or goats (Gross 

et al. 2000, Singer et al. 2000). To further complicate this scenario, a foraying bighorn sheep may 

contract pathogens from an encounter with a domestic sheep or goat and then visit multiple herds 

of bighorns before returning to its home range. Such behavior can lead to a single contact 

between a bighorn sheep and a domestic sheep or goat resulting in disease moving rapidly 

through multiple bighorn herds in a population.

Evidence that association or contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep leads to 

respiratory disease in bighorn sheep is overwhelming (Clifford et al. 2009, Foreyt et al. 1994, 

Silflow et al. 1993). Studies at Washington State University (Besser 2014) confirmed that certain 

disease causing pathogens can be transmitted via aerosol, but the maximum distance that these 

pathogens can travel through air or how long they can remain viable outside an animal host is not 

fully understood. The terms “contact” and “association” are used interchangeably because many 

epizootics have resulted following observed “association” between domestic sheep or goats and 

bighorn sheep, but actual “contact” was not observed.

A variety of viruses, bacteria, and parasites such as lungworm, contagious ecthyma, and scabies 

affect bighorn sheep, but most of these do not lead to population-level all-age die-offs, otherwise 

referred to as epizootics. “Epizootic” simply denotes a disease that is temporarily prevalent and 

widespread in an animal population. Bacteria of the family Pasteurellaceae (Pasteurella 

multocida, Mannheimia haemolytica, and Bibersteinia trehalosi) and Mycoplasma 

ovipneumoniae are the most common pathogens associated with population-level die-offs (Martin 

2006, Schommer and Woolever 2001, Herndon et al. 2011, Wood et al. 2017). These specific 

pathogens are not endemic to wild sheep in North America, thus the immune systems of wild 

sheep are naïve to them. The result is an immuno-response that frequently leads to pneumonia. 

Domestic sheep and goats commonly carry these pathogens without showing symptoms of 

disease or other negative consequences (WAFWA 2014).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

324

Figure 49. Proportion of summer forays by ewes by distance 

from core home range

Figure 50. Proportion of summer forays by rams by distance 

from core home range

More than 327 bighorn sheep in a 30 square mile area in Hells Canyon died when exposed to 

Pasteurella multocida and Mannheimia haemolytica that was most likely carried by a feral goat 

(Dassanayake 2009, Onderka et al. 1988, Schommer and Woolever 2001). Both P. multocida and 

M. haemolytica were isolated from a feral goat and a bighorn sheep found in close proximity to 

where the Hells Canyon (1995 and 1996) bighorn sheep pneumonia epizootic began (Cassirer et 

al. 1998, Dassanayake et al. 2008, Weiser et al. 2003). It should be noted that the organism called 

Pasteurella haemolytica has been renamed Mannheimia haemolytica, but because much of the 

scientific literature uses the old nomenclature, the names should be considered synonymous. 

Several authors (Dassanayake et al. 2008, Silflow et al. 1993, Srikumaran et al. 2007, Weiser et 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

325

al. 2003) have demonstrated that bighorn sheep are highly susceptible to P. multocida and M. 

haemolytica strains found in domestic sheep and goats.

In some bighorn epizootics, pathogens isolated from the respiratory tracts of dead or near death 

bighorn sheep including parainfluenza-3 (PI-3) virus, respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV), 

Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, and lungworms (Protostrongylus spp.) are believed to have 

contributed to disease (Rudolph et al. 2007; Spraker et al. 1986). In experiments, M. 

ovipneumoniae has been shown to predispose bighorn sheep to M. haemolytica pneumonia. When 

M. ovipneumoniae–free domestic sheep were commingled with bighorn sheep, the bighorn sheep 

survived at unprecedented rates.

Tom Besser of Washington State University has determined that Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae

frequently functions as a precursor to other bacterial pathogens that result in pneumonia in 

bighorn sheep. Besser et al. (2012) analyzed diagnostic specimens taken from nine bighorn sheep 

herds that were undergoing a die-off from pneumonia and nine apparently healthy bighorn sheep 

herds. M. ovipneumoniae was detected as a predominate member of the bacterial flora in all nine 

of the pneumonic herds, and was absent in all nine of the apparently healthy herds. M. 

ovipneumoniae was the only pathogen detected at significantly higher prevalence in animals from 

epizootics than in animals from unaffected healthy populations, and was the most consistently 

detected pathogen within each epizootic (Besser et al. 2012). These data provide evidence that M. 

ovipneumoniae plays a primary role in wide spread pneumonia in bighorn sheep.

Bighorn Sheep Population Viability

When addressing population viability it is common to consider a minimum population size, 

sometimes referred to as a non-viable number. The concept of species or population viability is 

complex, and involves many factors in addition to a minimum number of individuals in a 

population. These factors include, but are not limited to demographic composition of the 

population such as gender ratio and age structure; birth and death rates; immigration and 

emigration rates; mortality factors; sensitivity to various environmental stressors; quality and 

quantity of habitat; and the species’ sensitivity and population response to stochastic events. Of 

these multiple components of species viability, the one that is most directly associated with the 

management of National Forest System lands is the risk of transmission of disease-causing 

pathogens from domestic sheep and goats. The Forest Service has no or little authority or ability 

to influence the other components of species viability (demographic composition, gender ratio, 

birth and death rates, and other factors).

Singer et al. (2000, 2001) suggests that bighorn sheep herds that drop below 30 individuals are

unlikely to recover, and very likely to go extinct. Singer et al. (2001) used observations from 41 

epizootics in bighorn sheep to estimate a 5 percent chance of a herd surviving when pre-epizootic 

herd size was fewer than 50 animals. Berger (1990) examined extinction rates for 122 bighorn 

sheep populations in California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, and concluded that 

herds with fewer than 50 individuals would likely go extinct within 50 years. Zeigenfuss et al. 

(2000) relates a contiguous source habitat patch size of 32 square kilometers (approximately 

7,900 acres) to an estimated minimum viable population of 125 adults.

Adult population estimates (2016) for the four California bighorn herds within the Blue 

Mountains Plan Area are currently above both the minimum viability benchmarks of 30 and 50 

individuals (see Table 342) suggested by Singer (2000, 2001) and Berger (1990) respectively, but 

two herds, Burnt River and McClellan are below the minimum population of 125 suggested by 

Zeigenfuss (2000). Each of these four herds are isolated from each other, with only a slight 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

326

possibility of exchange between the Aldrich and McClellan herds. Aldrich and McClellan herds 

are separated by less than 10 miles, much of which is heavily forested and unlikely to be 

traversed by bighorn sheep. No non-human facilitated exchange between Aldrich and McClellan 

herds has been documented (ODFW pers. com. 2017).

Although each of the four California bighorn herds contain greater than 50 individuals, they 

remain isolated from each other, and vulnerable to local extirpation based on relatively small herd 

size and vulnerability to epizootics. These herds’ vulnerability to disease is not from permitted 

grazing by domestic sheep or goats on National Forest System lands. The risks are associated 

with factors largely outside of management authority and control of the Forest Service. Pets, 4-H 

animals, and hobby/farm flocks of domestic sheep and goats on private lands represent the 

greatest risks to these bighorn sheep herds.

The thirteen Rocky Mountain bighorn herds (Table 342) within the Blue Mountains Plan Area

differ from the California subspecies in that their distribution is largely connected by source 

habitat, with at least some level of genetic exchange occurring between many of the herds. The 

2016 adult population estimates indicate that 8 of the 13 herds are below the suggested minimum 

viable threshold of 50 (Berger 1990), and one additional herd with 54 adults, only slightly above 

the suggested threshold. Using the non-viable number of 30 adults suggested by Singer et al. 

(2000, 2001) and Carpenter et al. (2014), 4 of the 13 herds contain fewer than 30 individuals, and 

one additional herd has just 31 individuals. Only the Lookout Mountain herd exceeds the 

minimum population size of 125 suggested by Zeigenfuss (2000).

Based strictly on herd size and geographic distribution of the Rocky Mountain bighorn 

population, there is a high likelihood that this population is not viable. Viability is further 

compromised by poor lamb recruitment due to persistent respiratory disease in several of the 

herds. Figure 51 uses the Sheep Mountain bighorn herd, now extirpated, as an example of 

population trend when a disease event leads to an initial all-age die-off (approximately 1998), 

followed by multiple years of little or no lamb recruitment. The Sheep Mountain herd was 

estimated at ninety individuals prior to the introduction of disease that killed approximately sixty 

percent of the herd. The herd dropped to below thirty individuals and experienced little to no 

lamb recruitment over the next decade until the herd became extirpated. The last few individuals 

(only females) in the Sheep Mountain herd were captured and used as research subjects. Given 

the tenuous condition of these herds, any management actions that result in exposure to diseasecausing pathogens could lead to the extirpation of herds, contributing to a decline toward 

extinction of the Hells Canyon bighorn sheep population.

Another means of predicting species persistence, or viability is to model population change over 

time using current population estimates and survival rates of lambs and ewes. The survival of 

rams is much less important because a relatively small number of rams is capable of performing 

the mating necessary for reproduction, thus the reproductive potential of a population exists 

largely with the adult female cohort. Population trajectory was modeled for two Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep herds within the Plan Area. Each herd was modeled under two disease scenarios, 

healthy and stochastic health (considering predicted exposure to disease).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

327

Figure 51. Annual population estimations for the Sheep Mountain bighorn sheep herd (extirpated)

Figure 52 and figure 53 show the predicted population growth for the Lostine and Wenaha 

bighorn herds, respectively, under the two health scenarios. These figures illustrate that these 

example herds would predictably increase over time in the absence of disease, and conversely 

would trend toward extirpation in the presence of disease. These example herds inhabit 

significantly different land types. The Lostine herd inhabits subalpine and alpine mountain tops 

and the Wenaha herd inhabits steep canyons characterized by rock, grasslands, shrub lands, and 

stringers of conifer forests.

The interaction of disease outbreaks in bighorn sheep populations with other stressors (both 

disease and otherwise) is poorly understood. Recent research suggests that the complex 

interactions of disease agents themselves increases uncertainty in diagnosis and may also 

predispose bighorn sheep to secondary disease events. Additional research is needed on disease 

spillover at the wildlife/livestock interface, but it is reasonable to expect bighorn sheep are 

susceptible to diseases caused by multiple pathogens that result in multiple disease cycles (e.g. 

Mycoplasma ovieneumoniae, viruses, internal and external parasites, and other bacterial taxa). 

Additional stressors, which can reduce the resistance of bighorn sheep to disease-causing 

pathogens, include overcrowding on limited range; harassment and mortality by dogs or other 

predators; encroachment by humans; severe weather events (Bunch et al. 1999); parasitism; poor 

nutrition; other human disturbances such as roads, habitat degradation, and noise; breeding 

behavior; and the presence of other wildlife (Foreyt 1998 Monello et al. 2001, Garde et al. 2005, 

USDA 2010a).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

328

Figure 52. Lostine bighorn sheep herd population trajectory under 

two health scenarios

Figure 53. Wenaha bighorn sheep herd population trajectory under 

two health scenarios

Genetic Considerations for Species Viability - As a result of die-offs and suppressed 

reproduction from persistent disease, the genetic diversity in bighorn sheep herds has been 

drastically reduced (Schommer and Woolever 2001). The sources of reintroduced bighorn sheep 

into the Plan Area represent a “founders bottleneck” in regard to genetic diversity in the metapopulation (Hilty et al. 2012). Reduced genetic diversity is a factor that can limit population 

viability over the long-term. Another population characteristic that is limiting viability of bighorn 

sheep in the Plan Area is the relatively small and isolated herd distribution, particularly for the 

California subspecies. Multiple herds or subpopulations comprise a meta-population. According 

to the WAFWA Wild Sheep Working Group (Brewer et al. 2014) population viability depends 

upon the persistence of the subpopulations. “Populations of bighorn sheep that are few in number 

and geographically isolated are more vulnerable to extirpation than larger populations, due to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

329

lower genetic diversity and an inability to replace individuals lost from a variety of causes 

(Brewer et al. 2014).” California bighorn sheep within the Plan Area exist in four isolated herds, 

with no contact between herds or immigration from outside the Plan Area. The Aldrich and 

McClellan herds are the closest to each other, but no contact or exchange between these herds has 

been documented by ODFW (Torland pers. com. 2017). The Aldrich Mountain, McClellan, Burnt 

River and Potamus herds are isolated from all other bighorn herds. Their relatively small 

population size and complete isolation from other herds make each of them vulnerable to local 

extirpation from disease or other unpredictable events.

Table 342. Bighorn sheep herd names and 2016 population estimates within the Blue Mountains 

forest plan revision analysis area

Bighorn Sheep Subspecies 

and Herd Name* State

2015 Adult Population 

Estimate (ODFW)

National Forest

(Nearest to bighorn herd)

California O.c. californiana

Aldrich Mountain Oregon 150 Malheur

Burnt River Oregon 87 Wallowa-Whitman

McClellan Oregon 82 Wallowa-Whitman

Potamus Oregon 147 Umatilla

Rocky Mountain O.c. 

canadensis

Asotin Washington 46 Umatilla

Black Butte (Upper Joseph 

Canyon)

Washington 

& Oregon

24 Umatilla 

Mountain View Washington 30 Umatilla

Tuncannon Washington 31 Umatilla

Bear Creek (Minam) Oregon 54 Wallowa-Whitman

Lookout Oregon 181 Wallowa-Whitman

Lostine Oregon 68 Wallowa-Whitman

Lower Hells Canyon (includes 

Downy Saddle)

Oregon 40 Wallowa-Whitman

Lower Imnaha Oregon 76 Wallowa-Whitman

Muir Creek Oregon 19 Wallowa-Whitman

Upper Hells Canyon Oregon 7 Wallowa-Whitman

Upper Saddle (Saddle Creek 

& Hat Point)

Oregon 43 Wallowa-Whitman

Wenaha Oregon & 

Washington

62 Umatilla

* The Canyon Creek herd identified in the Oregon Bighorn Sheep and Rocky Mountain Goat Management Plan (2003) is 

not addressed here because this herd no longer exists, and there are no plans to reestablish it. The Sheep Mountain 

herd is also extinct.

The Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep population within the Plan Area functions as a metapopulation made up of many relatively small herds that experience minor amounts of inter-herd 

contact, typically during the rutting season. The Lookout and Tucannon herds are effectively 

isolated from other herds in the Hells Canyon complex, although contact between these and other 

herds is possible. The bighorns that inhabit portions of the Eagle Cap Wilderness are not known 

to come into contact with herds in Hells Canyon, but images of rams have been captured on trail 

cameras in the southern end of the Eagle Cap wilderness, in atypical habitat. These images 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

330

confirm that movements through atypical habitat (forested) occur, which may lead to contact 

between distant herds (Ratliff pers. com. 2016). Habitat within the major canyons (Grande 

Ronde, Wenaha, Snake, Lostine, and Joseph) is highly permeable and contiguous, which 

facilitates interaction between many of the herds within the Hells Canyon complex. Relatively 

small herd size is also a concern for long-term viability in the Rocky Mountain subspecies. The 

connectedness of the Hells Canyon herds is positive relative to genetic variability and overall 

distribution, but negative relative to the ability of disease causing pathogens to travel between 

herds. Some level of connectedness is evidenced by the presence of the same genetic strain of M. 

ovipneumoniae within all bighorn herds in the Hells Canyon complex, except for the Lookout and 

Tucannon herds (Cassirer pers. com. 2017).

Bighorn Sheep Source Habitat

Bighorn sheep prefer open habitats on rocky slopes, ridges, rimrocks, cliffs, and canyon walls 

adjacent to meadows or grasslands (Verts and Carraway 1998). Alpine and subalpine vegetation 

are typically summer range for this species. Risenhoover et al. (1988) suggested that the three 

major components of bighorn sheep habitat are visibility, escape terrain (cliffs, talus areas), and 

forage. Wisdom et al. (2000) placed both the Rocky Mountain and California bighorn sheep in 

family group 22, which are residents of high elevation alpine and subalpine communities.

The definition of source habitat is borrowed from Wisdom et al. (2000), which are those 

characteristics of macro-vegetation that contribute to stationary or positive population growth.

Source habitats are distinguished from habitats simply associated with species occurrence; 

associated habitats may or may not contribute to long-term population persistence. Although 

habitat is not considered a limiting factor for bighorn sheep in the Plan Area, habitat is an integral 

part of the risk of contact analysis. The Forest Service, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land 

Management, developed a risk of contact tool that uses escape terrain defined by Sappington et 

al. (2007) and combined with a horizontal visibility component (USDA Forest Service 2010) to 

define source habitat. These Forest Plans utilize existing vegetation polygon and current 

vegetation survey stake point summaries (Countryman 2009). Only summer source habitat is 

analyzed for risk of contact, because summer is the only season when domestic sheep are grazed 

on allotments administered by the Forest Service within the Plan Area. Details of the summer 

source habitat model is available from the planning record.

The amount of source habitat is the same for all alternatives because source habitat is delineated 

from biophysical characteristics without consideration of disease risks. Range capability for 

grazing by domestic sheep is based on the capability of the vegetation to produce forage that 

could be utilized by domestic sheep. The area that is “suitable” for grazing by domestic sheep is a 

subset of the “capable” category. Range suitability for grazing by domestic sheep is largely based 

on the risks of inter-species association between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. Table 343

displays the amount of acres that are suitable for grazing by domestic sheep on each national 

forest within the Plan Area, by alternative.

Those alternatives that would provide the most summer source habitat in areas identified as 

unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing and the fewest acres of rangelands considered suitable for 

domestic sheep grazing are considered to contribute the most to bighorn sheep population 

persistence (see Table 343). The Wallowa-Whitman and the Umatilla National Forests have large 

areas identified as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing for all alternatives (see domestic sheep 

range suitability maps in Appendix G). Although the table displays acres of rangelands suitable 

for domestic sheep grazing, not all of those acres are currently being or would be grazed by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

331

domestic sheep. Many of the acres that could be grazed by domestic sheep are currently in cattle 

allotments, and although technically they could be grazed by sheep, a site-specific analysis would 

be required to change the class of livestock permitted on the allotment.

Effective Separation: Assessing Risk of Contact – There is broad agreement within the 

scientific community that spatial and temporal separation between bighorn sheep and domestic 

sheep and goats is the most prudent management approach to reduce the possibility for 

transmission of disease-causing pathogens to bighorn sheep (WSWG 2012). The Wild Sheep 

Working Group, a committee sanctioned by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies, defines effective separation “as spatial or temporal separation between wild sheep and 

domestic sheep or goats to minimize the potential for association and the probability of

transmission of diseases between species” (WSWG 2012). Attempts to define effective separation 

in terms of a set distance or “buffer” have been applied with questionable success. A “buffer” or 

simple distance approach is fraught with inconsistencies and not supported by peer-reviewed 

literature. Buffers fail to consider the permeability of the landscape for bighorn sheep or domestic 

sheep or goats, fails to account for man-made or natural landscape features that can effect animal 

movements, and does not consider foray probabilities of bighorn sheep under various herd 

structure scenarios. O’brien et al. (2014) describe a process to calculate the probability of a 

foraying bighorn ram or ewe (and both genders combined) contacting a domestic sheep grazing 

allotment boundary. The methods described by O’brien is commonly referred to as a “risk of 

contact model” or “risk of contact tool”. This method relies on three components: (1) bighorn 

sheep core herd home range estimation; (2) foray analysis; and (3) contact analysis.

Although empirical data are currently lacking on recommended disease outbreak intervals that are 

necessary for long-term population persistence, a moderate level of outbreak events (that is, 0.25) 

would lead to an average outbreak period of 50 years, has been suggested as a benchmark 

(FS/BLM 2015). The Wild Sheep Working Group has suggested that results of the risk of contact 

tool may be interpreted as follows: “Given the potential severity of die-off resulting from 

interspecies contact, we recommend management scenarios that allow for disease free intervals of 

at least 50 years. If we assume a moderate probability of contact with an allotment resulting in an 

interspecies contact that will result in a disease transmission outbreak event (0.25), then we would 

need to see a rate of contact of less than 0.08 contacts per year (or less than 0.8 contacts per 

decade).”

None of the existing domestic sheep allotments within the Plan Area intersects core herd home 

range of bighorn sheep. The rate of contact for all active domestic sheep allotments in the Plan 

Area ranged from 0 to 0.019 contacts per year, all less than the suggested threshold of 0.08 

contacts per year (Lyons et al. 2016). The complete risk of contact analysis is located in the 

planning record.

The risk of contact between foraying bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats is influenced by 

the number of bighorn sheep in a herd, the gender ratio of the bighorn sheep herd, the proximity 

of domestic sheep or goat use areas (allotments) to bighorn sheep herds, the distribution of 

bighorn sheep source habitats across the landscape, and the frequency and distance of bighorn 

sheep forays. It is important to note that the risk of contact analysis used here only estimates the 

probability of foraying bighorn sheep reaching an allotment. It does not consider risks associated 

with lost or wandering domestic sheep or goats. Nor does it predict actual contact or disease 

transmission between domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep. An important assumption 

underlying the risk of contact analysis is that the probability of association and disease 

transmission increases substantially when a foraying bighorn sheep’s contact with an allotment or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

332

use area coincides with domestic sheep or goat presence. Once a foraying bighorn sheep contracts 

a pathogen, there is a high likelihood that it will either return to its core herd home range or 

associate with other bighorn herds as it moves across the landscape. This behavior increases the 

chances of a disease causing pathogen to move between individuals and herds.

Table 343. Relative ranking of alternatives by national forest based on proportion of bighorn sheep 

summer source habitats not available for domestic sheep grazing (protected) and rangelands 

remaining suited for domestic sheep grazing. A ranking of 1 would pose the least risks to bighorn 

sheep, a ranking of 5 would pose the greatest risks to bighorn sheep.

Alternative

Summer Source 

Habitat Protected

(acres)

Rangeland Unsuitable for 

Domestic Sheep Grazing

(acres)

Relative ranking for providing 

separation between domestic 

and bighorn sheep

Malheur

A N/A Identified at site-specific scale 4

B 88,623 468,790 2

C 97,703 1,340,727 1

D 88,623 468,790 2

E 88,623 468,790 2

E-Modified 88,623 468,790 2

E-Modified 

Departure

88,623 468,790 2

F 88,623 468,790 2

Umatilla

A N/A N/A 4

B 471,112 909,007 2

C 502,922 1,204,247 1

D 450,753 872,988 3

E 450,753 872,988 3

E-Modified 450,753 872,988 3

E-Modified 

Departure

450,753 872,988 3

F 450,753 872,988 3

WallowaWhitman

A N/A N/A 4

B 1,141,520 1,652,291 2

C 1,152,864 1,856,157 1

D 1,137,402 1,644,455 3

E 1,137,402 1,644,455 3

E-Modified 1,137,402 1,644,455 3

E-Modified 

Departure

1,137,402 1,644,455 3

F 1,137,402 1,644,455 3

Alternatives are ranked based on the potential for interspecies contact as modeled using a risk of 

contact tool (FS/BLM 2015). Domestic sheep allotments within 35 kilometers of a bighorn sheep 

core herd home range were analyzed. Thirty-five kilometers is used because it is the distance that 

explains the large majority (more than 99 percent) of forays by both ewes and rams in the Hells 

Canyon telemetry data set. Table 343 displays relative ranking of alternatives based on the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

333

calculated number of contacts per year. It is assumed that the greater the likelihood of contact, the 

greater the potential for disease transmission and resulting disease outbreaks. Alternative C is the 

only alternative that would reduce interspecies contact to a level of almost zero. It is assumed that 

any overlap or intersection between bighorn sheep core herd home ranges and domestic sheep 

allotments will result in disease transmission between the species. A risk of contact analysis 

where core herd home range overlaps or intersects a domestic sheep allotment would produce the 

results of “intersects” rather than a probability of contact. This is because there is no distance 

separating core herd home range and the allotment.

Risks of Disease Transmission from Pack Goats

Pack goats are domestic goats that are used as pack animals. Dedicated pack goat 

owners/handlers cite that the husbandry practices, training, and manner of use associated with 

pack goats warrant differentiation from domestic goats owned or used for other purposes. Other 

purposes include pets, 4-H animals, weed control, milk and meat, or any purpose other than pack 

animals. Although empirical evidence is limited, the current state of knowledge suggests that 

pack goats likely represent a much lower risk of contracting, carrying, and transmitting 

Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae than other classes of domestic sheep or goats (Besser pers. com. 

2016). Although domestic goats are physiologically capable of carrying and transmitting various 

pathogens and parasites that are harmful to bighorn sheep, M. ovipneumoniae is the focus of 

current research due to the compelling evidence that identifies it as an integral part of epizootics 

in bighorn sheep.

According to Dr. Tom Besser’s research and his synthesis of others’ work, the genetic strain of M. 

ovipneumoniae found in nearly all bighorn sheep die offs is a “domestic sheep strain” that 

appears to be host specific to sheep species. There is also a genetic strain of M. ovipneumoniae

that appears to be host specific to goat species, and has been much less virulent in bighorn sheep 

in penned studies (when domestic goats and bighorn sheep of known disease status are comingled 

in captivity). Although the goat strain of M. ovipneumoniae appears to be less virulent in bighorn 

sheep than sheep strains, at least one well-documented example indicates that the goat strain of 

M. ovipneumoniae is capable of causing significant bighorn sheep disease in a field setting. Heller 

Bar, Washington in lower Hells Canyon experienced a pneumonia event in bighorn sheep that 

resulted in mortality of 30 percent of the herd, and losses of all lambs in subsequent years. A goat

strain of M. ovipneumoniae was confirmed in this disease event. However, this documented 

disease event pales in comparison to the dozens of disease outbreaks associated with domestic 

sheep strains of M. ovipneumoniae.

Husbandry practices are the first steps in rearing of pack goats that reduces the incidence of M. 

ovipneumoniae. Goats intended for packing are typically removed from their mother at birth or 

shortly thereafter, and bottle fed by the owner/handler. Early separation contributes to two 

important factors that reduces risks of pack goats transmitting pathogens: (1) if the mother is 

carrying M. ovipneumoniae, separating the new born from its mother eliminates the opportunity 

for M. ovipneumoniae to be spread from mother to newborn, and (2) early separation enhances 

the opportunity for the young goats to imprint on their human owners/handlers. Imprinting on 

human owners/handlers may decrease the inherent social attraction between pack goats and other 

animals. This is important for pack goat owners/handlers to more effectively maintain close 

control over their pack goats in any setting.

Dr. Besser advises wildlife and land managers with responsibilities for bighorn sheep to regard 

domestic goats as a potential source of M. ovipneumoniae that can result in significant mortality 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

334

in bighorn sheep, “...even while recognizing this risk appears to be considerably lower than that 

posed by domestic sheep.” Pack goats appear to present significantly different degrees of risk for 

bighorn sheep compared to domestic goats used for other purposes. For example, goats used for 

weed control are used in much higher numbers and present greater opportunity for escape and 

subsequent contact with bighorn sheep. Pack goats are typically used in small (six or less) 

numbers and are less likely to escape control of their owner/handler than goats used for weed 

control. Although there seems to be a low prevalence of M. ovipneumoniae in pack goats, there 

are risks of pack goats contracting M. ovipneumoniae through co-mingling with other domestic 

sheep or goats.

Dr. Maggie Highland, research veterinarian with the USDA Agriculture Research Service, Animal 

Disease Research Unit (Pullman, WA), has sampled 576 domestic goats (419 pack goats and 157 

other goats) from 83 separate premises in 13 states. This study has not been published, but the 

preliminary results are relevant to these Forest Plans. In summary, M. ovipneumoniae was 

confirmed in 38 (6.6 percent) of the 576 goats sampled. The M. ovipneumoniae positive goats 

were limited to five (6 percent) of the 83 premises sampled. Of the 38 goats that were positive for 

M. ovipneumoniae, 90 percent of them were less than a year of age, 77 percent were less than six 

months of age. Dr. Highland’s study represents the largest sample size of any study that 

specifically investigated the prevalence of M. ovipneumoniae in pack goats. This study 

contributes to the prior sparse body of literature that supports the notion of low, but not zero 

prevalence of M. ovipneumoniae in pack goats.

Keeping pack goats from contact or association with bighorn sheep is a prudent management 

approach considering: (1) non-zero prevalence of M. ovipneumoniae in pack goats; (2) the 

uncertainty around pack goats co-mingling with other domestic sheep and goats; (3) other 

pathogens and parasites of concern that may exist; and (4) the social attraction that exists between 

members of the sheep and goat families.

Forest Plan standard BHSM-2S states, “The use of recreational pack goats shall not be authorized 

in occupied bighorn sheep habitat or where effective separation from bighorn sheep cannot be 

reasonably maintained.” This standard applies to special use permits or requests to conduct any 

commercial activity involving pack goats within occupied bighorn sheep habitat or in areas where 

effective separation from bighorn sheep cannot be reasonably maintained. These Forest Plans do 

not include direction that addresses recreational pack goat use within the Plan Area.

Bighorn Sheep - Effects from the Alternatives

Direct and indirect effects focus on the risks associated with disease transmission from domestic 

sheep or goats to bighorn sheep. One way of quantifying these risks is by determining the 

probability of bighorn sheep leaving their core herd home range, contacting a domestic sheep 

allotment when domestic sheep are present on the allotment, and returning to their core herd 

home range. This is referred to as risk of contact, and this analysis is described in more detail 

earlier in this section. The risk of contact tool used in this analysis is recognized as the best 

available science, utilizing the best available data to produce quantitative results. This process is 

documented in a paper by O’Brien and others (2014) published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. 

The limitations of this risk of contact tool are explained earlier in this section. Risk of contact 

results are meaningful at the bighorn herd and grazing allotment scale, and serve as a surrogate to 

actual association and transfer of disease-causing pathogens from domestic livestock to bighorn 

sheep. The potential effects to bighorn sheep from authorizing domestic sheep or goat grazing are 

indirect effects, because the predicted transfer of pathogens and subsequent spread to other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

335

bighorn sheep would occur later in time than the Records of Decision for these plans or the 

authorizing of domestic sheep or goat grazing.

Cumulative effects are considered at the national forest scale, and focus on the relative area that is 

identified as unsuitable for domestic sheep and goat grazing, by national forest, and the amount of 

bighorn sheep source habitat within these unsuitable delineations. The potential cumulative 

effects from invasive weeds and disease vectors from land ownerships other than National Forest 

System lands cannot be quantified in a reliable or repeatable manner, although these factors are 

recognized as important considerations in the management of bighorn sheep habitat and 

populations. Activities from all land ownerships that can affect bighorn sheep are considered in 

cumulative effects, but are often not possible to quantify due to the uncertainty of scale, intensity, 

and duration. An example is the treatment and subsequent decrease in invasive weeds in bighorn 

sheep habitat. Effective control of invasive weeds represents a positive effect to bighorn sheep. 

However, it is impractical to predict which landowners/managers will engage in invasive weed 

treatments, and if they do, to what scale and over what timeframe it would occur.

Potential disease vectors exist on private lands that surround the National Forest System lands. 

These vectors are sheep and goats that occur in small farm flocks, 4-H animals, pets, and other 

sources. The presence of these animals is dictated by desires of private landowners and can 

change over time as land ownership changes, or interest in keeping sheep and goats changes. 

These unknowns make it impractical to quantify the risks from these potential disease vectors. 

However, the risks are acknowledged in how state wildlife agencies plan and prioritize where to 

attempt restoration of bighorn sheep to unoccupied habitat. The Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 

on the Malheur National Forest is an example of an area that contains a substantial amount of 

bighorn sheep source habitat, but is not considered as a viable option for bighorn sheep reestablishment. An earlier attempt to restore bighorns in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness 

failed due to disease. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has since made the decision to not 

attempt re-establishment of bighorn sheep there because disease risks persist on private lands 

bordering the area.

Alternative A

Direct and Indirect Effects – This alternative will not result in direct effects to bighorn sheep 

because direction in Forest Plans does not implement actual changes to the environment. 

However, site-specific environmental analyses that follow direction in the Forest Plans may result 

in actual changes to the environment. Continuing under the current management direction will not 

change the risk of domestic sheep or goats associating or coming into contact with bighorn sheep. 

These risks could change if bighorn sheep herds expanded into currently vacant habitat, but such 

a shift would not result from direction in a Forest Plan. A shift in habitat use by bighorn sheep 

would represent changed conditions, and may trigger a new environmental analysis if the shift 

compromised effective separation between a domestic sheep allotment and a bighorn sheep herd.

Alternative A would continue the existing domestic sheep grazing allotments, which all have a 

risk of contact well below the 0.08 probability threshold (see Table 344).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

336

Table 344. Estimated annual contact rates for bighorn sheep herds relative to active domestic sheep 

allotments in the Plan Area* 

Bighorn Sheep Herd 

and Active Allotment Single Ram Single Ewe All Rams All Ewes All Herd

Bear Creek

Davis Creek 7.10E-05 9.28E-06 5.68E-04 4.27E-04 0.001

North End 5.00E-05 5.00E-06 3.99E-06 2.38E-04 0.001

Mud Creek 3.79E-05 4.96E-06 3.04E-04 2.28E-04 0.001

Spring Mountain 6.43E-06 1.13E-07 5.14E-05 5.22E-06 <0.001

Black Butte

Mud Creek 1.69E-03 4.68E-05 1.85E-02 6.09E-04 0.019

Davis Creek 3.15E-04 9.48E-06 3.47E-03 1.23E-04 0.004

Lostine

Davis Creek 3.90E-04 9.04E-06 8.57E-03 4.16E-04 0.009

Mud Creek 1.06E-04 6.51E-06 2.32E-03 2.99E-04 0.003

Lower Hells Canyon

Davis Creek 1.09E-05 5.71E0-7 1.20E-04 1.66E-05 <0.001

Mud Creek 5.08E-07 9.87E-09 5.59E-06 2.60E-07 <0.001

Lower Imnaha

Davis Creek 7.59E-05 5.98E-06 1.44E-03 3.41E-04 0.002

Mud Creek 3.32E-06 4.34E-07 6.30E-05 2.47E-05 <0.001

Mountain View

Mud Creek 5.98E-04 2.09E-05 1.44E-03 5.44E-04 0.003

Davis Creek 5.32E-05 3.28E-06 2.13E-04 8.52E-06 <0.001

Muir Creek

Davis Creek 3.29E-05 3.41E-06 2.96E-04 3.41E-05 <0.001

Mud Creek 1.10E-06 2.09E-08 9.93E-06 2.09E-07 <0.001

Wenaha

Mud Creek 1.28E-03 3.02E-05 1.41E-02 1.54E-03 0.016

North End 6.87E-04 2.50E-05 7.56E-03 1.29E-03 0.009

Davis Creek 1.37E-04 3.67E-06 1.50E-03 1.87E-04 0.002

* Includes only active domestic sheep allotments within 35kilometers of bighorn sheep herds

The primary difference between Alternative A and the plan revision alternatives is that the current 

management direction does not restrict the conversion of livestock class to sheep, or restrict the 

establishment of domestic sheep to areas where effective separation would be maintained. It is 

possible for a line officer to require effective separation in a site-specific environmental analysis 

based on the mandate to utilize the best available data and science. However, there is no direction 

associated with Alternative A that requires effective separation.

This alternative does not restrict the use of pack goats within or near occupied bighorn sheep 

habitat. This use occurs in two categories that are relevant to these Forest Plans. First is the 

unregulated, “recreational pack goat use” that occurs in the Plan Area. This activity occurs with 

no requirement for a permit or other administrative requirements or oversight. Second is the 

“authorized pack goat use” which involves the commercial use or renting of pack goats for which 

a special use permit or other authorization would be required. Currently there are no commercial 

activities involving pack goats in the Plan Area. Alternative A would not restrict authorized pack 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

337

goat use within the Plan Area. Although evidence exists that suggest the risk of disease 

transmission from pack goats to bighorn sheep is substantially less than from domestic sheep, the 

risk is not zero. The risk of harmful pathogens being transmitted from pack goats to bighorn 

sheep is low, but the ramifications to bighorn sheep could be severe if transmission were to occur. 

For this reason, Alternative A represents the highest risk to bighorn sheep from pack goats than 

any of the other alternatives, because there are no considerations on where and when pack goats 

can be used relative to occupied bighorn sheep habitat.

Cumulative Effects – Alternative A would continue authorizing grazing by domestic sheep at the 

current level, in the current locations. According to the results of the Risk of Contact tool, the 

current domestic sheep allotments represent an acceptable level of risk when just considering the 

probability of foraying bighorns contacting allotments. Additionally, this alternative relies on 

inconsistent (the three Forests identify unsuitable range in different ways) and site-specific 

delineation of areas unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing. This could result in a greater chance 

that grazing by domestic sheep or goats could be authorized at some in the future that would 

increase the risk of disease transmission to bighorn sheep. This contrasts with the other 

alternatives in that they delineate suitable and unsuitable areas for domestic sheep grazing for the 

entire Plan Area based on risks to bighorn sheep. This forest-wide delineation represents a safety 

measure that would prevent the future establishment or conversion of grazing allotments to 

domestic sheep where effective separation from bighorns may not be reasonably maintained.

Alternative A does not address disease risks from pack goats, has not identified areas unsuitable 

for domestic sheep grazing for the entire Plan Area, and it does not include direction that ensures 

effective separation between domestic sheep or goats and bighorn sheep. Therefore, Alternative A 

represents the highest level of risk to bighorn sheep compared to the plan revision alternatives.

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Direct and Indirect Effects – Direct and indirect effects are described in terms of the risk of 

contact between bighorn sheep and existing domestic sheep allotments. These risks do not differ 

between plan revision alternatives since none of the alternatives change the existing domestic 

sheep grazing allotments. Table 344 contains the risk of contact results for four domestic sheep 

allotments (Davis Creek, North End, Mud Creek, and Spring Mountain) relative to eight bighorn 

sheep herds (Bear Creek, Black Butte, Lostine, Lower Hells Canyon, Lower Imnaha, Mountain 

View, Muir Creek, and Wenaha). These allotments are the only ones located within 35 kilometers 

of a bighorn sheep herd. The rationale for limiting the risk of contact analysis to these is 

explained earlier in this section.

The Mud Creek sheep allotment represents the highest risk of contact between bighorn sheep and 

the allotment boundary, with a 0.019 probability of contact from the Black Butte bighorn herd, 

and a 0.016 from the Wenaha bighorn herd. These results are well below the recommended 

threshold of 0.08. The Mud Creek sheep allotment management plan has gone through a 

relatively recent environmental analysis that documents the supporting rationale for when and 

where domestic sheep are grazed in relation to the nearest bighorn sheep herds. The current low 

level of risk is expected to continue unless bighorn sheep in the Black Butte or Wenaha herds 

begin to expand their range closer to the allotment boundary.

The remaining allotments pose extremely low risks of contact, with probabilities ranging from < 

0.001 to 0.009. This translates to 0.09 contacts per decade. The Application of the Bighorn Sheep 

Risk of Contact Model on the Blue Mountains national forests: Final Report (Lyons et al. 2016) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

338

analyzed all existing allotments, regardless of livestock class (sheep, cattle, horse) or status 

(active, vacant, closed). These results are for illustrative purposes and may be useful in future site 

specific planning should domestic sheep allotments require new environmental analyses due to 

changed conditions (eg. bighorn sheep range expansion).

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F all address the use of pack 

goats in the same manner through a standard requiring that pack goats only be authorized where 

effective separation from bighorn sheep can be reasonably maintained. This standard only applies 

to pack goat use that would occur under a permit or other type of authorization generally required 

due to group size or involvement of commercial activity (guided trips, rental of pack goats, etc.). 

These alternatives offer a measure of insurance that authorized pack goat use will unlikely present 

disease transmission risks to bighorn sheep. From this standpoint, all of the plan revision 

alternatives present fewer risks to bighorn sheep than Alternative A.

None of the plan revision alternatives restricts the use of recreational pack goats (not associated 

with a permit or authorization) within the Plan Area, including occupied bighorn sheep habitat. 

These alternatives are equal to Alternative A in this regard. Although the risk of disease 

transmission from pack goats is low, the risk is not zero, and a single transmission event has the 

potential to start an all-age die-off in bighorn sheep.

Alternative B – Cumulative Effects

On the Malheur National Forest, Alternative B identifies 468,790 acres as unsuitable for domestic 

sheep grazing, which includes 88,623 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. Alternative B 

identifies 1,652,291 acres as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, which includes 1,141,520 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. For the Umatilla 

National Forest, this alternative identifies 909,007 acres as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing, 

which includes 471,112 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. This alternative provides the 

second greatest area where grazing by domestic sheep or goats will not be authorized, thus 

resulting in the second lowest probability that disease from authorized livestock will be 

transmitted to bighorn sheep. Table 343 compares all plan revision alternatives in terms of acres 

of source habitat for bighorn sheep protected through designation as unsuitable for domestic 

sheep grazing.

Alternative C – Cumulative Effects

On the Malheur National Forest alternative C identifies 1,340,726 acres as unsuitable for 

domestic sheep grazing, which includes 97,703 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. Alternative 

C identifies 1,856,157 acres as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing on the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, which includes 1,152,864 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. For the Umatilla 

National Forest, this alternative identifies 1,204,247 acres as unsuitable for domestic sheep 

grazing, which includes 502,922 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. This alternative provides 

the greatest area where grazing by domestic sheep or goats will not be authorized, thus resulting 

in the lowest probability that disease from authorized livestock will be transmitted to bighorn 

sheep. Table 343 compares all plan revision alternatives in terms of acres of source habitat for 

bighorn sheep protected through designation as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing.

Alternative C is the same as Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F in 

regard to the use of pack goats within or near occupied bighorn sheep habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

339

Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F – Cumulative Effects

On the Malheur National Forest these alternatives identify 468,790 acres as unsuitable for 

domestic sheep grazing, which includes 88,623 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. There are 

1,644,455 acres of unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing on the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest, which includes 1,137,402 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. For the Umatilla National 

Forest, this alternative identifies 872,988 acres as unsuitable for domestic sheep grazing, which 

includes 450,753 acres of bighorn sheep source habitat. These alternatives provide the third 

greatest area where grazing by domestic sheep or goats will not be authorized on the WallowaWhitman and Umatilla National Forests, but is the same as Alternative B for the Malheur 

National Forest. These alternatives would result in the third lowest probability that bighorn sheep 

would associate with authorized domestic sheep or goats.

None of these alternatives would likely lead to population declines or range constrictions for 

bighorn sheep. Although Alternatives B and C would result in slightly less risks to bighorn sheep 

populations, the risks associated with all Alternatives are such that species viability is not likely to 

be compromised. This assertion of low risk is based on: (1) the exceedingly low probability of 

contact from current domestic sheep allotments; (2) the areas identified as unsuitable for domestic 

sheep or goat grazing; and (3) application of the management standards for grazing by domestic 

sheep or goats.

Sage-grouse

Greater sage-grouse are a Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. Like the other sensitive species, 

sage-grouse were included in the surrogate species analysis conducted by Wales et al. (2011). The 

species representing the woodland/grassland/shrub family is the sage thrasher (table 95). Unlike 

the other sensitive species, sage-grouse are addressed here individually because of their unique 

conservation efforts and high public interest.

Sage-grouse are considered a sagebrush obligate species as virtually all studies of sage-grouse 

have identified the bird’s dependence on large, woody sagebrushes (Artemisia spp.) for food and 

cover during all periods of the year (Dalke et al. 1963, Connelly et al. 2000, Connelly et al. 2004). 

Sage-grouse breed on sites called leks (strutting grounds) which are typically used year after year. 

Breeding habitats are normally sage-brush dominated shrub-steppe, consisting of large, relatively 

contiguous stands of sage-brush (Connelly et al. 2011). Much of the original sage-grouse habitat 

has been permanently lost to agricultural development and urban areas (Leu and Hanser 2011, 

Pyke 2011) and the remaining habitat ranges from high quality to no longer adequate.

Source Habitat Description

According to Schroeder et al. (1999), sage-grouse use a wide mosaic of sagebrush habitats 

throughout the west that include:

• Tall sagebrush types such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), three-tip sagebrush (A. 

tripartita), and silver sagebrush (A. cana)

• Low sagebrush types, such as low sagebrush (A. arbuscula) and lack sagebrush (A. nova)

• Mixes of low and tall sagebrush with abundant forbs

• Riparian and wet meadows

• Steppe dominated by native forbs and bunchgrasses,

• Scrub-willow (Salix spp.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

340

• Sagebrush/woodland mixes with juniper (Juniperus spp.), ponderosa pine (Pinus

ponderosa), or quaking aspen (Popululs tremuloides)

Call and Maser (1985) summarized characteristics of quality sage-grouse habitat in Oregon as 

sagebrush steppe between 4,000 and 8,000 feet with annual precipitation of 10 to 16 inches and 

rolling topography. Within this landscape, sage-grouse need key habitat elements for reproduction 

and survival. In Oregon, nesting habitat consists of sagebrush plants (A. tridentata and A. 

arbuscula) with a strong native herbaceous understory (Hagen et al. 2007).

Sage thrashers were chosen as the surrogate species to represent species, including the sagegrouse, associated with the Shrub-steppe Group in the Woodland/Grass/Shrub Family (Wales et 

al. 2011). It was felt that sage thrasher represents the full range of habitats and risks associated 

with this group, including loss, fragmentation, and degradation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) 

habitats. Modeling for the sage thrasher indicated that habitat is only moderately departed from 

historical range of variability, and the influence of open motor vehicle route is low. As a result, 

there is a moderate level of concern for the viability of the sage thrasher under all alternatives 

(see Table 333 through Table 335), and therefore the group, for all three national forests.

Habitat for the group represented by the sage thrasher was never highly abundant on National 

Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. Species of sagebrush 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 (Johnson and 

Clausnitzer 1992), all of which make up the sagebrush shrubland habitat. Sage-grouse habitat is a 

subset of the sagebrush shrubland habitat and as indicated by Hagen (2011) is found on less that 

0.7 percent of National Forest System lands in Oregon. The habitat mapping effort for greater 

sage-grouse in Oregon (Hagen 2011) utilizes the concept of core areas as presented by Doherty et 

al. (2011) with some modifications, explained in detail by Hagen (2011). For Oregon the core 

area goal is to identify habitats necessary to conserve 90 percent of Oregon’s greater sage-grouse 

population with emphasis on the highest density and important use areas which provide for 

breeding, wintering and connectivity. In addition, low density areas are to be identified that 

provides breeding, summer and migratory habitats for the statewide population.

In 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created a Conservation Objective Team (COT) of 

state and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives to develop conservation objectives for the 

sage-grouse. The final report (USFWS 2013) identifies key habitats necessary for sage-grouse 

conservation range-wide and has termed these habitats as priority areas for conservation. These 

priority areas were developed using maps created by individual states and therefore the priority 

areas in their report coincide with the core areas identified by Oregon and displayed in Figure 54. 

The BLM’s National Technical Team identified priority primary habitat (BLM 2011) which is the 

same as core areas and priority areas for conservation in Oregon. Sage-grouse habitat on the Blue 

Mountains national forests actually falls into two different management zones (Figure 54), the 

Snake River Plains and the Northern Great Basin (USFWS 2013). According to the Conservation 

Objective Team (USFWS 2013), the Malheur National Forest would encompass both 

management zones and two populations: the central Oregon population, which is considered at 

risk (C2) or potentially at risk (C3), and the northern great basin population, which is potentially 

at risk (C3). The Wallowa-Whitman is only in one management zone and encompasses only the 

Baker population which is considered at risk (C2).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

341

Figure 54. Greater sage-grouse habitat within and adjacent to the Blue Mountains national forests
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

342

Effects from Each Alternative on Sage-Grouse

Umatilla National Forest - The greater sage-grouse is not expected to occur within the Umatilla 

National Forest. Sagebrush habitats were estimated to occur on less than 1 percent of the Forest, 

none of which was mapped as greater sage-grouse habitat by Hagen (2011). Because the forest is 

not occupied and there is no known occupied habitat in either Oregon (Hagen 2011) or 

Washington (Hays et al. 1998) immediately adjacent to the forest, it will not be addressed further.

Malheur National Forest – Sagebrush steppe habitat was estimated to occur on approximately 6 

percent of the landscape within the Malheur National Forest; however, not all of this is 

considered sage-grouse habitat. Habitat mapping completed by Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (Figure 54) indicates that only 41,600 acres is considered greater sage-grouse habitat, 

and of this, 30,000 has been mapped as core habitat, and the remainder as low density habitat. 

Habitat on National Forest System lands is not contiguous, with the largest block within the 

Malheur National Forest being slightly more than 24,000 acres of core area habitat (priority area 

for conservation) occurring in the Snake River Plains Management Zone and associated with the 

Northern Great Basin population. The Northern Great Basin population is a large population in 

Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. In Oregon, priority areas for conservation and low density 

(nonpriority but managed) habitat combined capture all but three percent of known summer, one 

percent of known breeding, and one percent of known wintering habitat. Oregon priority areas for 

conservation also considered the need to maintain a network of connected habitats. Overall, this 

part of the population is potentially at risk (C3). Habitat within the Malheur National Forest 

represents 0.6 percent of sage-grouse habitat in Oregon within this management zone.

The eastern portion of the Malheur is in the Northern Great Basin Management Zone and is 

associated with the Central Oregon population. This population is estimated to have only 53 

percent of historical sagebrush habitat, having lost more historical habitat than any other sagegrouse administrative unit in Oregon. The area also has more privately owned sage-grouse habitat 

(48 percent) than most other sage-grouse management zone populations in Oregon. Priority areas 

for conservation and low density (nonpriority but managed) habitat combined capture all but 

three percent of known summer, one percent of known breeding, and one percent of known 

wintering habitat. Although a lot of the known habitat is mapped, it is recommended to retain all 

priority areas for conservation in Central Oregon. Less than 14,000 acres of habitat occur within 

the Malheur National Forest and less than half of this is considered priority areas for 

conservation. This represents 0.2 percent of sage-grouse habitat within this management zone in 

Oregon.

All alternatives include a desired condition to maintain or improve sage-grouse priority habitat 

management areas and general habitat management areas. In addition, sagebrush steppe is 

identified as a special habitat for all alternatives (see appendix A 1.13 Special Habitats), with a

desire of no net loss and at least 70 percent having an understory of native species, resulting in 

conditions that are sustainable and resilient to disturbance. In other words they are capable of 

recovering to their potential community without intervention after a disturbance. The other 30 

percent of the landscape would include areas of juniper encroachment, non-sagebrush shrub 

lands, annual grasslands, and nonnative perennial grasslands that potentially could be 

rehabilitated and enhanced as sagebrush habitat. This would be true no matter which action 

alternative is being evaluated.

Management activities likely to occur in sage-grouse source habitats are primarily grazing, 

invasive plant species control, and fire suppression, all of which are discussed below as 

threats/risks to habitat. Alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F also identify 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

343

objectives to reduce juniper encroachment on 800 acres and to reduce sagebrush density on 700 

acres in areas where it currently exceeds 25 percent canopy cover during the life of the plan. This 

represents only a modest gain in habitat, which in all likelihood would not lead to a detectable 

change in the sage-grouse population.

Threats and Risks

Sage-grouse populations in these two management zones face a wide suite of threats, including 

juniper encroachment, renewable energy development (both wind and geothermal), energy 

transmission, roads, off-highway vehicle recreation, mining development, and residential 

development. Despite efforts to manage wildfire risks, wildfires and invasive species have 

continued to reduce the quality of habitat in portions of this area (USFWS 2013).

Livestock grazing is the most widespread use of sage-grouse habitats in the west. There is no 

doubt that historical grazing had significant impacts on sagebrush habitats throughout the west 

(Crawford et al. 2004) due to season-long use and stocking levels that far exceeded the carrying 

capacity of the land. Current livestock grazing, however, can be positive, negative or neutral and 

will vary with timing, intensity of use and a host of environmental factors (Hagen et al. 2011). 

Grazing may improve brood use of habitat (Dahlgren et al. 2006), reduce nesting success due to 

loss of vegetation for cover (Beck and Mitchell 2000, Connelly and Braun 1997), or remain 

neutral by maintaining perennial bunchgrasses with moderate levels of livestock utilization 

(Stohlgren et al. 1999). Beck and Mitchell (2000) summarized potential effects of livestock 

grazing on sage-grouse habitats, and cited only four references that provide empirical evidence of 

direct negative effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse, as follow: Of 161 nests examined in 

Utah, two were trampled by livestock (one sheep, one cattle) and five were deserted due to 

disturbance by livestock (Rasmussen and Griner 1938). As previously discussed for focal species, 

data for both uplands and riparian areas indicate an improvement in overall rangeland condition 

under current management. Although recognized that some of the true rangeland sites are strongly 

or highly departed from their historical condition (see specific information provided in the 

“Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Vegetation” section), the cause may not be current livestock 

grazing but rather historical grazing or invasion of nonnative annuals due to fire. Within sagegrouse source habitat, 77 percent of continuous vegetation survey plots were classified as phase C 

or better; meaning that a large portion of habitat can be restored through proper management. It is 

assumed that livestock grazing would be managed to achieve the expressed desired conditions of 

the plan (see Appendix A 1.2 Species Diversity, 1.5 Invasive Species, 1.6 Structural Stages, 1.7 

Plant Species Composition, 1.8 Stand Density, and 1.13 Special Habitats), which would result in 

an improvement of rangeland phases. Alternative C reduces the amount of the national forest 

considered suitable for livestock grazing by almost 28 percent, eliminating grazing on 

approximately 400 acres of sage-grouse core habitat and 700 acres of low-density habitat. As 

previously discussed, stocking rates and utilization levels (residual biomass) have more to do with 

successful range improvement than anything else. Current forage needs of domestic livestock and 

wild ungulates is below what has been cited as acceptable use and still see rangeland 

improvement (Holechek 1988); however, it is also recognized that small areas of overuse can 

occur. Because of this, alternative C would lead to the most improved sage-grouse habitat, 

followed by alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F, based on exposure to 

domestic livestock grazing and utilization levels within the uplands (RNG-5 and RNG-6).

Open motor vehicle route density was also identified as a risk factor for the sagebrush group 

(Wales et al. 2011). Ingelfinger and Anderson (2004) found density of sagebrush obligate birds 

decreased 39 to 60 percent within a 100-meter buffer of roads with low traffic volumes associated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

344

with natural gas extraction in Wyoming. Although the direct effects of recreational activity on 

sage-grouse is unknown, there are negative correlations between sage-grouse populations and 

increased human activity (Connelly et al. 2004). Wales et al. (2011) found road density generally 

to be low in source habitat for the sagebrush group, which is probably true for sage-grouse habitat 

as well. Neither road density nor distances to nearest roads were significant factors in the long 

term persistence of sage-grouse throughout its range (Aldridge et al. 2008); however, negative 

effects to habitat use and productivity, such as abandonment of leks during the breeding season, 

may occur locally from proximity of roads (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, Lyon and Anderson 2003). 

All alternatives include standard WLD-HAB-6 S-1, which prohibits activities that would disturb 

nesting activity within 1,200 feet of these sites. Alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F, however, improve upon this protection measure by restricting open motor 

vehicle routes within two miles of a lek during the breeding season (WLD-HAB-14). In general, 

sage-grouse habitats are within MA 4A, which has an open motor vehicle route desired condition 

of 2.4 miles per square mile or less. It is assumed that motor vehicle travel will be limited to open 

designated routes with cross-country travel generally not allowed.

Wildfire, both managed and unmanaged, is considered one of the key threats to sage-grouse 

habitats (Crawford et al. 2004). As with grazing, fire can be positive, negative or neutral in its 

effects on sage-grouse. The length of the fire cycle has changed, being more frequent in low 

elevations and less frequent at higher elevations, resulting in invasion of exotic grasses at lower 

elevations and woodland expansion at higher elevations (Miller et al. 2011). As previously noted, 

all alternatives would desire plant communities as well as disturbance regimes (i.e., fire) to be 

within historical range of variability, which should preclude the use of fire as a management tool 

in the sagebrush community where the risk of exotic grass invasion is high. Alternatives E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F provide added management emphasis with standards and 

guidelines (FIRE-4, FIRE-5, and WLD-HAB-22) to call attention to this risk. All alternatives 

include a desired condition for wildland fire that identifies sage-grouse habitat as a high value 

resource to be protected from loss due to unwanted fires or damage resulting from managementrelated activities during wildland fire suppression. Additionally there are standards that address 

the spread of noxious weeds (NOX-3) and that guide restoration (NOX-2).

Energy development on the landscape has been identified as a significant threat within the range 

of this species (Doherty et al. 2011). This has mostly been associated with oil and gas exploration, 

but more recently wind farms have become a concern. Although there is little indication that 

viable energy sources for development exist within the Plan Area, alternatives E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F do have plan components (WLD-HAB-15, WLD-HAB-16, and WLDHAB-17) that would consider habitat adjacent to the national forest as well as within the national 

forest.

Although the Malheur National Forest constitutes relatively little of the overall sage-grouse 

habitat in Oregon (0.3 percent) and individual sage-grouse may be impacted, overall management 

direction of any of the alternatives would contribute to habitat conditions for viability and 

persistence of this species.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest – Sagebrush steppe habitat was estimated to occur on less 

than 1 percent of the landscape for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, but according to 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (see Figure 54) a little more than 3,000 acres within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would be considered sage-grouse habitat, most of which is 

mapped as core habitat. Habitat within the Wallowa-Whitman occurs in the Snake River Plains 

Management Zone and represents 0.07 of a percent of the habitat found in this management zone. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

345

Although this management zone supports the largest population of sage-grouse outside of the 

Wyoming Basin, habitat within the Wallowa-Whitman is only associated with the Baker 

population, which is thought to have little connectivity with other populations due to habitat and 

topography. Most (68 percent) of the sage-grouse habitat for the Baker population is in private 

ownership and 31 percent is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (Hagen 2011). 

Overall, this population is considered at risk (C2). Most of the area used by this population has 

been mapped as priority habitat of which less than one percent occurs within the WallowaWhitman.

The Baker population is more at risk and probably less resilient as connectivity to other 

populations appears limited. However, recent telemetry information suggests that at least some 

birds may move between the Weiser population in Idaho and the Baker population (USFWS

2013). There is no redundancy in this population as everything occurs in one general area. Also, 

the quality of habitat is more similar to habitat of extirpated populations than extant ones 

(Wisdom et al. 2011).

As discussed for the Malheur National Forest, all alternatives include a desired condition to 

restore habitats including the sagebrush steppe. Sagebrush steppe is identified as a special habitat 

for all alternatives, with a desire of no net loss. Management activities likely to occur in sagegrouse source habitats are primarily grazing, invasive plant species control, and fire suppression, 

all of which were discussed in detail as threats/risks to habitat for the Malheur National Forest. 

All of the standards, guidelines discussed for the Malheur National Forest would also apply to the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Although less than 0.05 percent of sage-grouse habitat in 

Oregon occurs within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, overall management direction of 

any of the alternatives would contribute to habitat conditions for viability and persistence of this 

species even though individual sage-grouse may be impacted.

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity – Affected Environment

Habitats for individual wildlife species normally occur as a mosaic across the landscape. How 

well a species thrives within this mosaic is closely tied to being able to move across landscapes to 

find food and other resources, migrate between seasonal habitats, find mates, and shift to new 

habitats in response to environmental changes. Such movement is dependent on habitat patches 

being of sufficient size to provide for the life needs of an individual and that other patches occur 

in a network that allows individuals to successfully move between them. This resource patchiness 

occurs when a habitat is divided into usable areas that are separated from one another by unusable 

areas. Within this matrix (habitat and nonhabitat), patches may be connected by corridors 

(Forman and Godron 1981). Although disagreement exists regarding the utility of corridors, 

landscape connectivity, which is the degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes 

movement among resource patches (Taylor et al. 1993), is important. The recent memorandum of 

understanding regarding Wildlife Corridors and Crucial Habitats (USDI et al. 2009) signed by the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, other Federal agencies, and 19 western states, reinforces the 

importance of landscape connectivity. This spatial connection of habitats means that either the 

patches are sufficiently close together so that movement can occur among patches or that there is 

some corridor along which the organisms can move (Fahrig and Merriam 1985).

In landscape ecology, patches are spatial units at the landscape scale. Patch size can affect species 

habitat, resource availability, competition, and recolonization. The ability to successfully move 

between habitats is essential for the long-term survival of many wildlife species, from large, 

migratory species such as elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), to smaller 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

346

animals like white-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus townsendii), Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus), and western toads (Anaxyrus boreas). Spatial scale is especially important when 

dealing with patches because an area large enough to be a patch to one species may be a barrier or 

be insignificant to another species. For example, a plowed field might be a hunting ground for an 

owl, a barrier to a deer mouse, and of no consequence to a coyote or deer. Another important 

aspect of patch size is that larger patches tend to have more linkages than smaller ones (Cantwell 

and Forman 1993).

Connectivity usually involves corridors and networks that describe how patches are connected in 

the landscape. A spatial connection means either that the patches are sufficiently close that 

movement can occur among them, or that there is some corridor along which the organisms can 

move (Fahrig and Merriam 1985). Many different kinds of corridors can be found in the 

landscape and they can vary from wide to narrow, meandering to straight, and with high to low 

connectivity (Forman 1995). Corridor characteristics, such as width, connectivity, curvilinearity, 

pinch points, etc., control the important conduit and barrier functions of a corridor (Forman and 

Godron 1981). Riparian zones often function as natural corridors and migration routes for some 

species, providing a connection between source habitats (Machtans et al. 1996).

Connectivity of habitat patches is dependent upon the species and its ability to disperse. For 

example, because the pileated woodpecker flies, it would appear that few things would present a 

barrier to its movements. Bull (1987) documented dispersal of 3.4 kilometers for juveniles based 

on 8 individuals; however, searches outside of the study area were not conducted. It is probable 

that at least some of the 20-plus potential survivors of the 87 nestlings banded (using the survival 

rate given by Bull [2001]) dispersed outside of the study area or more than 16 kilometers. Using 

Bowman (2003), Samson (2005) calculated a dispersal distance for the pileated of more than 240 

kilometers, making most habitats within a national forest available. It is difficult to identify 

movement patterns across the landscape for large ungulates or forest carnivores without telemetry 

data showing precise movement patterns. However, in the broad sense, it is possible to assess a 

landscape and identify areas that could be important travel ways for some species. For example 

Singleton (Singleton 2002, Singleton et al. 2002) conducted large-scale analysis to identify 

potential travel corridors between large secures areas (wilderness) for forest carnivores in 

Washington and Oregon.

Connectivity within forested environments is not only a spatial consideration, but also temporal. 

In some cases, the movement needs of wildlife can be served with different land cover types than 

those needed to sustain resident wildlife populations (Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity 

Working Group (WHCWG) 2010). For example, a large clear-cut may pose a movement barrier 

for American marten immediately post-harvest; however, over time, as it begins to regenerate, 

although unsuitable habitat, it may have sufficient canopy cover to allow travel between suitable 

habitat patches. Wales et al. (2011) estimated that the probability for ease of movement through 

the landscape (high dispersal) within the Plan Area for American marten was less than 22 percent 

historically (see Table 345). Dispersal or connectivity of habitats was considered an issue for this 

species, but as demonstrated, a highly permeable landscape probably did not occur historically. A 

slight decrease from the historical condition to the current condition, with a slight reduction in 

high and slight increase in the low dispersal probability, has occurred.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

347

Table 345. Percent current and historical dispersal likelihood for the American marten by class for 

each national forest (Wales et al. 2011)

Time 

Period

National 

Forest

Dispersal Classes and Likelihood

Low Moderate High

Current Malheur 25 70 5

Umatilla 24 52 23

Wallowa-Whitman 40 44 16

Historical Malheur 18 71 11

Umatilla 22 48 31

Wallowa-Whitman 37 38 25

Maintaining linkages and connectivity may not always be beneficial. Simberloff and Cox (1987), 

Simberloff et al. (1992), and Hess (1994) argued that corridors might enhance the spread of 

disease, catastrophic disturbances, such as wildfires, or the spread of exotic species into the areas 

connected by corridors. Corridors might also lure animals into areas, including the corridors 

themselves, where they experience higher mortality [for a review see Hobbs (1992)]. Samson 

(2005) notes:

...increases in intermediate-aged forests and connectivity threaten key remaining elements of 

biodiversity, such as areas of old growth, as these areas no longer persist in fire-protected refugia 

but are embedded in a well-connected matrix of intermediate-aged forest that permits the rapid 

spread of fire and insect outbreaks with a spatial-temporal pattern unlike the historic landscape.

Washington recently completed a statewide connectivity analysis (Washington Wildlife Habitat 

Connectivity Working Group [WHCWG] 2010) which incorporated a large portion of the Blue 

Mountains in Oregon and Idaho as well. The products produced were derived from two modeling 

approaches: 1) A focal species approach, which produced linkage networks for 16 representative 

species, and 2) a landscape integrity approach, which produced networks of lands exhibiting high 

degrees of landscape integrity and relatively intact natural areas with low levels of human 

modification. Linkage network was defined as a system of habitats and areas important for 

connecting them. Composite linkage networks for groups of focal species resulted in three 

“connectivity guilds”: (1) generalist, (2) montane, and (3) shrubsteppe. The networks for the 

generalist and montane species guilds are generally broadly connected, with the interruptions 

fitting the traditional view of “fracture zones”, i.e., linear features that pose significant barriers to 

animal movement. The Washington Working Group (2010) also found broad consistency between 

the linkage patterns identified by the focal species and the landscape integrity approaches. The 

landscape integrity approach mirrors the approach used in the California Essential Habitat 

Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 2010) in that it is not tailored to specific species or habitats. It 

is indifferent to vegetation type—apart from degree of departure from natural conditions—and is 

intended to provide a coarse filter for species and processes that are sensitive to human 

disturbance.

Figure 19 illustrates that forested areas of the Blue Mountains are reasonably well connected for 

most of the focal species used within the generalist category (western toad, mule deer, elk, 

bighorn sheep, western gray squirrel), and no use areas are a result of human development such as 

agricultural lands and highways. As mentioned above, this was the case for the montane guild as 

well. It should also be noted that even though five species are indicated for the generalist group 

and the maximum for the Blue Mountains is four, the fifth focal species (western gray squirrel) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

348

modeled for Washington does not occur in the Blue Mountains. Therefore, a linkage network for 

four species in the Blue Mountains would be the maximum that could occur.

Figure 19. Composite focal species and landscape integrity map for generalist connectivity guild; 

Includes species that can inhabit a variety of habitats such as mule deer and western toads11

 11 developed from data available at http://waconnected.org/statewide-analysis
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

349

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity – Environmental Consequences

The Washington analysis identified four overarching types of threats/barriers and their potential 

effects on species’ movements:

1) Land clearing/vegetation removal, which limits connectivity through

• Alienation due to lack of security cover

• Change to inhospitable environment (e.g., desiccating conditions for amphibians)

• Alienation due to lack of forage or prey

• Increases in competing species, predators, invasive exotics

2) Buildings and infrastructure, which limit connectivity through

• Barriers to movement created by fences, walls, buildings, asphalt, canals, etc.

• Alienation due to noise, lighting, lack of forage or prey

• Increases in competing species, predators, invasive exotics

• Making important habitat areas inaccessible (e.g., streams diverted into culverts)

3) Roads and traffic, which limit connectivity through

• Creation of inhospitable conditions (e.g., desiccating conditions for amphibians)

• Creation of physical barriers (e.g., Jersey or Texas barriers, right-of-way fences)

• “Fatal attraction” (e.g., attraction of snakes to warm road surface)

• Increased mortalities due to collisions

• Behavioral alienation (i.e., avoidance of roads or high traffic volumes)

4) Presence of people or domestic animals, which limit connectivity through

• Legal harvest and poaching

• Harassment and disturbance

• Disease transmission (e.g., domestic sheep to bighorn sheep)

• Intolerance (e.g., conflict resolution removals)

Many of these threats are not anticipated to occur on National Forest System lands, but could and 

do occur adjacent to them and will be discussed as cumulative effects. In general, the two greatest 

potential barriers on the national forest are roads and presence of people. As mentioned, alteration 

of vegetation can cause short-term disruptions in travel ways used by a species such as American 

martens, but in general do not result in long term isolation of habitat patches. This is evidenced 

by the landscape integrity (areas that have low levels of human modification and are in a 

relatively natural condition) modeling that the Washington Working Group conducted (WHCWG) 

2010). Their assessment of the marten also showed that habitat in the Blue Mountains is largely 

surrounded by impermeable conditions; both natural (low-elevation forests, grasslands, and 

shrublands) and human created features (highways, dams, towns, and railways), suggesting this 

population will remain isolated from all others. They further found that habitats in the Blue 

Mountains of southeastern Washington and northeastern Oregon showed some linkages, but are 

largely isolated from each other.

All alternatives, including Alternative A (no action), provide some degree of secure areas and 

connectivity. Both the Wallowa-Whitman and the Umatilla National Forests have more than 30 

percent of National Forest System lands in areas with minimal human disturbance in all 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

350

alternatives except Alternative A. The Malheur National Forest only accomplishes this for 

Alternative C.

Short-term disruption of connectivity between habitat patches for some species can occur due to 

vegetation treatments. The greatest potential for disruption of wildlife movement patterns occurs 

for Alternatives D, E, E-Modified and especially E-Modified Departure because of the level of 

mechanical vegetation treatments. Alternative C would be the least disruptive, but in all cases a 

very low percentage of the landscape is being treated for all alternatives. Alternatives A and C 

include safeguards addressing connectivity (WLD-HAB-4 and Eastside Screens amendment), 

which, combined with desired conditions, would provide the greatest connectivity between 

habitat patches.

Connected landscapes are especially important for wide-ranging species, such as carnivores 

(Beier 1993), and for migratory species, such as large herbivores and migratory birds (Bennett 

[1999, 2003]). They can be critical for maintaining genetically healthy populations, because 

immigration helps small populations avoid inbreeding (Hanski and Gilpin 1997). As 

demonstrated by the above analysis, connectedness of habitats is a complex issue. Taking into 

consideration all of the variables presented above, Alternative C appears to provide the greatest 

opportunity to maintain or improve connectedness of habitats. The establishment of MA 3C 

provides corridors connecting large secure wildlife areas within which habitat linkages can be 

designed. Establishing such corridors allows for the design of ecological connections (habitat 

linkages) that may take a variety of forms, not just simple linear connecting patches of habitat.

Alternative A would probably be the second best at providing for connectivity. Although more 

treatment would occur for this alternative within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in the dry 

forest compared to some of the other plan revision alternatives, the standards and guidelines from 

the Eastside Screens amendment are somewhat more restrictive than the standards and guidelines 

for other plan revision alternatives. It is unknown how the other plan revision alternatives

compare to one another because it is not a direct relationship between acres of treatment and 

connectivity. Connectivity will depend largely on the exact locations and intensity of harvest, 

which will be determined during project level planning.

Riparian zones function as natural corridors and migration routes for some species, providing a 

connection between source habitats (Machtans et al. 1996). Each of the alternatives establishes 

some degree of special designation for areas to be managed as riparian areas. The intent of these 

areas was the recovery of the riparian zone, but at the same time, this recovery can lead to 

providing travel corridors for terrestrial wildlife between source habitat patches. Alternative A, as 

amended by PACFISH/INFISH, has riparian management designations that vary in width from 

300 feet to 50 feet depending upon the stream. Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F have riparian widths that vary from 300 feet to 100 feet. Alternative C has a 

riparian width of 300 feet for all situations, whereas Alternative D varies from 100 feet to 50 feet. 

Alternative C provides the greatest opportunity for riparian areas to act as connectors between 

habitat patches on all three National Forests, whereas Alternative D actually provides less 

connectivity than what is provided by the 1990 Forest Plans as amended.

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Habitat Connectivity

Some of the cumulative effects suggested above have already been discussed in other sections of 

this document (e.g., the potential of spreading disease to bighorn sheep from privately grazed 

lands). Additionally, the continued subdivision of larger parcels to smaller parcels continues to be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

351

occurring on land adjacent to and between portions of public lands, which restricts wildlife 

movements due to increases in fencing and other infrastructure. The continued improvement of 

county, state and federal roads increases the barrier effect to wildlife, isolating some habitat 

patches from others for certain species.

In addition to these considerations, climate change may force new patterns of wildlife movements 

in response to changing environmental conditions and shifting habitats (Heller and Zavaleta 

2009).

Cumulative Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species (Basinwide Scale)

In general, the analysis area for cumulative effects is all those lands within the Blue Mountains

Ecoregion, including Bureau of Land Management, State and private lands as well as those lands 

within the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. However, cumulative effects will vary depending on the 

individual needs and habitat of individual species, and impacts from resource use outside forest 

boundaries. Cumulative effects to wildlife are also based on the cumulative effects described for 

vegetation, watersheds, and aquatic resources in their respective sections in this chapter.

The lack of younger seral conditions was identified as a concern from a diversity of habitat 

standpoint. Management directed at striving for the historic range of variability would provide 

improved habitat for many species. Because private forest lands have been managed more 

intensively, it is highly likely that some of these early seral conditions are being provided on 

those lands. As demonstrated in the effects analysis, the proposed level of activity under any 

alternative will not be enough to bring the dry forest within the historical range of variability over 

the next several decades. The departure is so large that our goal can only be to produce an upward 

trend, and although the younger seral stages may occur on lands outside of the forest, it is 

extremely unlikely that the old forest structure, which is also highly departed, will be produced 

outside of national forest lands.

Regional risk trends for some species date from the westward expansion and settlement. For 

example, the greater sage-grouse has seen its habitat shrink largely due to habitat losses that have 

occurred outside of national forest lands. The bulk of habitat currently occurs on Bureau of Land 

Management lands. Little habitat occurs on the national forests, with all known breeding sites and 

the vast majority of nesting habitat occurring outside the forests. As such, long-term viability of 

this species in Oregon is fundamentally beyond the scope of the national forest management to 

affect.

Fire suppression on neighboring Federal, State and private lands are routinely coordinated. Given 

the likelihood of increasing populations in surrounding communities, fire management is 

expected to be increasingly influenced by public concerns about threats to investments, air 

quality, and aesthetics. The extent of this influence will be driven by public perceptions and will 

be variable and not quantifiable. There is a possibility that wildland fire use for resource 

management on the national forests could be hampered by adverse public perceptions to fires 

allowed to burn under a wildland prescription

Growing demand for motorized recreation, snowmobiling in particular, includes all ownerships 

adjacent to the forest. “User built” trails are made by off-highway vehicle users, expanding their 

play areas. Conflicts, such as trespass into areas closed to motorized use, are likely to arise as 

snowmobile and off-highway vehicle ownership increases. Increased use of National Forests is 

also expected to facilitate expansion of noxious weeds and other undesirable or nonnative 

vegetation species. Urban expansion, both locally and regionally, reduces the ability of non-
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

352

federal land to function as biological reserves and provide wildlife habitat connectivity at broad 

scales.

Wildlife species do not recognize political or administrative boundaries. Effective wildlife 

management involves local, regional, state and Federal agencies; public land users; industry; and 

private landowners. Oregon and Washington completed statewide conservation strategies in 2006 

and 2005, respectively. These documents, developed in collaboration with the diverse groups 

mentioned above, provide the baseline information on the status, distribution, risks and 

management considerations for species and habitats of greatest concerns for the two states. In 

addition to these assessments, findings in local subbasin assessments, Partners in Flight products, 

state fish and wildlife products, and the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

(ICBEMP) have been reviewed for baseline information and additive actions that affect the 

landscape scale efforts of conservation and restoration.

The Interior Columbia Basin Project conducted a large-scale viability assessment within the 

Columbia basin in the late 1990s. Although datasets, analysis area (all lands versus National 

Forest System lands) and methodology differ slightly, the results (see Table 346) are instructive. 

In some cases, like the white-headed woodpecker, there is strong agreement between the results 

from this analysis and that of the Interior Columbia Basin Project. In other cases, such as the 

black-backed woodpecker, the trend would be considered increasing rather than decreasing, at 

least on the National Forests.

Table 346. The relative change in habitat and trend category for the Blue Mountains Ecological 

Reporting Unit from ICBEMP (Wisdom et al. 2000)

Species Season Group Change Trend

Boreal owl Year round 7 -3.25 Stable

Northern goshawk Summer 5 -29.33 Decreasing

Northern goshawk Winter 25 -24.71 Decreasing

American marten Year round 5 > 100 Strongly increasing

Pileated woodpecker Year round 6 > 100 Strongly increasing

White-headed woodpecker Year round 1 -79.26 Strongly decreasing

Western bluebird Year round 29 -64.24 Decreasing

Black-backed woodpecker Year round 9 -30.96 Decreasing

Lewis's woodpecker Year round 2 -72.17 Strongly decreasing

Wolverine Year round 15 > 100 Strongly increasing

Lark sparrow Year round 31 -46.28 Decreasing

Ash-throated flycatcher Year round 30 > 100 Strongly increasing

Sage thrasher Year round 33 -28.28 Decreasing

Gray-crowned rosy finch Year round 38 0 Stable

Fringed myotis Year round 26 14.12 Stable

Pallid bat Year round 28 -41.98 Decreasing

Loggerhead shrike Year round 35 -9.64 Stable

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Summer 22 -47.61 Decreasing

Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Winter 22 -53.6 Decreasing

Townsend's big-eared bat Year round 27 10.42 Stable
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

353

Many of the species that are addressed within this document have home ranges or territories that 

would be expected to extend beyond the boundaries of National Forest System lands. For some 

species, such as neo-tropical migratory birds, impacts from far-distant areas may have much 

greater effects than forest management activities. An example is the severe mortality in 

Swainson’s hawks from pesticide poisoning on wintering areas in Argentina (Goldstein et al. 

1999). The upland sandpiper is considered a long-distant migrant, spending the breeding season 

in the United States, but wintering in South America. Other species such as mule deer may 

summer on National Forest System lands, but winter in valley bottoms and agricultural lands. As 

such, species are potentially exposed to local area effects, such as the continued alteration of 

riparian habitats on lands of other ownership. At the same time, local governments have been 

encouraging riparian habitat improvement projects on private lands that will actually be a 

beneficial cumulative effect. Other habitats that occur mostly on other ownerships, such as the 

sagebrush-steppe, will probably continue to be lost to invasive species like cheatgrass as 

management practices on private land, and the continued transportation corridors and resulting 

connectivity with un-invaded habitats, allow the spread of invasive species.

Wildlife and Climate Change

All organisms depend on their habitats for food, water, shelter, and opportunities to breed and 

raise young. Climate changes can affect organisms and their habitats in many ways. In fact, 

climate change likely impacts all life on Earth, from individual organisms to populations, species, 

communities, and ecosystems. It may alter behavior, population size, species distributions, plant 

and animal communities, and ecosystem function and stability. How strongly different species 

will be affected differs, depending on differences in their ecology and life history. Species with 

small population sizes, restricted ranges, specialized habitat requirements and limited ability to 

move to different habitat will be most at risk. Similarly, different habitats and ecosystems will be 

impacted differently, with those in coastal, high-latitude, and high-altitude regions most 

vulnerable.

According to Hayes (2011), the accelerating change in climate poses the single biggest threat to 

wildlife species in the United States. Climate change likely will lead to the loss of native species 

from extensive areas and result in increasingly scarce and fragmented populations in many others. 

Further changes within ecosystems will be triggered as invasive species, both plant and animal, 

fill voids that are left as native species are lost. Associated changes in the food web will cascade 

and further destabilize ecosystems. Climate change effects will vary by ecosystem, and, although 

there have been many articles published on potential climate change effects on wildlife; a large 

degree of uncertainty still exists.

Terrestrial Species (Ruggiero et al. 2008)

Wildlife species, such as the wolverine (Gulo gulo), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and 

short-tailed weasel (Mustela erminea), have adapted to snowy environments. The snowshoe hare, 

for example, is well adapted to deep snow based on its large snowshoe-like feet. A warming 

climate will put this species at a disadvantage, and, importantly, this species is a food source for 

many predators. Specific tight relationships between predators and their prey (e.g., American 

marten and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)) may break apart as each species responds 

differently to climate changes. Native species may be further stressed by the proliferation of 

invasive species that thrive in warmer conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

354

Climate projections for late century (after 2050) suggest a high probability for the loss of alpine 

and sub-alpine ecosystems. These cold-adapted ecosystems, such as whitebark pine forests and 

alpine meadows, will become smaller and will eventually disappear as they are pushed up the 

mountains. Populations of fauna associated with these ecosystems will become increasingly 

fragmented and prone to extinction. Habitat isolation and restricted species movement will 

become prevalent. For example, breeding populations of gray-crowned rosy finches may become 

isolated on lingering high-elevation, boreal islands, threatening the long-term viability of the 

species.

Increases in disturbance owing to fire, and insects and diseases will accelerate the infiltration of 

weeds. This is of particular concern in the Blue Mountains, where fire frequency and severity are 

expected to increase as the climate warms. The loss of native ecosystems to weeds affects many 

species of terrestrial fauna. Many animal species could be extirpated from the Blue Mountains as 

changes in vegetation patterns ripple through the ecosystems.

Amphibians and Reptiles (Synthesized from Lind 2008)

For amphibians and reptiles, responses to climate change will be influenced by the following 

primary factors: (1) expected changes and variability in local environmental and habitat 

conditions, (2) the phenology (timing) of life-requisite activities, (3) interactions with emerging 

pathogens and invasive species, and (4) interactions with other environmental stressors (e.g., 

chemicals). For example, in Oregon, frogs are breeding earlier in the spring and the incidence of 

infectious diseases among them is increasing (Oregon Climate Change Research Institute 

(OCCRI) 2010). Changes in wet periods, snowpack, and flooding frequency will determine 

reproductive success rates and survival to metamorphosis (OCCRI 2010). Over the long term, the 

frequency and duration of extreme temperature and precipitation events will likely influence the

persistence of local populations, dispersal capabilities and consequently the structure of 

metapopulations on the landscape. Synergisms among a variety of environmental stressors 

adversely affect native amphibians and reptiles and climatic changes are likely to exacerbate these 

effects.

Although amphibians and reptiles are typically grouped together in assessments such as this one, 

it should be noted that these two groups represent a great variety of species that are adapted to 

diverse ecosystems and environments throughout the world. In general, particular ecological 

communities are expected to move upward in both elevation and latitude (Walther et al. 2002). As 

with other species, montane and higher-latitude populations of amphibians and reptiles are most

at risk (Root et al. 2003). Amphibians have recently been experiencing global population declines 

(Stuart et al. 2004) and similar signs of decline may be emerging for reptiles (Gibbon et al. 2000).

Amphibian and reptile populations are sensitive to and respond strongly to changes and 

variability in air and water temperature, precipitation, and the hydroperiod (length of time and 

seasonality of water presence) of their environments (Carey and Alexander 2003). Many 

amphibians require aquatic habitats for egg laying and larval development, and moist 

environments for post metamorphic life stages. As temperatures warm and the availability of 

aquatic habitats become more variable, amphibians are likely to experience lower rates of 

survival. Species associated with ephemeral waters, such as shallow ponds and intermittent 

streams, may be particularly vulnerable to altered precipitation patterns. Some reptile species 

exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination during egg incubation that could be influenced 

by changes and variability in global climates (Gibbon et al. 2000, Hawkes et al. 2007). Increases 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

355

in frequency or intensity of wildfires could create changes that may directly affect animals during 

the wildfire event or degrade habitat conditions necessary for their survival post wildfire.

Amphibians typically have relatively small home ranges and low dispersal rates, although there 

are some exceptions. Reptiles are somewhat more mobile and have a greater ability to withstand 

the expected dryer and warmer conditions. However, in areas where key habitats and species 

ranges have already been altered and fragmented by human use and development, the physical 

pathways to connect animals with suitable habitats (e.g., upwards in latitude or elevation) may 

not exist. Although some near-term benefits of climate warming may be seen for some reptile 

species owing to increases in preferred temperatures and activity periods (Chamaille-Jammes et 

al. 2006), over the long term, expected variability and temperature extremes will likely not be 

beneficial to these taxa.

For amphibians and reptiles, the timing of key ecological events is influenced by environmental 

conditions, such as air and water temperature and precipitation patterns. Lawler et al. (2009) 

found amphibian ranges were thus more vulnerable to changes in precipitation than were those of 

birds or mammals. The timing of reproduction (breeding/egg laying), metamorphosis, dispersal, 

and migration may shift in response to higher temperatures and changes in rainfall (Beebee 

1995). If such shifts in amphibian and reptile activities occur inconsistently with other ecological 

events (e.g., emergence of their insect prey), growth and survival rates would be affected.

Recent research on amphibian declines has documented the role of emerging pathogens and in 

some cases epidemic outbreaks of particular infections and diseases (Daszak et al. 2003). 

Changes in climatic regimes are likely to increase pathogen virulence and amphibian and reptile 

susceptibility to pathogens. Similarly, warm water invasive species (e.g., bullfrogs and some 

fishes in the western United States) are a concern to native species and may expand their ranges 

given warming trends, particularly earlier warming in the spring (Bury and Whelan 1984).

Birds

In North America, the northern limits of many bird species are strongly associated with various 

climatic variables (e.g., winter temperature). Both the ranges and the abundances of birds shift on 

an annual basis in concert with temperature. Studies have shown that a significant number of 

migrating birds are arriving up to three weeks earlier now than they did in 1960. Apparently, 

many bird species can and do respond to changing climatic conditions. Because their ranges are 

limited by vegetation, these birds probably will not be able to shift their ranges with the changing 

climate, at least not until the vegetation itself shifts. Consequently, natural communities of birds 

may change dramatically as changes in climate and vegetation favor some species and harm 

others. It is difficult to predict how these changes will influence community structure or function.

The pattern in Oregon is consistent with this assessment. Ranges of some birds are moving north 

and increasing in elevation. The other major change is the probable shift to an earlier breeding 

season as the temperatures become warmer earlier in the spring. Birds associated with higher 

elevation wetlands dependent on snowpack may be adversely affected (North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) 2010). Some forest birds already of concern may be affected by 

summer drying. Birds in the transition zone to the Great Basin, along the southern edge of the 

Blue Mountains, will be particularly vulnerable to summer drying (Olson and Burnett 2009).

Bird populations will be affected by a set of cumulative effects, including changes in ranges and 

migratory patterns. Earlier spring warming will affect breeding, as will changes in abundance of 

insects. Insects are particularly affected by climate dynamics, since their development is closely 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

356

tied to temperature. For example, an increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius will change the 

availability of insects as a food source by more than 18 days (OCCRI 2010). Birds migrating may 

thus be adversely affected by asynchrony; they could arrive at a time when the level of insects 

they feed their young has declined, passed, or not yet occurred. Jones and Cresswell (2009) state:

The phenology mismatch hypothesis predicts that migrant birds, which experience a 

greater rate of warming in their breeding grounds compared to their wintering grounds, 

are more likely to be in decline, because their migration will occur later and they may 

then miss the early stages of the breeding season. Population trends will also be 

negatively correlated with distance, because the chances of phenology mismatch increase 

with number of staging sites.

Because of this complicated set of trends, it is difficult to predict specific outcomes with 

confidence. Nevertheless, management actions to foster relatively intact and functioning 

ecosystems will be the best strategy to mitigate these effects.

Plant Species Diversity and

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

• Effects discussion were expanded or clarified to respond to comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement.

• Tables displaying sensitive species by habitat groups were updated to reflect the 2011 

Regional Forester’s sensitive species list.

Methodology

Throughout this analysis, plan components, such as standards and guidelines are referend to by 

their label, for example, FLS-2G or FLS-3S. “FLS” refers to “federally listed and sensitive”; “G” 

represents “guideline” and “S” represents “standard.” Please refer to Appendix A in Volume 4 for 

full descriptions of plan components under each alternative. For all plan revision alternatives (BF) plan components for federally listed and sensitive plants are found mainly under the heading 

1.3 Federally Listed Species. Some plan components that apply to sensitive species are found 

under the heading 1.2 Species Diversity.

Threatened and endangered plant species are designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and published in the Federal Register. There are two federally threatened plant species: 

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). 

These two species are evaluated separately, with the results of the analysis reported here. 

Sensitive plant species are designated by the regional forester. The 2011 Regional Forester's 

Special Status Species List (USDA Forest Service 2011c) was used to identify the sensitive plant 

species present on the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

To facilitate analysis, sensitive plant species are grouped into habitats following the approach 

used in the Analysis of Vascular Plants for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

357

Project (Croft et al. 1997). This analysis identified six broad habitat types: alpine, 

aquatic/riparian, forests, grasslands, rock, and shrublands, which were further subdivided into 

habitat subgroups based on specific cover types or elevation zones. For this analysis, sensitive 

plant species were assigned to one of the six broad habitat types, and then further subdivided if 

more distinct habitat groups were necessary to analyze forest plan components. This resulted in 

identifying 14 habitat groups. Table 347 displays these habitat groups and their corresponding 

broad habitat type from the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project Analysis of 

Vascular Plants (Croft et al. 1997).

Table 347. Habitat group for the sensitive plant species analysis

Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Group ICBEMP Vascular Plant Habitat Type

Alpine fellfields and subalpine parkland Alpine

Conifer forest Forests

Aspen, Cottonwood Forests

Sagebrush shrubland Shrublands

Basalt lithosol Shrublands

Grassland Grasslands

Talus, Cliffs and rock outcrops Rock

Aquatic aquatic/riparian

Fen aquatic/riparian

Seep/spring aquatic/riparian

Riparian aquatic/riparian

Intermittent stream aquatic/riparian

Moist meadow aquatic/riparian

Wet meadow aquatic/riparian

ICBEMP = Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

Two underlying assumptions are central to the plant assessment process (Holmes, et al. 2009):

1. Diversity objectives will be achieved for all native plant species through ecosystem 

diversity plan components except for federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive 

species. Species other than federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species 

have NatureServe global and state ranks, which indicate that they are secure or they are 

demonstrably widespread and abundant.

2. A diversity outcome for any grouping of Pacific Northwest Region sensitive species via 

stratification on specialized habitats reflects the diversity outcome for each species in that 

group.

For each habitat group, forest plan components (goals, standards, guidelines and objectives), by 

alternative, are evaluated for their predicted ability to meet the direction set forth in Sections 

219.26 and 219.27 of the 1982 planning rule and in their ability to achieve the desired conditions 

for federally listed plants and Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region sensitive plants.

For sensitive plants, one of the following effects determinations are made for species in each of 

the habitat groups (Salwasser et al. 1995):

• No impact - a project or activity will have no environmental effects on habitat, individuals, a 

population or a species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

358

• May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species - activities or actions 

that have effects that are immeasurable, minor or are consistent with conservation strategies 

would receive this conclusion.

• Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to 

a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species -

Loss of individuals or habitat can be considered significant when the potential effect may (1) 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing (C-1 or C-2 species); (2) result in a significantly 

increased risk of loss of viability to a species; or, 3) result in a significantly increased risk of 

loss of viability to a significant population (stock).

• Beneficial impact - Projects or activities that are designed to benefit, or that measurably 

benefit a sensitive species should receive this conclusion.

Proposed forest plan goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines common to all plan 

revision alternatives are found in appendix A. Alternative A, the no-action alternative, is the 

continuation of the 1990 Forest Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman, and Ochoco 

National Forests (the portion of the Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur 

National Forest’s Emigrant Creek Ranger District). These plans include management direction to 

provide a diversity of habitat sufficient to maintain viable populations of plant and animal 

species.

Threatened and Endangered Plants

Threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species are designated under the Endangered Species 

Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). One threatened species, Spalding’s catchfly 

(Silene spaldingii), is present within the forest plan revision area. A second threatened plant, 

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) is not present, but suitable habitat for the 

species may exist within the Plan Area.

Spalding’s Catchfly – Affected Environment

Spalding’s catchfly was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act October 

10, 2001. Spalding’s catchfly is an herbaceous perennial in the pink family (Caryophyllaceae). 

Seasonal stems emerge in the spring from the root crown, sending usually one, but occasionally a 

second shoot 8 to 24 inches in height. Each stem has typically 4 to 7 pairs of leaves and 3 to 20 

flowers on reproductive shoots. Dense, sticky hairs that cover the stems, leaves, and the floral 

calyx entrap small insects, hence “catch-fly.” The species has a long taproot that can exceed 1 

meter (39 inches). Spalding’s catchfly begins blooming in mid to late July. Blooming continues 

through August and sometimes into September. Fruits mature from August until September. The 

small, 2-mm, seeds are wrinkled, winged and dispersed by wind following dehiscence of the 

capsule (USFWS 2007).

Spalding’s catchfly is endemic to the Palouse region of southeastern Washington and adjacent 

Oregon and Idaho, and is disjunct in northwestern Montana and British Columbia, Canada. 

Spalding’s catchfly inhabits predominantly the Pacific Northwest bunchgrass grasslands and 

sagebrush-steppe and occasionally in open-canopy pine stands. Populations inhabit five 

physiographic regions: (1) the Palouse Grasslands in west-central Idaho and southeastern 

Washington, (2) the Channeled Scablands in east-central Washington, (3) the Blue Mountains 

Basins in northeastern Oregon, (4) the Canyon Grasslands along major river systems in Idaho, 

Oregon, and Washington, and (5) the Intermontane Valleys of northwestern Montana and British 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

359

Columbia, Canada. The Plan Area includes Spalding’s catchfly occurrences in Blue Mountains 

Basins and Canyon Grasslands physiographic regions.

The recovery plan for Spalding’s catchfly (recovery plan) outlines a strategy to protect and 

maintain reproducing, self-sustaining populations in each of the five physiographic regions where 

the plant grows to ensure the long-term persistence of the species (USFWS 2007). Within each of 

these regions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with the assistance of an interagency technical 

team, identifies key conservation areas to focus conservation efforts on the larger populations that 

support at least 500 plants. Until the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completes a comprehensive 

population viability analysis, the recovery plan assumes 500 individuals to be the minimum 

viable population size. A key conservation area possesses the following qualities:

• Is composed of intact habitat (not fragmented), preferably 40 acres or greater

• Native plants comprise at least 80 percent of the canopy cover of the vegetation

• Adjacent habitat is sufficient to support pollinating insects

• Habitat is of the quality and quantity necessary to support at least 500 reproducing 

individuals of Spalding’s catchfly

According to the recovery plan, key conservation areas should be surrounded, where possible, by 

300 acres of habitat that is intact or could be restored to support Spalding’s catchfly.

The plan area includes three Spalding’s catchfly key conservation areas: two inhabit the WallowaWhitman National Forest in the Blue Mountains Basins physiographic region and one inhabits the 

Umatilla National Forest in the Canyon grasslands physiographic region (Table 348). In the Blue 

Mountains Basins physiographic region, two additional key conservation areas lie outside the 

Plan Area on state and private lands. The vast majority of Spalding’s catchfly inhabiting the Blue 

Mountains Basins physiographic region grows on the Zumwalt Prairie key conservation area 

owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy. Likewise, most of the Spalding’s catchy 

inhabiting the Canyon Grasslands physiographic region is located outside the plan area on four 

additional key conservation areas. The Forest Service manages a minority of the Spalding’s 

catchfly inhabiting the Blue Mountains and surrounding Canyon Grasslands.

Across its range, the main threats facing Spalding’s catchfly are habitat loss due to development, 

habitat degradation associated with adverse grazing and trampling by domestic livestock and 

wildlife, and invasions of aggressive, nonnative plants (USFWS 2007). In addition, a loss of 

genetic fitness is a problem for small, fragmented populations where genetic exchange is limited. 

Other impacts include changes in fire frequency and seasonality, off-road vehicle use, and 

herbicide spraying and drift. On National Forest System lands, the main threats to Spalding’s 

catchfly are invasions by aggressive, nonnative plants, adverse livestock grazing management, 

and changes in fire frequency and seasonality.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

360

Table 348. Spalding’s catchfly key conservation areas in the Blue Mountains Basins and Canyon 

Grasslands physiographic regions 

Physiographic Region Key Conservation Area Plan Area

Blue Mountains Basins Clear Lake Ridge Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and 

other ownership

Blue Mountains Basins Crow Creek Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and 

other ownership

Blue Mountains Basins Wallowa Lake Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area 

Blue Mountains Basins Zumwalt Prairie Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area 

Canyon Grasslands Blue Mountains Foothills Umatilla National Forest and other 

ownership

Canyon Grasslands Craig Mountain Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area

Canyon Grasslands Garden Creek Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area 

Canyon Grasslands Joseph Creek Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area 

Canyon Grasslands Center Ridge Not in Blue Mountains Revised Forest 

Plans Area 

Spalding’s Catchfly Occurrence within the Umatilla National Forest

Spalding’s catchfly is located on the Umatilla National Forest near the far northeastern corner of 

the Pomeroy Ranger District. The Forest Service has mapped about 111 acres of Spalding’s 

catchfly occupied habitat in this area. The recovery plan (USFWS 2007) includes this population 

in the Blue Mountains Foothills key conservation area. Some plants in this area are located in a 

private inholding. The area where Spalding’s catchfly occurs includes portions of four open 

ridges on the south side of Lick Creek (Cabin, Sheep, Sourdough, and Bracken ridges) and the 

intervening draws that support plant communities typical of the Canyon Grasslands (USFWS 

2005, Johnson and Simon 1987, Tisdale 1986). One road passes through this area following 

Sourdough Gulch. Three patches of Spalding’s catchfly are about 100 to 130 meters southeast of 

the road and between 100 and 200 feet higher in elevation.

All plants are within active grazing allotments on the Umatilla National Forest. These areas have 

been surveyed for the presence of sensitive species, including specific surveys for Spalding’s 

catchfly in 1997 and 2000 (USDA Forest Service 2006. The condition of grasslands in the 

vicinity inhabited by Spalding’s catchfly is variable: the northerly slopes and ridge tops are 

reported in good to excellent condition (USDA Forest Service 2006), whereas exotic plants, 

including state listed noxious weeds, such as Centaurea solstitialis, have invaded the southerly 

slopes.

National Forest System lands that support Spalding’s catchfly within the Umatilla National Forest 

are currently allocated to MA C3 big game winter range. Under this allocation, all management 

actions are suitable, including grazing. Permitted grazing utilization standards for upland 

grasslands in big game winter range are 55 percent for pastures in satisfactory condition and 0 to 

35 percent for pastures in unsatisfactory condition. Yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), an 

aggressive invasive plant, is a threat to the Spalding’s catchfly in this area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

361

Spalding’s Catchfly Occurrence within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

The recovery plan identifies four Spalding’s catchfly key conservation areas in the Blue 

Mountains Basins physiographic region. Two key conservation areas overlap partly or almost 

entirely on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Crow Creek key conservation area is 

located largely on the National Forest, with an estimated 2,400 plants (USFWS 2007). As the 

third largest population range-wide, the Crow Creek key conservation area plays a leading role in 

the conservation of Spalding’s catchfly. The Clear Lake Ridge key conservation area is 

distributed among National Forest System, Bureau of Land Management, and private lands. Most 

patches of Spalding’s catchfly at Clear Lake Ridge are on private land but more than half the 

plants (520 of 850) grow at one patch on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. An additional 

330 plants occupy several small patches that are predominantly on private land. A small portion 

of one patch overlaps with Bureau of Land Management administered land. The two other key 

conservation areas in the Blue Mountains Basins physiographic region do not occur on National 

Forest System lands. Spalding’s catchfly occupied habitat totals approximately 100 acres on the

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

The National Forest System portions of the Crow Creek and Clear Lake Ridge key conservation 

areas are currently allocated (under the 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended) 

to MA 4A General Forest Timber/Range. The maximum livestock utilization rate for upland 

grasses and forbs (for pastures rated in satisfactory condition) is 55 percent.

Rare plant species occurrence information is recorded by state Heritage Programs in a numbered 

record called an element occurrence record displayed in Table 349. Each element occurrence 

record may include one or more sites (often called subpopulations), which are defined as distinct 

patches of the plant on the landscape. The Forest Service tracks each site on National Forest 

System lands with its own spatial database (geographic information system) number. A systematic 

approach to measure population sizes began in 2008 in partnership with The Nature Conservancy. 

Using statistically valid methods, The Nature Conservancy measured the area, frequency, and 

density of Spalding’s catchfly at Crow Creek and Clear Lake Ridge. Density and area 

measurements were used to estimate population size. Three years of results have been 

summarized (Jansen and Taylor 2010). The Nature Conservancy statistical population estimates 

exceed the values recorded by the Forest Service and approximately double both the Crow Creek 

and Clear Lake Ridge population estimates. The Forest Service estimated population sizes by 

means of walk-through visual inventories. Based on their statistical methods, the Forest Service 

considers the Nature Conservancy estimates to more accurately estimate population sizes.

Spalding’s catchfly populations on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest appear stable or 

increasing where 15 to 20 years of monitoring has been done (USDA Forest Service 2008). Table 

349 displays the population sizes for Crow Creek and Clear Lake Ridge key conservation areas.

All populations on National Forest System lands in Oregon are within active grazing allotments. 

Invasive plants threaten Spalding’s catchfly at both key conservation areas on the WallowaWhitman National Forest. The Spalding’s catchfly population within the Clear Lake Ridge key 

conservation area is infested with sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta). North Africa grass 

(Ventenata dubia) is present at the Crow Creek key conservation area (Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest). Annual exotic bromes (Bromus tectorum, B. japonicus, B. secalinus) are present 

at most Spalding’s catchfly sites.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

362

Table 349. Spalding’s catchfly population estimates at Crow Creek and Clear Lake Ridge Key 

Conservation Areas

Key Conservation Area Forest Service 

Population Estimate

Nature Conservancy

Population Estimate

Crow Creek

(East) 266-1,006

1,665-7,363 (2008)

520-2,284 (2009)

558-2,368 (2010)

Crow Creek

(West) 822-2,259

2,306-7,242 (2008)

2,834-7,740 (2009)

854-3,586 (2010)

Clear Lake Ridge 750-1,970 30-1,450 (2009)

Spalding’s Catchfly – Environmental Consequences

Forest Plan Components - Alternative A:

Current Forest Plans provide little specific direction for threatened and endangered species other 

than to repeat the requirements from law, particularly the Endangered Species Act and the 

National Forest Management Act. (Numbering represents plan component numbers and are not 

necessarily supposed to be consecutive).

Umatilla National Forest

Forestwide Standards (Forest Plan pages 4-89, 4-90)

1. Legal and biological requirements for the conservation of endangered, threatened and sensitive 

plants and animals will be met. All proposed projects that involve significant ground disturbance 

or have the potential to alter habitat of endangered, threatened or sensitive plant and animal 

species will be evaluated to determine if any of these species are present (FSM 2670 

Threatened, Endangered and sensitive Plans and Animals).

2. Where endangered or threatened species are present, the required biological assessment 

process will be carried out according to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (Public 

Law 93-205); consultation requirements with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies 

will be met. Before the project can be carried out, protection or mitigation requirements shall be 

specified (36 CFR 219.27(a)(8)). Habitat for existing federally classified threatened and 

endangered species will be managed and monitored to achieve objectives of recovery plans.

4. For endangered, threatened and sensitive species, determine and monitor the status of 

populations and habitats and the strategies implement for protection. ...

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forest-wide Standards (Forest Plan pages 4-30, 4-31)

1. Reviews/Biological Evaluations. Review all actions and programs, authorized, funded, or carried 

out by the Forest Service, to determine their potential effects on threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species. Conduct these reviews, including biological evaluation, per direction in FSM 

2670 and appropriate R-6 manual supplements.

2. Prepare a biological evaluation during the environmental analysis of each project to determine 

possible effects of the proposed activity on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

363

3. Other Activities. Restrict or prohibit other activities (e.g., off-road vehicles impacting plants or 

habitats) and monitor activities where necessary to protect threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species.

7. Inventory. . . . Corrective measures to avoid possible adverse effects on recovery of populations 

will be implemented.

8. Collection. Allow collection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species only under permit 

in accordance with FSM 2673.

The existing Forest Plans do not provide habitat or activity specific standards and guidelines for 

threatened and endangered species or their critical habitat. Under Alternative A, specific 

mitigation measures to meet legal requirements would be identified during project-level planning 

and implementation. Despite the lack of specific standards and guidelines, this approach has 

resulted in maintaining apparently stable population trends for the Spalding’s catchfly. See the 

discussion above under Affected Environment.

Forest Plan Components Applicable to Spalding’s Catchfly - Alternative B, E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and F

Please refer to Volume 4, Appendix A, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, section 2.3, 

Federally Listed and Sensitive Species.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly from Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing can directly affect Spalding’s catchfly by herbivory and trampling and 

indirectly impact Spalding’s catchfly via soil compaction, soil erosion, the introduction of 

nonnative plants, and loss of pollinator habitat. Grazing of Spalding’s catchfly has been observed 

and is considered a threat to the species (Kagan 1989, Hill and Gray 2004, Taylor 2007). Direct 

herbivory removes flowers or seeds, thereby limiting reproduction. Herbivory of leaves inhibits a 

plant’s ability to manufacture carbohydrates necessary for seasonal growth and storage in the 

perennial taproot. Trampling can easily break off entire plants at the ground level and damage the 

root crowns from which stems emerge. Root crown damage is more frequently associated with 

early season grazing (Hill and Gray 2004). Late summer grazing or heavy grazing is especially 

detrimental to Spalding’s catchfly (Hill and Gray 2004). In one study (Cullen et al. 2011) browse 

rates could not be correlated to cattle stocking rates. Their results suggested cattle did not 

consume significant numbers of catchfly plants during the peak summer growth period, but the 

authors could not conclude that grazing does no harm to populations of the plant. That study 

measured stocking as animal units/time period and not percent forage utilization or stubble 

height, so it is not possible to compare these results to the utilization standards proposed in the 

revised plans. Another study (Dingledein et al. 2010) found significant browse of catchfly plants 

throughout the growth season ranging from 20 to 71 percent, although this was attributed largely 

to wild ungulates, because the study area was not grazed by livestock during the investigation. 

Sufficient research has not been completed to discern what levels of grazing may allow the 

Spalding’s catchfly to persist (USDI 2007).

Indirect effects can impact the habitat of Spalding’s catchfly. Although grassland ecosystems of 

the arid intermountain west experienced little grazing pressure from large hoofed animals during 

the last 10,000 years (Mack and Thompson 1982, Lyman and Wolverton 2002) they cannot 

tolerate the levels of grazing exerted by domestic livestock in the 1800s and early 20th century. 

Both Pseudoreigneria spicata and Festuca idahoensis are poorly adapted to herbivory by 

comparison to other grass species, having little compensatory growth, such as tiller production 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

364

(Caldwell et al. 1981). Disturbances, most frequently linked to adverse livestock grazing and 

trampling, have dramatically altered western arid ecosystems in a progression from native 

perennial bunchgrass communities to invasive nonnative annual grasslands that are then 

susceptible to more invasive perennial plant invasions (DiTomaso 2000).

Of greater concern is the impact livestock grazing may have on the pollinator community in 

Spalding’s catchfly habitat. Kimoto and others (2012) found that even where catchfly plants had 

not been fed on by livestock, grazing of habitat reduced pollinator abundance, thereby limiting 

seed production. Described as the first large-scale manipulative study of the effect of grazing 

intensity on native bee communities in a North American grassland, Kimoto (2010) found that 

increases in grazing intensity showed a linear decline in bee diversity, abundance, and richness, 

especially with bumblebees (Bombus spp.), which include the main pollinator of Spalding’s 

catchfly, the yellow bumblebee (Bombus fervidus), identified as the most significant pollinator (B. 

fervidus) of Spalding’s catchfly (Lesica and Heidel 1996, Taylor and DeBano 2012, Tubbesing et 

al. 2014). In the absence of open pollination, Spalding’s catchfly experienced an 85 percent 

reduction in fecundity and a loss of fitness, due to inbreeding depression, resulting in an 

estimated total reduction in fitness of 99 percent (Lesica 1993). Therefore, management practices 

that significantly reduce pollinators, especially bumblebees, could have a significant impact on 

the recruitment of new plants into a Spalding’s catchfly population. Even though Spalding’s 

catchfly is long lived, without seedling recruitment, populations would decline over time. Forage 

utilizations approaching 50 percent showed very little to no bumblebee abundance (Kimoto 

2010). Therefore, grazing utilization of 50 percent within Spalding’s catchfly populations and 

surrounding habitat would not likely contribute toward maintaining bumblebee populations, 

thereby limiting Spalding’s catchfly reproduction. Kimoto (2010) found that even moderate 

grazing (22 to 40 percent utilization) led to bumblebee declines.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly - Alternative A

Under Alternative A – No Action, known Spalding’s catchfly plants would be within the 

management allocations suitable for livestock grazing. The general effects of grazing to 

Spalding’s catchfly are outlined above. Specific project design features to facilitate the 

conservation and recovery of the catchfly would be determined during subsequent project level 

planning.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly - Alternatives B, D, E, and F

On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, known Spalding’s catchfly populations occupy land

management allocations that would be suitable for livestock grazing. Direct and indirect effects 

could occur to populations of the species. As projects are planned or revised (including ongoing 

actions that would be brought into compliance with the Forest Plan upon implementation), 

livestock grazing actions would need to comply with standard FLS-15S that would restrict the 

timing of livestock grazing in occupied habitat to outside the growing season for Spalding’s 

catchfly (generally May 15 through August 30) for pastures in satisfactory condition (low 

departure from the upland grassland desired condition). For pastures in unsatisfactory condition 

(moderate or greater departure from the desired condition) grazing would be avoided entirely in 

pastures inhabited by Spalding’s catchfly (Standard FLS-16S). These two standards would ensure 

that Spalding’s catchfly would not be grazed or trampled and that occupied habitat in moderate or 

greater departure from the upland grassland desired condition would not be grazed to facilitate its 

transition to phase A or B faster than if it were grazed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

365

On the Umatilla National Forest, for Alternatives B, D, E, and F, nearly all the known sites of 

Spalding’s catchfly would be within the proposed Sourdough botanical area (MA 2C), where 

livestock grazing would not be a suitable activity. Two Spalding’s catchfly patches composed of

about 200 plants (roughly 3 percent of the Spalding’s catchfly plants within the Umatilla National 

Forest) occupy an area north of the proposed botanical area. These two patches would be in MA 

4A General Forest for all alternatives. Therefore, livestock grazing would not affect the majority 

of the known population of Spalding’s catchfly within the Umatilla National Forest for these 

alternatives.

About three percent of the Spalding’s catchfly population that grows outside the proposed 

botanical area could be affected by grazing. Under Alternatives B, E, and F, Spalding’s catchfly

plants would be managed according to standards FLS-15S and FLS-16S as described above for 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Under Alternative D, no such standards apply to grazing 

activities in Spalding’s catchfly occupied habitat. The small, three-percent proportion of catchfly 

growing outside the proposed botanical area could be grazed to a maximum 50 percent utilization 

for management systems that incorporate rest, rotation or deferment. This could impact the 

species; however, with the vast majority (97 percent) of the catchfly population in a botanical 

area that is not suitable for livestock grazing, no impacts to viability or recovery would be 

expected.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly - Alternative C

Under Alternative C, all known Spalding’s catchfly sites within the Umatilla National Forest 

would be allocated to a wilderness study area, where livestock grazing would become a suitable 

use at a maximum 25 percent utilization of key forage species. This relatively light level of 

grazing, even during the active growth period for the catchfly, would be expected to maintain 

populations of the plant species. At this relatively light level of grazing, little direct herbivory and 

trampling to the catchfly would be expected.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly Common to Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure

Plan components for livestock grazing that contribute to Spalding’s catchfly conservation:

• FLS-15S (Standard): Livestock grazing of occupied Silene spaldingii habitat shall not be 

authorized between July 1 and September 30 (flowering-fruiting period).

• FLS-3S (Standard): 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-5G (Guideline): 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-15S would allow the Spalding’s catchfly to complete its reproductive cycle: flowering, 

pollination-fertilization, fruit-seed maturation and seed dispersal. Spalding’s catchfly begins

seasonal growth from late May into June as a rosette with foliage near the ground. By late June 

stem elongation and growth of floral buds has begun (Dingledein et al. 2010). A browse study 

conducted on the Zumwalt Prairie Preserve in northeastern Oregon concluded that livestock 

were not significant factor affecting the browse rate of Spalding’s catchfly (Cullen et al. 2011). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

366

This study, conducted during the period of June to mid-July, corroborates what Forest Service 

botanists observe: early season grazing has little direct effect to the catchfly, with few plants 

observed being browsed (Hustafa pers. comm.). This is likely due to the fact that at this time, 

catchfly plants are in the rosette stage, near the ground surface and below the reach of livestock 

that browse on the taller lush, green, abundant prairie grasses of the early season. As the season 

progresses, however, browse rates on the catchfly, from both livestock and wild ungulates, 

increase (Kimoto et al. 2012). Ceasing grazing in occupied Spalding’s catchfly habitat from 

July 1 through September 30 would remove the threat of direct and indirect threats of browsing 

and trampling, thereby allowing catchfly plants to flower, be pollinated, and mature the 

capsules to the point of dehiscence and seed dispersal.

FLS-3S is designed to moderate grazing utilization and reduce associated effects of trampling, 

maintain or improve grassland vigor and health, and maintain other pollinator host plants. Some 

studies show that moderate grazing can maintain or improve the forb component of grasslands 

but scientists caution that grazing should be carefully planned to the specific plants and 

pollinators of an area (Black et al. 2011). While Kimoto (2010) observed declines in bumblebee 

abundance at grazing utilization levels of 22 to 40 percent, a relatively light maximum 

utilization rate of 30 percent for a portion of the season before or after the Spalding’s catchfly 

main growing season would not be expected to drive bumblebee abundance or their host plants 

to detrimentally low numbers.

FLS-5G is designed to reduce concentrations of livestock in occupied habitat by placing salt 

and water, both strong attractors of livestock, away from Spalding’s catchfly populations.

These three mitigation measures are expected to reduce, if not eliminate, the herbivory of 

Spalding’s catchfly by livestock and result in infrequent, incidental trampling impacts, while 

maintaining the grassland habitat including pollinator host plants.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly from Invasive Plants

Effects from All Alternatives

Exotic, invasive plant species threaten the viability of Spalding’s catchfly. Invasive plants 

compete with Spalding’s catchfly for water, nutrients, and light. Of greatest concern is the effect 

of invasive plants on seedling establishment, a vulnerable state for perennial plants. Not only are 

invasive species able to outgrow seedlings of Spalding’s catchfly, they often leave behind 

increased leaf litter, inhibiting the germination of other plants. In one study in Washington, high 

levels of exotic plants (Bromus secalinus, Hypericum perforatum, and Ventenata dubia) were 

associated with less vigorous occurrences of Spalding’s catchfly (Caplow 2002). Invasive plants 

also provide competition for pollinators, affecting fecundity and individual fitness in Spalding’s 

catchfly (Lesica and Heidel 1996). Insects may switch from Spalding’s catchfly to an invasive 

plant if it is more abundant or provides more pollen or nectar (Richards 1997). Lesica and Heidel 

(1996) found lower visitation rates for Spalding’s catchfly in sites infested with Hypericum 

perforatum (St. John’s wort).

With the increased level of activity expected for Alternative D, the risk of increased invasive 

plant spread would be more likely compared to the other alternatives. See the Non-native 

Invasive Plants section for a discussion of these effects from invasive species.

Forest plan objective 1.5, “Reduce current infestations of invasive plant species,” would 

contribute to the conservation of Spalding’s catchfly by reducing or eliminating invasive species 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

367

in and around occupied habitat. Invasive plant treatment actions designed to reduce or eliminate 

infestations may affect Spalding’s catchfly. The main concern here is the use of herbicides to treat 

invasive plants, which, if applied indiscriminately, may cause mortality or damage to Spalding’s 

catchfly. For Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and F, proposed Forest Plan components would address 

this concern by incorporating existing Forest Plan standards, as amended by the 2005 Record of 

Decision for the Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. The 2005 plan amendment (standard no. 20) directs invasive plant treatments be 

designed to minimize or eliminate adverse effects to species or habitats proposed or listed under 

the Endangered Species Act. Forest plan standard RE-5S proposed under Alternative E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure is similar to this direction:

Minimize adverse effects to ESA listed, proposed, and candidate species and their designated and 

proposed critical habitat in accordance with Forest Service authorities. Management activities shall 

not retard recovery of listed, 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.

Both standard RE-5S and the 2005 plan amendment standard no. 20 would insure that as invasive 

plant treatment projects are planned and implemented, adverse effects to Spalding’s catchfly 

would be minimized and options for recovery would not be retarded.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly from Prescribed Fire

Although the actual effects of prescribed fire is unknown, Spalding’s catchfly is presumed to have 

evolved with and adapted to the historical fire regime in intermountain western North America 

(Lesica 1999), where fire has been a common occurrence in grasslands (Barrett and Arno 1982). 

Historical fire frequency in the Idaho fescue grasslands of the Blue Mountains is not well 

understood, but it is believed fires were frequent, with return intervals of less than 35 years 

(Johnson and Swanson 2005). Late summer fires are more damaging to Idaho fescue, but preburn cover of fescue returns usually within five years (Johnson and Swanson 2005). In the Idaho 

fescue grasslands of northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington, fire is not believed 

necessary to promote seedling establishment of Spalding’s catchfly as it apparently is in the 

western Montana grasslands dominated by rough fescue (Lesica 1999). Drier conditions in 

northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington also limit the ability of trees and shrubs to 

encroach onto grasslands. Therefore, prescribed fire may not be needed to maintain grasslands in 

northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. If prescribed fires are needed to improve 

habitat for S. spaldingii, they would be carried out during the early spring or fall, when fires are 

more easily controlled. Fires carried out in the fall would probably have less impact to S. 

spaldingii than fires carried out during spring, when it is possible seedlings could be killed. 

Dormant plants would probably not be affected, and older plants emerging from root crowns may 

suffer only minor damage. Perennial individuals damaged by spring fire are expected to send up 

additional shoots from axillary buds.

Effects of the Plan Revision Alternatives

Forest plan standard FLS-7G would require federally listed, proposed or candidate plants be 

avoided by the construction of slash piles or other fuels to protect plants from the extreme 

temperatures that develop underneath or next to them. Guideline FLS-8G would require federally 

listed, proposed or candidate plants be avoided by the construction fire suppression lines for both 

planned (prescribed) and unplanned fires (wildfire). The overall effect of prescribed fire would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

368

benefit S. spaldingii, though some individual plants may be adversely affected in the short-term. 

For Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, these two standards and guidelines have 

been reworded, labeled differently, but have the same direction and intent. (See FEIS Volume 4, 

Appendix A, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, 1.3. Federally Listed Species.)

These standards and guidelines would permit prescribed fire for situations that may benefit the 

Spalding’s catchfly or its habitat, for example, by encroachment from shrubs, such as snowberry 

or ninebark. The net long-term effect of prescribed fire would benefit S. spaldingii, though some 

individual plants may be adversely affected in the short-term.

Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly from Climate Change

The effects of climate change are speculative, but it has the potential to affect rare plants, 

including Spalding’s catchfly. Researchers speculate that a warming climate will alter 

precipitation patterns, with some regions becoming drier and others wetter. Within the Pacific 

Northwest, a recent model predicts warmer and wetter winters in 80 years. Being stationary, 

plants must migrate through dispersal, colonization and recruitment strategies, a relatively slow 

process compared to mobile organisms. Some researchers believe that plant species will not be 

able to migrate at a pace dictated by a warming climate, which would isolate and eventually 

doom some species, unless new adaptations arise to cope with a changing environment. Even 

though activities would be designed to maintain or improve Spalding’s catchfly habitat or 

numbers, these actions may cause short-term adverse effects. Restorative actions, such as 

prescribed fire or collecting S. spaldingii seed for long-term storage, could cause short-term 

adverse effects, even though the overall effect of these actions would be beneficial.

Cumulative Effects to Spalding’s Catchfly

The effects area includes lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the Umatilla and WallowaWhitman National Forest and adjacent lands. Tribal lands exist adjacent the National Forests on 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Nez Perce Precious Lands. 

Most catchfly populations are near the forest boundaries of both the Umatilla and WallowaWhitman National Forests. Actions on adjacent nonfederal lands have a possibility to affect 

catchfly populations on National Forest System lands, but likely only for those populations 

nearest the forest boundaries. It is not possible to state what actions are likely to occur on adjacent 

private or tribal lands, but we assume these lands would be managed as they are today. The 

nonfederal action most likely to affect catchfly plants on adjacent National Forest System lands is 

invasive plant control on adjacent private and tribal lands, as well as county and state roads 

leading to and coursing through the National Forests. Active weed management programs on 

adjacent private and tribal lands, as well state and local government roadside weed control, would 

likely benefit catchfly habitat on federal lands because fewer weed propagules would be available 

for transport, whether by people, vehicles, wind or wildlife, and establishment in catchfly habitat 

on the National Forests. The effects of other management activities on adjacent private, state and 

tribal lands is expected to be confined to those lands and not overlap in time and space with 

catchfly populations on National Forest System lands. The management direction for the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area would be additive to the direction under the proposed action 

and alternatives. Standards and guidelines for the management of livestock grazing and invasive 

plant control within the national recreation area would complement direction under the plan 

revision alternatives for the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

369

Determination for Spalding’s Catchfly

A biological assessment for the purposes of Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act has been prepared: the anticipated determination for the Forest Plan components of goals, 

objectives, standards and guidelines, and suitability determinations for management areas for

activities that may be conducted within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and the Umatilla 

National Forest, for any of the alternatives, is “may affect, likely to adversely affect” Spalding’s 

catchfly. Though many management actions, such as nonnative invasive species abatement or 

prescribed fire, would assist in the recovery of Spalding’s catchfly, these actions may have shortterm adverse effects that may impact individual plants or their habitat, while promoting the long 

term recovery of the species. The findings of the project biological opinion from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service will be reported in the project record of decision.

MacFarlane’s Four O’clock – Affected Environment

MacFarlane’s four o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) is a rare plant narrowly endemic to a small 

range (46 by 29 km) in northeastern Oregon and adjacent west-central Idaho. MacFarlane’s four 

o’clock was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 1979. As more populations 

were discovered, MacFarlane’s four o’clock was downgraded to threatened status (61 FR 10693-

10697). Populations of the four o’clock have not been discovered within the Plan Area but are

located in the adjacent Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The nearest population is 

approximately 25 miles to the southeast in the Imnaha River canyon. Suitable habitat for the 

species exists within the Plan Area on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock is a perennial forb in the Nyctaginaceae or four-o’clock plant family. 

New shoots emerge in the early spring from tuberous rootstock with flowers blooming from late 

May to early June. Each flower produces only one barrel-shaped achene: a single seeded fruit 

about 6mm long. Seeds typically disperse via gravity from late June through July and plants 

senesce shortly thereafter. Seedling establishment is apparently infrequent; most reproduction is 

accomplished asexually via tuberous-thickened roots that continue to grow in several directions 

sending up new stems.

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock grows predominantly in blue-bunch wheatgrass grasslands below 

3,000 feet in the canyon grasslands ecological type described by Tisdale (1986). Suitable habitat 

for Macfarlane’s four o’clock within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest has been identified 

using a model (Murray 2001). Physical and biological attributes from known Macfarlane’s four 

o’clock sites, including vegetation type, elevation, slope and aspect, were weighted and used to 

map areas that have the potential to support the species. Murray (2001) categorized potential 

habitats by probability as moderate, high, or very high. The purpose of the model is to identify 

areas to prioritize field inventories for Macfarlane’s four o’clock; it does not definitively identify 

suitable habitat, whether or not the habitat is occupied. The model ranks eleven of twelve known 

Macfarlane’s four o’clock occurrences in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area as very high 

potential (eight occurrences) or high (three occurrences) potential habitat. One four o’clock site in 

the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area inhabits an area not predicted by the model. Although 

the model adequately predicts suitable habitat to direct inventories, it cannot be relied upon to 

confirm or rule out suitable habitat for the species.

Within the Plan Area portion of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the model identifies 1,258 

acres of high potential habitat. The model does not identify very high or moderate potential 

habitat within the revised Forest Plans area. A survey completed in 2004 in MacFarlane’s four 

o’clock potential habitat in the Joseph Creek canyon (USDA Forest Service 2005e) did not detect 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

370

new occurrences. This survey was conducted in what is likely the best available habitat within the 

Plan Area and nearest the known range of the four o’clock. Additional surveys conducted in 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010 of MacFarlane’s four o’clock in very high and high potential habitat within 

the Snake River canyon did not detect new occurrences. Based on the negative survey findings in 

the Plan Area and in the Snake River canyon, it is unlikely that MacFarlane’s four o’clock occurs 

within the Plan Area.

Macfarlane’s Four O’clock – Environment Consequences

Determination for Macfarlane’s Four O’clock

MacFarlane’s four-o’clock is not known to be present in the Plan Area and, based on prior 

surveys, is unlikely to inhabit the Plan Area. Because the species is not likely to be present,

potential effects to the species from any of the alternatives are not expected to occur. The action

of adopting forest plan components—desired conditions, goals, objectives, standards and 

guidelines—is expected not to affect the MacFarlane’s four-o’clock. If, during the life of the Plan, 

the MacFarlane’s four-o’clock were to be discovered in the Plan Area, then the same plan 

components for federally listed plants (except PL-TES-1 and FLS-S3, both which apply

specifically to Spalding’s catchfly) would apply during the development and implementation of 

site-specific project actions. However, based on the best available science, the action of revising 

the Forest Plan for all alternatives would result in no effect to the MacFarlane’s four-o’clock.

Sensitive Plants

Habitat Groups for Sensitive Plant Species

To facilitate analysis, sensitive species are grouped into 14 habitat groups. These habitat groups

are present throughout the Blue Mountains on each of the three National Forests in the analysis 

area.

• Alpine fellfields and subalpine 

parkland

• Aspen, cottonwood

• Conifer forest

• Sagebrush shrubland

• Grassland

• Basalt lithosol

• Talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops

• Aquatic

• Peatlands

• Seep/spring

• Riparian

• Intermittent stream

• Moist meadow

• Wet meadow

For sensitive plants, one of the following effects determinations are made for species in each of 

the habitat groups (Salwasser et al. 1995):

• No impact (NI) - a project or activity will have no environmental effects on habitat, 

individuals, a population or a species.

• May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) - activities 

or actions that have effects that are immeasurable, minor or are consistent with 

conservation strategies would receive this conclusion.

• Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute 

to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

371

species (WIIH) - Loss of individuals or habitat can be considered significant when the 

potential effect may (1) contribute to a trend toward federal listing (C-1 or C-2 species); (2) 

result in a significantly increased risk of loss of viability to a species; or, 3) result in a 

significantly increased risk of loss of viability to a significant population (stock).

• Beneficial impact (BI) - Projects or activities that are designed to benefit, or that 

measurably benefit a sensitive species should receive this conclusion.

Findings of the analysis are summarized in Table 350. The analysis of effects, by habitat group, 

follows.

Table 350. Biological evaluation findings for sensitive plants by habitat group

Habitat Group Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Alts. E, E-Mod., 

& E-Mod. 

Departure Alt. F

Alpine fellfields and 

subalpine parkland MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Aspen, cottonwood MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Conifer forest MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Sagebrush 

shrubland MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Grassland MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Basalt lithosol MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Talus, cliffs, and 

rock outcrops MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Aquatic MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Peatlands MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Seep/Spring MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Riparian MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Intermittent Spring MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Moist Meadow MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH MIIH

Wet meadow MIIH MIIH MIIH WIIH MIIH MIIH

Alpine Fellfields and Subalpine – Parkland Affected Environment

Alpine areas are lands above the timberline. Within the Plan Area, these are found on the highest 

peaks of the Wallowa Mountains, Elkhorn Mountains, Greenhorn Mountains, and Strawberry 

Mountain. Fellfields are among the dominant vegetation community in alpine areas. Fellfields are 

characterized by stony soils that support sparse vegetation. Subalpine parklands are treeless plant 

communities at or immediately below the timberline. Subalpine parkland is more widespread than 

alpine areas in the Blue Mountains. Parkland can be found throughout the Wallowa and Elkhorn 

Mountains; it becomes less a feature of the landscape to the south and west as elevations and 

precipitations decline; though they are a feature in the Greenhorn Mountains and the Strawberry 

Mountains. The plant communities in parkland may be similar to fellfield, but the meadows that 

dominate parkland are usually lusher than fellfields.

Nearly all species listed for alpine fellfields and subalpine parkland are confined to designated 

wilderness areas. The few exceptions are discussed further:
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

372

Greenman’s desert parsley (Lomatium greenmanii): One population, the largest known, is located 

on the summit plain of Mount Howard, just north of the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area in the 

Wallowa Mountains. Two other populations are found within the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area. The 

current land allocation is backcountry.

Red-fruited desert parsley (Lomatium erythrocarpum): All known sites of this narrow endemic 

are in the Elkhorn Mountains. The current land allocation is backcountry.

Table 351. Alpine fellfields and subalpine parkland habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Bupleurum 

americanum

Subalpine fellfields. Talus slopes, rocky soils, dry 

meadows, ridge tops. Can be in a mosaic of open 

areas, and scrubby coniferous forest. Generally north 

to northwest aspect. Coarse gravel; granodiorite and 

basaltic lithosols.

A A D

Carex 

nardina

Exposed arctic and subalpine tundra, usually 

calcareous, cliffs, rocky slopes, ridges, and summits 

50-3,300 meters. Population is in the dark 

sedimentary rocks of Hurwal formation. Habitat well 

distributed. Plant not well distributed across habitat. 

A A D

Carex 

pelocarpa

Alpine slopes, ridge crests, rocky lakeshores 2,700-

3,700 meters. Ours are on fellfield in lower 

sedimentary series, scattered in alpine depression, 

and on streambanks. Not clear if always on 

calcareous soils.

A A D

Carex 

pyrenaica 

ssp. 

micropoda

Moist meadows, stream banks, seeps, snowbeds, 

and areas irrigated by meltwater 10-4,000 meters. 

Boulder talus.

A D D

Carex 

vernacula

Moist alpine tundra, moist forest openings just below 

treeline. High elevation only, 2,000-3,800 meters.

S D D

Castilleja 

fraterna

Open, exposed, bare rock and talus in sub-alpine 

tundra. Damp sub-alpine meadows and streambanks. 

Restricted to calcareous substrates; both sedimentary 

soils and Martin-Bridge limestone outcrops. Wallowa 

Mountains endemic.

A A D

Castilleja 

rubida

Talus, alpine fellfields. Wallowa Mountains endemic. 

Open, exposed bare rock on calcareous substrates. 

Hurwal sedimentary soils and Martin-Bridge 

limestone outcrops. Alpine tundra habitat w/low 

grasses, sedges, and forbs. All aspects and slopes.

A A D

Cymopterus 

nivalis

Open rocky places. Moderate to high elevations. D S S

Kobresia 

myosuroides

Tundra, grassland, heaths, bare rocky, dry to wet 

ground; zero-3,500 meters (18). Moist meadows, 

seeps, riparian areas. Often above timberline; high 

elevations only in Blue Mountains.

A A D

Kobresia 

simpliciuscula

Fens, marshes, mesic to wet tundra, gravels, rocky 

slopes, usually on calcareous substrates; zero-3,500 

meters. Moist meadows, seeps, riparian areas. 

Streamsides, bogs, pond edges. Moderate to high 

elevations in Wallowa Mountains.

A A D
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

373

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Lomatium 

erythrocarpum

Ridges, fine argillite talus, open slopes. Mostly on 

steep slopes, with very little vegetation. Alpine 

knotweed (Polygonum phytolaccaefolium) is often 

associated. Most populations are south or east 

facing. High elevation in southern Elkhorn Mountains 

only.

A A D

Lomatium 

greenmanii

Subalpine grasslands on sedimentary rocks at basalt 

interface. Ridges, fine basalt-derived talus, open 

slopes. High Wallowa Mountains endemic. Soils are 

thin and fine textured.

A A D

Phlox 

hendersonii

Alpine fellfields, open gravely slopes and ridges. 

Glacial moraines.

S A D

Pinus 

albicaulis

Forms stands and individual small clumps at 

uppermost elevation tree limit or single, isolated trees 

in the alpine zone

D D D

Saxifraga 

adscendens 

ssp. 

oregonensis

Rock crevices, glacial moraines, alpine meadows, 

along streams. Damp cliffs where soil has 

accumulated. High elevations only. Recent sites in 

Wallowa Mountains are in limestone, reported also on 

quartzite and gneiss in Idaho.

S A D

Townsendia 

alpigena var. 

alpigena

Meadows, granite and limestone ridges; 2,000-3,100 

meters. Rocky, dry areas, high elevations only.

A A D

Townsendia 

parryi

Meadows, grassy slopes, gravelly benches, talus; 

1,500-3,000 meters. Rocky, dry areas, high 

elevations only here.

A A D

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Alpine Fellfields and Subalpine Parkland – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

Wilderness area management retains the 1990 Forest Plan direction in all alternatives except for 

two instances in Alternative C. For Alternative C, two guidelines from 1990 management 

direction that are retained in Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F 

become standards. One current guideline would, as a standard, require new proposals for outfitter 

and guide special use permits, or recreation event permits, be approved only when the special use 

or event is consistent with wilderness area desired conditions and a need is identified by a needs 

assessment and capacity analysis. The second guideline, as a standard under Alternative C, would 

prohibit camping and campfires within 200 feet of lakes, streams or other camps. This second 

standard, under Alternative C, would better protect sensitive species with habitat near water 

bodies within alpine areas and subalpine parkland. Otherwise, the 1990 management direction for 

congressionally designated wilderness areas, retained for Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F, would more than meet the desired condition for sensitive species 

within alpine areas and subalpine parkland. In congressionally designated wilderness areas timber 

production, timber harvest, motor vehicle use, road construction, mechanical fuel treatment, and 

energy development are unsuitable uses, under all plan revision alternatives. In effect, 

congressionally designated wilderness areas serve as reserves for rare plant species, as well as for 

many other natural resources. It is possible that sensitive plants inhabiting alpine environments in 

wilderness areas may be affected by authorized activities; however, these impacts are expected to 

be minor and not result in a loss of population viability within the Plan Area. New trail 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

374

construction would have to comply with guideline FLS-11S, directing that new trail construction 

avoid threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant locations to minimize adverse effects to the

occupied habitat of sensitive plant species, including the Greenman’s desert-parsley, under 

alternatives B, E, and F or as a standard under Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure.

For the populations of Greenman’s desert-parsley outside wilderness areas, the alternatives vary 

in land management allocations and suitability of uses. In the Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F, the allocation is MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use). Under 

Alternative D the proposed allocation is MA 4A General Forest. Alternative C would include this 

area as MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use). The suitable uses vary from grazing being the 

only suitable use under Alternative C to all uses under Alternative D. Given the subalpine habitat 

of the species and its current range outside of wilderness that is restricted to Mount Howard, 

impacts from recreation uses would be the only activity likely to impact the species. Impacts from 

new trail construction would be addressed with guideline FLS-11S (Alternatives B, E, and F) or 

as a standard (FLS-11S - Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure) that direct new trail 

construction to avoid the occupied habitat of sensitive plant species to minimize adverse effects to 

the occupied habitat.

In the case of red-fruited desert parsley (Lomatium erythrocarpum), Alternatives B and D would 

retain 1990 management direction of limited motor vehicle use in a backcountry area (MA 3B) 

within the area of the plant’s habitat. Alternative E, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

designate this area as nonmotorized backcountry area (MA 3A), while Alternative C would 

include the area containing the species’ habitat within a preliminary administratively 

recommended wilderness area (MA 1B). Each of these management allocations restricts 

management to a lesser or greater degree and, with the possible exception of motor vehicle trail 

use under Alternatives A, B, and D, none of the designated suitable uses under any alternative 

poses a threat to the species. Existing hiking trails already provide access to the area occupied by 

red-fruited desert parsley. Any new trail construction would be directed by guideline FLS-11S

(Alternatives B, E, and F) or as standard FLS-11S (Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure) that direct new trail construction to avoid the occupied habitat of sensitive plant 

species, including the red-fruited desert parsley, to minimize adverse effects.

Biological Evaluation Finding for All Alternatives

Given the preponderance of alpine fellfield and subalpine parkland habitat is in wilderness (MA 

1a) the implementation of the alternatives may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species.

Conifer Forest – Affected Environment

The conifer forest habitat group includes all types of forest, from dry ponderosa pine forest to the 

relatively moist subalpine fir and mountain hemlock forests. Sensitive species that inhabit conifer 

forest are listed in Table 352.

Conifer Forest – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects of Alternatives A, B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Timber harvest, livestock grazing, and prescribed fire are the principal threats to sensitive plants 

that inhabit the conifer forest group. The Forest Plans would respond to these threats with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

375

guidelines for Alternatives B, E, and F that would require sensitive plants to be buffered 

(minimum 100 feet) from timber harvest and associated activities (FLS-6S) and piling and 

burning of slash (FLS-7G), and it would limit the maximum utilization of key forage species 

(grasses) to 30 percent (FLS-4G) Although some individual plants may be impacted by 

subsequent project actions, these guidelines would be expected to maintain the populations of 

species in the conifer habitat group.

Table 352. Conifer forest habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Allium 

campanulatum

Dry ponderosa pine forest, margins of ponderosa

stands adjacent to sagebrush openings; mountain 

big sagebrush above treeline.

A D-WA A

Botrychium 

paradoxum

In snowfields, secondary growth of pastures; 

1,500-3000 meters. Moist meadows, riparian 

zones, moist roadsides. Montane to subalpine 

grasslands or forb dominated meadows. In 

openings and on edges of cold coniferous forests.

S D D

Botrychium 

ascendens

Moist meadows, riparian zones, moist roadsides, 

openings in cold forests. Often in calcareous soils, 

but not always. Lower montane, mesic coniferous 

forest and grassy fields.

D S D

Botrychium 

pedunculosum

Brushy secondary-growth habitats along streams 

and roadsides. Moist meadows, riparian zones, 

moist roadsides. Sometimes in openings or on 

edges of cold coniferous forest

S D D

Carex 

cordillerana

Naturally disturbed rocky slopes with organic layer 

and leaf litter in mesic mixed forests, or disturbed, 

open grassy slopes; 500-2,400 meters. Moist, 

shady woods; warm-moist plant associations. 

Found in aspen being taken over by Douglas-fir in 

Washington.

D D D

Collomia 

mazama

In southern Oregon Cascades, C. mazama 

inhabits high elevation (1,500-2,000 meters) 

forest-meadow ecotones in the red fir/mountain 

hemlock and lodgepole pine forest zones and 

occasionally along riparian areas.

D A A

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum

Coniferous forest - moist coniferous forest usually 

at lower third of slope or riparian conifer forest 

bottomland.

A D S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure provide modified standards and guidelines 

for sensitive plants. Populations of sensitive plants would be avoided by project actions (FLS-6S, 

FLS-7G, FLS-8G) unless the harvest and burn prescriptions would benefit the sensitive plant 

species. Buffer widths, where needed to protect sensitive plants, would be determined during 

project planning. Though some individual plants may be impacted by subsequent project actions, 

these guidelines would be expected to maintain the populations of species in the conifer habitat 

group.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

376

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternatives A, B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, 

and F

Even with the varying anticipated activity levels among the alternatives, the plan revision 

alternatives do not vary in the biological evaluation finding of may impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species. This is because standards and guidelines minimize impacts to sensitive 

species, regardless of activity levels.

Indirect Effects of Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D have no standards and guidelines specific to sensitive plants. Alternative C, 

having a relatively low predicted annual timber harvest (41 million board feet among the three 

National Forests) and least amount of livestock grazing (approximately 96,000 animal unit 

months), would have fewer impacts compared to Alternative D projects the greatest amount of 

predicted annual timber harvest (353 million board feet) and livestock grazing (162,145 animal 

unit months). Without additional standards and guidelines to conserve sensitive plants under 

Alternative D, sensitive plants inhabiting the conifer forest habitat group may be impacted to the 

degree that the action may contribute a loss of viability to the populations in the Plan Area. 

Alternative C, with the least amount of projected activity levels, although lacking standards and 

guidelines for the conservation of sensitive plants, would likely impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species in the Plan Area.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative C

This alternative may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species in the Plan Area.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative D

This alternative will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action will 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species.

Aspen and Cottonwood – Affected Environment

Species that occur in aspen (Tortula mucronifolia) and cottonwood (Carex cordillerana) 

communities are listed in Table 353. Aspen and cottonwood communities are classified within the 

warm riparian forest potential vegetation group (Countryman 2010). Patch sizes in these 

communities are usually less than 40 acres in size. Some stands within the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest are between 40 and 100 acres. The fire frequency interval has not been 

established for the warm riparian forest potential vegetation group, although recent research 

indicates that the return interval in riparian areas is very similar to the adjacent uplands (Olson 

2000). Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project findings documented in the 

Status for the Interior Columbia Basin Summary of Scientific Findings (USDA Forest Service 

1996) and Quigley et al. (1997) show that fire exclusion has resulted in declines in aspen 

communities within the Interior Columbia Basin. Cordilleran sedge (Carex cordillerana) is 

believed to have declined in distribution and abundance through decades of fire suppression, 

resulting in increased growth of competing understory plants, such as snowberry, that compete for 

light, water, and nutrients (Carex Working Group 2008). Livestock grazing is believed to have 

impacted this palatable plant (Wilson et al. 2008).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

377

Table 353. Aspen and cottonwood habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Carex 

cordillerana

Naturally disturbed rocky slopes with organic layer 

and leaf litter in mesic mixed forests, or disturbed, 

open grassy slopes; 500-2,400 meters. Moist, 

shady woods; warm-moist plant associations. 

Found in aspen being taken over by Douglas-fir in 

Washington.

D D D

Tortula 

mucronifolia

Forms a soil crust. S S S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest.

Aspen and Cottonwood – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

The Forest Plan objective for this special habitat (1.13) for all three National Forests in the Plan 

Area is to increase the distribution of aspen and cottonwood as well as increase the young, or 

sprout, age class of these communities. Increasing the distribution of aspen and cottonwood 

would benefit other species dependent on the habitat provided by these hardwood tree species, 

including Cordilleran sedge and mucronleaf tortula moss (Tortula mucronifolia). Increasing the 

amount of young age classes of aspen and cottonwood within existing groves would help in the 

longer term maintenance of these habitats, which would also benefit dependent species. This may 

be accomplished by thinning competing coniferous trees, which have the potential to impact both 

Cordilleran sedge and mucronleaf tortula moss; however, this prescription would benefit the 

species in the long term. A thinning prescription in this habitat group would benefit the species by 

increasing solar radiation. Prescribed fire used to reduce fuel loads would benefit the species by 

helping to reduce competing vegetation. Prescribed fire is expected to benefit Cordilleran sedge 

in the long term. Plan objectives to move stands in the dry and moist potential vegetation groups 

toward condition classes 1 and 2 would improve habitat condition for this habitat group, 

particularly for aspen, which is often found in smaller patches within a larger matrix of dry or 

moist forest or moist upland shrubland. Alternatives D and E are projected to treat the most acres 

(215,000 and 220,000 acres respectively) and thereby improve the most aspen habitat compared 

to the other alternatives. Alternative C projects to treat the fewest acres (155,000 acres), while 

projections for Alternatives A and F are in the middle (170,000 and 190,000 acres). Thinning 

conifers and reducing fuels via prescribed fires in aspen stands may make this habitat more 

accessible and likely more appealing to livestock.

Additional mitigation measures would be applied at the site-specific project level for Alternatives 

B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F. Under Alternatives B, E and F, tree thinning and 

fuels reductions used to carry out these objectives would comply with guidelines PL-TES-6 and 

PL-TES-7 that require sensitive plants to be buffered (minimum 100 feet) from timber harvest 

and the piling and burning of slash. These guidelines insure that sensitive plants would be 

avoided by ground disturbing actions and the high, potentially mortal, temperatures that may 

result from burning concentrations of slash and fuels. Some individual plants may be impacted by 

subsequent project actions, but these guidelines are expected to maintain populations of sensitive 

plants, which may later expand their populations into improved habitat. Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure provide modified standards and guidelines for sensitive plants. 

Populations of sensitive plants would be avoided by project actions (FLS-6S, FLS-7G) unless the 

silviculture or fuels and burn prescription would benefit the species. Buffer widths, where needed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

378

to protect sensitive plants, would be determined during project planning. Though some individual 

plants may be impacted by subsequent project actions, these guidelines would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

in the Plan Area.

Alternatives C and D have no standards and guidelines specific to sensitive plants. Alternative C, 

having a relatively low predicted annual timber harvest (41 million board feet among the three 

National Forests) and least amount of livestock grazing (approximately 96,000 AUMs), would 

have fewer impacts compared to Alternative D, which projects the greatest amount of annual 

timber harvest (353 million board feet) and livestock grazing (162,145 AUMs). Without 

additional standards and guidelines to conserve sensitive plants under Alternative D, sensitive 

plants inhabiting the conifer forest habitat group may be impacted to the degree that the action 

may contribute a loss of viability to the populations in the Plan Area. With Alternative C, impacts 

are harder to predict, but upland forage utilization would be capped at 30 percent, same as for 

Alternatives B, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F. Under Alternative D, upland utilization 

would range from 45-50 percent depending upon departure from the desired condition. This 

utilization level may not sustain sensitive plant populations or their understory habitat. (See 

below for the discussion of effects to sensitive plants in the grassland habitat group.) The effects 

of Alternative D plan components for livestock grazing within this habitat group are the same as 

described below for the alternatives under the grasslands habitat group.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative D

Under Alternative D sensitive plants in aspen and cottonwood habitat group or their habitat may 

be impacted with a consequence that the action will impact individuals or habitat with a 

consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative C

Alternative C has the smallest amount of projected activity levels, and though it lacks specific

standards and guidelines to conserve sensitive plants, Alternative C would impact individuals or 

habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species in the Plan Area. This is because of the low likelihood of 

management actions overlapping occupied habitat and having a grazing utilization standard 

equivalent to the guideline for sensitive plants that applies to other plan revision alternatives

(except Alternative D).

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternatives A, B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, 

and F

Alternatives A, B, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F may impact individuals or habitat, 

but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species.

Sagebrush Shrubland – Affected Environment

Sagebrush shrublands are sagebrush communities with at least five percent crown cover of 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata or A. arbuscula). Stiff sagebrush, Artemisia rigida, communities 

are included under the habitat group lithosol. Species that depend on sagebrush communities are 

listed in the table below. Both high elevation (cold shrubland potential vegetation group) and 

lower elevation big sagebrush (moist shrubland potential vegetation group) and low sagebrush -
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

379

Artemisia arbuscula (dry shrubland potential vegetation group) communities are included. Both 

the cold and moist shrubland potential vegetation groups include mountain big sagebrush, A. 

tridentata var. vaseyana; however, the understory changes from western needlegrass or elk sedge 

present in the cold shrubland potential vegetation group to Idaho fescue in the moist shrubland 

potential vegetation group. Low sagebrush-Idaho fescue communities are also a component of the 

moist shrubland potential vegetation group.

State and transition modeling (Stringham et al. 2003) was used to classify plant communities 

assigned to the shrubland and grassland potential vegetation groups in the Plan Area. Johnson and 

Swanson (2005) apply the state and transition concept to classify vegetation along a gradient of 

increasing departure from pristine, native vegetation or reference conditions to highly departed or 

altered plant communities. Phases A to C describe plant communities in a state close to reference, 

which represents the historic 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 and

is considered an at-risk phase that is least resilient and most vulnerable to transition to an 

alternate state, but is able to transition to phases A and B. Sites with vegetation conditions 

completely departed from reference are classified as Phase D. Transitions to alternate states can 

be caused by grazing, alteration of water tables through mining or irrigation, cultivation, fire 

suppression and other large disturbances. A more comprehensive discussion of state and transition 

concept and its application to vegetation phases is in Volume 1, Chapter 3, “Issue 3: Livestock 

Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation.”

Countryman (2010) evaluated continuous vegetation survey plot data and assigned the relative 

amount of the moist and dry upland shrubland potential vegetation groups to phases A, B, C or D. 

Results are presented in the tables below. No data were available for the cold upland shrubland 

potential vegetation groups.

Table 354. Moist upland shrubland potential vegetation group phase existing conditions

Moist Upland Shrubland Phase A or B Phase C Phase D

Malheur 38% 45% 17%

Umatilla 37.5% 12.5% 50%

Wallowa-Whitman 20% 15% 55%

Table 355. Dry upland shrubland potential vegetation group phase existing conditions

Dry Upland Shrubland Phase A or B Phase C Phase D

Malheur 28% 23% 49%

Umatilla 86% 14% 0%

Wallowa-Whitman 8% 23% 69%

The desired condition for shrubland (and grasslands) is that the distribution and abundance of 

vegetation structural stages, including vegetation density, create conditions that are ecologically 

resilient, sustainable, and compatible with maintaining disturbance processes; shrubland and 

grassland communities are able to reproduce and persist on the landscape. These desired 

conditions describe communities categorized as phases A, B, or C, depicted above. On the 

Malheur National Forest, where most of the upland shrublands are found in the Blue Mountains, 

83 percent of moist upland shrublands and 51 percent of dry upland shrublands are in phases A, B 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

380

or C. On the Umatilla National Forest, 50 percent of moist upland shrublands and 100 percent of 

dry upland shrublands are in phases A, B or C. On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 35 

percent of moist upland shrublands and 31 percent of dry upland shrublands are classified as 

phase A, B or C.

Table 356. Sagebrush shrubland habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Astragalus 

tegetarioides

Sagebrush flats on volcanic ash or basaltic 

substrates, adjacent and sometimes encroaching 

on ponderosa pine forest, cracks of welded tuff 

outcrops. Moist shrubland potential vegetation 

group.

D A A

Camissonia 

pygmaea

Unstable soils or gravel in steep talus, dry washes, 

banks, and roadcuts. Open, bare ground. Moist or 

Dry Shrubland potential vegetation group.

S S S

Castilleja flava 

var. rustica

Talus, open dry hillsides, often with mtn. big sage. 

Wet, subalpine prairies, limestone cliffs, dry basalt 

soil, granite cliffs. Mixed conifer forest and open 

mtn. sage steppe. Cold shrubland potential 

vegetation group.

S D D

Cistanthe rosea Alkaline soils in moist areas and occasionally in 

wetlands. In Washington it grows in very dry shrub 

steppe, in low swales in dark, sandy soil.

D A A

Eriogonum 

salicornioides

Sparsely vegetated, open, ash deposits and clayey 

substrates; with saltbush, greasewood, sagebrush.

S A A

Lupinus cusickii 

var. cusickii Ashy, sandy soils in sagebrush steppe. S A A

Stanleya 

confertiflora

Flats and slopes at lower elevations in sagebrush 

steppe.

S A A

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Astragalus tegetariodes only occurs within the Malheur National Forest in the mountain big sage 

sagebrush habitat of the moist upland shrubland potential vegetation group. The state or phase 

condition of the shrublands within the smaller range occupied by Astragalus tegetarioides is not 

known, but the overall condition of the moist upland shrubland is modest with 38 percent in good 

condition and 45 percent in fair condition (phase C), capable of recovery to phase B. Astragalus

tegetariodes, like many members of the milkvetch genus, responds favorably to disturbance 

regimes, so it is possible this species could be adequately maintained in phase C shrublands. Site 

observations indicate the species has increased its cover in disturbed areas left to recover, such as 

double track, jeep trail roads or the margins along unimproved roads. Management activities that 

may impact A. tegetariodes include timber harvest and associated activities (when conducted 

adjacent to occupied shrublands), livestock grazing, and prescribed fire.

Camissonia pygmaea is suspected to occur but has not yet been discovered on National Forest 

System lands. Its habitat is believed to occur in the dry upland shrubland potential vegetation 

group. Castilleja flava var. rustica occurs in one population in the Elkhorn Mountains within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and in four populations within the Umatilla National Forest. 

Its habitat would be included the cold upland shrubland potential vegetation group.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

381

Sagebrush Shrubland – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects Alternatives A, B, E and F

The three species documented on the Plan Area, Astragalus tegetariodes, Camissonia pygmaea 

and Castilleja flava var. rustica may benefit from Forest Plan objective 1.7, proposed under 

Alternatives E and F, that would improve rangeland vegetation in phases C and D to phase A or 

B.

For A. tegetarioides, the range of this plant within the Malheur National Forest, for all 

alternatives, would be allocated to MA 4A General Forest, where all uses would be considered 

generally suitable. Plan objectives to move stands in the dry and moist potential vegetation 

groups toward condition classes 1 and 2 may improve A. tegetariodes habitat in areas 

immediately adjacent to timbered stands. Effects to the species would be similar to those 

described above for Carex cordillerana. Thinning pine stands that have encroached habitat for A. 

tegetariodes would be beneficial as a result of modest soil (surface) disturbance and increased 

solar radiation. Objectives to improve rangeland from phases C and D to phases A and B would 

assist in moving this habitat type toward the desired conditions of adequate quality, distribution, 

and abundance for sensitive plants.

The maintenance of Camissonia pygmaea (if discovered in the Plan Area) and Castilleja flava

var. rustica, would rely on plan guidelines FLS-3S, FLS-4G, FLS-5G, FLS-6S, FLS-7G, FLS-8G, 

FLS-9S, FLS-11S, FLS-14G, and LH-4G under Alternatives B, E, and F. These guidelines would 

require site-specific projects to provide avoidance buffers and would require that grazing 

management practices be designed to reduce impacts on occupied habitat. Although some 

individual plants may be impacted, the guidelines are expected to maintain populations of 

sensitive plants.

Effects from Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the greatest opportunity to achieve the desired condition for 

sensitive plants in sagebrush steppe. There would be a beneficial effect achieved through the 

combination of significant reductions in animal unit months (by 75 to 80 percent) and the 

reduction in acres designated suitable for grazing (by about 65 percent). As a result of these 

reductions, sensitive species impacted by grazing, even at levels that would sustain their 

populations, would benefit. Compared to the other alternatives, the desired condition, that the 

natural range of habitats of plant species is of adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to 

contribute to maintaining native and desired nonnative species diversity, would be more easily 

achieved for Alternative C when compared to the other alternatives.

Effects from Alternative D

The combined cattle animal unit months for the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

would increase from 212,000 to 259,000 (22 percent) for Alternative D. For the Umatilla National 

Forest, cattle AUMs would increase from 40,000 to 52,000 (30 percent). These increases 

combined with grazing at moderate intensities (defined by Holechek (2006) as 41 to 50 percent) 

is less likely to provide suitable conditions for sensitive plants dependent upon grassland habitat 

than Alternatives B, C, E, and F. At utilization levels of 45 and 50 percent for Alternative D, 

desired conditions for grasses within sagebrush steppe may not be achieved. At best, existing 

conditions might be maintained but the increase in animal unit months would likely impact 

sensitive species dependent upon grassland habitat. Although past utilization in rangelands under 

the 1990 Forest Plans have not exceeded 40 percent in most active allotments, this is not a likely 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

382

outcome compared to other alternatives given the increases in animal unit months for Alternative 

D, particularly for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (44 percent increase and the Umatilla 

National Forest (21 percent increase). Sagebrush steppe sensitive plant habitat is not expected to 

be maintained for Alternative D, and desired conditions for sensitive plants are not expected to be 

achieved. For Alternative D, individual plants or their habitat may be impacted with a 

consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species in the grasslands habitat group.

Effects from E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

The effects of these alternatives are similar to the effects of Alternative E except that animal unit 

months increase approximately six percent from Alternative E. The same 30 percent utilization 

standard applies to occupied sensitive plant habitat. The small increase in animal unit months is 

not expected to result in effects substantially different from those described for Alternative E.

Biological Evaluation Finding for All Alternatives A, B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F

Although some individual plants may be impacted, the guidelines for sensitive plants are 

expected to maintain populations of sensitive plants. These alternatives do not vary in the 

biological evaluation finding: may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a 

trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative D

Alternative D will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute 

to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species for 

sensitive plants in the grassland habitat group.

Grasslands – Affected Environment

Grasslands are composed of upland herbaceous vegetation dominated by grasses. Meadows and 

grass or grass-like dominated riparian areas belong to different habitat groups. The sensitive

species listed in Table 357 occur in grasslands within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests. These species occupy moist upland herbland and dry upland herbland potential 

vegetation groups as described in the “Forest Vegetation” section.

As discussed above under the sagebrush shrubland habitat group, state and transition modeling 

(Stringham et al. 2003) was also used to classify plant communities assigned to the grassland (or 

herbland) potential vegetation groups in the Plan Area. Johnson and Swanson (2005) apply the 

state and transition concept to classify vegetation along a gradient of increasing departure from 

pristine, native vegetation or reference conditions. Phases A to C describe plant communities in a 

state close to reference, which represents the historic 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 and is considered an at-risk phase that is least resilient and most vulnerable 

to transition to an alternate state, but is able to transition to phases A and B. Sites with vegetation 

conditions completely departed from reference are classified as Phase D. Transitions to alternate 

states can be caused by grazing, alteration of water tables through mining or irrigation, 

cultivation, fire suppression and other large disturbances. A more comprehensive discussion of 

state and transition concept and its application to vegetation phases is in the “Issue 3: Livestock 

Grazing and Grazing Land Vegetation” section of Volume 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

383

Table 357. Grasslands habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Allium 

campanulatum

Rocky ridges of grasslands. A D A

Allium dictuon Rocky ridges of grasslands. A D A

Astragalus arthurii Bunchgrass communities, mostly low 

elevation Idaho fescue-prairie junegrass 

sites; sumac and bluebunch wheatgrass, 

Idaho fescue- bluebunch 

wheatgrass/balsamroot; bluebunch-poa 

secunda.

A D D

Astragalus cusickii 

var. cusickii

Dry, grassy or rocky slopes; in loose, 

finely textured soils derived from basalt, 

on basalt cliffs and talus; w/bluebunch 

wheatgrass and Idaho fescue.

A D D

Calochortus 

nitidus

Idaho fescue – prairie junegrass 

grasslands; typically ridges and shoulders; 

currently not known from Oregon

A A S

Calochortus 

macrocarpus var. 

maculosus

Dry plains, rocky slopes, sagebrush scrub, 

pine forests, usually in volcanic soil; 300-

2,700 meters. Dry grasslands, ridgetops. 

In rocky, basaltic derived soils, on 

hillsides, rock outcrops and cliff bands. In 

grasslands on steep slopes.

A D D

Delphinium bicolor Low larkspur is found on sites ranging 

from open woods and grasslands. Low 

larkspur is found on sites ranging from 

open woods and grasslands to subalpine 

scree.

A D D

Lomatium rollinsii Canyon grasslands; slopes: very steep to 

relatively gentle; soils: gravelly and rocky 

to deeper loamy conditions. Associated 

species include Idaho fescue (Festuca

idahoensis), bluebunch wheatgrass 

(Agropyron spicatum), and Sandberg’s 

bluegrass (Poa sandbergii).

A D D

Pyrrocoma 

scaberula

FEID-AGSP-KOMA; Snowberry 

(Symphoricarpos albus), and native roses 

(Rosa woodsii and R. nutkana) are the 

most common shrub associates, but 

serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), 

Oregon grape (Mahonia repens) and 

others can also co-occur.

A S D

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur

Countryman (2010) evaluated continuous vegetation survey plot data and calculated the relative 

amount of the moist and dry upland grassland potential vegetation groups to phases A, B, C or D. 

Results are presented in Table 358 and Table 359.

The desired condition for grasslands is that the distribution and abundance of vegetation 

structural stages, including vegetation density are ecologically resilient, sustainable, and 

compatible with maintaining disturbance processes; grassland communities are able to reproduce 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

384

and persist on the landscape. These desired conditions describe communities categorized as 

phases A, B, or C, depicted above.

Table 358. Moist upland grassland potential vegetation group phase existing conditions

Moist Upland Grassland Phase A or B Phase C Phase D

Malheur 91% 9% 0%

Umatilla 50% 37.5% 12.5%

Wallowa-Whitman 67% 17% 16%

Table 359. Dry upland grassland potential vegetation group phase existing conditions

Dry Upland Grassland Phase A or B Phase C Phase D

Malheur 21 43 36

Umatilla 42 35.5 22.5

Wallowa-Whitman 46.5 32 21.5

Improper heavy grazing, unnaturally high fire frequency, and invasion by exotic plants are the 

biggest threats to the sensitive species occupying grassland habitat. Higher fire frequencies are to 

be expected in phases C and D grasslands, which have a higher proportion of nonnative invasive 

species at the expense of native bunchgrasses. Therefore, actions to promote the transition of 

phase C grasslands to phase A or B would best address the threats from invasive plants and high 

fire frequencies.

Grasslands – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

The alternatives include objectives to increase the proportion of phase A or B grasslands, which 

would benefit sensitive plants that inhabit grasslands. Where alternatives vary is in utilization 

(i.e., forage consumption) standards for upland vegetation and permitted animal unit months. 

Upland vegetation maximum utilization standards and guidelines are displayed in Table 360 for 

management systems that incorporate deferment, rest, and rotation, which comprise the vast 

majority of grazing allotments in the Blue Mountains national forests. Season long grazing 

systems are displayed in Table 361, although this system is rarely applied on grazing allotments 

in the National Forests of the Blue Mountains.

Holechek (2006) reviewed grazing studies that compared controlled intensity, timing, and 

frequency with grazing exclusion and concluded that grazing is sustainable and could be 

beneficial compared to complete exclusion when grazing intensities do not exceed 40 percent 

utilization. Miller et al. (1994) found that communities capable of returning to good ecological 

condition could occur either under grazing exclusion or at light to moderate grazing intensity. 

Miller did not quantify utilization at either light or moderate grazing levels, but Holechek (2006) 

defines these levels quantitatively and qualitatively: non-use to light grazing ranges from zero to 

30 percent utilization and moderate grazing from 41 to 50 percent utilization. Holechek further 

defined utilization from 31 and 40 percent as conservative and heavy grazing for utilization levels 

exceeding 50 percent. The discussion of indirect effects summarizes the findings of effects to 

grazing land ecological phases. A fuller discussion of how utilization levels affect rangeland 

vegetation is located in the Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Vegetation section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

385

Table 360. Upland vegetation percent maximum utilization standards and guidelines for management 

systems that incorporate deferment, rest, and rotation.

Departure from 

Desired Condition Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Alt. E, 

E-Modified, 

E-Modified 

Departure

Alt. F

Low departure 50-60 55 30 50 40 40

Moderate or greater 

departure

50 35 30 45 35 35

Table 361. Upland vegetation percent maximum utilization standards and guidelines for season long 

management systems.

Departure from 

Desired Condition Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Alt. E, 

E-Modified, 

E-Modified 

Departure

Alt. F

Low departure 50-60 50 30 45 35 35

Moderate or greater 

departure

50 30 30 40 30 30

Effects Common to All Alternatives except Alternative A

The plan objectives to reduce current infestations of invasive plant species would assist in 

increasing the amount of phases A and B grasslands and consequently would benefit sensitive 

species.

Effects from Alternative A (no action)

The relative amount of rangeland in phases A through D is expected to remain similar to the 

existing condition. No improvements from phase C are expected. Sensitive plant species 

inhabiting grasslands would have the fewest acres of suitable habitat in phase A or B. The desired 

condition of a minimum 70 percent of grasslands in phase A or B would not be met.

Effects from Alternative B

Areas moderately or greatly departed from the desired condition would be grazed at lower 

intensity, not to exceed 35 percent utilization, to allow improvement of rangeland condition and 

movement toward the desired condition. These kinds of improvements in condition should benefit 

sensitive species inhabiting upland grasslands. For areas with low departure from the desired 

condition, grazing at 55 percent maximum utilization, a level considered heavy by Holechek 

(2006), could lead to a decline in phases A and B communities. This utilization level would likely 

move these communities further from the desired condition, although it has been reported that the 

observed actual past use in upland rangelands has not exceeded 40 percent under the 1990 Forest 

Plans (Alternative A) permitted use of up to 60 percent (see the “Livestock Grazing and 

Rangeland Vegetation” section). If utilization levels exceed 50 percent on large expanses of 

grasslands, declines in suitable habitat for grassland dependent sensitive species would be 

expected. Forest plan guideline FLS-3S would limit forage utilization on key species in occupied 

habitat to 30 percent or less. This level is expected to maintain sensitive plants in grasslands.

Effects from Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the greatest opportunity to achieve the desired condition for 

sensitive plants in grasslands. There would be a beneficial affect achieved through a combination 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

386

of significant reductions in animal unit months (by 75 to 80 percent) and in the acres designated 

suitable for grazing (by about 65 percent). As a result of the reductions, sensitive species 

impacted by grazing, even at levels that would sustain their populations, would benefit. 

Compared to the other alternatives, the desired condition, that the natural range of habitats of 

plant species is of adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to maintaining 

native and desired nonnative species diversity, would be more easily achieved for Alternative C.

Effects from Alternative D

The combined cattle animal unit months for the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

would increase 22 percent for Alternative D. For the Umatilla National Forest, cattle AUMs 

would increase from 30 percent. These increases when combined with grazing at moderate 

intensities (defined by Holechek (2006) as 41 to 50 percent) are less likely to provide suitable

conditions for sensitive plants dependent upon grassland habitat compared to Alternatives B, C, 

E, and F. At utilization levels of 45 and 50 percent for Alternative D, desired conditions for 

grasslands may not be achieved. For the dry or moist upland grasslands, the existing condition of 

50 percent or less in phase A or B would need to increase to 70 to 90 percent in phase A or B. At 

best, existing conditions might be maintained and would likely impact sensitive species 

dependent upon grassland habitat. Because past utilization in rangelands under the 1990 Forest 

Plans have not exceeded 40 percent in most active allotments, even when utilization levels up to 

60 percent were authorized, the effects expected for the maximum authorized utilization may not 

occur. However, given the percent increases in animal unit months under Alternative D, this 

outcome is less likely compared to Alternative B, particularly for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest (with a 44 percent increase in animal unit months) and the Umatilla National Forest (21 

percent increase in animal unit months). Grassland sensitive plant habitat is not expected to be 

maintained for Alternative D, and desired conditions for sensitive plants are not expected to be 

achieved. For the sensitive plants occupying the grasslands habitat group, Alternative D is likely 

to impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Effects from Alternatives E and F

Alternatives E and F would reduce upland forage utilization to 40 percent for uplands exhibiting 

low departure from desired conditions and 35 percent for uplands exhibiting moderately or 

greater departure while holding cattle animal unit months constant and slightly decreasing sheep 

animal unit months. These changes from the existing plan levels would improve the condition of 

grasslands. The addition of guideline FLS-3S that would limit utilization to not more than 30 

percent on key forage species in occupied habitat would further contribute to maintaining 

sensitive plant species that inhabit grasslands. Alternatives E and F would achieve desired 

conditions for sensitive plants at a faster rate than Alternatives A and B, E-Modified and EModified Departure but not as quickly as Alternative C.

Effects from Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

The effects of these alternatives are similar to the effects of Alternative E except that animal unit 

months increase approximately six percent from Alternative E. Guideline FLS-4G limits to 30 

percent utilization of key forage species in occupied sensitive plant habitat. A small increase in 

animal unit months is not expected to result in effects substantially different from those described 

under Alternative E.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

387

Biological Evaluation Finding for All Alternatives A, B, C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F

Although some individual plants may be impacted, the guidelines are expected to maintain 

populations of sensitive plants. These alternatives do not vary in the biological evaluation finding: 

may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing 

or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative D

Sensitive plants in the grassland habitat group may be impacted with a consequence that the 

action may cause a loss of viability in the Plan Area.

Basalt Lithosols – Affected Environment

Lithosols are habitats with very shallow soils with little zonation on poorly weathered basalt or 

andesitic bedrock. Soils on basalt lithosols are often saturated following spring snow melt but dry 

quickly when exposed to full sun for the entire growing season. Plants adapted to this harsh 

environment usually bloom and fruit earlier in the growing season. Basalt lithosols can be found 

in the dry upland shrubland potential vegetation group or dry upland herbland potential 

vegetation group. Basalt lithosols may also be found as small inclusions within a larger matrix of 

grassland and shrublands. The common plant associations within the dry upland shrubland and 

dry upland grassland potential vegetation groupings are stiff sagebrush/Sandberg’s bluegrass, low 

sagebrush/Sandberg’s bluegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass/Sandberg’s bluegrass and Sandberg’s 

bluegrass/one-spike oatgrass. Countryman and Swanson (2008) found that conditions had 

improved in the dry shrubland potential vegetation group from 30 years earlier, but that this 

improvement has slowed. The relative percentages of dry upland shrublands and dry upland 

grasslands are summarized in the following tables.

Table 362. Dry upland shrubland – percent of potential vegetation group in phases A/B, C or D

Forest Phase A/B (%) Phase C (%) Phase D (%)

Malheur 28 23 49

Umatilla 86 14 0

Wallowa-Whitman 7 23 69

Table 363. Dry upland grassland – percent of potential vegetation group in phases A/B, C or D

Forest Phase A/B (%) Phase C (%) Phase D (%)

Malheur 21 43 36

Umatilla 42 35.5 22.5

Wallowa-Whitman 46 32 22

Active restoration would be required to return phase D to phase A or B, although, given this 

habitat type’s low productivity, successful transition from phase D to phase A or B may not be 

possible.

Heavy grazing, spring grazing when soils are moist, and invasion by exotic plants are the main 

threats to basalt lithosol habitats. Given the low productivity and discontinuous fuels in this 

habitat group, effects from fire are not considered a major threat. The dry grassland potential 

vegetation group has experienced invasion by nonnative plants resulting in conversion of some 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

388

lands to exotic grasslands (Hann et al. 1997). Plants inhabiting basalt lithosols are listed in Table 

364.

Table 364. Basalt lithosol habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description

Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Achnatherum 

wallowaensis

Basalt scablands and lithosols; shallow rocky 

soils, sometimes with stiff sage, strict 

buckwheat, and ponderosa pine surrounding.

S S D

Achnatherum 

hendersonii

Basalt scablands and lithosols; shallow rocky 

soils, sometimes with stiff sage, strict 

buckwheat; often surrounded by ponderosa 

pine.

S S S

Artemisia 

arbuscula ssp. 

longicaulis

Sagebrush steppe, 1,050 – 2,000 meters. 

Distribution is Basin and Range. S A A

Chaenactis 

xantiana

Barren, sandy soils S A A

Erigeron 

disparipilus

Gravelly and rocky slopes, ridges, sagebrush, 

grassland. Basalt scablands, lithosols, dry 

ridges in ne Oregon. Often with stiff sage.

A D D

Erigeron 

engelmannii var. 

davisii

Bare, rocky ridges and slopes, basalt outcrops, 

sparsely vegetated woodland openings or 

edges; usually with grasses 1,200-1,800 

meters.

A A D

Erigeron 

engelmannii var. 

davisii

Bare, rocky ridges and slopes, basalt outcrops, 

sparsely vegetated woodland openings or 

edges; usually with grasses 1,200-1,800 

meters.

A A D

Eriogonum cusickii Barren flats and hills with dry soil over 

weathered basalt or welded tuff

S A A

Lomatium ravenii Scablands, lithosols. Openings in mixed or 

ponderosa pine forests. Flats, slopes, or 

ridges. Often with stiff sage, in openings in 

juniper or pine woodlands. Moderate 

elevations.

D S S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Basalt Lithosol – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects of Alternatives B, E and F

Spring grazing could impact the species occupying lithosol habitats. During spring the soils are 

wet and susceptible to compaction from livestock. Guideline PL-TES-4, limiting utilization to not 

more than 30 percent on key species would help reduce impacts to sensitive plants inhabiting 

basalt lithosols. Given the low productivity on the site, 30 percent utilization would equate to a 

comparatively short period. Corresponding trampling associated with grazing is expected to be 

light. Guideline PL-TES-5, excluding water developments and salting within one-quarter mile of 

sensitive plant locations, would help reduce concentrations of livestock near occupied habitat. 

Reduced use and trampling by livestock would help abate invasion by nonnative plants, 

especially exotic annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and North Africa grass.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

389

Effects from Alternative C

Alternative C would provide the greatest opportunity to achieve the desired condition for 

sensitive plants inhabiting basalt lithosols. There would be a beneficial affect achieved through a 

combination of significant reductions in animal unit months (by 75 to 80 percent) and in the acres 

designated suitable for grazing (by about 65 percent). As a result of the reductions, sensitive 

species impacted by grazing, even at levels that would sustain their populations, would benefit. 

Compared to the other alternatives, the desired condition, that the natural range of habitats of 

plant species is of adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to maintaining 

native and desired nonnative species diversity, would be more easily achieved for Alternative C.

Effects from Alternative D

Alternative D, having significantly more animal unit months and higher levels of upland 

utilization levels (45-50 percent) would likely result in a greater degree of trampling and 

herbivory to the basalt lithosol habitats. Under Alternative D, the combined cattle animal unit 

months for the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests would increase from 212,000 to 

259,000 (22 percent). For the Umatilla National Forest, cattle animal unit months would increase 

from 40,000 to 52,000 (30 percent). These increases in animal unit months combined with 

grazing at a greater utilization levels of 45 to 50 percent are less likely to provide suitable 

conditions for sensitive plants dependent upon lithosol habitat.

Effects from Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

The effects of these alternatives are similar to the effects of Alternative E except that AUMs 

increase approximately six percent from Alternative E. The same 30 percent utilization standard 

applies to occupied sensitive plant habitat. The small increase in animal unit months is not 

expected to result in effects substantially different from those described for Alternative E.

Biological Evaluation Finding for Alternative D

Sensitive plants in the basalt lithosol habitat group may be impacted with a consequence that the 

action may cause a loss of viability in the Plan Area.

Biological Evaluation Finding for all Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure and F

Although some individual plants may be impacted, these guidelines are expected to maintain 

populations of sensitive plants. The plan revision alternatives do not vary in the biological 

evaluation finding: may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend 

towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Talus, Cliffs, and Rock Outcrops – Affected Environment

Talus is accumulated boulders and cobbles at the base of cliffs or on steep slopes. Because these 

habitats are largely composed of bedrock and accumulations of rocks, gravels and sands, they are 

assumed to be in good condition with a stable trend. The nature of this habitat group means it is 

resistant to management activities or has been avoided with most management activities, with the 

exception of road construction and rock quarries. Species that occupy talus, cliffs and rock 

outcrops are listed in Table 365.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

390

Table 365. Talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Anastrophyllum 

minutum

Grows on peaty soil at relatively high elevations 

(greater than 5,500 feet). In the Tsuga mertensiana

zone, the colonies of Anastrophyllum minutum are 

typically associated with other bryophytes in tight mats 

on ledges or at the base of cliffs. Wallowa County.

A A D

Anthelia julacea On rock surfaces, wet rock surfaces, and dry soil. In 

arctic-alpine areas of northern North America. Wallowa 

County. 

A A D

Arabis hastatula Basalt outcrops, cliffs, and scree. Rocky outcrops and 

mountain ridges.

A A D

Asplenium 

trichomanesramosum

Wet, shady, limestone cliffs. Grows in moss and 

crevices. Basic rocks in talus slopes. Zero-4,000 

meters.

A A D

Barbilophozia 

lycopodioides

Organic soil to rock, less often on tree bark. Not 

necessarily on mineral soil. Reported by Hong (1976), 

Anthony Lakes area, Baker County. Damp outcrops at 

higher elevations.

S S D

Bolandra 

oregana

Moist rocky seeps, springs, waterfalls. Grows from wet 

crevices and moss. 

A D A

Bryum 

calobryoides

Forming sods or occurring as individuals among other 

mosses, on both acid and basic rocks and soil in 

shaded to exposed boulder fields, montane to alpine 

meadows, cliffs, and outcrops. Elevations range from 

900 to 2,100 meters.

D A A

Cheilanthes feei Rocky outcrops, usually calcareous. S S D

Cryptogramma 

stelleri

Sheltered calcareous cliff crevices and rock ledges, 

typically in coniferous or boreal forest; 0-3,000 meters. 

On wet cliffs, and ledges, along streams, under 

waterfalls. Limestone substrate. Shady sites. Usually 

north-facing aspects.

A A D

Encalypta 

brevipes

Soil on ledges and in crevices on cliffs, reported from 

both igneous and siliceous substrates.

S S S

Geum rossii 

var. turbinatum

Granitic cliffs and ledges, in cirque basins. Talus 

slopes, rocky ridge tops, and rocky soil. Basalt, 

granite, or loose granodiorite substrate. Sub-alpine 

high elevation sites.

A A D

Hackelia diffusa 

var. diffusa

Shaded areas, cliffs, talus, wooded flats and slopes. 

Occurs with Symphoricarpos albus, Philadelphus 

lewisii, Osmorhiza occidentalis, Acer glabrum, 

Fritillaria pudica, and Erysimum occidentale. Elevation 

of populations in Washington is around 1,000 feet.

A D A

Lophozia 

gillmanii

Peaty soil on cliff ledges; strict calciphile. Above 6,500 

feet.

S D D

Luina 

serpentina

Open, rocky sites with poor soil development. Usually 

on steep slopes, above small tributaries. Aldrich 

Mountains.

D A A

Pellaea 

bridgesii

Rocky slopes and cliffs, on granitic substrate; 1,200-

3,600 meters. Talus slopes, scree, rocky outcrops; 

often on argillite in Blue Mountains. Southerly aspects.

S D D
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

391

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Phlox multiflora 

ssp. depressa

Basalt cliffs, rocky outcrops, rocky openings in dry 

forest. Wooded rocky areas as well as in openings in 

the forest. Loose substrate rather than exposed hard 

rocks.

A S D

Rubus 

bartonianus

Boulder talus, rocky slopes at lower elevations. 

Endemic and apparently confined to the Snake River 

canyon in Oregon and Idaho 

A A D

Suksdorfia 

violacea

In moss on wet cliffs, cracks of moist talus slopes, on 

basalt. Habitat sometimes is only wet in the spring.

A S S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Talus, Cliffs, and Rock Outcrops – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

Talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops are likely to have relatively small impacts. Outside wilderness 

areas, this habitat type is likely to be the least affected by forest and rangeland management 

activities. This is because talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops support scant vegetation that does not 

support or attract grazing livestock or possess sufficient fuel to carry a prescribed fire. Road 

construction and rock quarries are likely to be the only management activities with potential to 

affect these habitats.

Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A has few standards or guidelines directing the management of sensitive plants. 

Alternative A includes a standard to conduct a biological evaluation for each project to determine 

the effects to sensitive species. The objectives and standards for biological evaluations are 

directed by the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.4). The Forest Service Manual directs the 

agency to “review all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and 

activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species” by 

conducting a biological evaluation. The biological evaluation is the means of conducting the 

review and documenting the findings. Forest Service objectives for sensitive species are “to 

ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any native or desired 

nonnative plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing of any species” 

(FSM 2672.41). Therefore, Alternative A may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species.

Effects from Alternatives B, E and F

Impacts associated with road construction activities would be addressed with guideline FLS-9S, 

which directs that new road construction avoid sensitive plants with a minimum 25-foot buffer. 

Impacts associated with rock quarries would be addressed with guideline FLS14G, which 

requires mining operations to avoid sensitive plants to the greatest extent possible. Although some 

individual plants may be impacted, the guidelines are expected to maintain populations of 

sensitive plants.

Effects from Alternative C

Alternative C, with fewer levels of activities, especially road construction and associated quarry 

development, is least likely to impact the talus, cliff, and rock outcrop habitat group. Compared to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

392

the other alternatives, the desired condition, that the natural range of habitats of plant species is of 

adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to maintaining native and desired 

nonnative species diversity, would be more easily achieved under Alternative C for plants in the 

talus, cliff, and rock outcrop habitat group. Alternative C may impact individuals or habitat, but 

would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the 

population or species.

Effects from Alternative D

Alternative D would increase livestock animal unit months and timber harvest level; talus, cliffs 

and rock outcrop habitats are not likely to be impacted by these activities. These habitats produce 

no forage and are likely to be avoided by livestock. Similarly, timber harvest and vegetation 

management would not occur in these habitats. These habitats may be adjacent or even included 

in vegetation management units and may be indirectly affected by opening the forest canopy and 

increasing the amount of sunlight. Roads could be constructed through this habitat, impacting the 

species occupying them, but new road construction that would result from increased vegetation 

management and timber harvest is not anticipated to be so extensive that significant portions of 

talus, cliff and rock outcrop habitat would be impacted to the degree that species or population 

viability in the Plan Area would be compromised.

Alternative D may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend 

towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Effects from Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure

These effects of Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure are the same as described for 

Alternatives B, E and F, except that standards for sensitive plants have been modified. Minimum 

buffers for road construction (guideline FLS-9S) are not specified, but roads would be designed 

to minimize adverse impacts to occupied habitat of sensitive plant species.

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure do not vary in the biological evaluation 

finding: may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Aquatic and Riparian Dependent Species Habitats – Affected Environment

Species dependent on aquatic and riparian habitats (aquatic areas, peatlands, seeps and springs, 

riparian areas, intermittent streams, moist meadows, and wet meadows) are listed in Table 366 to 

Table 372. Because the Forest Plan manages these habitats under direction for riparian 

management areas, the effects to species dependent upon these habitats will be addressed together 

following the tables.

Aquatic Habitats – Affected Environment

Aquatic habitat supports plants that are free-floating or rooted at the bottom of ponds, lakes, 

streams and rivers. Species that depend on aquatic habitats are displayed in the following table.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

393

Table 366. Aquatic habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Elatine 

brachysperma

Plants submerged to 

terrestrial on muddy shores 

and shallow pools.

S D S

Potamogeton 

diversifolius

Shallow ponds; edges of 

reservoirs and small 

catchment ponds, and 

shallow, slow running 

creeks.

S S S

Rotala ramosior Moist sites, drying edges of 

ponds, springs and streams. 

S S S

Utricularia minor Boulders, and rocky 

substrate in cold water 

streams; submerged

A S A

Utricularia 

ochroleuca

Ponds, lakes, slow-moving 

streams.

S D S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Peatlands – Affected Environment

Peatlands are a type of wetland that accumulates partially decayed plant matter (peat) (Mitsch and 

Gosselink 2007, USDA Forest Service 2012). Peat is partially decayed plant material that 

accumulates under saturated conditions where there is little oxygen to facilitate decomposition 

(USDA Forest Service 2012). Two major types of peatlands are fen and bog. Fen, the main type 

of peatland in the Blue Mountains, is fed by groundwater or mineral-rich surface water, has 

neutral to alkaline pH, and supports relatively rich marsh-like vegetation. Fen is distinguished 

from marsh, which is a wetland on mineral soil (USDA Forest Service 1998). A bog receives 

water entirely from precipitation, accumulating sufficient peat to raise the surface layer above the 

influence of the water table (USDA Forest Service 1998), and is very acidic in pH. Bogs form 

under a climate where precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration, a condition not present in the 

Blue Mountains. Bogs are, therefore, not expected to be found in the Blue Mountains, except 

possibly as hummocky microsites within fens.

Peatlands can be found on each national forest in the Plan Area, but are unique habitats, not 

common in the Blue Mountains. This is due, in part, to a climate that does not favor their 

extensive development. Peatlands form stable plant communities that are self-perpetuating in the 

absence of disturbance. The combination of habitat rarity, stability, and extreme conditions in 

peatlands engenders a distinctive flora with high concentrations of rare species (Chadde et al.

1998). Sensitive plants that depend on peatland habitat are displayed in the following table.

Table 367. Peatlands habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Botrychium 

crenulatum

Local in marshy or springy areas, 1,200-2,500 

meters. Moist meadows, riparian zones, moist 

roadsides, openings in cold forests. Often in 

calcareous soils, but not necessarily.

D D D

Carex diandra Bogs and fens; floating peat mats, lakeshores, 

springs, and seeps.

S S S
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

394

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Carex 

gynocrates

Wet, peaty ground, usually in openings in 

coniferous swamps and conifer-hardwood stands, 

less often in poor fens, boggy swales, and alder 

thickets, also subalpine meadows, tundra, 

outwash gravel and seepage areas, usually 

calcareous substrate zero-3,100 meters.

A A D

Carex lasiocarpa 

var. americana

Sedge meadows, fens, bogs, lakeshores, stream 

banks, usually in very wet sites and sometimes 

forming floating mats. Dominant of boreal 

wetlands, often forming huge stands zero-1,300 

meters.

S S S

Epilobium 

oreganum

Fens and bogs; affinity for serpentine soils, but 

not strictly so.

A S A

Gentiana 

prostrata

Alpine bogs and meadows at high elevations. A A S

Harpanthus 

flotovianus

Bogs and fens. According to Hong (1993), it 

“occurs on moist humus, soil covered rocks and 

decaying wood in forests, and is frequently 

associated with Cephalozia bicuspidata and 

Scapania undulate.

S D D

Helodium 

blandowii

Bogs, fens, wet meadows, and stream sides. 

Shady sites to full sun.

D D S

Meesia uliginosa Fens D S S

Platanthera 

obtusata

Mesic to wet coniferous forest, forested fens, 

sphagnum bogs, streambanks, tundra, moist 

roadsides; zero-3,500 meters. Sometimes found 

growing on top of rotting logs. Often with 

Engelmann spruce, or sub-alpine fir.

A A D

Pseudocalliergon 

trifarium

Forming lawns or inconspicuously intermixed with 

other bryophytes in medium to rich montane fens 

where it grows submerged to emergent in pools or 

on saturated ground, usually in full sunlight.

A A S

Splachnum 

ampullaceum

Forming green sods on old dung of herbivores, or 

on soil enriched by dung, in peat lands or other 

wetlands.

S S S

Tomentypnum 

nitens

Forming loose or dense sods or intermixed with 

other bryophytes in medium to rich montane fens 

where it favors slightly elevated sites, such as 

logs, stumps, or hummocks, formed by Vaccinium 

uliginosum and Betula glandulosa.

D S S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Seeps and Springs – Affected Environment

Springs are points where groundwater emerges and flows. Groundwater also feeds seeps, but 

seeps do not produce perennial flow. Springs and seeps are typically small, but are well 

distributed on all three forests in the Plan Area. Species that inhabit seeps and springs are 

displayed in the following table.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

395

Table 368. Seeps and springs habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Encalypta 

intermedia

In permanent seep, on thin soil over calcareous 

rocks. 8-19-1996, D. Wagner. Goodrich Lake, 

Baker Ranger District.

A A D

Entosthodon 

fascicularis

Occurring as individual plants or forming small 

sods on seasonally wet, exposed soil in seeps or 

along intermittent streams.

S S S

Jungermannia 

polaris

In permanent seep, on thin soil over calcareous 

rocks. 8-19-1996, D. Wagner. Goodrich Lake, 

Baker Ranger District.

S A D

Mimulus 

hymenophyllus

Springs in low to moderate elevation grasslands A A D

Peltolepis 

quadrata

In permanent seep, on thin soil over calcareous 

rocks. 8-19-1996, D. Wagner. Goodrich Lake, 

Baker Ranger District.

S A D

Preissia 

quadrata

In permanent seep, on thin soil over calcareous 

rocks. 8-19-1996, D. Wagner. Goodrich Lake, 

Baker Ranger District.

A A D

Thelypodium 

eucosmum

Under and around western Juniper, in canyons, 

seasonal creek drainages, and seeps/springs. 

Also found in vernally moist areas in ponderosa 

pine forests and in sage steppe areas. Known 

sites are 1,800-5,000 feet.

D D S

Trollius laxus 

ssp. Albiflorus

Open, wet places, more or less acidic soils, 

montane to alpine; 1,200-3,800 meters. Seeps, 

springs, and vernally wet swales in spruce/fir 

forest.

S S S

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Intermittent Streams – Affected Environment

Species that occupy intermittent stream channels are displayed in the following table.

Table 369. Intermittent streams habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Mimulus 

evanescens

Vernally moist sites and fluctuating banks of 

intermittent streams or pools in sagebrush-juniper 

zone. Amid heavy gravel and boulders at one site. 

1,200-1,700 meters. Historic site on Bear Valley 

Ranger District.

D

(Historic

al 

Record)

S S

Muhlenbergia 

minutissima

Open, more or less disturbed, sandy, gravelly 

drainages, rocky slopes, flats, roads.

S S S

Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum

Rocks along watercourses of intermittent and 

seasonal streams. Union County. Reported for 

calcareous rocks.

S S D

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest.

Riparian Areas – Affected Environment

Riparian areas are the ecotone between rivers or streams and uplands. They are seasonally or 

perennially moist. Species that inhabit riparian areas are displayed in the following table.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

396

Table 370. Riparian areas habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Carex capillaris Mesic to moist tundra, seeps on cliffs, rocks, and 

slopes, fens, meadows, shores, prairie sloughs, edges 

of sphagnum mats, moist woods zero-3,500 meters.

A A D

Carex crawfordii Pond margins that are wet in spring and other 

seasonally wet spots.

S S S

Carex media Forest openings, meadows, bog margins; 100-1,800 

meters. Riparian areas, seeps, moist meadows. In 

WA, is found near perennial streams and ponds, and 

in moist meadows at elevations of 4,900-7,120 feet.

A A D

Carex retrorsa Swamps, wet thickets, often along streams, marshes, 

sedge meadows, shores of streams, ponds, and lakes 

zero-1,900 meters.

S S D

Carex saxatilis Lake shores, fens, bogs at high elevations. A A D

Carex

scirpoidea ssp. 

stenochlaena

Wet areas along streams, meadows and wet, springy 

seeps

D A A

Cyperus 

lupulinus ssp. 

lupulinus

Sandy soil along low elevations rivers and streams A S D

Juncus triglumis 

var. albescens

Stream, lake margins at high elevations usually on 

calcareous substrate

A A D

Lipocarpha 

aristulata

Wet soil and mud, often comprised of fine sand and 

silt, in bottomlands, sandbars, beaches, shorelines, 

stream banks, ponds, and ditches. At low elevations.

A S D

Lycopodium 

complanatum

Dry open coniferous or mixed forest alpine slopes; 

zero-2,000 meters. Coniferous forest, with thick duff. 

Often on rotting logs, moist forest, riparian areas. Also 

in meadows and on open ridgetops.

S S D

Ptilidium 

pulcherrimum

Perennially moist tree bases, rotten logs, and on 

rocks. Baker County.

S A D

Ribes 

oxyacanthoides

ssp. Irriguum

Riparian conifer forest: PIPO-PSME; associated with 

Amelenchier alnifolia, Crataegus douglasii, Ribes 

cereum, Symphoricarpos albus.

A D A

Rorippa 

columbiae

Near all types of bodies of water, including along the 

Columbia River, intermittent snow-fed streams, 

permanent lakes, snow-fed lakes, wet meadows, 

irrigation ditches, and roadside ditches. Sandy soils.

S D S

Schistostega 

pennata

Mineral soil in crevices and sheltered portions on 

underside of rootwads of fallen trees.

S S S

Tetraphis 

geniculata

On cut or broken ends or lower sides of logs, decay 

class III-V, greater than 15 inches.

S S S

Trifolium 

douglasii

Moist or mesic meadows, prairie remnants, along 

riparian areas along streams. In swales, along 

intermittent streams, and in vernally wet areas.

A D D

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

397

Moist Meadows – Affected Environment

Moist meadows are typically saturated in the spring, but by mid to late summer the water table

has fallen below the soil surface. Species that inhabit moist meadows are displayed in the 

following table.

Table 371. Moist meadows habitat group description for each species

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Allium geyeri 

var. geyeri

Moist meadows along streams. Known currently from 

the Hells Canyon NRA; possibly occurring in similar 

habitat in northern Blue Mountains.

A A D

Botrychium 

campestre

Prairies, dunes, grassy railroad sidings, and fields 

over limestone. 50-1,200 meters. Moist meadows, 

riparian zones, roadsides, openings in cold forests. 

Occurs in dry to mesic, sunlit habitats, often on till or 

moraines. Does not need direct sunlight.

A S D

Botrychium 

hesperium

Grassy mtn. slopes, snow fields, and road ditches, 

w/willows, and sand dunes, 200-2,800 meters. Moist 

meadows, riparian, moist roadsides, openings and 

edges of forests. Often on calcareous soils. 

Sometimes found in roadside ditches and at edges of 

lakes.

S D D

Botrychium 

lineare

Moist meadows, riparian zones, moist roadsides, 

openings and edges of cold forests. Sometimes in 

limestone, but not always.

S S D

Botrychium 

lunaria

Open fields, occasionally forest in southern 

occurrences; 0-3,700 meters. Moist meadows, 

riparian zones, moist roadsides, openings and edges 

of cold forests.

S D D

Calochortus 

longebarbatus 

var. peckii

Grassy margins of wet meadows, and under pines; 

1,600-1,800 meters. Wet to moist meadows. Along 

stream edges. Often partially shaded by ponderosa 

pine.

D A A

Carex idahoa Riparian moist meadows, 2,000-2,600 meters. Driest 

communities of moist meadows, swales, and moist, 

low ground around streams and lakes, and on prairies 

and high plains as well.

D S S

Eleocharis 

bolanderi

Fresh, often summer-dry meadows, springs, seeps, 

stream margins; 1,000-3,400 meters. Wet places, low 

to mid-montane. In vernally wet swales. Along 

intermittent streams, moist meadows.

D D S

Gentianella 

tenella ssp. 

Tenella

Gentianella tenella appears to favor disturbed sites in 

subalpine to alpine meadows. Associated with high 

levels of sheep dung and bare ground. Around but not 

on hummocks.

A D A

Listera 

borealis

In moist, rich humus of mossy coniferous forest, 

swamps, often along cold streams, acidic soils. Most 

known sites in Washington are in older forests. 

Associated tree species include spruce, true firs, and 

Douglas-fir. Moderate elevations.

D S D

Phacelia 

minutissima

Moist meadow and seep edges, or on vernally wet 

open meadows and barren slopes. Reported to occur 

with aspen.

D S D
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

398

Scientific 

Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Ranunculus 

populago

Moist meadows, stream terraces, riparian corridors, 

open areas along the edge of shrubs, and adjacent to 

a perennial streams and bogs, at 4,480 to 5,920 feet 

(1,366-1,804 meters) elevation. Associated species at 

one or more sites include green false hellebore 

(Veratrum viride), Gray’s licorice root (Ligusticum 

grayi).

A D A

Tauschia 

tenuissima

Grassy openings in moist-wet meadows, river 

floodplains and streambanks. 2580 to 3200 feet in 

WA. Assoc. spp: Potentilla gracilis), straight-beaked 

buttercup (Ranunculus orthorhynchus), wild 

strawberry (Fragaria virginiana), and blue-eyed grass 

(Sisyrinchium inflatum).

A D A

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Wet Meadows – Affected Environment

Wet meadows are saturated throughout the growing season with the water table at or slightly 

below the soil surface. Species that inhabit moist meadows are displayed in the following table.

Table 372. Wet meadows habitat group description for each species

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Antennaria 

corymbosa

Wet meadows, moist meadows; at mid elevations. A D A

Botrychium 

montanum

Dark, coniferous forests, usually near swamps 

and streams; 1,000-2,000 meters. Wet meadows, 

saturated soils. Often growing in a bed of mosses. 

This species tends to grow in wetter sites than the 

other Botrychium species.

D D D

Carex 

atrosquama

Subalpine and alpine meadows, river gravels, 

shorelines. Wet meadows to dry open slopes.

A A D

Carex capitata Wet or seasonally wet meadows, often alpine or 

lower in cold air drainages; sandy, acidic soils.

A D S

Carex comosa Marshes, lake margins, wet meadows, bogs and 

wet thickets.

A S

Carex 

subnigricans

Moist rocky slopes, alpine meadows, high 

elevation only; above 2,500 meters.

A A D

Heliotropium 

curassavicum

Wet ground, saline flats, alkaline soils. Low 

elevations.

S S S

Juncus albescens Peat bogs, peaty riparian areas. In the Wallowa 

Mountains, on a peaty creek bank in limestone 

drainage. High elevations.

A A D

Ophioglossum 

pusillum

Open fens, marshes edges, pastures, grassy 

shores and roadside ditches, 100-2,000 meters. 

Wet meadows, damp sand, grassy swales, 

seeps/springs. In pastures, old fields, and flood 

plain woodlands in seasonally wet, rather acid 

soil.

S S D
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

399

Scientific Name Habitat Description Malheur Umatilla

WallowaWhitman

Pleuropogon 

oregonus

Open, wet meadows, marshes, and riparian 

areas. Grows in areas of standing or flowing water 

early in season. Known sites are not near forested 

habitats. Sluggish water in depressions and 

sloughs.

S S S

Salix farriae Wet meadows, streambanks, moderate to high 

elevations. Sites in the Wallowa Mountains are in 

calcareous soils.

S D D

Salix wolfii Stream banks, springs, wet meadows, bogs; 1500 

to 1700 meters. Associates include Equisetum 

arvense, Ribes, Alnus, and Cynoglossum. Very 

rare on the Wallowa-Whitman (two known 

locations).

A A D

Thalictrum 

alpinum

Wet meadows, damp rocky ledges and slopes, 

and cold (often calcareous) bogs in willow-sedge, 

lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir forest; zero-3,800 

meters. High elevations here.

A A D

D: documented within the national forest, S: suspected to occur within the national forest; A: absent.

Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Dependent Species – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

The riparian habitats listed previously would be managed as riparian management areas where 

aquatic and riparian-dependent resources receive primary emphasis and where special 

management direction applies. Riparian management areas encompass lands adjacent 

permanently flowing streams, ponds, lakes, wetlands, seeps, springs and intermittent streams. 

Riparian management areas will 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 dependent plant and 

animal species, enhance habitat conservation for organisms that depend on the transition zone 

between the upland and riparian areas, and provide for greater connectivity within and between 

watersheds for both riparian and upland species. Table 373 displays minimum widths for riparian 

management areas.

Table 373. Riparian management area widths

Category Minimum Riparian Management Areas 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 one 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 acres, and 

unstable areas

100 feet slope distance

*Additional delineation criteria apply, as described in the alternative descriptions
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

400

Within riparian management areas, activities would be designed to maintain properly functioning 

conditions or improve conditions in areas not functioning properly. Standards and guidelines 

direct management activities for a variety of activities, including wildland fire, fuels, timber, 

silviculture, range, domestic livestock grazing, roads, recreation, minerals, and hydropower to 

accomplish desired conditions. Most standards and guidelines seek to minimize impacts from 

land management activities. For example, guideline TM-3G directs new landings, designated skid 

trails, staging or decking for timber operations to be located outside riparian management areas, 

unless no reasonable alternatives exist, in which case they should (1) be of minimum size, (2) be 

located outside the active floodplain, and (3) minimize effects to large wood, bank integrity, 

temperature, and sediment levels. Several guidelines are specific to sensitive plants whether or 

not plants are located within the riparian habitat conservation area: FLS-5G, FLS-6S, FLS7G,FLS-8G, FLS-9G, and FLS-11S that would protect populations of sensitive plants using 

avoidance buffers (Alternatives B, E, F). Guideline FLS-14G would require leasable mining 

activities to minimize adverse effects to federally listed and Forest Service sensitive plant species. 

For Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, guidelines specify that adverse effects to 

sensitive plant species be minimized (FLS-4G, FLS-6G, FLS-7G, FLS-11-G, FLS-13G, FLS16G).

The major difference in effects among Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, 

and F with the effects of Alternative C concerns range management guideline GM-3G, where the 

maximum percent utilization of herbaceous vegetation within the riparian management areas is 

reduced from 40 percent (B, D, E, and F) to 10 percent (Alternative C). In Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure, riparian flood plain utilization would vary from 30-45 

percent depending upon the ecological conditions. Woody vegetation utilization would be 

reduced from 40 percent to 20-30 percent, depending upon the ecological conditions. Residual 

stubble height and bank alteration standards remain the same between Alternatives B, D, E, and F, 

and are similar for E-Modified and E-Modified Departure with the greenline stubble height 

ranging from 4 to 6 inches depending upon conditions. Recreation management guidelines RM1G, RM-2G that would bar placement of new facilities or infrastructure or move existing 

facilities within stream channel migration zones under Alternatives B, D, E, and F would become 

standards under Alternative C. There is no substantive change in their wording. Where aquatic 

and riparian dependent habitat is occupied by sensitive species, herbaceous utilization is further 

reduced to 30 percent under Alternatives B, E, and F. Riparian management areas within bull 

trout spawning and rearing reaches would be grazed to 25 percent utilization, providing slight 

additional benefits to sensitive plants inhabiting the riparian areas of these reaches.

The Livestock Grazing and Rangeland Vegetation section describes general effects to riparian 

vegetation. Alternative C is expected to result in the most rapid short-term recovery of riparian 

and wetland areas. Alternatives B, E and F are expected to have upward trends for riparian and 

wetland areas. Under Alternative A, riparian integrity would remain similar to the present, with a 

slow but steady rate of recovery. Sensitive plants benefitting from reduced riparian greenline 

vegetation utilization standards belong to the Aquatic and Riparian habitat groups. Reduced 

greenline utilization would mean livestock would spend less time in these areas, and there would 

be less opportunity to compact soils or damage plants from herbivory or trampling. Species 

benefiting from reduced trampling are small, fragile plants, particularly members of Botrychium

and aquatic plants rooted in shallow or drying shorelines: Rotala ramosior, Potamogeton 

diversifolius, and Elatine brachysperma. One species, Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum, a 

shrub growing in riparian areas in coniferous forest of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, would 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

401

directly benefit from Alternative C from a reduced standard for woody vegetation utilization to 25 

percent of the current year’s growth.

The alternatives vary also in the number of grazing animal unit months for each national forest. 

Presumably, how the animal unit months vary by alternative would not matter because overall 

vegetation utilization standards would still apply, regardless of the number of livestock allowed in 

to graze in any area. However, for Alternative C there would be a beneficial affect achieved 

through a combination of a reduction in animal unit months by 75 to 80 percent and a reduction in 

the acres designated suitable for grazing by about 65 percent. With fewer acres available for 

grazing and much reduced utilization levels, sensitive species impacted by grazing, even at levels 

that would sustain their populations, would benefit. The desired condition: “the natural range of 

habitats of... plant species... is of adequate quality, distribution, and abundance to contribute to 

maintaining native and desired nonnative species diversity,” would be achieved more easily with 

Alternative C compared to other alternatives.

For Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F, and guideline FLS-2G would 

not authorize grazing in peatlands. Sensitive plants occupying peatlands would not be impacted.

Findings

Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A has few standards or guidelines directing the management of sensitive plants. 

Alternative A includes a standard to conduct a biological evaluation for each project to determine 

the effects to sensitive species. The objectives and standards for biological evaluations are 

directed by the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.4). The Forest Service Manual directs the 

agency to “review all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and 

activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species” by 

conducting a biological evaluation. The biological evaluation is the means of conducting the 

review and documenting the findings. Forest Service objectives for sensitive species are “to 

ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any native or desired 

nonnative plant or contribute to animal species or trends toward Federal listing of any species” 

(FSM 2672.41). Therefore, Alternative A may impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species.

Effects of Alternatives B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Although some individual sensitive plants of aquatic habitats may be impacted, the guidelines 

specific to sensitive plants are expected to maintain populations for Alternatives B, E, and F. 

These five alternatives would provide greater protection than Alternatives A and D. Sensitive 

species occupying riparian areas, including springs and seeps, would benefit from the desired 

condition designed specifically to conserve these unique groundwater dependent ecosystems and 

managed using standards and guidelines for riparian management areas as wetlands smaller than 

one acre. At 30 percent forage utilization of key species, some sensitive plants would be 

impacted; however, the majority of plants, as well as the overall integrity wetland habitats, would 

be maintained. The biological evaluation finding is may impact individuals or habitat, but would 

not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population 

or species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

402

Effects of Alternative C

Alternative C would result in the fewest impacts to sensitive plants among the alternatives 

through the reduction in livestock AUMs, a reduction in land area deemed suitable for grazing, 

and a ten percent maximum utilization of riparian herbaceous vegetation. This level is little more 

than incidental use and is expected to have few impacts to riparian dependent sensitive plants. 

While Alternative C may still result in impacts to individual sensitive plants or habitat, these 

impacts would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability 

to the population or species in the Plan Area.

Effects of Alternative D

No specific standards and guidelines directing the management of sensitive species are proposed 

under this alternative; therefore, any consideration of the needs of sensitive species would default 

to higher level policy encoded in the Forest Service Manual as described under Alternative A. The 

maximum utilization level of key forage species in riparian management areas under Alternative 

D would be 40 percent. This may be adequate to sustain the vegetation, but is uncertain how the 

proposed increase in AUMs would affect sensitive plants inhabiting riparian habitats. If we 

assume the 40 percent utilization would be met, the result may be the maximum utilization is 

reached over most or all of the riparian areas. Alternative D would result in the greatest impact to 

sensitive species through both herbivory and trampling. Localized impacts exceeding 40 percent 

utilization would be expected given the high number of AUMs. Species in moist meadows, 

riparian and intermittent stream habitat groups would likely be maintained at viable levels 

because these habitats are not saturated during the grazing season and are less vulnerable to 

trampling. Sensitive plants in the wet meadows, springs and seeps, and peatlands habitat groups 

would be most at risk to trampling due to season long saturated conditions. Species in these three 

habitat groups may experience localized impacts to the degree that population viability within the 

Plan Area would be compromised.

Aquatic, moist meadow, riparian and intermittent stream habitat group: may impact individuals or 

habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species.

Wet meadows, springs and seeps, and peatlands habitat groups: individual plants or their habitat 

may be impacted with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Cumulative Effects

Because of the expected life of the plan, cumulative effects to rare plants would arise mainly from 

reasonably foreseeable future actions or events occurring beyond the Plan Area whose effects 

might extend to within the Plan Area. These effects would originate from actions on adjacent 

public lands (Bureau of Land Management), state, county, or private lands, and for the WallowaWhitman National Forest, the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. Private lands comprise the 

largest proportion of adjacent lands followed by Bureau of Land Management, state, and county 

lands. The actions or events outside the national forest most likely to contribute to cumulative 

area invasions by nonnative plants and wildfires. Trespass by livestock is possible, but is expected 

to be infrequent with minor cumulative effects. The effects of climate change also contribute 

potential cumulative effects to rare plants.

Non-native Invasive Plants – Cumulative effects from invasion by nonnative plants would arise 

from lands nearby the Plan Area. The plan addresses these effects in the same manner as effects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

403

from nonnative plants spreading from sites within the Plan Area. These effects are discussed in 

the Non-native Invasive Species section. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area includes 

plan direction to manage invasive plants. This direction is additive to plan components under all 

alternatives. Management of invasive plants on the adjacent Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area would help reduce the incidence of invasive plants migrating from the national recreation 

area to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

Wildland Fire – Wildfires arising from adjacent lands then spreading to within the Plan Area

mainly threaten rare plants located within 5 to 10 miles of the national forest boundary. Rare 

plants in the conifer forest habitat group are at the greatest risk of lethal effects from wildfire. 

Wildfires with severe or perhaps even moderate intensities would likely kill plants in this habitat 

group. Following severe wildfire, suitable habitat for species in the conifer habitat group may not 

return for several decades. Species in the aquatic, peatlands, and wet meadows habitat groups 

would probably be least affected from wildfire because these groups are expected to withstand the 

effects of wildfire, suffering damage only to crowns of graminoid plants, but not the basal 

meristem tissues of the root crown. Species occupying the grasslands habitat group are largely 

adapted to periodic wildfire, and may benefit from them. Increases in nonnative exotic plants, 

such as cheatgrass, may increase fire frequencies in the grasslands habitat group favoring increase 

in exotic species cover to the detriment of native bunchgrasses, though this pattern, widely 

reported from the basin and range, has not been observed in the Blue Mountains. Alpine fellfields 

and subalpine parkland are not expected to be frequented by wildlife, though it is possible. Any 

cumulative effects from wildlife to this habitat group are expected to be minor. In sagebrush 

shrubland, some species (Astragalus tegetariodes, Camissonia pygmaea) may benefit from the 

presence of wildlife while Castilleja flava var. rustica may experience decline because sagebrush 

may be a necessary host plant for this hemiparasite. Although wildfire is possible in the basalt 

lithosol habitat group, any effects are expected to be minor due to light fuel loads. On the other 

hand, species inhabiting the talus, cliffs, and rock outcrops habitat groups are threatened by 

wildfire. These species’ strategy of avoidance by occupying areas with light, discontinuous fuels 

is not foolproof as wind driven wildfires spot through these habitats. Many species occupying this 

group have no inherent defenses for fire, particularly the cryptic nonvascular plants that grow on 

peaty soil on ledges and in crevices. Mat-forming plants such as Geum rossii var. turbinatum and 

Luina serpentina would be consumed and killed by fire. Species occupying the seeps/springs, 

riparian, and intermittent stream habitat groups could either survive or be killed by wildfires, 

depending on fire severity. Most species occupying moist meadows are not expected to be 

significantly impacted by wildfire. Wildfire management direction for the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area is very similar to the plan revision alternatives and would supplement direction 

in the plan revision alternatives.

Climate Change – The assessment of current environmental conditions in the affected 

environment incorporates the combined effects of past action. Ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are addressed under the analysis in environmental consequences. 

Because the Forest Plan has an anticipated lifespan of 15-20 years, this analysis incorporates the 

effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions. When forest plan activities are considered within 

a context of climate change, an additional factor is added to the cumulative effects analysis. Reid 

and Lisle (2008) identified two issues regarding cumulative impacts and climate change:

1. Human-induced climate change is itself a cumulative impact of multiple human activities. 

Prediction of the local magnitude, style, and timing of climate changes will require an 

understanding of how the many influences on climate interact.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

404

2. Outcomes from this episode of climate change will differ from those of previous episodes 

in part because of interactions with environmental changes that humans have already 

caused—outcomes will be a cumulative effect. For example, Pleistocene climate changes 

resulted in elevational and latitudinal shifts of ecosystem boundaries. However, 

ecosystems now are highly fragmented by land-use activities, so climate change is more 

likely to result in extirpations than in the past because incremental shifts along a gradient 

may no longer be possible. In addition, geomorphic and ecosystem processes have been 

extensively modified by land-use activities, impairing some systems’ mechanisms for 

resilience and thereby increasing their sensitivity to change.

Climate change is affecting the Pacific Northwest. Projections are for the climate to warm 0.2 to 1 

degree Fahrenheit per decade for the foreseeable future (OCCRI 2010). Precipitation levels may 

be more difficult to predict, but there is some confidence to expect decreases in winter snowpack, 

earlier spring snowmelt, earlier initiation of growing seasons, increase in growing season length, 

but under drier conditions, and increases in extreme weather events. Gradual warming and drying 

is expected to change species composition and community structure, possibly resulting in a 

decline in biodiversity. The most significant effects of climate change on biological diversity are 

expected to be in response to increasing summer temperatures (Currie 2001), although there is too 

much uncertainty about potential climate change effects on rare plant populations to confidently 

distinguish differences between the alternatives. The Blue Mountains are expected to experience 

decreased snowpack and earlier snowmelt resulting in earlier and higher peak stream flows and 

lower summer low flows, drier summer soil conditions. Warming temperatures are expected to 

cause gradual changes in the abundance and distribution of plant communities throughout the 

Blue Mountains with more drought tolerant species becoming competitive. Ecological 

disturbance, including wildfire and insect outbreaks, will be the primary facilitator of vegetation 

change, and future forest landscapes may be dominated by younger age classes and smaller trees. 

High-elevation forest types will be especially vulnerable to disturbance. Increased abundance and 

distribution of nonnative plant species will create additional competition for regeneration of 

native plant species. As climate continues to warm during the 21st century, the most rapidly 

visible and significant short-term effects will be caused by altered disturbance, often occurring 

with increased frequency and severity. Increased disturbance will be facilitated by more frequent 

extreme droughts, amplifying conditions that favor wildfire, insect outbreaks, and invasive 

species (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

Species occupying the alpine fellfields and subalpine parkland habitat group are most at risk from 

climate change as this habitat has been and will continue to decline in the next century. Species 

dependent on snow melt basins or other moist micro sites (Carex vernacula, C. micropoda, 

Lomatium erythrocarpum, and Saxifraga adscendens ssp. oregonensis) are also at risk, as these 

habitats may decline first. Species or habitats dependent on snowmelt runoff, such as the 

cottonwood habitat group, may decline in abundance. Cottonwoods depend on period flooding 

and sediment deposition for seedling germination (Mahoney and Rood 1998). With reduced peak 

spring streamflows, cottonwood seedlings may not have proper conditions to germinate on 

floodplains. Where germination has been successful, reduced late summer discharge may not 

provide sufficient moisture for seedlings to survive through the first growing season and establish 

(Naiman et al. 2005). Cottonwood, willow and aspen may be replaced by upland vegetation in 

some areas (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Many other species within the Plan Area are endemic 

to small ranges or comprise disjunct populations beyond the species’ contiguous range, regardless 

of their habitat group. These species are at risk of local extinction due to factors cited earlier.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

405

The likelihood of forest, woodlands and shrublands being invaded by nonnative annual grasses in 

a warmer climate will increase because of more disturbance, effects of warming on species 

distributions, enhanced competitiveness of nonnative plants from elevated carbon dioxide, and 

increased stress to native species (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Warming alone may increase the 

risk of nonnatives, because many invasive species have range limits set by cold temperatures, 

which has tended to limit their establishment in forests, particularly the higher elevation and 

continental western forests.

A species distribution model that assumed lower (summer) precipitation in the future projected 

expansion of cheatgrass in a warmer climate. Because of the fire and invasive grass cycle, 

changes in future fire regimes are important climate considerations for nonnative annual grasses. 

More area burned, more frequent large wildfires, larger extent of high-severity fire, longer 

wildfire durations, and longer wildfire seasons are expected in the future, thus increasing the 

invasion risk of nonnative annual grass species. Of particular concern in the Blue Mountains is 

the recent increase in North Africa grass and its apparent ability to outcompete and replace areas 

dominated by cheatgrass (Halofsky and Peterson 2017).

In shrubland and grassland systems, increased area burned will likely lead to increased mortality 

of shrub species and native grasses, and increased abundance of nonnative species, annual grasses 

in particular (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Adaptation strategies and tactics to address these 

sensitivities include increasing the resilience of native ecosystems through grazing management 

(i.e., avoid grazing practices that promote invasive species establishment), active restoration of 

less resilient sites (e.g., plant natives on sites dominated by invasive species), and management of 

soil resources to maintain stability and productivity (e.g., establish native vegetation to stabilize 

eroded areas).

Nonnative Invasive Species

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

• Effects discussions were expanded or clarified to respond to comments on the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement.

Methodology

Invasive species 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 economic loss and 

reductions in the long-term productivity of the land, disrupt recreational use, and reduce resource 

production. A wide range of species can be invasive, including vascular and nonvascular plants, 

terrestrial and aquatic animals, and pathogens, such as white pine blister rust and white-nose 

syndrome.

Invasive aquatic plants and animals are not yet widespread in the headwater streams and lakes in 

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 National Forests. Streams and springs on the National Forests are at risk of invasion by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

406

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. Because the distribution of invasive aquatic plants and 

animals in the Blue Mountains is not well understood, the analysis emphasizes invasive terrestrial 

plant species. Exotic insect infestations and diseases that threaten conifer forests are addressed in 

the vegetation section.

Invasive plants are defined as “nonnative plants whose introduction do or are likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health” per Executive Order 13112. The 

Chief of the Forest Service declared invasive species as one of the four main threats to ecosystem 

health (USDA Forest Service 2004). The threat is considered serious because invasive plants have 

the potential to displace or change native plant communities and can increase wildfire hazard, 

degrade fish and wildlife habitat, eliminate rare and endangered plants, impair water quality and 

watershed health, and adversely affect a wide variety of other resource values, such as 

recreational opportunities.

The area affected by invasive plant species has increased throughout the Interior Columbia Basin 

during the last 100 years. The same trend has occurred in the Blue Mountains during the last 20 

years. A large portion of the Blue Mountains is characterized as being susceptible to invasive 

plants (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997). The susceptibility is most prevalent in vegetation types that 

many invasive plants are adapted to: areas dominated by dry forest, dry grass, dry shrub, and cool 

shrub types.

This section discusses the analysis of how well invasive plants forest plan components 

(objectives, standards, and guidelines) would achieve the desired condition. The existing 

condition describes the current infestation of invasive plants for each national forest and describes 

the 1990 Forest Plan direction for managing invasive plants.

The methodology supports analysis to answer two central questions:

1. Do the alternatives achieve the desired condition?

2. How do the alternatives vary in the degree to which planned activities would create 

ground disturbances that may favor an introduction or spread of invasive species?

Assumptions:

• Plan objectives to “reduce current infestations of invasive plant species,” as measured in 

acres, would be funded and achieved.

• Control measures, whether manual, chemical, or biological control, may need to be 

applied more than once to invasive plant sites. The percent control, the reduction in the 

ability of the invasive plant to propagate, is assumed to be 80 percent (USDA Forest 

Service 2005, Desser 2006).

Nonnative Invasive Species – Affected Environment

Invasive plants occupy thousands of acres within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests, but far fewer acres are inventoried within the Malheur National Forest. The Malheur 

National Forest is thought to have more acres of invasive plants than what is currently mapped 

but is not likely infested to the same degree the Umatilla or Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is 

infested. Table 374 displays the known infested acres for each national forest. Within the Malheur 

National Forest, 30 species infest 2,160 acres; within the Umatilla National Forest, 37 species 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

407

infest 27,755 acres; and within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 37 species infest 20,352 

acres.

Other infestations that have not been inventoried are likely to occur on each national forest. In 

addition, annual grasses and other invasive plants that are considered naturalized are not included 

in this total.

Table 374. Acres and percent of National Forest System (NFS) lands infested by invasive plants

National 

Forest

Current 

Infestation

(acres)

Total NFS lands* 

(acres)

NFS Lands Infested 

by Invasive Plants

(%)

Malheur 2,160 1,709,047 0.13%

Umatilla 27,755 1,404,246 2.0%

Wallowa-Whitman 20,352 1,777,596 1.1%

*For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, values exclude the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

The desired condition for the plan revision alternatives is that 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 

plans, and their current distributions are 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 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.

Current Forest Plan direction has the potential to meet the desired condition. The Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement disclosed that the adopted 

invasive plant management direction had a “moderate to high potential to reduce rate of spread,” 

and concluded that effective treatment of the existing populations along with prevention measures 

applied to land uses and activities could reduce the current 8 to 12 percent rate of spread to about 

4 to 6 percent (USDA Forest Service 2005). Thus, to meet the desired condition, both current 

infestations and new infestations need to be contained, controlled, or eradicated.

Nonnative Invasive Species – Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects

In 2005, the regional forester amended the 1990 Forest Plans with the Record of Decision for the 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). This amendment added management direction for invasive plants to the 1990 

Forest Plans, including goals, objectives, standards and a monitoring framework. Appendix A 

displays the goals, objectives, and standards from the R6 2005 Record of Decision. Current 

Forest Plan direction for managing invasive plants would continue for the no-action alternative 

and Alternatives B, C, D, E and F. Modified direction for invasive plant prevention and treatment 

is a component of Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. These modified 

alternatives retain as standards or guidelines, the intent of preventive standards under the 2005 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

408

plan amendment (Alternative A). The modified alternatives, however, do not restrict, at the plan 

level, the kinds of pesticide active ingredients that could be used when implementing invasive 

species treatments. The decision of which active ingredient and how it should be applied would 

be analyzed at the project level.

Forest Plan Components – Objectives

Table 376 displays the average annual acres that have been treated during a three-year period 

(2009-2011) on the three National Forests compared to the acres that would hypothetically need 

to be treated each year to make progress toward achieving the desired condition for invasive 

plants containment, control, and eradication. The objectives span a five-year period because of 

the time it takes to control invasive plants given the existing soil seed bank, the typical need for 

retreatment, weather, and funding. To effectively control invasive plants, treatments (manual, 

mechanical, herbicide, or biological) are often repeated for several years. Subsequent treatments 

usually require fewer resources, e.g., labor or herbicides, because each treatment effectively 

reduces the density or size of the target population. The acreage needed to be effectively treated 

annually in Table 376 was adjusted to account for need for retreatment (each entry is assumed 80 

percent effective) (Desser 2006).

Plan objective 1.5 is to “reduce current infestations of invasive plant species.” Projected acres of 

invasive plants that would be reduced under the alternatives are displayed below in Table 375. 

Acres reduced is not equivalent to acres treated; it is likely that repeat treatments over 2 or more 

years would be required to eradicate or severely reduce the cover of an invasive plant infestation. 

The figures in the table denote the total acres reduced over the 10-year period; annual reduction 

objectives would be 1/10th of these amounts. For example, for the Umatilla and WallowaWhitman National Forests, objectives for annual acres reduced range from 700 (Alternatives B, 

C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure) to 1,500 acres (Alternative D).

Table 375. Acres projected to reduce invasive plants during the first decade of the plans to achieve 

objective 1.5 

National 

Forest

Alternatives B, C, E, F

(acres)

Alternative D

(acres)

Alternatives E-Modified and 

E-Modified Departure (acres)

Malheur 1,500 3,000 1,500

Umatilla 7,000 15,000 7,000

Wallowa-Whitman 7,000 15,000 7,000

Table 376 displays that invasive plant treatments need to be increased from current levels to meet 

5-year objectives for all alternatives. Forest plan management direction is intended to facilitate 

effective treatments over time.

Table 376. Annual acres of invasive plants treatments necessary to make progress towards 

achieving the desired condition for each national forest

National 

Forest

Average Acres 

Treated Annually

(2014-2016)

5-year Benchmark

(acres contained, 

controlled, eradicated)

Average Acres of 

Effective Annual

Treatments Needed

Malheur 552 2,270 to 3,470 570 to 868

Umatilla 5,383 33,770 to 48,913 8,433 to 12,228

Wallowa-Whitman 2,277 24,760 to 35,870 6,190 to 8,968

Totals 8,212 60,800 to 88,253 15,193 to 22,064
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

409

The recent three-year average of acres of invasive plants treated annually for each of the Blue 

Mountains national forests falls short of estimates for acres of effective annual treatments needed 

to achieve five-year objectives displayed in Table 376 to make progress toward achieving desired 

conditions. Although the three-year averages for acres treated does not predict future 

accomplishments or objectives, they do demonstrate what the forests are capable of 

accomplishing under recent budget allocations. These data show that the continuation of the 

recent record of annual treated acres may not be sufficient to cover the amount of area necessary 

to move the forests toward desired conditions. Although the Malheur National Forest recent 

average treated acres is quite near the estimated annual acres needing effective treatments, the 

figures for both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests fall several thousand acres 

short of the area needing effective treatments annually to progress toward desired conditions.

Forest Plan Components – Standards and Guidelines

The environmental consequences of plan components among Alternatives A, B, C, D, E, and F 

are the same because these alternatives retain existing management direction for invasive species 

under Alternative A. Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure have differently worded 

standards and guidelines, but are intended to achieve the same results through preventive 

measures. In other words, plan components for the preventing the establishment of invasive 

species do not measurably vary between alternatives. The main difference of Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure with the other alternatives is that Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure do not specify or restrict the types of herbicides that may be used to 

manage invasive plants. Under these two alternatives, the decision of which herbicides that would 

be used to manage invasive plants would be decided during project level analysis and decisionmaking.

Preventive measures under the alternatives include plan standards and guidelines IS-2S, IS-3G, 

IS-4G that apply to all invasive species, including invasive animals (e.g., aquatic or terrestrial 

vertebrates and invertebrates). IS-1G applies specifically to aquatic invasive species and specifies 

measures to avoid cross contamination of waterbodies. National forests in the Blue Mountains 

would continue to follow strategies outlined in the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for 

Invasive Species Management and the Regional Aquatic Invasive Species Strategy and 

Management Plan (2011) for prevention and early detection/rapid response. These plans 

emphasize coordination with state and local agencies to increase public awareness of exotic pests, 

especially where visitors have the potential to spread organisms, and to monitor water resources 

for the presence of invasive aquatic organisms.

Forest Plan Components – Disturbance Potential from Forest Management Activities

All alternatives were assessed to determine the relative degree to which ground disturbance could 

lead to conditions that would favor the establishment and spread of invasive plants. Because 

invasion and dominance by invasive plants is highly correlated to soil disturbances (Cox 1999), 

the greater the potential extent and intensity of ground-disturbing activities such as timber 

harvest, fuels reductions, motorized recreation, livestock grazing, mining operations, road 

maintenance and prescribed fire, the greater the potential for these activities to create conditions 

favorable to invasive plants. To compare alternatives by the degree to which ground disturbing 

activities could lead to further introduction and spread of invasive plants, an index was created to 

display the relative amount of soil disturbing activities (timber harvest and associated actions, 

activity fuels management, and animal unit months for livestock grazing) for each alternative for 

each national forest. These activities were used as a surrogate for all potential ground-disturbing 

activities because they are the most widespread across the Blue Mountains national forests. The 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

410

index equals the sum of annual projected acres of these soil-disturbing activities divided by the 

sum of these values for Alternative A, no action (the continuation of current management). The 

index values for the alternatives are displayed in Table 377. The index value for Alternative A is 

1. Other alternatives are measured relative to Alternative A. No standard exists for measuring the 

magnitude of soil disturbance as a predictor of nonnative plant invasion, either as an observable 

measurable value or as a percent of managed lands. The index serves only to compare alternatives 

and suggest which alternatives are more or less likely to create conditions favorable to the 

invasion of nonnative invasive plants. All alternatives include management direction to prevent or 

minimize the potential for invasive species introduction, establishment, and spread.

Table 377. Index values for soil-disturbing actions that favor invasion by nonnative plants for each of 

the plan revision alternatives for each national forest

National 

Forest Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Alt. EModified

Alt. EModified 

Departure Alt. F

Malheur 1 1 0.37 1.01 0.89 1.08 1.17 0.84

Umatilla 1 1 0.37 1.49 1.14 0.96 1.16 1.03

WallowaWhitman1 0.97 0.39 1.19 1.09 1.14 1.28 1.01

Blue Mountains 

Average

1 0.88 0.34 1.17 1.01 1.07 1.20 0.94

Compared to the proposed action, Alternatives B and F would have slightly fewer projected 

activities that would create disturbance conditions where nonnative invasive plants could. 

Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure, having about 20 percent more projected ground 

disturbing activities, would create the most area favorable conditions for establishing invasive 

plants. Projections for Alternative C are about one third of the projections for Alternative A and 

would likely result in the least amount of disturbed ground area favoring the spread of invasive 

plants. Compared to Alternative A, Alternative E-Modified has moderately higher projections 

(about 7 percent more) for ground disturbing activities conducive to the establishment of invasive 

plants. All management activities would be designed to with measures to help prevent the 

establishment and spread invasive plants; however, the Forest Service recognizes that while 

prevention measures can ameliorate the conditions that promote the spread and establishment of 

invasive plants, these measures are not 100 percent effective. As more acres of ground are 

disturbed, more outbreaks of invasive plant infestations would be expected, though fewer 

outbreaks than if no prevention measures were applied.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects may arise from the introduction of invasive species from lands adjoining the

Plan Area. These lands consist of other Federal (Bureau of Land Management), Tribal, State, 

county, or largely, privately owned lands. The plant invasion process occurs in three phases: 

introduction, establishment, and spread. Invasive species are introduced via vectors, such as wind, 

water, or wildlife, in addition to the actions of people, which move seeds or plant fragments from 

one location to another. Wind and water, in particular, are major natural dispersal agents. For 

example, windblown seed of rush skeleton weed can be carried up to 20 miles (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). Water is a primary aid in the dispersal of many species, including Japanese 

knotweed. Rivers and waterways have been identified as one of the biggest spread mechanisms 

for invasive plants (Sheley et al. 1995). Various wildlife species can contribute to the spread of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

411

invasive plant species by dispersing seeds in their dung, on their coats or feathers, or between 

their hooves. Ants even have been identified as one of the dispersal agents for the seeds of Scots 

broom (Parker, et al. 1998). Though invasive plant propagules (seeds or plant fragments capable 

of establishing) may originate from outside sources, the Forest Service does exert management 

control on conditions on the ground where they may be deposited. Therefore, the cumulative 

effects analysis area is the Plan Area for the Blue Mountains national forests.

People travelling to the National Forests may transport invasive plant propagules from adjacent or 

even distant lands. This may be done through a variety of means: motor vehicles, clothing and 

footwear, pets, stock, etc. Motor vehicles, in particular, have been shown to pick up and move 

invasive species seeds that can be deposited along roads (Schmidt 1989 and Hodkinson and 

Thompson 1997). Roadside habitats are particularly susceptible to plant invasions for a number of 

reasons. Roads eliminate some of the physical and environmental barriers that help prevent 

invasion by increasing available light and dispersal opportunities. Disturbances associated with 

the use and maintenance of roads provide habitat easily exploited by invasive species, which can 

then seed themselves relatively swiftly along roadsides or be transported by animals or people 

(vehicles). Roads are primary vectors for the spread of invasive plants and the most likely vector 

for human transport of invasive plant propagules from outside the Plan Area.

Cumulative effects may be incurred from the transport and establishment of nonnative invasive 

plants from sources adjacent to the Plan Area. Likewise, weeds from the National Forest System 

lands could spread to adjacent areas. However, these effects are expected to be small compared to 

the anticipated spread from invasive plants sites within the Plan Area. While the Forest Plan

addresses invasive plant spread via prevention standards, invasive plants would continue to move 

freely across borders, to and from ownerships, because the movement of seeds and propagules via 

wind, water, or wildlife are largely beyond the control of the Forest Service.

Cumulative effects may also result from climate change. Much of the research on invasive 

species interactions with climate change has contributed to the growing body of evidence that 

global warming has enabled invasive species to expand to areas where they were not previously 

able to persist (Dukes and Mooney 1999, Weltzin et al. 2003, Thuiller et al. 2007, and Walther et 

al. 2009). Some researchers have modeled range expansions for some invasive species 

(Centaurea solstitialis and Tamarix) while predicting reduced invasion risk and significant range 

contractions for others (Bromus tectorum, Euphorbia esula, and Centaurea biebersteinii) by the 

year 2100 (Bradley et al. 2009). As the climate changes, the ranges of invasive species will 

change: some species may become less invasive, and others may become more invasive. Given 

their adaptive traits, invasive plants may be able to outcompete native species in the migration 

process to new suitable habitat (Hellman 2008). Compared to a stable climate, the degree to 

which global warming has contributed to the current spread of invasive plants is unclear.

In the Blue Mountains, a warming climate is expected to increase disturbance cycles, risking an 

increase in the distribution of invasive annual grasses in grasslands, shrublands, and warm, dry 

forests (Halofsky and Peterson, eds. 2017). Because of the fire and invasive grass cycle, changes 

in future fire regimes are important climate considerations for nonnative annual grasses. More 

area burned, more frequent large wildfires, larger extent of high-severity fire, longer wildfire 

durations, and longer wildfire seasons are expected in the future, thus increasing the invasion risk 

of nonnative annual grass species. The likelihood of forest, woodlands and shrublands being 

invaded by nonnative annual grasses in a warmer climate will increase because of more 

disturbance, effects of warming on species distributions, enhanced competitiveness of nonnative 

plants from elevated carbon dioxide, and increased stress to native species. Of particular concern 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

412

in the Blue Mountains is the recent increase in North Africa grass and its apparent ability to 

outcompete and replace areas dominated by cheatgrass. Adaptation strategies and tactics 

identified in Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains (Halofsky and 

Peterson, eds. 2017) to address these sensitivities include increasing the resilience of native 

ecosystems through grazing management (i.e., avoid grazing practices that promote invasive 

species establishment), active restoration of less resilient sites (e.g., plant natives on sites 

dominated by invasive species), and management of soil resources to maintain stability and 

productivity (e.g., establish native vegetation to stabilize eroded areas).

The Forest Plan responds to the challenges of increased risk of invasion from invasive plants, 

whether or not introduced from external sources and whether or not climate change may influence 

their spread, by incorporating standards to prevent the transport and establishment of invasive 

plant propagules and by including objectives to reduce the area infested by invasive plants over 

time. The cumulative effects do not add significantly to effects expected from each alternative. 

Cumulative effects, when added to indirect effects of the alternatives, would be similar to the 

effects described previously.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

413

Social Environment

Tribal and Treaty Resources

Introduction

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-togovernment relationship between the Tribes and the United States is further outlined in Executive 

Order 13175 (November 9, 2000). The Forest Service honors American Indian treaty reserved 

rights to hunt, fish, gather, and graze on present-day national forests through consultation, 

coordination, and agreements with the affected Indian Tribes. The Forest Service and the Tribes

take time to meet to gain an understanding of each other’s rights, responsibilities, and interests. 

Through these relationships, the Forest Service and the Tribes build and enhance a mutual 

understanding, as well as pursue cooperative and partnership initiatives and efforts.

Numerous laws, executive orders, and regulations govern the relationship between American 

Indian Tribes and the Federal government, which is represented here by the three National 

Forests. In project planning and implementation, the Forest Service complies with these laws and 

regulations, and, in doing so, meaningfully consults with tribal governments.

In addition, numerous laws, regulations and policies govern the use and protection of forest 

resources that may be of tribal interest or covered under tribal reserved rights. Activities 

authorized or implemented by the Forest Service must comply with these laws, regulations, and 

policies that are intended to provide general guidance for the implementation of management 

practices, and for protection of resources, including those of interest to the Tribes.

In the Plan Area, a significant portion of lands ceded by the Tribes in the various treaties was

designated as part of the National Forest System by the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 

1897. Lands were ceded though the Treaties of 1855 by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, Nez Perce Tribe, and Confederated 

Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama Reservation. The treaty with the 

Klamath Nation of 1870 ceded lands extending into the Malheur National Forest. These treaties 

are known for their specific language recognizing certain reserved rights of the Tribes in 

aboriginal use areas. The Burns Paiute Tribe, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley 

Reservation, Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, Fort Bidwell Indian Community of 

Paiute Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (through the Joseph Band 

of the of the Nez Perce Tribe) are federally recognized American Indian Tribes that also have 

interests in the management direction and project planning of the Blue Mountains national 

forests.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

414

Revised Forest Plan Content

• In response to numerous comments on the Draft Revised Forest Plan and environmental 

impact statement that expressed concerns for increased tribal consultation, a forestwide 

standard was developed to expressly direct each National Forest’s staff to use consultation 

processes established with American Indian tribal governments. The consultation processes 

will help facilitate identifying and managing areas of tribal importance on National Forest 

System lands.

Similarly, a Federal Trust Responsibilities and Tribal Rights and Interests section was 

developed and included in Part 2 – Strategy, under the Management Focus section. The 

additional material serves to emphasize the important and unique relationship between the 

Tribes and the Forest Service, and serves to further integrate these ongoing consultations with 

each National Forest’s sustainability goals.

• In response to additional comments from the tribal communities, additional statements were 

developed for inclusion in each goal statement that highlights the integration of culturally 

significant foods and other resources with the National Forest’s ecological, social, and 

economic goals. Many of the culturally related goals to steward ecosystem values important 

to tribal communities are closely related to meeting the desired conditions for other resources 

including wildlife habitat, forested vegetation, and soil and air quality.

• Through ongoing consultation and public engagement with tribal communities, additional 

resource types were added to Cultural Resources (section 2.5) to include resources considered 

in the National Environmental Policy Act and section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. These additional resource types include “properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance to American Indian Tribes.”

• Law and regulation citations were clarified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement in 

response to commenters requesting either corrections to the draft documents or inclusion of 

specific statutory reference.

Tribes and Forest Plan Revision

As a Federal agency, the Forest Service’s legal responsibilities are identified in treaties and 

clarified in statutes, executive orders, and case law enacted and interpreted for the protection and 

benefit of federally recognized Tribes. In meeting these responsibilities, the Forest Service 

consults with the Tribes whenever proposed policies or management actions may affect their 

interests.

While Federal laws apply to all federally recognized Tribes, each tribe is different and is 

recognized as a separate and unique government. Treaty rights and the historic relationships 

between the Tribes and the lands differ and there are cultural differences between them. 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 historic periods or jointly during the 

same period. In other cases, a tribe or a group of Tribes has a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the Forest Service. These factors and others combine to make each Forest Service tribal 

consultation relationship unique.

Tribal officials have been invited to participate in forest plan development since the beginning of 

the revision efforts (2003). As part of the planning process, Forest Supervisors, staff, and 

planning team members met with tribal staff, committees, and leadership, as well as members 

who attended public meetings. The Forest Service sent letters regarding the Blue Mountains 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

415

forest plan revision to interested tribal governments in 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2013. 

Numerous meetings were held with the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

Nez Perce Tribe, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs between 2002 and publication of 

this Final Environmental Impact Statement. These include government-to-government and staffto-staff meetings. During this period, the Blue Mountains forest plan revision team has received 

formal comments from Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (2007), the Nez Perce 

Tribe (2007), and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (2007, 2008, and 

2011).

The following Tribes submitted formal comments in response to the February 2014 publication of 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Revised Forest Plan: Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the 

Fort Hall Indian Reservation. In the Blue Mountains planning

Further details of tribal consultation are included in Chapters 1 and 4 of this Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and in the project record (details of Forest Service communications with the 

Tribes regarding this project are available in the project record including correspondence letters, 

presentation and working draft material, and staff-to-staff and government-to-government 

meeting notes).

Culturally Significant Foods

The Tribes are concerned about the availability and protection of treaty resources, including 

culturally significant foods. These culturally significant foods are plants, animals, and fish that 

are used for both ceremonies and subsistence needs. According to the Tribes, the protection of 

culturally significant foods includes the protection of habitats, upon which those resources 

depend, and use and access to traditional cultural sites. Adequate availability of these resources 

allows harvest in sufficient quantities to satisfy the subsistence needs of Tribes while still 

providing for the conservation needs of the resources. Adequate access that would not 

compromise cultural practices at traditional, cultural, or spiritual places is a concern to the Tribes.

Traditional foods in the Pacific Northwest include water, salmon, game (such as elk and deer), 

roots (such as cous, camas, and bitterroot), and berries (such as huckleberries and chokecherries). 

These plants and animals, as well as water and other resources, have cultural significance. They 

also provide nutrition to many tribal people. Culturally significant foods are especially important 

and provide critical subsistence given the high incidence of poverty in Native American 

communities.

Affected Environment – Tribal and Treaty Resources

The affected environment includes the treaty reserved resources the Tribes use within the Blue 

Mountains national forests. The affected environment, including the current conditions of treaty 

resources, is discussed in the related resource sections of Chapter 3. The affected environment for 

indirect effects is the lands administered by the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests.

Environmental Consequences – Tribal and Treaty Resources

Management direction for tribal treaty reserved rights and interests is included in all alternatives 

for the three National Forests and can be found in greater detail in Appendix A.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

416

Key Issues for Tribal Treaty Reserved Rights, Interests, and Culturally Significant 

Foods

Consultation, collaboration, and coordination with tribal communities would continue to inform 

on overall resource condition, however the following selected measures are indicators of resource 

condition that are of tribal interest. The key issues for tribal concerns are access, vegetation 

management, and watershed function. The following indicators are relevant to tribal and treaty 

rights and detailed analysis of effects for these indicators between alternatives is available in the 

respective sections.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Forest plan direction for resource management, such as heritage, vegetation, soils, water, riparian, 

aquatic, and wildlife for all alternatives, is designed to provide for the protection of cultural 

resource sites or traditional cultural properties. All alternatives would also provide protection for 

habitat and watershed conditions that would contribute to species viability at sustainable and 

harvestable levels. Invasive species would be managed to avoid encroachments on culturally 

significant foods. Monitoring of resource conditions would also occur.

Effects Common to Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, 

and F

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would result in the following 

common conditions. The following are desired future conditions that are common to all plan 

revision alternatives.

Access

The access issue includes the impacts on tribal governments and tribal practices from resource 

management activities including road building or other modifications of the landscape. The 

Forest Plans would include the desired condition that “the need for Tribal access to traditional 

sites is acknowledged and supported.” While the tribes need access to traditional sites, there are 

some sacred sites where American Indians conduct ceremonies that require privacy. Building 

roads to or near such sites may lead to increased visitation that could affect ceremonies and 

undermine cultural practices. Roads or extraction activities may also alter the character and 

diminish the value of historic or cultural places. Adequate access should not compromise cultural 

practices at traditional, cultural, or spiritual places.

The indicators for access are:

• Acres suitable for summer motor vehicle use

Access will vary by alternative due to stated desired conditions for road density, wildlife habitat 

requirements, and watershed restoration needs. For all alternatives, tribal access will be retained 

for tribal members to access traditional sites and resources, and for sustaining treaty reserved 

rights and interests.

Refer to the Access section for detailed discussion on these indicators. Alternatives with higher 

road densities would provide for greater tribal access but may also result in greater impacts to 

resources of value to the tribes such as culturally significant foods, which are dependent on 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Alternatives with lower road densities would slightly impact 

accessibility, particularly for elders, of forest resources for tribal accessibility. While there may be 

some variation between the alternatives for access, tribal treaty rights will be protected in all 

alternatives from impacts resulting from access management.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

417

Culturally Significant Foods and Vegetation Management

The availability of culturally or traditionally significant foods is one aspect of vegetation 

management that is of particular importance to the tribes. Culturally significant foods are plants, 

animals, and fish that are used for both ceremonies and subsistence needs. According to the tribes, 

the protection of culturally significant foods includes the protection of habitats upon which those 

resources depend. Adequate availability of these resources allows harvest in sufficient quantities 

to satisfy the subsistence needs of tribes while still providing for the conservation needs of the 

resources.

The following indicator is used to assess vegetation management:

• Acres of annual timber harvest

• Acres of annual fuels treatment

Vegetation management activities would be designed to move the forested landscape closer 

toward the historic range of variability. These indicators are appropriate because forests that are 

closer to their historic range of variability support more culturally significant foods. Refer to the 

Forest Vegetation, Timber Resources, and Wildland Fire section for detailed information on 

annual acres treated.

The amount of annual acres of timber harvest and prescribed burning varies between alternatives;

however, the following desired future conditions are common to all plan revision alternatives and 

can be found in Appendix A.

The amount of acres of annual forest vegetation treatments vary by alternative. In general, 

alternatives that have more acres treated would result in larger areas of the forested landscape 

returning to the historic range of variability, which support more culturally significant foods. 

Alternatives with lesser amount of vegetation treatments may also return the forested landscape to 

the historic range of variability, but at slower pace and scale. The Forest Vegetation, Timber 

Resources, and Wildland Fire section provides detailed analysis of these indicators.

Watershed Function

The availability of clean water is important to the tribes. Some tribes also consider clean water a 

culturally significant food. Clean water is part of the watershed function issue. The indicators of 

clean water are:

• Aquatic species viability

• Watershed condition class: number of watersheds in improved condition

Culturally significant foods and watershed function are both related to ecological resiliency. The 

tribes are particularly concerned about ecological resiliency. Some of the tribes have participated 

in planning efforts aimed at improving elk and big game habitat as well as partnered with the 

Forest Service for the removal of culverts impacting fish passage. The tribes are interested in 

ecological resiliency as it relates to ecological restoration projects for aquatic and terrestrial 

resources including salmon and big game. The indicators listed above for vegetation management 

and watershed function are also useful for determining progress toward ecological resiliency.

Refer to the Aquatic and Watershed sections for detailed discussion on the indicators for each 

alternative.

The number of watersheds with improved conditions varies by alternative. Alternative C 

improves the largest number of watersheds, Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

418

Departure, and F represent an intermediate amount, and Alternative B improves the least. 

Alternatives with more watersheds in improved condition are beneficial for water quality and 

aquatic species viability, each considered resources of tribal interest. See the Watershed Function, 

Water Quality, and Water Uses section for detailed analysis of this indicator.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is discussed in the Economic and Social Well-being section. The desired 

future conditions are consistent for all plan revision alternatives.

American Indian populations would not be disproportionately impacted by any alternative. 

Environmental justice as it relates to tribes is analyzed in detail in the Economic and Social Wellbeing section.

Cumulative Effects

The affected environment for cumulative effects includes lands administered by the three 

National Forests and lands of other ownerships both within and adjacent to these national forest 

boundaries, and the time period considered was the planning period. The Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area, under the administration of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, contains 

culturally significant foods and resources resulting from the ecosystem functions present within 

the National Recreation Area. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive 

Management Plan, a part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1990 Forest Plan, includes 

added protections for these resources as outlined in Section 7 of the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Act (P.L. 94-199).

While there is variation between alternatives within the current analysis, all alternatives would 

contribute to the exercise of treaty reserved rights, interests, and cultures in a manner that 

promotes ecosystem sustainability. The need for tribal access to traditional sites is acknowledged 

and supported for all alternatives for all National Forest System lands administered by the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. All resources on all three National 

Forests would be managed in accordance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and Forest 

Service policies and management direction.

Recreation

The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are important local and national 

recreation destinations. Recreation and related tourism, especially during hunting season, is a 

major component of the rural economy in northeastern Oregon. The Plan Area includes all 

National Forest System lands within a portion of the Ochoco, and all of the Malheur, Umatilla, 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, with the exception of the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area. The 2014 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey recorded more than 500,000 

recreation visits to the Blue Mountains national forests.

Survey data for Forest Service related recreation were collected and analyzed for the National 

Visitor Use Monitoring system. Data for the first survey were collected between 2000 and 2003. 

The second round of National Visitor Use Monitoring data were collected for the three National 

Forests in 2009, and a third round of National Visitor Use Monitoring data were collected for the 

three National Forests in 2014. The scientists conducting the National Visitor Use Monitoring 

survey state that comparisons of the first and second round results are not appropriate due to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

419

changes in the study protocols. Round 3 results of the 2014 National Visitor Use Monitoring data 

are presented in the following table.

Table 378. Total national forest site visits

National Forest Number of Visits

Malheur 160,000

Umatilla 168,000

Wallowa-Whitman 246,000

National forest recreation provides a wide range of opportunities in a natural setting to meet the 

needs and desires of visitors. People have always enjoyed relatively un-restricted vehicle access 

and opportunities in federal public lands. There are also areas of national forests that have been 

accessible only by foot, horseback, and bike. Local lifestyles and economics are closely linked to 

the type and amount of recreation that is occurring in the Blue Mountains, with a majority of the 

visitors coming from within two hours of the national forest in which they recreate. The climate 

and demographics in the Blue Mountains national forests sustain a summer and fall recreation 

program. Elevation and snow conditions sustain a strong winter recreation program in much of 

the project area.

Each National Forest has established use patterns, with a large percent of users coming from the 

counties that are associated with each of the National Forests. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

visitors are predominately from Union and Baker counties. Umatilla National Forest visitors are 

predominately from Walla Walla and Umatilla counties. Malheur National Forest visitors are 

predominately from Grant and Harney counties. However, considering the distances that are 

involved, there is a considerable amount of visitation from major metropolitan areas, such as 

Portland and Seattle, and most importantly secondary population centers that have very high 

growth rates. Examples of these areas, such as the Tri-Cities area (Benton and Franklin counties 

in Washington), Bend (Deschutes county in Oregon), and Boise (Ada County in Idaho), have high 

population growth rates with a large percent of the population desiring to take advantage of 

outdoor recreation opportunities in the nearby National Forests. These large populations and high 

growth rate areas will have an increasing effect on recreation opportunities and demands within 

the Blue Mountains national forests. The following table displays visitation to the National 

Forests by county (top three counties) (NVUM 2014), and the county populations and growth 

rates (2010 Census).

As displayed in Table 379, the rural counties for all three National Forests have the highest 

visitation and the lowest growth rates, and in some cases population losses. The metropolitan 

centers have a low percent of visitation, but the population is large and growing at a much greater 

speed then the national average. The Umatilla National Forest has the greatest potential for 

increasing visitation due to the higher rural population and the higher metropolitan population, 

both growing at a greater rate than the other two forests.

Within the Plan Area for the Blue Mountains national forests, Congress has designated 11 wild 

and scenic river segments and 6 wilderness areas. In addition, there are four designated scenic 

byways, including the Hells Canyon All-American Road. An extensive road system is used by 

recreation visitors for recreation pursuits that include hunting, fishing, accessing motor vehicle 

and nonmotorized trail systems, camping, picking huckleberries, viewing wildlife, driving for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

420

pleasure, and riding over-the-snow vehicles in the winter. Winter recreation is popular, with three 

downhill and Nordic ski areas and extensive miles of groomed snowmobile routes.

Table 379. Recreation visitation by county for each national forest

County in each National 

Forest State

Percent 

Visitation

County 

Population

Change in 

Population

2000 to 2010

Malheur National Forest

Grant County Oregon 54.9% 7,445 -6.2%

Harney County Oregon 17.0% 7,442 -2.5%

Deschutes County Oregon 10.4% 157,733 36.7%

Umatilla National Forest

Umatilla County Oregon 27.3% 58,781 6.5%

Walla Walla County Washington 25.1% 75,889 7.6%

Benton County Washington 24.3% 175,177 23.0%

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

Union County Oregon 33.7% 25,748 5.0%

Baker County Oregon 23.1% 16,134 -3.6%

Wallowa County Oregon 9.6% 7,008 -2.8%

The Forest Service initiated and developed a framework for sustainable recreation entitled, 

“Connecting People with America’s Great Outdoors: A Framework for Sustainable Recreation” 

(USDA Forest Service 2010). The framework affirms the USDA Forest Service mission and 

concludes:

Despite changes in population and fluctuations in visitor patterns, it is obvious that 

outdoor recreation on the National Forests and Grasslands is a traditional part of the 

American way of life, and will remain so in the years ahead. There are numerous 

challenges to providing quality recreation experiences and tourism opportunities while 

protecting the land. But, through the strength of our partnerships . . . we can meet these 

challenges of a sustainable future for the benefit of American society.

The purpose of sustainable recreation is to create recreation and tourism programs and services 

that directly contribute to the long-term ecological, social, and economic health in a specified area 

by building partner relationships between visitors, communities, and providers. Sustainable 

recreation is currently defined as the set of recreational opportunities, uses and access that, 

individually and combined, are ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable, allowing the 

responsible official to offer recreation opportunities now and in the future.

In the past, additional Forest Service funding has been allocated through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to reduce the backlog of maintenance issues for numerous 

recreation facilities. This funding has been particularly effective for trail maintenance and 

developed recreation facilities, with the Forest Service receiving a different mix of funds for each 

national forest:

• $1.7 million to focus on correcting recreation facilities maintenance issues and accessibility 

upgrades within the Malheur National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

421

• $1.6 million to address 1,400 miles of wilderness area and Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area trails maintenance within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

• $1.7 million to correct recreation facilities maintenance issues and $2.8 million to replace 

trail bridges and to accomplish heavy trail maintenance within the Umatilla National Forest

It is anticipated that this additional funding will have a positive effect on the Blue Mountains 

national forests recreation and trails facilities over the next decade.

An additional diversity of recreation settings has also been provided with special area 

designations in the 1990 Forest Plans. These special areas have specific management direction for 

their designation, and while many provide a motor vehicle or nonmotorized recreation setting, 

they are designated for other purposes, such as historical significance or preservation of unique 

ecosystem components. Where motor vehicle use is deemed suitable, it is because that recreation 

activity does not interfere with the purpose for which the area was designated. See the Special 

Areas section for more discussion.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Revised Forest Plan Content

• In response to numerous comments on the Draft Revised Forest Plan and environmental 

impact statement that expressed concerns regarding aviation use on the forest, additional 

material was included in the plan recognizing the importance of aviation and backcountry 

airstrips as a recreational use and administrative infrastructure on the National Forests. The 

Forest Service recognizes the importance of maintaining collaboration with recreational 

aviation users for supporting Forest Service airstrip programs including operation, 

rehabilitation, maintenance, and continued public use as outlined in the “Service-Wide 

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Recreational Aviation Foundation and the 

USDA Forest Service, Washington Office” (2015).

• In response to comments on the Draft Revised Forest Plan and Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, an additional forestwide guideline was developed to provide additional 

management direction for recreation-related projects to maintain consistency with mapped 

classes and setting descriptions in the recreation opportunity spectrum.

• In response to public comments requesting additional recreational opportunities, the 

forestwide Goal 2.6 (Roads and Trials Access) Desired Condition was modified to 

recognize the opportunity to provide connectivity between Forest Service recreation sites, 

and to connect these sites with adjacent communities through pathways, trails, bike lanes, 

and waterways, and to provide loop-riding opportunities.

• In response to Forest Service reviews conducted for the Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Guideline BHS-5S was modified. The modification changes “source habitat” to 

“core range.” The modification may result in a smaller restriction area compared to the 

2014 Draft Revised Forest Plan. See the wildlife section for additional information and 

complete analysis. The guideline, through implementation, may result in impacts to 

recreational pack goat use that would be concentrated to those areas of core native bighorn 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

422

sheep habitat across the Blue Mountains national forests. Current use is by recreational 

pack goat enthusiasts and there is no authorized outfitter and guide use.

Recreation – Affected Environment

Recreation Settings

Recreation Setting Suitability

Key indicators for recreation setting suitability are:

• acres of back country motor vehicle, backcountry nonmotorized, and 

wilderness/recommended wilderness

• acres of winter motor vehicle access

• acres available for motor vehicle and nonmotorized hunting access

The Blue Mountain Revised Forest Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement established 

management areas that describe areas where general management intent is similar. The purpose of 

management areas is to provide consistent guidance for similar portions of national forest 

landscape when implementing or continuing management activities. The management areas 

generally range along a continuum from little development by humans in Management Area 1A 

(Designated Wilderness) to extensive human development in Management Area 5 (Developed 

Sites and Administrative Areas).

The recreation opportunity spectrum has been used as a framework for identifying, classifying, 

planning, and managing a range of recreation settings. Six distinct settings are defined using 

specific physical, managerial, and social criteria and include urban, rural, roaded natural, semiprimitive motorized, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and primitive. Detailed information on 

recreation opportunity spectrum categories and criteria are presented in the Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum User Guide, 1982 USDA Handbook, and the Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Primer and Field Guide, 1990 USDA, R6-REC-021-90. Additional information and 

applications are outlined in the Forest Service Directive System, specifically Forest Service 

Manual 2311 and 2330.

Recreation opportunity spectrum classes can be associated with each of the established 

management areas. Each management area may have more than one recreation opportunity 

spectrum setting. The analysis presented below is focused on general setting comparisons 

between management areas—and their expected settings—rather than the typical recreation 

opportunity spectrum categories. Corresponding recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

appropriate to each management area are described in management area descriptions and desired 

conditions and establish expectations for recreation setting characteristics.

For each recreation setting, there is a table depicting the results of the most recent National 

Visitor Use Monitoring survey data (NVUM 2014). After identifying their main recreation 

activity, visitors were asked how many hours they spent participating in that main activity during 

the national forest visit. Because most national forest visitors participate in several recreation 

activities during each visit, it is more than likely that other visitors also participated in this 

activity, but did not identify it as their main activity. For example, in one national forest, 39 

percent of visitors identified viewing wildlife as a recreational activity that they participated in 

during the visit; however, only 1.3 percent identified that activity as their main recreational 

activity.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

423

The demographic results from the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey indicate that the 

majority of visitors come from counties contiguous or adjacent to the Blue Mountains national 

forests. The National Forests serve as federal “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).

Existing Condition of Developed Recreation

High to moderate use levels occur at well-maintained recreation sites. Developed sites across the 

National Forests, including campgrounds, picnic areas, boating sites, and ski areas, continue to 

provide varied recreation facilities. Developed recreation sites act as a central hub of activity, 

with many people recreating on roads, trails, creeks, lakes, and rivers near the site. Continued 

access to developed sites is of central importance, while maintaining access to these nearby 

attractive locations is of equal importance. About one-half of the visits to the Blue Mountains 

national forests are to developed sites: 39 percent visit day use areas and 11 percent visit 

overnight camping areas (NVUM 2014). This equates to about 270,000 visits to developed sites 

in the Blue Mountains national forests.

A recreation facility analysis has been completed for all three of the National Forests to determine

a program of work for facilities management. As a general observation across the Blue Mountains 

national forests, the use of facilities within all three forests was determined to be below capacity, 

so additional facility construction is not anticipated. However, in certain locations which are 

particularly popular or near towns where facilities are not meeting user expectations or use is at 

full capacity, additional recreation facilities may be constructed in suitable areas (Malheur 

National Forest Recreation Site Facility Master Plan, May 2006, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest Recreation Site Facility Master Plan June 2006, Umatilla National Forest Recreation Site 

Facility Master Plan, October 2007).

Table 380. Percent of developed site recreation visits

National Forest

Participated or 

Primary Visit

Developed 

Camping

Resort 

Use

Nature 

Center

Historic 

Sites Picnicking

Malheur Participated 15.1 0.3 1.8 9.5 8.6

Malheur Primary 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

Umatilla Participated 18.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 8.3

Umatilla Primary 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7

Wallowa-Whitman Participated 13.1 2.3 12.8 15.4 18.4

Wallowa-Whitman Primary 2.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 2.4

Source: National Use Visitor Monitoring 2014

The forest plan revision team has addressed the importance and special need for management of 

developed sites by allocating developed recreation sites to the same management area as 

administrative sites (MA 5). In the existing condition, Alternative A, there are a total of 12,680 

acres in MA 5. Approximately 50 percent of these acres are associated with recreation facilities, 

and the remaining acres are associated with administrative use by the Forest Service. For the plan 

revision alternatives, additional acres would be allocated to MA 5, and this allocation would be 

the same for each of the plan revision alternatives, except for an increase in MA 5 acres for the 

Umatilla National Forest for Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified Departure.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

424

Table 381 displays the acres currently allocated to developed recreation and administrative sites 

for each of the Blue Mountains national forests. For this analysis, developed recreation and 

administrative areas will not be used as an indicator, as they will not vary by alternative and 

would not contribute to a comparison of the alternatives. As noted above, Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure would increase the acres allocated to MA 5. The increase 

reflects additional administrative area allocations such as sand and gravel pit sources and expands 

existing administrative site areas to allow for improved maintenance activity for such sites. The 

increase in MA 5 acres, specifically for only one forest, does not necessitate including developed 

recreation and administrative areas as an indicator.

Table 381. Existing condition displaying acres of developed recreation and 

administrative site setting

National 

Forest

Acres of Developed Recreation and 

Administrative Site Settings

Malheur 650

Umatilla 4,920

Wallowa-Whitman 7,110

Existing Condition of Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Recreation Areas

Table 382 and Table 383 display activity participation for dispersed backcountry motor vehicle 

use activities for each National Forest.

Table 382. Percent of motor vehicle dispersed and backcountry recreation visits

National 

Forest

Participated or 

Main Activity

Primitive 

Camping Relaxing

OHV

Use

Motor 

Vehicle 

Trail

Driving 

for 

Pleasure

Motor 

Vehicle 

Water 

Activity

Other 

Motor 

Vehicle 

Activity

Malheur Percent 

Participated

40.2 43.3 1.3 1.3 9.6 0.6 16.8

Malheur Percent Main 3.6 2.4 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0

Umatilla Percent 

Participated

9.3 33.2 3.0 3.3 24.6 1.0 0.5

Umatilla Percent Main 1.8 4.7 0.7 0.5 2.0 0.4 0.0

WallowaWhitmanPercent 

Participated

6.7 48.3 2.1 2.8 26.5 11.1 0.5

WallowaWhitman

Percent Main 0.2 10.5 0.4 0.9 3.2 9.3 0.0

Source: National Use Visitor Monitoring 2014

Table 383. Existing condition displaying acres of dispersed backcountry 

motor vehicle setting

National 

Forest

Acres of Dispersed Backcountry 

Motor Vehicle Setting

Malheur 14,700

Umatilla 11,900

Wallowa-Whitman 119,900
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

425

Existing Condition of Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized, Recommended 

Wilderness, and Wilderness Recreation Areas

Low to high use can occur in many backcountry and wilderness sites, depending on the location, 

and especially depending on proximity to water. Frequently, the pristine nature of a setting 

becomes the primary reason it is attractive to the exclusion of other sites that may be easier to 

access, but are much less pristine. The desire to get away from others for a remote or pristine 

recreation opportunity can create a crowded situation at desirable and relatively easily accessed 

sites, or a situation where those seeking a pristine setting must look to locations farther away to 

achieve the desired recreation experience. Pristine recreation settings are at a premium and can be 

difficult to maintain from the manager’s standpoint.

Hiking, walking, horseback riding, mountain biking, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, nature 

study, and viewing wildlife have been and continue to be popular backcountry activities, as 

reflected in Table 384. Backcountry recreation users usually do not support any change to the way 

they have been accessing an area. They know they have to hike, ride horses, or ride bikes (in 

nonwilderness areas) into the area, and they would like it to remain that way. Frequently, for an 

area to be considered pristine by recreation users, avoidance of the sights and sounds of others or 

of motor vehicles is necessary. The table below displays activity participation for nonmotorized 

backcountry and wilderness use activities for each National Forest.

Table 384. Percent of nonmotorized backcountry and wilderness area recreation visits

National 

Forest

Participated 

or Main 

Activity

Hiking/

Walking

Backpacking

Horseback 

Riding Bicycling

Other 

Nonmotorized

Activity

Nature 

Study

View 

Natural 

Features

Malheur Percent 

Participated

28.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.4 2.8 22.1

Malheur % Main 4.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.0

Umatilla Percent 

Participated

36.6 0.0 2.9 4.8 0.5 4.2 43.1

Umatilla Percent 

Main

7.1 1.2 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 18.1

WallowaWhitmanPercent 

Participated

43.7 0.0 3.0 3.8 6.3 9.8 46.8

WallowaWhitmanPercent 

Main

10.5 1.9 2.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 8.7

Source: National Use Visitor Monitoring 2014

In some areas, there are management goals that are associated with fish, wildlife, and water that 

may also be beneficial to nonmotorized recreation experiences. Areas may also have other 

resource management goals that are associated with excluding motor vehicle activities from an 

area. These areas will be considered as suitable for nonmotorized backcountry recreation for the 

purposes of this analysis.

There are management areas in Alternative A where this type of recreation activity is provided 

and for which the area is managed. These include MA 1A Congressionally Designated Wilderness 

Areas, MA 1C Wilderness Study Area, and MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use). Acres of 

Blue Mountains National Forests currently allocated to these management areas are displayed in 

Table 385 and Table 386. There are no recommended wilderness areas in the 1990 Forest Plans.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

426

Table 385. Existing condition displaying acres of dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized setting

National 

Forest

Acres of Dispersed Backcountry 

Nonmotorized Setting

Malheur 47,500

Umatilla 29,800

Wallowa-Whitman 0

Table 386. Existing condition displaying acres of designated wilderness 

areas

National 

Forest Acres of Designated Wilderness

Malheur 82,557

Umatilla 304,173

Wallowa-Whitman 373,676*

* Wallowa-Whitman National Forest private inclusions are included in the acre totals for 

congressionally designated wilderness areas in the existing condition

Existing Condition of Winter Recreation

Winter recreation occurs in all of the areas described previously. Due to the increased difficulty, 

challenges of access, and need for specialized equipment and clothes designed for winter 

activities, winter recreation in the Blue Mountains is far less common than summer recreation. 

However, winter recreation has significant tourism effects for the communities of the Blue 

Mountains because visitors from outside the area predominately use local lodging and restaurants. 

In addition, downhill and cross-country ski areas have a disproportionately large daily visitation 

compared to all other developed sites in the National Forests. As reflected in Table 387, downhill 

skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling each have active participation across the Blue 

Mountains national forests. Visitors travel great distances to ride in deep snow in wide-open highelevation areas. Snowmobiling is a controversial topic, with parties interested in maintaining or 

expanding snowmobiling, and other parties seeking to restrict or eliminate it. In Alternative A, 

snowmobiling is identified as a suitable use and is allowed in approximately 1,575,500 acres 

within the Malheur National Forest, in approximately 1,061,700 acres within the Umatilla 

National Forest, and in approximately 1,369,200 acres within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest.

Table 387. Percent of winter recreation visits

National Forest

Participated or Main

Activity Downhill Skiing

Cross Country 

Skiing Snowmobiling

Malheur Percent Participated 0.0 0.0 0.8

Malheur Percent Main 0.0 0.0 0.8

Umatilla Percent Participated 10.4 0.4 0.3

Umatilla Percent Main 10.2 0.4 0.1

Wallowa-Whitman Percent Participated 8.4 4.0 1.2

Wallowa-Whitman Percent Main 7.1 3.0 1.2

Source: National Use Visitor Monitoring 2014
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

427

The following table is repeated from the “Access” section.

Table 388. Areas suitable for winter motor vehicle use (existing condition/1990 Forest Plans)

National Forest

Acres Suitable for 

Winter Motor Vehicle Use

Percent of 

National Forest

Malheur 1,575,500 93%

Umatilla 1,061,700 76%

Wallowa-Whitman 1,369,200 78%

Existing Condition of Hunting and Fishing

Table 389 includes the National Visitor Use Monitoring (2014) survey information gathered for 

visitors participating in fishing, hunting, viewing wildlife, and gathering forest products. The 

National Forests of the Blue Mountains maintain a reputation as one of the best places to hunt big 

game in the Pacific Northwest. Hunting continues to be a featured recreation activity and, in some 

areas, the single most important recreation activity. Hunting access is a complex topic, as some 

hunters prefer a high amount of motor vehicle access while others prefer large reductions in 

motor vehicle access. Regardless, minimal road systems have been proven desirable to manage 

habitat of the big game species that are hunted. As additional roads are closed to improve big 

game habitat, there will be a reduction in the easy access afforded by those roads.

Table 389. Percent of Hunting and fishing recreation visits

National Forest

Participated or Main 

Activity Fishing Hunting

Viewing 

Wildlife

Gathering 

Forest 

Products

Malheur Percent Participated 9.7 76.4 30.0 15.5

Malheur Percent Main 2.9 72.4 1.1 0.8

Umatilla Percent Participated 15.7 26.7 28.8 14.1

Umatilla Percent Main 6.2 24.3 0.8 8.3

Wallowa-Whitman Percent Participated 17.3 8.8 46.3 14.7

Wallowa-Whitman Percent Main 7.6 7.1 4.5 10.5

Source: National Use Visitor Monitoring 2014

Nationally, hunting has seen a declining trend. During the last two decades, participation rates of 

Oregon residents in hunting and angling have declined significantly. Even though Oregon’s 

population has expanded by nearly a million people, the number of licensed resident hunters has 

declined in absolute numbers, and the number of licensed resident anglers has not increased. Of 

the adjacent states of California, Idaho, Nevada, and Washington, only Nevada and Idaho hunters 

have not declined in numbers. For the same adjacent states, anglers have increased in all four 

states (Staff Report, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Review of License Sales Trends, 

Chris Carter, Harry Upton).

Among the most important factors identified in the literature and hypothesized as causes of the 

trends are:

• Changing values/attitudes toward wildlife – shift from utilitarian/traditionalist attitude to 

protectionist attitude
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

428

• Urbanization (the social process in which the populations of cities and suburbs grow 

relative to the populations of rural areas)

• Residential stability has declined, reducing the number of people with a stable, rural 

background and decreasing the prevalence of individuals with both area knowledge and a 

utilitarian attitude

• Increasing difficulties in gaining access to fish and wildlife

• Increasing pace of life – not enough time, increasing work obligations, family obligations

• Declining conditions of some fish and wildlife populations

• A population with greater average age, composed of more persons with lower physical 

fitness and fewer persons with a traditionalist attitude

• Fee increases have caused some individuals to quit or become less frequent participants

The trend in county participation rates has similar negative implications. Oregon net in-migration 

represents the majority of population growth between the 1990 and 2000 Census. Most of the 

counties with the largest population gains from in-migration are more urban/suburban counties. 

Many of the counties associated with the Blue Mountains have had overall population decreases. 

Table 390 displays the change in annual hunter participation rates for each county by comparing 

the 2003 participation rate to the 1991 rate. For each county, participation rates have decreased.

Table 390. Relative difference in hunter participation rates by 

county (from 1991 to 2003)

County

Percent Change in Hunting 

Participation 1991 to 2003

Harney -7

Wheeler -15

Wallowa -19

Malheur -27

Morrow -26

Baker -26

Union -5

Umatilla -27

Fishing access is another complex topic. Fishing participation has increased nationwide, but has 

only held steady in Oregon in spite of population growth. Oregon state data indicates many of the 

counties within the project area have reduced participation rates. Some anglers prefer easy access 

to fishing sites, while others would like reductions in motor vehicle access and prefer to fish 

where there are no roads at all.

Table 391 displays the change in annual fishing participation rates for each county by comparing 

the 2003 participation rate to the 1991 rate. For each county, participation rates have decreased.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

429

Table 391. Relative difference in fishing participation rates by county 

(from 1991 to 2003)

County

Percent Change in Fishing 

Participation

1991 to 2003

Harney -12

Wheeler -20

Wallowa -14

Malheur -33

Morrow -24

Baker -27

Union -13

Umatilla -23

Hunting and fishing is an important part of recreation activities in the Blue Mountains; however, 

it is difficult to determine benefits or losses to the activities based on the variability of factors. 

Many aspects of an enjoyable hunting and fishing experience are within the control of state fish 

and wildlife management agencies, including increases or decreases in game populations from 

year to year, difficulty or cost of obtaining tags, and locations where certain types of hunting or 

fishing may occur. One aspect of the hunting or fishing experience that could be affected by the 

forest plan revision is the availability of motor vehicle access.

The National Forests provide two principle types of recreation: recreation at developed sites, 

where activities are dependent on constructed facilities, for example RV camping and downhill 

skiing; and dispersed recreation, where the activities are not dependent on constructed facilities, 

for example hunting, fishing, and off-highway vehicle use. Where there is a low road or motor 

vehicle trail density in a dispersed setting, the setting is considered backcountry.

Useful indicators of differences between alternatives within a dispersed or backcountry setting are 

the acres of land allocations suitable for motor vehicle use and the acres of land allocations 

suitable for nonmotorized use. This topic is also discussed in the Access section.

Table 392 and Table 393 are repeated from the “Access” section of this chapter.

Table 392. Areas suitable for motor vehicle use (existing condition/1990 Forest Plans)

National Forest

Acres Suitable for 

Motor Vehicle Use

Percent of 

National Forest

Malheur 1,428,050 84%

Umatilla 934,240 67%

WallowaWhitman1,315,750 75%

Table 393. Areas suitable for only nonmotorized use (existing condition/1990 Forest Plans)

National Forest

Acres Suitable for 

Nonmotorized Use

Percent of 

National Forest

Malheur 272,010 16%

Umatilla 460,150 33%

Wallowa-Whitman 438,580 25%
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

430

Recreation – Environmental Consequences

This analysis considers the effects to recreation setting suitability that are associated with a motor 

vehicle use or a nonmotorized use designation for both summer and winter recreation.

Effects associated with changes in the road or trail system for either density or suitability are 

discussed in the access section.

Effects associated with a change in allocation to Preliminary Administratively Recommended 

Wilderness Areas are discussed in the wilderness area section.

Recreation Setting Suitability

The indicator for recreation setting suitability is:

• acres available for dispersed backcountry motor vehicle, dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized, and wilderness/recommended wilderness

Effects from Alternative A on Recreation Setting Suitability

The 1990 Forest Plans for the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests include designations for 

areas for nonmotorized recreation that are primitive in nature, while the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest 1990 forest plan does not. There are areas within all three National Forests that 

are designated for motor vehicle recreation that are primitive in nature, or classified as 

backcountry, with very low densities of motor vehicle roads. The Umatilla National Forest is 

closed to cross-country motor vehicle travel, unless posted open. In contrast, the travel 

management approach for the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests has been that 

areas are open to cross-country motor vehicle travel unless closed by order. All three National 

Forests have road density limitations as plan components, although they vary by national forest. 

Refer to the Access section for more information.

Developed Recreation

Effects from Alternative A on Developed Recreation

The Blue Mountains National Forests1990 forest plans have inconsistent approaches to developed 

recreation sites.

There is a management area designated specifically for developed recreation sites for the Malheur 

and Umatilla National Forests. Developed recreation sites are included in a management area 

with other administrative sites for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. For Alternative A, there 

would be a variety of management areas within the three National Forests where developed 

recreation would be appropriate and encouraged. For the purpose of this analysis, the 

management area designation developed in the proposed action will be used: MA 5 Developed 

Sites and Administrative Sites. To determine how this recreation setting is affected by proposals 

in each alternative, the total acres available in this allocation will be compared (Table 394 through 

Table 396).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

431

Table 394. Acres of recreation setting allocations, including acres from more than one management 

area, for each alternative for the Malheur National Forest

Recreation Setting 

Suitability Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alts. E

and F

Alts. EModified and 

E-Modified 

Departure

Developed recreation 650 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,220 2,200

Dispersed backcountry 

motor vehicle 1,482,100 1,554,300 885,600 1,614,800 1,543,500 1,554,200

Dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized (including 

wilderness and 

recommended 

wilderness areas)

226,950 154,700 823,400 94,200 165,500 154,800

Table 395. Acres of recreation setting allocations, including acres from more than one management 

area, for each alternative for the Umatilla National Forest

Recreation Setting 

Suitability Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alts. E

and F

Alts. EModified and 

E-Modified 

Departure

Developed recreation 4,900 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 7,500

Dispersed backcountry 

motor vehicle 934,200 1,047,800 523,800 1,068,500 884,600 913,200

Dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized 

(including wilderness 

and recommended 

wilderness areas)

469,700 356,100 880,100 335,400 519,300 490,700

Table 396. Acres of recreation setting allocations, including acres from more than one management 

area, for each alternative for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Recreation Setting 

Suitability Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alts. E 

and F

Alts. EModified and 

E-Modified 

Departure

Developed recreation 7,110 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700

Dispersed backcountry 

motor vehicle 1,315,800 1,324,600 611,300 1,335,400 1,182,500 1,263,600

Dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized (including 

wilderness and 

recommended 

wilderness areas)

458,000 449,100 1,162,400 438,300 591,200 510,100

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F on 

Developed Recreation

Administrative and recreation sites would be managed the same for all plan revision alternatives. 

All three National Forests would have slight changes to the developed recreation area allocation. 

The use of facilities within all three forests was determined to be below capacity, so additional 

facility construction is not anticipated. However, in certain locations that are particularly popular 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

432

or near towns where facilities are not meeting user expectations or use is at full capacity, 

additional recreation facilities may be constructed in suitable areas.

The Malheur National Forest would increase acres allocated to developed sites and administrative 

sites (MA 5) for the plan revision alternatives with an overall increase of 1,150 acres. The 

Umatilla would decrease acres allocated to MA 5 for Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F with an 

overall decrease of 1,220 acres; and would have an increase of 1,600 acres for Alternatives EModified and E-Modified Departure. The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would have a slight 

increase in acres allocated to MA 5 for the plan revision alternatives with an overall increase of 

590 acres. It is expected that moderate to high use levels will continue to occur at wellmaintained and varied recreation sites including campgrounds, picnic areas, boating sites, ski 

areas, and other developed recreation sites for all plan revision alternatives

Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

Management areas that include a dispersed backcountry motor vehicle recreation setting include 

MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use) and MA 4A General Forest.

The recreation setting for each national forest results from a composite of multiple factors and 

elements including the amount of acres allocated to each management area and the specific 

combination of management areas that comprise each of the four recreation settings. As an 

example, an alternative that allocates more acres to MA 3B and 4A and fewer acres to MA 3A 

(nonmotorized use) would have a comparative emphasis on dispersed backcountry motor vehicle 

recreation. Conversely, an alternative that allocates more acres to MAs 1B and 3A with lesser 

amounts to MAs 3B and 4A would have a comparative emphasis on dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized recreation.

Effects from Alternative A on Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

Alternative A would not change the amount of land allocated to motor vehicle recreation.

For the Malheur National Forest, the amount of land allocated to dispersed backcountry motor 

vehicle recreation would not change. For dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use, Alternative A 

allocates more acres for this use compared to Alternative C, but less than Alternatives B, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, F, and D.

For the Umatilla National Forest, the amount of land allocated to dispersed backcountry motor 

vehicle recreation would not change. For dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use, Alternative A 

allocates an intermediate amount of acres for this use compared to other alternatives: Alternatives 

E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, F, and C each would allocate fewer acres for this use, and 

Alternatives D and B would each allocate more.

For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the amount of land allocated to dispersed backcountry 

motor vehicle recreation would not change. For dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use, 

Alternative A allocates an intermediate amount of acres for this use compared to other 

alternatives: Alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, F, and C each would allocate 

fewer acres for this use, and Alternatives D and B would each allocate more.

Effects from Alternative B on Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

Management areas that would provide a summer motor vehicle backcountry recreation setting 

component for Alternative B include MAs 3B and 4A, and all three National Forests would have 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

433

open route density desired conditions for managing summer motor vehicle recreation in MAs 3B 

and 4A. Refer to the Access section for a detailed discussion.

All three National Forests would have areas designated suitable for motor vehicle use. This would 

include areas where recreation is primitive in nature that would be allocated to MA 3B 

Backcountry (motorized use). The Umatilla and Malheur National Forests would have areas 

where recreation is primitive in nature and designated unsuitable for motor vehicle use that would 

be allocated to MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use). The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 

does not have a management area equivalent to MA 3A for Alternative B.

Within the Malheur National Forest, Alternative B would allocate an intermediate amount of 

acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use compared to other alternatives: Alternative D 

would allocate more acres for this use; Alternatives E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure and F 

allocate slightly fewer acres; and Alternatives C and A would each allocate less.

Within the Umatilla National Forest, Alternative B would allocate an intermediate amount of 

acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use compared to other alternatives: Alternative B 

would allocate more acres than Alternatives A, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, F, and C, 

but fewer acres than Alternative D.

Within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Alternative B would allocate an intermediate 

amount of acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use compared to other alternatives: 

Alternative B would allocate more acres than Alternatives A, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, F, and C, but fewer acres than Alternatives A and D.

Effects from Alternative C on Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

MA 4A would comprise the summer motor vehicle backcountry recreation setting for Alternative 

C. All three National Forests would have open route density desired conditions for managing 

summer motor vehicle recreation in MA 4A. Refer to the Access section for a detailed discussion.

In this alternative, the three National Forests would not have areas designated for motor vehicle 

recreation that is primitive in nature. There would be no acres allocated to MA 3B as in the other 

alternatives.

In general, there would be a decrease in area suitable for summer motor vehicle use across the 

three National Forests in Alternative C. The overall decrease results from the combination of an 

increase in acres allocated to MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use), no acres allocated to MA 

3B Backcountry (motorized use), and an increase of acres allocated to MA 1B, MA 3C, and MA 

4C. Additionally, the amount of acres allocated to MA 4A General Forest would be reduced. 

Alternative C would result in a large increase in area suitable only for summer nonmotorized use 

and would enhance walking, hiking, horseback riding, and mountain biking opportunities and 

experiences. Conversely, this alternative would reduce and displace motor vehicle use and 

activity such as snowmobiling and riding off-highway vehicles or motorcycles.

For all three National Forests, Alternative C would allocate the least amount of acres to dispersed 

backcountry motor vehicle use compared to other alternatives.

Effects from Alternative D on Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

MAs 3B and 4A would comprise the motor vehicle dispersed and backcountry recreation setting. 

All three National Forests would have open route density desired conditions for managing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

434

summer motor vehicle recreation in MAs 3B and 4A. Refer to the “Access” section for a detailed 

discussion. In general, Alternative D would allocate the largest amount of acres to backcountry 

motor vehicle use across the Blue Mountains national forests, primarily through an increase in 

acres allocated to MA 4A for each forest and a similar increase in acres allocated to MA 3B. 

Alternative D would result in a large increase in area suitable for summer motorized vehicle 

recreation use and would enhance snowmobiling, off-highway vehicle, and motorcycle riding 

opportunities and experiences. Conversely, this alternative would reduce walking, hiking, 

horseback riding, mountain biking opportunities, and experiences that emphasize quiet recreation.

For all three National Forests, Alternative D would allocate the most amount of acres to dispersed 

backcountry motor vehicle use compared to other alternatives.

Effects from Alternatives E and F on Dispersed Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

MAs 3B and 4A would comprise the motor vehicle dispersed and backcountry recreation setting 

for Alternatives E and F. All three National Forests would have open route density desired 

conditions for managing summer motor vehicle recreation in MAs 3B and 4A. Refer to the 

Access section for a detailed discussion. In general, Alternatives E and F would allocate an 

intermediate amount of acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use across the Blue 

Mountains national forests compared to other alternatives.

Within the Malheur National Forest, Alternatives E and F would allocate more acres to dispersed 

backcountry motor vehicle use compared to Alternatives A, and C, but fewer than Alternatives B, 

D, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure.

For both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, Alternatives E and F would 

allocate more acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use compared to Alternative C, but 

fewer acres than Alternatives A, B, D, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure.

Effects from Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure on Dispersed 

Backcountry Motor Vehicle Use

MAs 3B and 4A would comprise the motor vehicle dispersed and backcountry recreation setting 

for Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure. In general, these alternatives would 

allocate an intermediate amount of acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use across the 

Blue Mountains national forests compared to other alternatives.

Within the Malheur National Forest, Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

allocate more acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use compared to Alternatives A, C, E, 

and F, but fewer than Alternatives B and D,

For both the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure would allocate more acres to dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use 

compared to Alternative C, E, and F, but fewer acres than Alternatives A, B, and D.

Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness Area Recreation

Management areas that comprise a dispersed backcountry nonmotorized recreation setting would 

primarily include MA 1A Designated Wilderness, MA 1B Preliminary Administratively 

Recommended Wilderness, MA 3A Backcountry (nonmotorized use), MA 3C Wildlife Corridor, 

and MA 4C Old Forest. All of these management areas would support and enhance dispersed 

backcountry nonmotorized use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

435

Effects from Alternative A on Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness 

Area Recreation

Alternative A would not change the amount of acres allocated to nonmotorized recreation, and 

there are no allocations to MA 1B Proposed Administratively Recommended Wilderness Areas in 

this alternative.

Within the Malheur National Forest, the amount of acres allocated to dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized recreation would not change. For dispersed backcountry nonmotorized use, 

Alternative A allocates less acres for this use compared to Alternative C, but more than 

Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F.

Within the Umatilla and Wallowa Whitman National Forests, the amount of acres allocated to 

dispersed backcountry nonmotorized recreation would not change. For dispersed backcountry 

nonmotorized use, Alternative A allocates an intermediate amount of acres for this use; 

Alternatives C, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F each allocate more acres for this use; 

and Alternatives B and D each allocate less.

Effects from Alternative B on Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness 

Area Recreation

Management areas that would comprise a summer nonmotorized backcountry recreation setting 

for Alternative B include MAs 1A, 1B, 1C, and 3A.

For all three National Forests, Alternative B would allocate an intermediate amount of acres to 

dispersed backcountry nonmotorized recreation use. Alternative D would allocate less acres for 

this use, and Alternatives A, C, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would each allocate 

more acres for this use.

Effects from Alternative C on Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness 

Area Recreation

All three National Forests would have areas designated for nonmotorized recreation in MA 3A 

Backcountry (nonmotorized use). This alternative also would include allocations to MA 3C 

Wildlife Corridors to increase habitat connectivity at the landscape level for wildlife and would 

contribute to providing opportunities for quiet recreation in roaded areas. Additional allocations 

would include MA 4C Old Forest and MA 1B Preliminary Administratively Recommended 

Wilderness Areas where motor vehicle use is generally unsuitable (see general suitability matrix 

table in appendix A). Future site-specific planning and decision-making would need to consider 

the desired condition for open route density.

Management areas that would comprise a summer nonmotorized dispersed and backcountry 

recreation setting for Alternative C include MAs 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A, 3C, and 4C.

For all three National Forests, Alternative C would allocate the largest amount of acres to 

backcountry nonmotorized recreation use compared to the other alternatives. Alternatives A, B, 

D, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would each allocate fewer acres for this use.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

436

Effects from Alternative D on Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness 

Area Recreation

MAs 1A and 1C would comprise the nonmotorized backcountry recreation setting. In this 

alternative, no MA 1B Preliminary Administratively Recommended Wilderness Areas (PARWA) 

would be designated. See the PARWA section for detailed information.

None of the three National Forests would have areas designated for nonmotorized recreation that 

is primitive in nature (MA 3A in other alternatives), other than previously designated wilderness 

areas. All three National Forests would have areas designated for remote motor vehicle 

experiences in MA 3B Backcountry (motorized use).

For all three National Forests, Alternative D would allocate the least amount of acres to 

backcountry nonmotorized recreation use compared to the other alternatives. Alternatives A, B, C, 

E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would each allocate more acres for this use.

Effects from Alternatives E and F on Dispersed Backcountry Nonmotorized and 

Wilderness Area Recreation

MAs 1A, 1B, 1C, and 3A would comprise the nonmotorized backcountry recreation setting for 

Alternatives E and F.

For all three National Forests, Alternatives E and F would allocate fewer acres to backcountry 

nonmotorized recreation use compared to Alternative C, but more than Alternatives B, A, and D.

Within the Malheur National Forest, Alternatives E and F would allocate an intermediate amount 

of acres to backcountry nonmotorized recreation use compared to the other alternatives. 

Alternatives A and C would allocate more acres for this use, and Alternatives B, D, E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure would each allocate less acres for this use.

Within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, Alternatives E and F would allocate 

an intermediate amount of acres to backcountry nonmotorized recreation use compared to the 

other alternatives. Alternative C would allocate more acres for this use, and Alternatives A, B, D, 

E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F would each allocate less acres for this use.

Effects from Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure on Dispersed 

Backcountry Nonmotorized and Wilderness Area Recreation

MAs 1A, 1B, 1C, and 3A would comprise the nonmotorized backcountry recreation setting for 

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure.

Within the Malheur National Forest, Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure would 

allocate an intermediate amount of acres to backcountry nonmotorized recreation use compared to 

the other alternatives. Alternatives A, C, E, and F would each allocate more acres for this use, and 

Alternatives B and D would each allocate less acres.

Within the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, Alternatives E-Modified and EModified Departure would allocate an intermediate amount of acres to backcountry nonmotorized 

recreation use compared to the other alternatives. Alternatives C, E and F would each allocate 

more acres for this use, and Alternatives A, B, and D would each allocate less acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

437

Cumulative Effects to Recreation

The cumulative effects analysis timeframe for recreation is 15 years and the spatial bounds are the 

lands managed by the Blue Mountains national forests and those lands of other ownership that 

intermix with the three National Forests. Recreational access across the Blue Mountains national 

forests is likely to be influenced by a variety of factors. The mixed land ownership (State lands, 

private, Bureau of Land Management) in and around the forests and the continuing management 

actions taken on these lands will likely continue providing quality recreation opportunities. It is 

anticipated that population changes, and changes in the types and intensity of recreation, will 

continue to influence management actions and responses to these changing factors.

The rural counties immediately adjacent to the Blue Mountains national forests have the highest 

percent visitation, but these areas have the lowest growth rates, and in some cases, population 

loses. In contrast, the metropolitan centers, with generally further proximity from the National 

Forests, have a low percent of visitation, but the population is large and growing at a faster rate 

than the national average. The Umatilla National Forest has the greatest potential for increasing 

visitation due to the combination of a relatively large rural population, a large metropolitan 

population, and a growth rate that is higher than the other two forests.

The Blue Mountains National Forests have experienced significant changes in recreation since the 

forests were first established and conditions continue to change from those identified in the 1990 

forest plans. Initially, recreation was light and concentrated in just several popular areas, with few 

campgrounds or other site development. A major boom in recreation occurred after World War II 

through the early to mid-1960s, as post-war populations were attracted to the national forest and 

placed additional demands on the quantity and quality of recreation facilities.

Since the 1970s, interest in and appreciation of the environment has increased national forest 

recreation visitation and has shifted activities and expectations. Technical advancements in 

motorized vehicles (all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, snowmobiles, etc.) allow these types of 

vehicles to travel many places where they were unable to travel as recently as five years ago. The 

invention and advancement of the mountain bike has added a summer nonmotorized use that was 

not a prominent component of the 1990 forest plans. All of these issues, along with several others, 

have led to more crowded recreation experiences during peak use times, increasing levels and 

range of demands on natural resources and resource managers, and generated conflicts among the 

users themselves.

Continuing changes in equipment technology used for recreational purposes on the Blue 

Mountains national forests will have effects as new uses, or existing uses change the ease or areas 

where people recreate. These changes in uses may alter the recreational experience in some areas. 

Those who pursue nonmotorized recreation opportunities, such as hiking or backcountry skiing, 

will continue to be afforded widespread opportunities to experience activities that exemplify 

solitude, risk, challenge, and primitive recreation opportunities.

All alternatives emphasize a mix of recreation opportunities providing today’s recreationists with 

reasonable assurances of future motorized and nonmotorized recreational opportunities. 

Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure may provide more recreation opportunities toward the 

developed end of the recreation opportunity spectrum classes by accelerating development of the 

Blue Mountains national forests with a variety of management actions. These actions may also 

pose short-term impacts to recreation users through management activities, such as increased 

timber harvest activity, that may create increased traffic on the forest transportation system and 

intermittent disruptions to forest travelers. Some values such as remoteness, solitude, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

438

wildlife-related recreation opportunities may be reduced in Alternative D. Alternative C proposes 

the least amount of forest management, thereby, emphasizing the primitive and semi-primitive 

classes of recreational opportunities, and potentially reducing developed and motor vehicle 

oriented recreation opportunities. Alternative B would emphasize a combination of active 

management and natural processes for restoring the landscape, a combination that would provide 

balanced opportunities across a recreational spectrum. Similarly, Alternatives E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F would provide for a combination of recreational opportunities that 

would improve or enhance the qualities, quantities, and visitor use satisfaction of recreationists.

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, under the administration of the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, contains outstanding recreational and ecologic values and public enjoyment 

resulting from the ecosystem functions present within the National Recreation Area. The Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan, a part of the WallowaWhitman National Forest 1990 forest plan, includes added protections for these resources as 

outlined in Section 1 (a) of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Act (P.L. 94-199).

Special Areas

Introduction

Special areas on the National Forests are managed to protect and where appropriate, foster public 

use and enjoyment of areas with scenic, historical, geological, botanical, zoological, 

paleontological, or other special characteristics. A special area must possess unusual recreation 

and/or scientific values, and it would be desirable that these values be available for public study, 

use, or enjoyment. These areas provide for conservation of representative, unique, or rare 

ecosystems or ecological components, as well as culturally significant components. Some of these 

areas provide natural reference areas to represent eco-regions within each state. 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.

This section discusses five types of special areas: wild and scenic rivers, municipal watersheds, 

research natural areas, experimental forest, and special interest areas. Wilderness and 

recommended wilderness discussions can be found in a separate section.

Acreages for all current special areas has been recalculated since distribution of the proposed 

action for public scoping—and further refined since releasing the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement—by using the latest GIS technology, so although boundaries may not have changed, 

the acres reported may have. Changes are noted in the alternative discussions.

Special areas are formally designated either by congressional statute or by administrative action. 

Congressionally designated areas are established through a formal act of Congress, such as 

wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and national recreation areas. Administratively 

designated areas include research natural areas, and special interest areas such as historic areas, 

geologic areas, scenic areas, and botanical areas. These areas may be proposed in forest plans but 

are established through a separate process. Special interest areas exist for the protection and 

public enjoyment of areas of special characteristics. Once areas have been designated, by either 

Congress or agencies, the designation does not usually change. Areas recommended or proposed 

in forest plans may change. The following types of administratively designated areas occur on the 

Blue Mountains national forests: scenic areas, historical, geological, and botanical areas; research 

natural areas; municipal watersheds; scenic byways and nationally designated trails.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

439

Many special areas have their own management plans, which supplement the direction in the 

forest plans. These individual plans will be brought forward as directed in the 1982 Planning 

Rule: “If, in a particular case, special area authorities require the preparation of a separate special 

area plan, the direction in any such plan may be incorporated without modification in plans 

prepared under this subpart” (36 CFR 219.2 (b) (1982).

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Revised Forest Plan Content: In response to numerous comments on the Draft Revised Forest 

Plan and environmental impact statement that expressed concerns regarding the Nez Perce 

National Historical Trail, additional background sections were included in the MA 2G Nationally 

Designated Trail description section for the Oregon Trail and Nez Perce National Historic Trails. 

Two additional Standards were developed and included in Part 3 – Design Criteria that affords 

additional protections and management direction for these trails.

In response to existing forest plan requirements, additional management area guidelines were 

developed for those management areas that previously did not have design criteria including 

Geologic Areas, Historical Areas, Scenic Byways and All-American Roads, Nationally 

Designated Trails, Scenic Areas, and Developed Sites and Administrative Areas.

Changes to Special Areas: The additional alternatives (Alternative E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure) retain special area allocations for the majority of the special areas. Special area 

changes resulted from additional internal review, new designations resulting from ongoing project 

implementation, inclusion of updated allocations, and refined mapping. Table 397 below displays 

the special areas that were modified for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the 

following sections provide additional discussion and analysis for each special area.

Table 397. Summary of special area changes

Special Area Allocation Special Area Resource Name Change

Malheur

MA 2B Research Natural Areas

Canyon Creek, Dugout Creek, 

Stinger Creek

Acreage Update/Mapping 

Correction

Umatilla

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers Desolation Creek

Acreage Update/Mapping 

Correction

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers Looking Glass Creek Mileage Update and 

Classification Change

MA 2A Wild and Scenic Rivers South Fork Desolation Creek Classification Change

MA 2B Research Natural Area Mill Creek, Pataha Bunchgrass, 

Wenaha Breaks

Acreage Update/Mapping 

Correction

MA 2C Botanical Area Charley Creek Acreage Update

MA 2C Botanical Area Karl Urban Acreage Update/Mapping 

Correction

MA 2C Botanical Area Sourdough Removed

MA 2C Botanical Area Henry Creek Proposed
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

440

Special Area Allocation Special Area Resource Name Change

Wallowa-Whitman

MA 2A Wild and Scenic River East Eagle Creek Correction in Classification

MA 2A Wild and Scenic River Lostine River Correction in Classification

MA 2B Research Natural Areas Haystack Rock, Johnson, Nebo, 

Gerald S. Strickler, Vance Knoll

Acreage Update/Mapping 

Correction

MA 2B Research Natural Areas Haystack Rock, Horse Pasture 

Ridge

Established

MA 2C Botanical Areas Mount Howard East Peak New

MA 2D Geological Area Ichthyosaur Site New

MA 2E Historical Areas Oregon Trail New

MA 2E Historical Areas Sumpter Valley Railroad Main 

Line

New

MA 2E Historical Areas Starvation Archaeological Area New

MA 2E Historical Areas Camp Carson New

MA 2E Historical Areas Ah-Hee Diggings (GraniteChinese Walls)New

MA 2E Historical Areas Dooley Mountain Obsidian 

Source

New

MA 2E Historical Areas Reds Horse Ranch/Millard 

Ranger Station

New

Management Area Designations for All Plan Revision Alternatives

Special areas would be allocated to:

• MA 2A Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Wild and Scenic 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 2H Scenic Areas

• MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range

• MA 2J Municipal Watersheds

Standards and guidelines specific to these management areas are available in Appendix A. Special 

area management area allocations are the same throughout all plan revision alternatives and will 

not be instrumental in displaying the differences between plan revision alternatives.

Overlapping management areas: many special areas overlap with or are contained in other 

management areas, such as wilderness or riparian management areas. In this event, the more 

restrictive management direction applies.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

441

MA 2A Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers – Affected 

Environment

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to preserve certain selected rivers for 

their free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values. The Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542) provided contrast to the established national policy of 

dam and other construction at rivers of the United States. To protect designated rivers’ freeflowing character the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (which licenses nonfederal 

hydropower projects) is prohibited from licensing construction of dams, water conduits, 

reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines, or other project works on or directly affecting wild 

and scenic rivers. Other Federal agencies may not assist by loan, grant, and license or otherwise 

any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a 

river was designated.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs that each river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System (National System) be administered in a manner to protect and enhance a river’s 

outstanding natural and cultural values. It allows existing uses of a river to continue and future 

uses to be considered, so long as existing or proposed use does not substantially interfere with 

protecting river values. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also directs building partnerships among 

landowners, river users, Tribes, and all levels of government.

Rivers may be identified for suitability studies by an act of Congress under Section 5(a), or 

through federal agency-initiated study under Section 5(d)(1). Through these existing authorities, 

Congress has authorized 144 rivers for study. Section 5(d) (1) directs federal agencies to consider 

the potential of wild and scenic rivers in their planning processes; and its application has resulted 

in numerous individual river designations, and state and area-specific legislation.

Methods

The wild and scenic river study process requires making a determination regarding a river’s 

eligibility, classification, and suitability. Eligibility and classification represent an inventory of 

existing conditions. Eligibility is an evaluation of whether a river is free flowing (without major 

dams, diversions, or channel modifications) and possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable 

values. These values should be a unique or exceptional representation for the area studied and 

must be related to the river or its immediate environment. If found eligible, a river is analyzed as 

to its current level of development and a preliminary classification determination is made as to 

whether it should be placed into one of three classes; wild, scenic, or recreational.

As per the Wild and Scenic River Act at 5(d) (1) and Forest Service Manual policy (Forest 

Service Manual 1924.03) a systematic inventory was completed on the Malheur, Umatilla, and 

Wallow-Whitman National Forests. Each National Forest’s staff examined their rivers and 

streams for eligibility.

The potential classification of a river found to be eligible is based on the condition of the river 

and the adjacent lands as they currently exist. Section 2(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

specifies and defines these terms as follows:

Wild Rivers: Wild river segments are free of impoundments and are generally inaccessible 

except by trail and or water trail; the shorelines are essentially natural appearing. Signs of 

human activity, including structures or evidence of resource use, are minimal. Visitors have the 

opportunity to interact with a natural environment with minimal sights and sounds of other 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

442

people. Wild rivers within designated wilderness areas meet the desired condition for MA 1A

Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas.

Scenic Rivers: Scenic river segments are free of impoundments; shorelines and viewing areas 

are largely natural appearing. Some recreation structures, evidence of timber harvest roads, and 

other evidence of human activity may be present but do not detract from the near natural 

appearance and scenic qualities of the immediate environment. A variety of water related 

recreational opportunities are available. The river may be accessible from roads in some places.

Recreational Rivers: Recreational river segments are free of impoundments 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 timber harvest 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 final procedural step, a suitability study, provides the basis for determining whether to 

recommend a river as part of the National System. A suitability study is designed to answer the 

following questions:

• Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable 

values be protected; or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing 

otherwise?

• Will the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values 

be protected through designation? Is it the best method for protecting the river corridor? In 

answering these questions, the benefits and impacts of Wild and Scenic rivers designation 

must be evaluated and alternative protection methods considered.

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal entities that may 

be partially responsible for implementing protective management?

Rivers authorized for suitability studies by Congress are protected under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act. Section 7(b) prevents the harmful effects of water resources projects. Section 8(b) 

withdraws public lands from disposition under public land laws. Section 9(b) withdraws locatable 

minerals from appropriation under mining laws. Section 12(a) directs actions of other Federal 

agencies to protect river values. These protections last through the suitability study process, 

including a 3-year period following transmittal of the final suitability study report by the 

President to Congress. The integrity of the identified classification must also be maintained 

during the protection period.

The identification of a river as eligible through the forest planning process does not trigger any 

protections under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. To manage the river for its potential inclusion 

into the National System, the administering agency applies existing authorities (such as the Clean 

Water Act and Endangered Species Act) to protect its free-flowing character, water quality, 

outstandingly remarkable values, and preliminary or recommended classification. Rivers 

identified as eligible are managed to maintain eligibility until suitability is determined.

Designated Rivers

All of the 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 Omnibus 

Oregon Wild and Scenic River Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-557) have comprehensive river 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

443

management plans in the Blue Mountains national forests. Table 398 lists the designated wild and 

scenic rivers for each national forest.

Table 398. Designated wild and scenic rivers* for each national forest**

River Name Wild Scenic Recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Malheur

Malheur River 6.7 7.0 0.0

Scenery, geology, wildlife habitat, history

North Fork Malheur 

River 

0.0 25.5 0.0 Scenery, geology, wildlife, fisheries

Totals 6.7 32.5 0.0

Umatilla

Wenaha River 18.7 2.7 0.15

Recreation, scenery, wildlife, fisheries

Grande Ronde 

River***

17.4 0.0 1.5 Recreation, fisheries, wildlife

North Fork John 

Day River***

24.3 10.5 8.9 Scenic, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, 

cultural

Totals 60.4 13.2 10.55

Wallowa-Whitman

Eagle Creek 4.5 6.0 18.4

Fish, recreation, scenery, cultural 

resources, geology/paleontology

Grande Ronde 

River***

17.4 0.0 1.5 Recreation, fisheries, wildlife

Joseph Creek 8.6 0.0 0.0 Scenic, recreation, geology, fish, water 

quality, wildlife, cultural resources

Imnaha River 15.0 0.0 0.0 Scenic, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, 

historic, botanical, cultural resources

Lostine River 5.0 0.0 11.0 Scenic, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, 

botanical

Minam River 41.9 0.0 0.0 Scenic, recreation, geology, fisheries, 

wildlife

North Fork John 

Day River***

3.5 0.0 6.9 Scenic, recreation, fisheries, wildlife, 

cultural

North Powder River 0.0 6.4 0.0 Recreation, scenery

Totals 95.9 12.4 37.8

*Mileages in this table are derived from legislative language and/or the most recent figures reported in river plans (or 

“Comprehensive River Management Plans”).

**Miles within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area are not included in this table.

*** 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.

Each river’s comprehensive river management plan was reviewed for consistency with revised 

forest plan components, in addition to determining if the comprehensive river management plan 

direction was protecting the outstandingly remarkable values for each river. The complete review

of forest plan components for each river is available in the project record.

In addition, where visitor use management was required to protect outstandingly remarkable 

values, river managers were consulted to determine if visitation had increased during the life of 

the comprehensive river management plan. Monitoring records for the 1990 forest plans were 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

444

consulted for changes in visitation in wild and scenic rivers corridors. No river segments were 

identified as having increases in visitor use that were impacting outstandingly remarkable values.

Eligible Rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides specific direction in section 5(d)(1) regarding the 

identification of potential wild and scenic rivers in Federal agency planning processes. Forest 

Service policy requires that rivers identified as potential wild and scenic rivers be evaluated as to 

their eligibility/ineligibility with the finding documented in the forest plan (Land and Resource 

Management Planning Handbook, Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 80 – Wild and 

Scenic River Evaluation).

A river is defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) as, “a flowing 

body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, 

creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes.” The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: 

Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification and Management of River Areas (FR vol. 47, no. 173, 

9/7/1982, Interagency Guidelines), also allows the consideration of intermittent rivers as eligible, 

if the volume of flow is sufficient to sustain or complement the outstandingly remarkable values 

identified within a river segment.

For each ranger district, the Forest Service created an eligibility inventory (located in the project 

record) as to whether a river is free flowing and possesses one or more outstandingly remarkable 

value(s). The following eligibility criteria were used to foster greater consistency within the 

agency and other Federal river-administering agencies. They are intended to set minimum 

thresholds to establish outstandingly remarkable values and are illustrative and not all-inclusive.

1. Scenic: The landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors 

result in notable or exemplary visual features and/or attractions. When analyzing scenic 

values, additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural 

modifications, and the length of time negative intrusions are viewed may be considered. 

Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over the majority of the river or river 

segment.

2. Recreational: Recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, unique enough to 

attract visitors from outside of the region of comparison. Visitors are willing to travel long 

distances to use the river resources for recreational purposes. River-related opportunities 

could include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife observation, camping, photography, 

hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating/rafting.

3. Geological: The river or the area within the river corridor contains an example(s) of a 

geologic feature, process, or phenomena that is rare, unusual, or unique to the region of 

comparison. The feature(s) may be in an unusually active stage of development, represent a 

“textbook” example and/or represent a unique or rare combination of geologic features 

(erosional, volcanic, glacial and other geologic structures).

4. Fish: Fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat, or 

a combination of these river-related conditions.

a. Populations: The river is nationally or regionally an important producer of resident 

and/or anadromous fish species. Of particular significance is the presence of wild 

stocks and/or Federal or state listed or candidate threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species. Diversity of species is an important consideration and by itself could lead to 

a determination of outstandingly remarkable.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

445

b. Habitat: The river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species 

indigenous to the region of comparison. Of particular significance is habitat for wild 

stocks and/or Federal or state listed or candidate threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species. Diversity of habitats is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to 

a determination of outstandingly remarkable.

5. Wildlife: Wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations 

or habitat, or a combination of these conditions.

a. Populations: The river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or 

regionally important populations of indigenous wildlife species. Of particular 

significance are species considered to be unique or populations of Federal or state 

listed or candidate, threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Diversity of 

species is an important consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of 

outstandingly remarkable.

b. Habitat: The river or area within the river corridor provides exceptionally high 

quality habitat for wildlife of national or regional significance, or may provide unique 

habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for Federal or state listed or candidate 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such 

that the biological needs of the species are met. Diversity of habitats is an important 

consideration and could, in itself, lead to a determination of outstandingly 

remarkable.

6. Cultural: The river, or area within the river corridor, contains important evidence of 

occupation or use by humans. Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting 

history or prehistory.

a. Prehistoric: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) where there is 

evidence of occupation or use by Native Americans. Sites must have rare or unusual 

characteristics or exceptional human-interest value(s). Sites may have national or 

regional importance for interpreting prehistory; may be rare and represent an area 

where a culture or cultural period was first identified and described; may have been 

used concurrently by two or more cultural groups; or may have been used by cultural 

groups for rare or sacred purposes.

b. Historic: The river or area within the river corridor contains a site(s) or feature(s) 

associated with a significant event, an important person, or a cultural activity of the 

past that was rare, unusual or one-of-kind in the region. A historic site(s) and/or 

feature(s) in most cases are 50 years old or older.

7. Other Values: While no specific national evaluation guidelines have been developed for the 

“other similar values” category, assessments of additional river-related values consistent with 

the foregoing guidance may be developed, including, but not limited to, hydrologic, 

paleontological, ecologic and botanic resources.

The potential classification of a river found to be eligible is based on the condition of the river 

and the adjacent lands as they currently exist. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies three 

classification categories for eligible rivers: wild rivers, scenic rivers, and recreational rivers. 

Section 2(b) of the Act defines each category (see “Affected Environment – MA 2A Designated, 

Eligible, and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers” section in Chapter 3 of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for definitions of each classification). The following table lists the eligible wild 

and scenic rivers for each national forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

446

Table 399. Eligible wild and scenic rivers for each national forest

River Name Wild Scenic Recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Malheur

Lake Creek

3.3 0.0 0.0 Scenery, geological, botanical

Umatilla

Bear Creek

4.6 0.0 0.0 Fisheries

Butte-West Fork Creek 13.9 0.0 0.0 Scenery

Desolation Creek 0.0 0.0 21.5 Recreation, botanical

Lookingglass Creek 0.0 7.9 0.0 Hydrological

North Fork Desolation 

Creek

0.0 0.0 6.8 Botanical

North and South Fork 

Wenaha River

26.3 0.0 0.0 Scenery, fisheries, botanical

Sheep Creek (in 

Washington)

0.0 0.0 0.5 Scenery, botanical

South Fork Desolation 

Creek

0.0 8.9 0.0 Fisheries, botanical

Tucannon River 9.1 4.6 8.7 Recreation, fisheries, cultural, 

botanical

Totals 53.9 21.4 37.5

Wallowa-Whitman

Big Sheep Creek

10.0 39.1 Recreation, fisheries, cultural

Dutch Flat Creek/Van 

Patton 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

Killamacue/Rock Creek 10.2 8.6 0.0 Scenery, recreation, geologic, 

botanical

North Fork Catherine 

Creek

11.1 0.0 2.6 Scenery, recreation, fisheries, wildlife

Swamp Creek 9.2 0.0 7.6 Fisheries, wildlife, cultural

Upper Grande Ronde 

River

11.7 0.0 18.0 Recreation, fisheries, wildlife, cultural

Totals 66.5 20.7 73.9

Total All 123.7 42.1 111.4

* These rivers have been determined suitable in 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 Environmental Impact 

Statement for Eight Rivers (1997).

Suitable Rivers

The final step in the river assessment process is the determination of suitability. This step 

provides the basis for the determination of which rivers to recommend to Congress as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Suitability addresses two questions:

1. What is the best use of the river corridor? Should the outstanding values be fully protected, or 

are one or more other uses important enough to warrant not maintaining the river’s free-flow 

or fully protecting identified values?
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

447

2. Assuming the values are to be protected, what is the best method to protect the river corridor? 

Wild and Scenic River designation is one approach. In answering this question, the benefits 

and impacts of Wild and Scenic River designation must be evaluated and alternative 

protection methods considered.

A suitability study to assess the potential inclusion of a river within the wild and scenic river 

designation is conducted and considers the following questions:

• Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values 

be protected; or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise?

• Will the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values be 

protected through designation? Is it the best method for protecting the river corridor? In 

answering these questions, the benefits and impacts of Wild and Scenic rivers designation 

must be evaluated and alternative protection methods considered.

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal entities that may 

be partially responsible for implementing protective management?

The Forest Service completed two environmental impact statements on the suitability for 11 

eligible river segments within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Wild and Scenic River 

Study Report and Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for Eight Rivers (1997), and 

Dutch Flat Creek, Killamacue Creek and Rock Creek Wild and Scenic River Study Report (1996) 

recommended 3 of the 11 rivers as suitable. These two documents will be used to complete the 

suitability process for Dutch Flat Creek, East Eagle Creek, and Five Points Creek. Table 400 lists 

the suitable wild and scenic rivers for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

As provided in the Wild and Scenic River Act, Sections 4(a) and 5(c), the following factors were 

considered and documented as a basis for the suitability determination for each river in the 

suitability environmental impact statements:

1. Characteristics, which do or do not make the area a worthy addition to the national system

2. The current status of land ownership and use in the area

3. The reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the system

4. The Federal agency that will administer the area, should it be added to the system

5. The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, including the costs 

thereof, be shared by state and local agencies

6. The estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands and interests in land and 

of administering the area, should it be added to the system

7. A determination of the degree to which the state or its political subdivisions might participate 

in the preservation and administration of the river, should it be proposed for inclusion in the 

system

8. State/local government’s ability to manage and protect the outstandingly remarkable values 

on non-Federal lands

9. The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs or policies

10. Support or opposition to designation

11. Contribution to river system or basin integrity
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

448

12. Potential for water resources development

13. Contribution to other regional objectives/needs

The Blue Mountains forest plan revision will not include a suitability analysis for all rivers that 

have been determined eligible. Only the 11 rivers considered in the two Environmental Impact 

Statements for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest were analyzed and are discussed here. 

When a suitability recommendation is deferred, the forest plan must provide management 

direction for protecting the outstandingly remarkable values until a suitability recommendation is 

reached. To provide realistic protection, the appropriate classification for each segment of each 

eligible river has been established and is listed by river segment with classification in Table 400.

Table 400. Suitable wild and scenic rivers Wallowa-Whitman National Forest*

River Name Wild Scenic Recreational Outstandingly Remarkable Values

Dutch Flat Creek 5.3 0 0 Scenery, recreation, geological, 

hydrological, botanical

East Eagle Creek 9.0 0 6.6 Scenery, recreation, fisheries, 

hydrological, geological, cultural

Five Points Creek 0 12.1 0 Scenery, fisheries, wildlife

Totals 14.3 12.1 6.6

*These rivers have been determined suitable in 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 2A Designated, Eligible, and Suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers –

Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

For this alternative, management direction from the management plans that were written for each 

of the designated wild and scenic rivers remains in place. For this alternative, no additional rivers 

would be added as eligible.

For Alternative A only those rivers already designated by Congress as part of the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System are included in MA 2A. There are 10,807 acres in this management area within the 

Malheur National Forest, 6,926 acres within the Umatilla National Forest, and 21,936 acres 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

While the eligible rivers in listed in Appendix A must be managed to retain their eligibility, they 

will be managed under their current management area designations that vary by national forest set 

by the 1990 forest plans.

Effects from Alternatives B and C

For these alternatives, MA 2A includes congressionally designated rivers, and those rivers that 

have been determined to be eligible for designation and warrant further study that may lead to 

suitability, and ultimately to congressional designation. Management direction from the 

management plans that were written for each of the designated wild and scenic rivers remains in 

place. There would be 12,100 acres in this management area within the Malheur National, 44,400 

acres within the Umatilla National Forest, and 88,400 acres within the Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

449

Effects from Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Malheur and Umatilla National Forests

For these alternatives, MA 2A includes congressionally designated rivers and those rivers that 

have been determined to be eligible for designation and warrant further study that may lead to 

suitability, and ultimately to congressional designation. Management direction from the 

management plans that were written for each of the designated wild and scenic rivers remains in 

place. MA 2A acres would be the same as Alternatives B and C for the Malheur National Forest at 

12,100 acres and the Umatilla National Forest at 44,400 acres.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

For these alternatives, MA 2A includes congressionally designated rivers and those rivers that 

have been determined to be suitable as components of the National Wild and Scenic River 

System. The environmental impact statements associated with the three rivers listed as suitable 

will serve as the environmental documentations needed to request congressional review of the 

suitability determination. MA 2A would be 52,900 acres for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. For Alternatives D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F, the eight rivers 

identified as not suitable for National Wild and Scenic River System designation would be 

considered ineligible. This finding is documented in the Wild and Scenic River Study Report and 

Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement. Please refer the management area maps for 

the locations of MA 2A for each of the alternatives.

Specific Management Direction for MA 2A

Standards and guidelines for MA 2A are available in Appendix A. Some are specific to particular 

rivers or river segments due to a correlation with the comprehensive river management plan for 

that river and are being incorporated from those plans for all alternatives.

MA 2B Research Natural Areas – Affected Environment

Research natural areas are natural areas established by Federal agencies. For the Blue Mountains 

national forests, the Pacific Northwest Research Natural Area Committee oversees the criteria and 

process for designating and managing these areas in conjunction with the Natural Heritage 

Programs of the states of Oregon and Washington.

Research natural areas form a network of ecological reserves for research and education purposes 

and for the maintenance of biodiversity. The purposes of research natural areas are to: 

(1) preserve examples of all significant natural ecosystems for comparison with those influenced 

by man, (2) provide educational and research areas for ecological and environmental studies, and 

(3) preserve gene pools of typical and endangered plants and animals.

Federal agencies identify areas that have unrepresented plant associations or other elements 

identified in the Oregon or Washington Natural Area Plan. These areas are evaluated by staff, 

boundaries are proposed, alternatives are examined, and a site and its boundaries are selected 

through the planning process. An establishment record is created for each research natural area. 

These reports include the justification for establishment, legal boundary descriptions, maps, 

distinguishing ecological features, environmental analyses, and management issues and 

guidelines. Research natural areas become officially established once an establishment record is 

completed and signed by the regional forester with concurrence from the Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Research Station director.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

450

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 unsuitable for livestock grazing, some incidental use by livestock could occur 

within these areas as administrative boundaries are typically not fenced.

Established and proposed research natural areas within the Blue Mountains national forests are 

displayed in Table 401.

MA 2B Research Natural Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

For this alternative, no new proposed research natural areas would be allocated to MA 2B (see 

Table 401 for research natural area acres). The forest plan would not recognize additional areas 

for their special or unique characteristics. These areas would continue to be managed as part of 

their current management area allocations, which may or may not protect the characteristics for 

which the additional proposed research natural areas are designated.

Table 401. Acres of research natural areas in each alternative for the Malheur National Forest

Research Natural Area 

Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Status Change

Baldy Mountain 2,591 3,861 Proposed Boundary update

Canyon Creek 738 736 Established NA

Dixie Butte 86 335 Proposed Boundary update

Dry Mountain 2,260 2,260 Established NA

Dugout Creek* 908 911 Established NA

Shaketable 375 385 Established Boundary update

Silver Creek 802 802 Proposed NA

Stinger Creek 354 1,664 Proposed Boundary update

Strawberry Mountain 0 107 Proposed New

Totals 8,114 11,061

Table 402. Acres of research natural areas in each alternative for the Umatilla National Forest

Research Natural Area 

Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Status Change

Birch Creek Cove 411 411 Proposed NA

Kahler Creek Butte 

(formerly Kelly Creek 

Butte)

84 84 Proposed NA

Mill Creek 7,702 7,424 Proposed Boundary Update** 

Pataha Bunchgrass 63 67 Established NA

Rainbow Creek 570 570 Established NA

Vinegar Hill 424 424 Proposed NA

Wenaha Breaks (formerly 

Elk Flats-Wenaha Breaks)

1,970 1,971 Established Boundary update

Totals 11,224 10,951
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

451

Table 403. Acres of research natural areas in each alternative for the Wallowa-Whitman National

Forest

Research Natural Area 

Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Status Change

Clear Creek Ridge 0 637 Proposed New

Craig Mountain Lake 172 172 Proposed NA

Glacier Lake 102 102 Proposed NA

Haystack Rock 425 418 Established NA

Horse Pasture Ridge 338 338 Established NA

Indian Creek 1,003 1,003 Established NA

Charlie Grier Johnson Jr.

(formerly Cougar Meadow)

131 130 Proposed Name change

Lake Fork* 224 224 Proposed Boundary update

Mount Joseph 705 705 Proposed NA

Nebo* 0 1,697 Proposed New

Point Prominence 365 365 Proposed NA

Standley 0 742 Proposed New

Gerald S. Strickler 

(formerly Government 

Meadow)

195 190 Established Name change

Sturgill 0 139 Proposed New

Tenderfoot Basin 0 891 Proposed New

Vance Knoll 190 189 Established NA

West Razz Lake 47 47 Proposed NA

Totals 3,897 7,989

* The Lake Fork and Nebo proposed research natural areas are partially in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. 

Acreage only for the portions outside the national recreation area is displayed in this table.

** This research natural area is also a designated watershed.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The total acres of research natural areas would increase within the Malheur and WallowaWhitman National Forests as displayed in the following tables. Acres of research natural areas 

within the Umatilla National Forest would have a slight decrease. Refer to the following 

discussion for the rationale for the proposed changes.

Additional Proposed Research Natural Areas for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F

Since the approval of the existing forest plans, Forest Service ecologists have formally proposed 

additional research natural areas to help fill missing ecological representations in the natural areas 

network as published by the Natural Heritage Programs of Oregon and Washington. The proposed 

areas are each listed below along with a brief description of the area’s resource and values.

Malheur National Forest

Strawberry Mountain: this proposed research natural area would serve as the representative for 

whitebark pine in the southern Blue Mountains.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

452

Umatilla National Forest

No new research natural areas are proposed.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Clear Creek Ridge: this proposed research natural area contains green fescue communities of 

high value to future research.

Nebo: this proposed research natural area in the Eagle Cap Wilderness is the site of historic 

benchmark areas for early grazing studies in the Tenderfoot Basin. Since 1938, the green fescue 

communities in this proposed research natural area have been relatively unimpacted from 

domestic grazing. The area contains extensive green fescue grasslands in relatively late seral 

stages.

Standley: this proposed research natural area was prominent in early rangeland sampling and 

investigation into green fescue use and succession. It continues to provide permanent monitoring 

opportunities.

Sturgill: this proposed research natural area contains green fescue communities of high value to 

future research.

Tenderfoot Basin: this proposed research natural area is another historic area of early rangeland 

sampling and investigation into green fescue community use and succession.

Acreage Changes for Proposed and Established Research Natural Areas for 

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Malheur National Forest

Baldy Mountain: This proposed research natural area would be increased from 2,591 to 3,861 

acres. The boundaries have been modified to include the complete range of ecological significant 

serpentine plant communities on Baldy Mountain.

Dixie Butte: This proposed research natural area would be increased from 86 to 335 acres. The 

boundaries have been modified to encompass the spatial extent of a nonforested vegetation 

mosaic of subalpine shrub steppe and grassland plant communities.

Stinger Creek: This proposed research natural area would increase from 354 to 1,664 acres to 

include sagebrush scabland/dry pine-mountain mahogany mosaic that is needed for the ponderosa 

pine-mountain mahogany element.

Umatilla National Forest

Mill Creek: this proposed research natural area would decrease from 7,702 acres to 7,424 acres. 

The boundaries have been modified to exclude existing National Forest System roads from the 

southwest portion of the proposed research natural area.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

No acreage changes are proposed.

Effects from Research Natural Area Designation for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and F

Research natural areas listed in Table 401 through Table 403 are either established or proposed, as 

identified in the “Status” attribute column. Of the proposed research natural areas, there is 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

453

additional distinction between those proposed research natural areas that were included in the 

1990s forest plans—and have yet to be formally designated—and those proposed after the 1990 

forest plans that too have yet to be formally designated.

The research natural areas that were proposed and included in the 1990 forest plans as candidate 

research natural areas have been managed to preserve their unique values and qualities. These 

areas have been managed to exhibit natural conditions with minimal human intervention, and to 

maintain prevalent ecological processes. A change from proposed status to designated status for 

those research natural areas included in the 1990 forest plans would have no effect on either the 

research natural area itself or surrounding area. Previous management actions conserved the 

research natural area’s unique value and characteristics; and those past management objectives 

align with the current management allocation to MA 2B. It is expected that formal designation 

will not have any effect on those lands within the proposed research natural areas or the 

surrounding area.

The research natural areas that have since been proposed subsequent to the 1990 forest plans 

represent new, unique areas and the effects of allocation to MA 2B are discussed below by forest.

Malheur National Forest

Nine research natural areas are listed for the Malheur National Forest (Table 401). Of this total, 

four are formally designated through establishment records, and five are proposed. Of the five 

that are proposed, four were included in the 1990 forest plan as candidate research natural areas, 

where the areas were subsequently managed to conserve the natural qualities and characteristics 

that make them eligible for inclusion in the research natural area program.

The remaining proposed research natural area, Strawberry Mountain, would serve as the 

representative for whitebark pine in the southern Blue Mountains. The proposed research natural 

area is situated wholly within the designated Strawberry Mountain Wilderness. It is expected that 

changing the research natural area’s status from proposed to designated would have no effects on 

the lands contained within the proposed research natural area or to the surrounding area. Both 

areas would continue to be managed to conserve their respective unique qualities within the 

framework of the forest plan and adhere to standards and guidelines for all alternatives.

Umatilla National Forest

Seven research natural areas are listed for the Umatilla National Forest (see Table 402 above). Of 

this total, three are formally designated through establishment records, and four are proposed. All 

four of the proposed research natural areas were included in the 1990 forest plan as candidate 

research natural areas. As noted above for the Malheur National Forest, it is expected that 

changing the research natural areas’ status from proposed to designated (through formal 

designation) would have no effects on the lands contained within the proposed research natural 

area or the surrounding areas. Past management of these proposed research natural areas would 

align with the management objectives and standards and guidelines presented in the current forest 

plan revision.

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Seventeen research natural areas are listed for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (see Table 

403). Of this total, 5 are formally designated, and the remaining 14 are proposed. Of the 12 that 

are proposed, 7 were included in the 1990 forest plan as candidate research natural areas, where 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

454

the areas were subsequently managed to conserve the natural qualities and characteristics that 

make them eligible for inclusion in the research natural area program.

The remaining five proposed research natural areas were proposed after the 1990 forest plan, and 

each is described below.

Clear Creek Ridge: This proposed research natural area is situated along the southern boundary 

of the Eagle Cap Wilderness; only a relatively small, northern portion of the proposed research 

natural area overlaps with the designated wilderness. For Alternatives B, D, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F the management area surrounding the proposed research natural area 

would be comprised of MA 3B (Backcountry—motorized use). For Alternative C, the proposed 

research natural area would be entirely contained within MA 1B, preliminary administratively 

recommended wilderness. For all plan revision alternatives, formal designation of the proposed 

research natural area would likely have no effect, as the lands contained within the proposed 

research natural area and the surrounding area are generally managed to conserve these special 

and unique features for which the area is eligible.

Nebo: This proposed research natural area is situated partially within the Eagle Cap Wilderness 

(MA 1A), partially within the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (outside of the current Plan 

Area), and partially within general forest allocation (MA 4A). For Alternatives B and C, the land 

management allocations located along the northern portion of the proposed research natural area 

would be MA 2A, designated and eligible wild and scenic river. For Alternatives D, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F the surrounding allocation would be comprised of 

general forest (MA 4A). For all alternatives, formal designation of the proposed research natural 

area would likely have no effect, as the lands contained within the proposed research natural area 

are managed to conserve these special and unique features for which the area is eligible, and the 

surrounding areas are similarly managed to preserve these conditions.

Standley, Sturgill, and Tenderfoot Basin: These proposed research natural areas are situated 

wholly within the designated Eagle Cap Wilderness. It is expected that changing the research 

natural area status from proposed to designated would have no effect on the lands contained 

within the proposed research natural areas or to the surrounding area. These three areas would 

continue to be managed to conserve their respected unique qualities through forest plan standards 

and guidelines that would preserve these natural features.

MA 2C Botanical Areas – Affected Environment

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 unsuitable for livestock grazing, some incidental use by livestock could occur 

within these areas as administrative boundaries typically are not fenced. The network of 

established or proposed botanical areas on the National Forests of the Blue Mountains is 

displayed in Table 404.

MA 2C Botanical Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

The Malheur National Forest has two botanical areas totaling 123 acres. The Umatilla National 

Forest has four botanical areas totaling 827 acres. There are no botanical areas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

455

For this alternative, no new botanical areas would be allocated to MA 2C and boundaries would 

not change. Botanical areas proposed for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current management area 

allocations, which vary by national forest.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Botanical areas within the Malheur National Forest would not change; however, updated mapping 

recognizes that the Cedar Grove Botanical Area is 116 acres instead of the currently reported 94 

acres (Table 404). For the Umatilla National Forest, a reduction would be made to the Charley 

Creek Botanical Area and three new botanical areas would be added). Botanical areas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would increase 1,102 acres from the addition of the newly 

designated Mount Howard East Peak National Natural Landmark.

Table 404. Botanical areas (acres) for each alternative for the Malheur National Forest

Botanical Area Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Change

Malheur National Forest

Fergy Spruce Grove 29 29

NA

Cedar Grove 94 116 Acreage Update / Mapping 

Correction

Totals 123 145 NA

Umatilla National Forest

Charley Creek 50 41

Increased acres to protect 

unique values

Ruckel Junction 5 9 Acreage Update / Mapping 

Correction

Karl Urban 500 499 Name changed from Sheep 

Creek Falls Botanical Area

Shimmiehorn Canyon 197 197 NA

Sourdough 0 0 NA

Henry Creek 0 34 Proposed

Farr Meadows 0 12 Proposed

Elk Flats Meadow 0 97 Proposed

Teal Springs 61 0 Removed

Woodward Campground 15 0 Removed

Totals 827 890 NA

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

Mount Howard East Peak* 0 1,012

New

*Mount Howard-East Peak is a National Natural Landmark.

NA = not applicable

MA 2D Geological Areas – Affected Environment

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 established geological areas 

within the Blue Mountains national forests are displayed in Table 405.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

456

Table 405. Geological areas (acres) for each alternative for each national forest

Geological Area Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Change

Malheur National Forest

Magone Lake 40 185 Mapping correction

Tex Bridge 1 1 NA

Totals 41 186 NA

Umatilla National Forest

Big Sink 416 416 NA

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Ichthyosaur Site 0 5 New

MA 2D Geological Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

The Malheur National Forest has two geological areas totaling 41 acres. The Umatilla National 

Forest has one geological area totaling 416 acres. There are no geological areas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

For this alternative, no new geological areas would be allocated to MA 2D and boundaries would 

not change. The geological areas proposed under Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current management 

area allocations, which vary by national forest.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Geological areas within the Malheur National Forest would increase to 185 acres at Magone 

Lake, and would include Tex Bridge at 1 acre, for a total of 186 acres. No changes are proposed 

for Big Sink Geological Area within the Umatilla National Forest. Geological areas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would increase to 5 acres with the addition of the Ichthyosaur 

site.

MA 2E Historical Areas – Affected Environment

Historical areas have historic sites, buildings, or objects of significance. The network of 

established historical areas within the Blue Mountains national forests is displayed in the 

following table. Historical areas are protected or enhanced, and, where appropriate, public use 

and enjoyment is fostered.

MA 2E Historical Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

The Sumpter Valley Railroad site (13 acres) is the only historical areas within the Malheur 

National Forest. There are three historical areas totaling 1,173 acres within Umatilla National 

Forest. There are no designated historical areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

457

Table 406. Historical areas (acres) for each alternative for each national forest

Historical Area Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F Change

Malheur National Forest

Sumpter Valley Railroad 13 444 NA

Depression ERA CCC Buildings 0 11 New

Early and Intermediate Period 

Buildings

0 4 New

Historic Lookouts 0 7 New

Malheur Headwaters National 

Register District

0 4,950 New

Camas Oven Site 0 10 New

Pre-Mazama Site 0 10 New

Arch Rock Site 0 2 New

Historic Mining Districts 0 598 New

Obsidian Source Archaeological 

Complex

0 28,000 New

Totals 13 34,036 NA

Umatilla National Forest

Greenhorn 90 90 NA

Olive Lake-Fremont Powerhouse 1,000 1,000 NA

Target Meadows 83 83 NA

Totals 1,173 1,173 NA

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Oregon Trail 0 318 New

Sumpter Valley Railroad Main Line 0 913 New

Starvation Archaeological Area 0 260 New

Camp Carson 0 117 New

Ah-Hee Diggings (Granite-Chinese 

Walls)

0 40 New

Dooley Mountain Obsidian Source 0 616 New

Reds Horse Ranch/Millard Ranger 

Station

0 44 New

Totals 0 2,308 NA

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Nine additional historical areas and an increase to the Sumpter Valley Railroad historical area 

within the Malheur National Forest, totaling 34,036 acres, are proposed for allocation to MA 2E. 

No changes are proposed for the Umatilla National Forest. Seven historical areas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, totaling 2,308 acres, are proposed for allocation to MA 2E.

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All-American Roads – Affected Environment

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 United States. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation recognizes 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

458

certain roads as all-American roads or national scenic byways based on one or more 

archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, or scenic quality.

The purpose of the scenic byways program is to create a distinctive collection of American 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 407 displays the miles of designated scenic byways within the Blue 

Mountains national forests. Each of the scenic byways has additional mileage outside of national 

forest boundaries.

Table 407. Scenic byways within the Blue Mountains national forests (miles) for each alternative for 

each national forest

Scenic Byway Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and 

F Change

Malheur National Forest

Journey Through Time Scenic Byway 0 13 New

Umatilla National Forest

Blue Mountains Scenic Byway 0 48 New

Elkhorn Scenic Byway 0 3 New

Totals 0 51

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Blue Mountains Scenic Byway 0 2 New

Hells Canyon Scenic Byway* 0 10 New

Journey Through Time Scenic Byway 0 21 New

Elkhorn Scenic Byway 0 52 New

Totals 0 85

* A portion of the Hells Canyon Scenic Byway, an All-American Road, is within the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area.

MA 2F Scenic Byways and All-American Roads – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

There are no scenic byways or all-American roads allocations in the 1990 forest plans.

For this alternative, no scenic byways or all-American roads would be allocated to MA 2F. The 

scenic byways and all-American road allocations proposed for Alternatives B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current 

management area allocations, which vary by national forest.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Thirteen miles of scenic byways within the Malheur National Forest, 51 miles of scenic byways 

within the Umatilla National Forest, and 85 miles of scenic byways and all-American roads 

within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would be allocated to MA 2F. Through 

collaboration with multiple partners, a management plan has been developed for each scenic 

byway.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

459

Additional routes may be located outside the National Forests boundary that are recognized 

locally by state or local governments, or by special interest groups for scenic or historic values, 

but are not recognized by forest plans.

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails – Affected Environment

The National Trails 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 408 displays the trails that are designated within the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Table 408. Designated trails (miles) for each alternative for each national forest

Trail Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and F Change

Malheur National Forest

Arch Rock National Recreation Trail 0 0.3 New

Cedar Grove National Recreation Trail 0 1 New

Malheur River National Recreation Trail 0 8 New

Totals 0 9.3

Umatilla National Forest

Jubilee Lake National Recreation Trail 0 3 New

North Fork John Day National Recreation 

Trail

0 22.9 New

South Winom Creek National Recreation Trail 0 4 New

Totals 0 29.9

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Elkhorn Crest National Recreation Trail 0 23 New

High Wallowa National Recreation Trail 0 2 New

Oregon Trail National Historic Trail 0 8.3 New

Totals 0 33.3

* The following designated trails are within the HCNRA and are not included in this table: Nez Perce-Nee Me Poo National 

Historic Trail and the Western Rim/Summit Ridge, Heaven’s Gate, and Snake River National Recreation Trails.

MA 2G Nationally Designated Trails – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

No nationally designated trails are recognized by the 1990 forest plans.

For this alternative, no nationally designated trails would be allocated to MA 2G. The nationally 

designated trails proposed for allocation to MA 2G in Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, EModified Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current management 

area allocations, which vary by national forest.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The 9.3 miles of nationally designated trails within the Malheur National Forest, 29.9 miles of 

nationally designated trails within the Umatilla National Forest, and 33.3 miles of nationally 

designated trails within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would be allocated to MA 2G.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

460

MA 2H Scenic Areas – Affected Environment

Scenic areas are places of natural variety where unique physical characteristics provide pleasing 

views and dispersed recreational opportunities. Scenic areas are designated to protect or enhance, 

and, where appropriate, foster public use and enjoyment of areas with special landscapes noted 

for their natural beauty. There are three designated scenic areas within the National Forests of the 

Blue Mountains. The network of established scenic areas on the National Forests of the Blue 

Mountains is displayed in Table 409. There are no designated scenic areas in the WallowaWhitman National Forest.

Table 409. Scenic areas (acres) for each alternative for the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests*

Name Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, 

E-Modified, EModified 

Departure, and F Change Establishment

Malheur National Forest

Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock 

Scenic Area

12,835 12,385 NA Established in 1966 by 

regional forester 

Silver Creek Scenic Area 1,572 1,572 Proposed Proposed established 

scenic area addition

Totals 14,407 14,407

Umatilla National Forest

Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock 

Scenic Area

21,956 21,956 NA Established in 1966 by 

regional forester and 

amended in 1978 by 

adding the Desolation 

Unit

Grande Ronde Scenic 

Area

9,158 9,158 NA Established in 1979 by 

regional forester 

Totals 31,114 31,114

* There are no designated scenic areas in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

MA 2H Scenic Areas – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

The Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area is the only scenic area within the Malheur National 

Forest (12,800 acres). The scenic area is shared with the Umatilla National Forest (21,900 acres). 

In addition, Silver Creek Scenic Area, a 1,500 acre area that was treated in the past forest plan as 

a scenic area, has not had formal designation. The Umatilla has an additional 9,100-acre scenic 

area. There are no scenic areas within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

For this alternative, no new scenic areas will be allocated to MA 2H and boundaries would not 

change. The scenic areas proposed for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified 

Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current management area 

allocations, which vary by national forest.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The Silver Creek Scenic Area within the Malheur National Forest would be formally designated. 

No additional scenic areas are proposed for the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

461

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range – Affected Environment

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.

MA 2I Starkey Experimental Forest and Range – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

There are no experimental forests on either the Malheur National Forest or the Umatilla National 

Forest. The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range is the only experimental forest within the 

Blue Mountains national forest and is located wholly within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest (30,500 acres).

For this alternative, no new experimental forests would be allocated to MA 2I and boundaries 

would not change. The experimental forest areas proposed for Alternatives B, C, D, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current 

management area allocations.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The Starkey Experimental Forest and Range within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest would 

continue to be allocated to MA 2I. No additional experimental forests are proposed for the 

Malheur and Umatilla National Forests.

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds – Affected Environment

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

462

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.

Six communities in the Blue Mountains national forests have water systems that derive water 

supplies directly from National Forest System lands (see Table 410).

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.

In general, management of the municipal watersheds displayed in Table 410 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 subject to approval by 

the respective city. For some communities, wells outside the Forests are the primary water source, 

but wellhead protection zones may extend onto National Forest System lands.

Table 410. Designated municipal watersheds for each national forest

Watershed Alt. A

Alts. B, C, D, E, 

E-Modified, EModified 

Departure, and F

Change Establishment

Malheur National Forest

Long Creek Municipal Watershed

256 256 NA 1937 Special Use Permit

Byram Gulch Municipal Watershed 279 279 NA 1926 Special Use Permit

Total 535 535 NA NA

Umatilla National Forest

Mill Creek Municipal Watershed

20,300 20,300 NA 1918 Agreement between 

Secretary of Agriculture and 

City of Walla Walla

Total 20,300 20,300 NA NA

Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

Baker City Municipal Watershed 

(multiple streams)

9,322 9,322 NA 1912 Agreement with 

Department of Agriculture

La Grande City Municipal 

Watershed (Beaver Creek)

15,161 15,161 NA 1935 Agreement with 

Department of Agriculture

Total 24,483 24,483 NA NA

Total All 45,318 45,318 NA NA

In addition to the municipal watersheds listed in Table 410, nine 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

463

Within the Malheur National Forest:

• The town of Seneca uses two groundwater wells for its public water supply. The wellhead 

protection zones for these wells may include National Forest System lands and require 

protection under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Prairie City obtains its water supply from 

Dixie Creek, which originates on National Forest System lands.

• Twelve additional sites, including campgrounds, administrative sites, and one privately 

owned site provide water for public use and are regulated by provisions of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act as non-community water systems.

Within the Umatilla National Forest:

• The North Fork Umatilla River was designated as the municipal water supply for the city of 

Pendleton by the Oregon State Legislature in 1941. In 1984, the area was designated as a 

wilderness area and the city has since transferred its water intake to a point on the Umatilla 

River near the city of Pendleton.

Within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest:

• 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.

• 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.

MA 2J Municipal Watersheds – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

There are two municipal watersheds within the Malheur National Forest totaling 535 acres. The 

Umatilla National Forest has one municipal watershed totaling 20,300 acres. There are two 

municipal watersheds within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest totaling 24,483 acres.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

464

For this alternative, no new municipal watersheds will be allocated to MA 2J and boundaries 

would not change. The municipal watersheds proposed for Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and F would continue to be managed as part of their current management 

area allocations.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The municipal watersheds within the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

would continue to be allocated to MA 2J. No additional municipal watersheds are proposed for 

the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Scenery Resources

Introduction

The Blue Mountains National Forests are known for their scenic value. The scenic qualities of the 

National Forests represent the backdrop for the communities of the Blue Mountains and 

encompass the attractive recreational aspects of living in eastern Oregon and southeastern 

Washington. Management activities on the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests play an integral part in the high quality scenery of this region. The high quality scenic 

environment is vital to the communities that use and support the Blue Mountains national forests.

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 the activities and experiences that create memories and meet expectations of 

national forest visitors (Bacon et al. 1974, Ryan 2005). People visiting or recreating in the area 

value the scenery of the Blue Mountains for the natural beauty, undeveloped or undisturbed 

scenes, and rural western setting. There are many opportunities to view historic structures and 

traditional uses, such as historic mining operations, ranching facilities, Civilian Conservation 

Corp structures, pole fences, and historic ditches. Mountains and canyons present dynamic 

vertical change, plant communities that are present at differing elevations, and geological 

features, such as rock outcrops and peaks. Water features create strong visual images that are 

highly valued. All of these attributes and many more create patterns and mosaics that contribute 

to the scenery of the Blue Mountains.

No significant issues related to scenic resources were identified during scoping or the need for 

change analysis process. At least one-third of the landscape within the Blue Mountains national 

forests has been altered by human developments and activities as well as recent disturbance 

events, such as large-scale fires. Some of these alterations are not obvious to casual viewers 

because the landscapes present natural-appearing scenery. This is especially true when looking at 

some of the vegetation conditions that have resulted from fire exclusion and prescribed fire. 

Another third of the national forest landscape is less altered by human activities, but roads and 

trails allow visitors access to these areas. The area seems to be predominately natural and is very 

attractive to visitors given the easy access. The last third is largely natural and is designated 

wilderness areas or backcountry. Access to these areas is much more difficult, but the visitor is 

rewarded with scenery that appears natural. Although many backcountry areas have been 

manipulated by fire suppression and may have looked much different had natural processes 

prevailed, it would be hard for the casual observer to detect this. Results from the 2014 National 

Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) report indicates that visitors found scenery and condition of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

465

environment to be highly satisfactory and highly important to their recreation experience across 

the Blue Mountains.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section: updated analysis to include two additional alternatives (Alternative E-Modified and 

Alternative E-Modified Departure).

Scenery Resources – Affected Environment

The Forest Service provides for scenery management as outlined in the Forest Service Directive 

System under the Forest Service Manual Chapter 2380 – Landscape Management. The directives 

result from complying with statutory requirements including the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield 

Act of 1960, The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and rules at Title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 219, among others.

In 1995, the Forest Service developed an updated version of its direction for scenery management

(called the Visual Management System), introducing the Scenery Management System. The 

Scenery Management System is consistent with the procedures and guidance outlined in the 

Agriculture Handbook 701 (1995), “Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery 

Management.” These systems are both structured to primarily emphasize “natural appearing” 

scenery, but the Scenery Management System recognizes positive scenic values associated with 

some human modified (cultural) features and settings that are valued for their scenic influence. 

The Scenery Management System allows for a “seamless” analysis and conservation of aesthetic 

values, and provides a systematic approach for determining the relative value and importance of 

scenery on National Forest System lands.

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 nondistinctive and valued the least (see 

Scenic Class maps in Appendix G). Each classification is determined by the combination of 

scenic attractiveness, viewpoint, viewing distance, and duration along with the frequency and/or 

number of viewers (USDA Forest Service 1995). Determining this range of scenic classes allows 

managers to understand the social acceptability of any change in scenery. Table 411 shows the 

distribution of scenic classes as inventoried for each National Forest.

Table 411. Percent distribution of scenic classes for each national forest

Scenic Class Malheur Umatilla Wallowa-Whitman

1 15 37 46

2 45 37 36

3 32 18 14

4 2 1 NA

5 6 7 4

6 NA NA NA

7 NA NA NA
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

466

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 the desired scenic character. Scenic stability addresses the relative stability of the 

valued scenic character and its scenic attributes. More in-depth scenic character descriptions can 

be found in the project record.

Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity was developed to measure the amount of visual disturbance that contrasts with 

and/or detracts from the natural or socially valued appearance in a landscape. It provides a 

contextual measurement of the presence, intensity and dominance of human-caused visual 

disturbances in the landscape. Within a natural resources setting, these visual disturbances can 

include timber harvest, road construction, mining, utilities development, recreation facilities, ski 

areas, and other special uses.

Scenic integrity also applies to extreme scenic disturbances caused by natural events whenever 

these events are outside the historical range of variability for the landscape. Large scale or high 

intensity events, such as catastrophic wildfires, insect and disease disturbances, and wind or ice 

storms that exceed the historical range of variability are considered negative visual disturbances 

to the valued landscape character, while those within the historical range of variability are 

considered neutral elements.

Scenic Integrity Levels

Very High Integrity

The valued scenery appears natural or unaltered. Only minute visual disturbances to the valued 

scenery, if any, are present. This level should be achieved immediately upon project completion.

High Integrity

The valued scenery appears natural or unaltered, yet visual disturbances are present; however, 

they remain unnoticed because they repeat the form, line, color, texture, pattern, and scale of the 

valued scenery. This level should be achieved as soon after project completion as possible but 

within no more than 3 years.

Moderate Integrity

The valued scenery appears slightly altered. Noticeable disturbances are minor and visually 

subordinate to the valued scenery because they repeat its form, line, color, texture, pattern, and 

scale. This level should be achieved as soon after project completion as possible but within no 

more than 3 years.

Low Integrity

The valued scenery appears moderately altered. Visual disturbances are co-dominant with the 

valued scenery and may create a focal point of moderate contrast. Disturbances may reflect, 

introduce, or borrow valued scenery attributes from outside the landscape being viewed (such as 

the size, shape, edge effect, and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or socially 

valued architectural styles). Scenery attributes borrowed from outside the viewed landscape 

appear compatible with or complimentary to those within. This level should be achieved as soon 

after project completion as possible but within no more than 3 years.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

467

Very Low Integrity

The valued scenery appears heavily altered. Disturbances dominate the valued scenery being 

viewed, and may only slightly borrow from, or reflect valued scenery attributes within or beyond 

the viewed landscape (due to their size, shape, edge effect, and pattern). However, disturbances 

must be shaped and blended with the natural terrain (primary landforms) so they do not dominate 

the overall composition when viewed as background (beyond 3 to 4 miles). Such disturbances 

might include unnatural appearing openings, roads, landform modifications, or structures. This 

level applies immediately upon project completion and should only be used to inventory existing 

scenic integrity and never as a management objective.

No Integrity

The valued scenery appears extremely altered. Disturbances are excessively dominant regardless 

of viewing distance and borrow little if any form, line, color, texture, pattern or scale from the 

valued scenery within or near the vicinity. Scenery at the unsuitable level needs rehabilitation. 

This level should only be used to inventory existing scenic integrity and never as a management 

objective.

The existing impacts to scenic integrity are predominately related to harvest activities dating 

before 1980. More recent harvest activities were designed to blend with natural appearing 

settings. Within the Blue Mountains, approximately15 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. Twenty 

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 shaped in a manner that appears somewhat 

natural. Fifty percent of the area has a high scenic integrity level, and 12 percent very high, where 

the valued scenic character appears intact with no detracting visual disturbances. The distribution 

of existing scenic integrity level for each national forest is summarized in the following tables.

Table 412. Distribution of existing scenic integrity levels (percent) for the Malheur National Forest

Existing 

Integrity Level

Scenic 

Class 1

Scenic 

Class 2

Scenic 

Class 3

Scenic 

Class 4

Scenic 

Class 5

Scenic 

Class 6

Scenic 

Class 7

High 41 54 56 75 68 88 75

Low 15 11 8 4 8 11 19

Moderate 28 34 35 20 24 1 5

Very high 16 0 0 0 0 0 0

Very low 1 2 1 0 1 0 0

Table 413. Distribution of existing scenic integrity levels (percent) for the Umatilla National Forest

Existing 

Integrity Level

Scenic 

Class 1

Scenic 

Class 2

Scenic 

Class 3

Scenic 

Class 4

Scenic 

Class 5

Scenic 

Class 6

Scenic 

Class 7

High 31 60 53 55 54 75 69

Low 15 17 15 9 13 4 3

Moderate 6 21 30 35 31 20 27

Very high 47 0 0 0 0 0 0

Very low 1 2 2 1 2 1 1
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

468

Table 414. Distribution of existing scenic integrity levels (percent) for the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest

Existing 

Integrity Level

Scenic 

Class 1

Scenic 

Class 2

Scenic 

Class 3

Scenic 

Class 4

Scenic 

Class 5

Scenic 

Class 6

Scenic 

Class 7

High 44 62 63 73 64 93 86

Low 11 13 13 8 15 2 2

Moderate 12 24 23 18 21 5 12

Very high 33 0 0 0 0 0 0

Very low 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scenic Stability

Scenic stability is an indicator for the Scenery Management System, introduced to specifically 

identify the ecological sustainability of the valued landscape character and its scenery attributes. 

Scenic stability is a consideration of the condition of valued scenery attributes identified in the 

landscape character description and an evaluation of whether or not the condition is within the 

historical range of variability. The condition of forested vegetation-related scenery attributes 

(pattern, stand structure and density, species composition) gives an indication of whether or not 

the ecosystem is functioning properly and if the vegetation components of valued scenery can be 

sustained. If conditions are outside of historical range of variability or are trending away from 

that range, then it is likely that scenery attributes are at greater risk of decline or loss. The 

distribution of existing scenic stability classes are summarized in Table 415 for each national 

forest.

Table 415. Existing scenic stability by scenic class for each national forest (percent)

National 

Forest and 

Scenic Class Unstable Very Low Low Moderate High Very High

MAL - 1 0.54 10.75 39.27 49.17 0.19 0.08

UMA - 1 0.42 18.98 44.66 35.92 0.03 0.00

WAW - 1 0.05 3.92 14.10 79.70 2.22 0.00

MAL - 2 0.03 9.84 50.66 39.41 0.05 0.00

UMA - 2 0.30 12.92 47.36 39.39 0.04 0.00

WAW - 2 0.01 5.03 18.15 75.65 1.16 0.00

MAL - 3 0.02 9.79 61.66 28.50 0.03 0.00

UMA - 3 0.11 21.22 50.05 28.61 0.00 0.00

WAW - 3 0.02 9.66 17.17 70.65 2.50 0.00

MAL - 4 0.05 15.57 54.85 29.43 0.10 0.01

UMA - 4 0.48 14.26 38.21 46.74 0.26 0.05

WAW - 4 0.27 0.55 4.23 84.12 9.95 0.89

MAL - 5 0.17 19.10 57.81 22.75 0.17 0.00

UMA - 5 0.03 24.44 44.11 31.27 0.15 0.00

WAW - 5 0.08 10.43 12.38 77.03 0.07 0.00

WAW - 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 82.66 14.59 2.75

WAW - 7 0.14 0.00 0.00 73.89 16.48 9.49

MAL = Malheur, UMA = Umatilla; WAW = Wallowa-Whitman
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

469

Scenic Stability Levels

Very High Stability

All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are present and are 

likely to be sustained.

High Stability

All dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are present and are likely to be 

sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors that 

present a low risk to the sustainability of dominant scenery attributes.

Moderate Stability

Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are present and are likely to 

be sustained; a few may have been lost or are in serious decline.

Low Stability

Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are present and are likely to 

be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may seriously threaten 

or have already eliminated the others.

Very Low Stability

Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are seriously threatened or 

absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors, and are not likely to be sustained. The few 

that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained.

No Stability

All dominant scenery attributes of the valued landscape character are absent or seriously 

threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be sustained, except 

relatively permanent attributes, such as landforms.

In many areas, the long-term stability of scenery resources is at risk of large scale impacts due to 

conditions exacerbated by past wildfire suppression and timber harvest practices. The resultant 

conditions of homogenous, overly dense forests of non-fire-resistant species heavily laden with 

fuels put scenery resources at risk from uncharacteristically large, stand-replacing wildfires, and 

insect and disease disturbances.

Sixty-three 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 pose a threat to 

the stability of the attributes, such as 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.

Scenery Resources – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

Alternative A would continue the current visual management system including visual quality 

objectives (VQO) described in National Forest Landscape Management, Volumes 1 and 2. The 

1990 forest plans include requirements (standards and guidelines) for limitations on the types and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

470

size of activities in visual foreground retention and partial retention areas. These areas are 

generally located along well-traveled routes.

No visual resource management areas are designated within the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest. The Umatilla National Forest includes several management areas (A3 and A4) where the 

visual resource is emphasized. The Malheur National Forest has approximately 190,000 acres 

allocated to MA 14 Visual Corridors.

No desired conditions would exist for scenic stability, which would likely result in larger areas of 

National Forest System land in lower scenic stability than the plan revision alternatives.

Effects Common to

Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The desired conditions for scenery are common to all plan revision alternatives. All plan revision 

alternatives would result in activities on National Forest System land meeting the desired 

condition for scenic classes and provide the visual landscape character attributes that are valued 

by local communities and visitors of the National Forests.

Table 416 summarizes the desired condition for scenic integrity and stability. While all 

alternatives would meet desired conditions there would be variation in the speed at which scenic 

stability and integrity desired conditions are met as well as in the long and short term effects. 

Acres of vegetation management are the primary variable that would result in different effects 

between the plan revision alternatives.

Specific scenic attributes are preserved across the Blue Mountains national forests. These include:

• Aspen groves

• Open ponderosa pine stands

• Civilian Conservation Corps era 

structures

• Historic mining structures

• Rock outcrops

• Water features

• Grassy meadows

• Component of western larch in stands

• Riparian hardwoods

• Herbland/timberland mosaic

• Homesteads

• Deciduous shrubs

Table 416. Scenic integrity levels and scenic stability levels (desired condition)

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

Effects from Vegetation Management on Scenery Resources

All alternatives include vegetation management. Vegetation management activities that result in 

conditions outside of the historical range of variability can result in adverse effects to scenic 

integrity and stability and conditions that do not meet scenery objectives. Lack of vegetation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

471

management can also result in conditions of further departure from the historical range of 

variability and as such lower scenic stability in the long term. Effects from vegetation 

management can result in adverse effects in foreground, middle ground, and background viewing 

distance zones. Short-term effects are typically limited to foreground visibility of vegetation 

management such as cut faces and tree spacing, which can be mitigated through design and 

project planning. Associated activities such as logging debris skid trails and landings can result in 

adverse effects to scenic integrity, primarily when viewed from foreground distances. Vegetation 

treatments that include burning may result in short-term effects that include patches of blackened 

forest, scorched tree crowns, hazy skies, and smoke concentrated in some areas. Activities 

associated with vegetation management can be designed to meet scenic integrity standard in most 

conditions within 2 to 5 years following implementation.

All plan revision alternatives include guideline SCEN-1, which states that short-term reductions 

to existing scenic integrity levels should be authorized only when needed to achieve the long-term 

restoration or rehabilitation of scenic integrity and/or scenic stability.

The majority of short-term impacts to scenic integrity can be mitigated through project design;

however, this guideline would allow flexibility to achieve longer term stability in scenic quality. 

Alternatives with more acres treated to return the forested landscape to historical ranges of 

variability would result in longer-term stability of the valued landscape characteristics but would 

likely have more areas of short-term reduction in scenic integrity as viewed from foreground 

positions. The effects from the alternatives apply to each national forest.

Effects from Vegetation Management on Scenery Resources for Alternatives B, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F

The effects of these four alternatives are similar to each other, and the magnitude is in between 

that of Alternatives C and D for acres treated. The level of vegetation treatment anticipated may 

result in improved scenic stability conditions in the long term due to the emphasis on reducing 

fuels and treating vegetation to move it toward the historical range of variability, but at a level 

less than anticipated for Alternative D. Vegetation management would emphasize active 

management in the dry forest type, creating more open stands of trees with a park-like 

appearance. There would be more evidence of logging, including stumps visible from tree 

removal, skid trails, and debris piles, but at a level less than anticipated for Alternative D.

Effects from Vegetation management on Scenery Resources for Alternative C

Low levels of vegetation management anticipated for this alternative may result in improved 

scenic integrity conditions in the long term due to the emphasis on nonmotorized use and 

protection of wilderness characteristics. However, there is indication that this alternative would 

create a greater fire risk, increasing the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire. This alternative 

would result in larger areas of lower scenic stability than other plan revision alternatives due to 

larger areas of forest left untreated outside the historical range of variability.

Effects from Vegetation Management on Scenery Resources for Alternatives D and EModified Departure

The level of vegetation management anticipated for Alternatives D and E-Modified Departure 

may result in an improved scenic stability condition in the long term due to the emphasis on 

reducing fuels and treating vegetation to move it toward the historical range of variability. 

However, these alternatives may create a more managed and less natural appearing landscape. 

Vegetation management would emphasize active management in the dry forest type, creating 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

472

more open stands of trees with a park-like appearance. There would be more evidence of logging, 

including stumps visible from tree removal, skid trails, and debris piles.

Long-term effects may include landscapes that appear more as they might have at the turn of the 

century, reduced brush density, and vistas available because of reduction of vegetation density.

Effects from Other Management Activities

Visual disturbances can include road construction, mining, utilities development, recreation 

facilities, ski areas, and other special uses. These types of activities generally would not improve 

scenic integrity or stability in the long term, unlike vegetation management activities. Scenic 

integrity and stability desired conditions would be common to all plan revision alternatives. The 

level of development of these activities is anticipated to have negligible variations between 

alternatives and not to an extent that would result in different scenic integrity or stability. While 

access is a key issue, little to no new road construction is anticipated for any of the alternatives. 

All new development would be evaluated at project level planning to achieve scenic integrity and 

stability desired conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The implementation of the forest plans would result in indirect effects to scenery within the 

greater region of the Blue Mountains including the surrounding communities and public travel 

routes off National Forest System land. Effects to scenery would last approximately 30 years, 

considering lasting effects of implementation of vegetation management activities beyond the 

anticipated life of the plan. Past actions have created the existing scenic integrity and stability 

conditions. Areas modified by timber harvest in the 1980s and 1990s may in some cases continue 

to appear highly managed during the next 10 to 15 years and scenic integrity will remain low to 

very low in those areas.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions that would affect scenic quality that overlap within the 

time and space include timber harvests off National Forest System land, wildfire and other 

disturbances. Timber harvest that would occur on neighboring private, state, and public lands may 

influence overall scenic integrity within the greater Plan Area. Harvest that would occur in the 

wildland-urban interface as directed by the National Fire Plan may also add to these effects. 

Wildfire and other disturbance processes, if large enough in scale and intensity, may result in 

decreased scenic attractiveness for a few years in those areas affected by the disturbance. Driving 

for pleasure and other scenery dependent activities could be affected slightly by human 

disturbance to areas outside the National Forests. Considering the type of activities and distances 

from communities, the scenic backdrop above the valleys would remain generally unchanged for 

all alternatives. The long-term effects of implementing the forest plan combined with ongoing 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in conditions that continue to provide the 

valued and restorative qualities of the landscape to forest visitors and the surrounding 

communities.

The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, under the administration of the Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forest, contains valued scenic vistas sites. The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Comprehensive Management Plan, a part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1990 forest 

plan, includes added protections for these scenic resources as outlined in Section 7 of the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Act (P.L. 94-199). All scenery resources on all three National Forests

would be managed in accordance with laws, regulations, and Forest Service policies and 

management direction.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

473

Heritage Program

Introduction

Humans have inhabited the Blue Mountains for more than 12,000 years. As warming climatic 

conditions caused glacial retreat and population increased, early hunting and gathering societies 

diversified. American Indian cultures in the Blue Mountains adapted as needed to environmental 

fluctuations within a yearly rhythm of seasonal rounds. American Indians established villages 

along the drainages of major rivers and utilized seasonal camps for hunting, fishing, plant 

gathering, and other activities. Specific places for fishing, hunting, and gathering became 

important. Favored areas for berry picking, root gathering, hunting, and collection of other 

necessary materials offered continuity with the land and affirmed spiritual beliefs.

The Blue Mountains were not pristine wildernesses prior to the arrival of non-Indian emigrants, 

but ecological systems in which humans had been an active component. Harvest of fish, game, 

and plant resources was timed to ensure future availability. Plant gathering methods increased the 

productivity of the soil and increased the yield of food crops. The rivers provided salmon, 

steelhead, sturgeon, lampreys, suckers, and trout. American Indians employed low-intensity fire 

as a tool to manage vegetation and enrich forage for grazing for livestock and other large 

mammals, and to promote growth of berries for human and animal consumption. Fire was also 

used to signal other Tribes or send warnings, and was used in ceremonial events.

American Indian cultures in the region remained generally stable until the effects of European 

colonization of North America reached the area as early as 500 years ago. Long before the arrival 

of non-Indian emigrants in the region, European diseases swept across the area and caused 

significant population loss and social disruption. Several Tribes adapted the horse into their

culture as early as 1700. In the 1850s and 1860s, most Tribes entered into treaties with the United 

States in which they retained their sovereignty and access to critical resources.

The Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1804 is generally considered the beginning of the historic 

period in the Blue Mountains. American and Canadian fur trappers followed, and Oregon Trail 

migration began in the early 1840s. Gold was discovered in the Blue Mountains in the 1860s and 

Euro-American settlement began in earnest. Mines and settlements required timber, and logging 

became a big industry in the area in the 1880s. Grazing and farming increased as the population 

grew. Mining and logging required roads and the beginnings of today’s road systems were put in 

place. Mining and agriculture required water, and ditches were constructed to move it to where it 

was needed. As the population increased, more people began visiting the National Forests for 

recreation. In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps constructed or improved many Forest 

Service recreation sites in the Blue Mountains. The Forest Service also established many fire 

lookout towers, along with cabins and other administrative sites.

Understanding the role of humans in past and present ecosystems provides a context for 

understanding contemporary landscapes and natural resource issues. Cultural resources have 

local, regional, and national scientific interest and significance, and are elements of worldwide 

patterns and processes. Beyond scientific value, these sites offer a tangible connection to history 

and culture as well as a sense of place. Cultural resource sites, objects, and areas have an intrinsic 

value to people whose ancestors used and occupied the lands. The heritage program ensures that 

significant archaeological and historical resources are identified, protected, and preserved for the 

inspiration and benefit of present and future generations. Educational and volunteer projects, such 

as the Forest Service’s Passport in Time program, foster public participation in identifying, 

understanding and protecting cultural resources.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

474

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from the global changes throughout this environmental impact statement described in the 

Preface to this document (see Volume 1), the following changes were made specifically to this 

section:

Revised Forest Plan Content: The desired condition for cultural resources (goal 2.5) was 

modified to recognize the need for appropriate use and maintenance of historic facilities; and the 

need for identifying resource types including traditional cultural properties, cultural landscapes, 

sacred sites, and other culturally significant areas by Tribes and local communities was included.

The resource types considered in Management Area 2E (Historical Areas) were expanded to 

include both archaeological sites and districts, and to emphasize that existing preservation and 

management plans for these resources are carried forward in the revised forest plan.

In response to numerous comments on the Draft Revised Forest Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement that expressed concerns for increased cultural resource protection, the forestwide 

guideline for cultural resources was changed to a standard.

Heritage Program – Affected Environment

Cultural resources 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 before approximately 1800 in this area. A historic site postdates this 

time. 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 on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are considered historic properties under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and are managed and protected under that law. Cultural 

resources for which NRHP eligibility has not yet been determined are managed as historic 

properties until a determination is completed. The most significant and historic properties can be 

identified as priority heritage assets and would be proactively monitored and managed.

In order for a cultural resource to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, a district, site, building, 

structure, or object must meet at least one of four criteria. Sites that qualify for listing include 

sites:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method or construction, 

or that represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history

Sites must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and/or association.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

475

More than one-third of all cultural resource sites identified on National Forest System lands 

within Oregon and Washington are located in the Blue Mountains national forests (Table 417).

Prehistoric sites common to the Blue Mountains include quarries, tool manufacturing sites, 

hunting camps, fishing stations, plant gathering and processing sites, rock art sites, villages and 

sites resulting from other types of activities. Historic sites in the area include, but are not limited 

to homesteads, mines, railroads, cabins, corrals, lookout towers, and Forest Service administrative 

sites. Traditional cultural properties include sites, districts, buildings, structures or objects that are 

valued by human communities for the role they play in sustaining a community’s cultural 

integrity and could include plant-gathering sites, fishing stations, a rural community or a rodeo 

ground. The exact number and kind of cultural resources in the Blue Mountains is not known. 

Additional cultural resources will continue to be discovered and evaluated as surveys are 

completed for potential management activities.

Educational and volunteer projects, such as the Forest Service’s Passport in Time program, foster 

public participation in identifying, understanding and protecting cultural resources.

Table 417. Identified cultural resource sites within the Blue Mountains national forests

National 

Forest

All Sites NRHP 

Eligible 

Sites

NRHP 

Ineligible 

Sites

Unevaluated 

Sites

NRHP 

Listed 

Sites

Priority 

Assets

Interpreted 

Sites

MAL 5,125 2,274 399 2,433 19 207 8

UMA 1,914 691 122 1,100 1 7 3

WAW* 4,377 701 753 2,921 2 6 10

* Does not include sites in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area.

Heritage Program – Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Potential risks to cultural resources include development, 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 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 plan that mitigate potential 

damage. Potential effects to cultural resources from project activities are addressed through 

project-specific mitigation measures during the project planning process. Although the potential 

to effect cultural resources always exists, under all alternatives cultural resources would be

carefully managed to avoid or mitigate adverse effects whenever possible.

All alternatives would provide management direction for cultural resources in a manner 

consistent with the laws, executive orders, and regulations listed in Volume 4, Appendix B of this 

document. Cultural resource inventories are part of the analysis process for management activities 

and known significant sites are protected during implementation of those activities. Although 

concerted efforts are made to avoid damaging cultural resources during Federal undertakings or 

authorized actions, in rare instances inadvertent impacts or damage may occur. Unanticipated 

indirect effects may occur in some instances, such as providing new or improved access to an 

area, which increases the potential for illegal collection of artifacts or vandalism, and modifying 

vegetative cover, which may increase the potential for damage due to erosion or decay.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

476

The Heritage Program will be managed to national standard based on a national forest specific 

mix of the following seven indicators:

1. A Heritage Program plan would be developed and maintained by each national forest 

(FSM 2362.3).

2. Lands where cultural resources are most likely to occur would be surveyed (FSM 

2363.03, 2363.1).

3. Legacy cultural resources would be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places and historic properties would be nominated for listing (FSM 

2363.2, 2364.41).

4. Condition assessments for priority heritage assets, including allocation to the appropriate 

management category, would be accomplished (FSM 2362.4, 2363.3, 2366).

5. Stewardship activities would preserve, protect, and enhance historic properties (FSM 

2364.36, 2364.42).

6. Opportunities for study and appropriate public use of cultural resources including 

research, traditional use, and interpretation would be provided (FSM 2364.43, 2365.2).

7. Volunteer opportunities would be provided (FSM 2365.2).

By managing the Heritage Program for the Blue Mountains national forests to national standards, 

the Forest Service will work to ensure that cultural resources are identified and protected for 

future generations.

Effects Specific to Alternative A (No-action Alternative)

Management Direction

All 1990 forest plans have goals that provide for the identification, protection, interpretation, and 

management of significant cultural resources consistent with the legal framework described 

previously. There are no management area allocations specific to cultural resources in any of the 

1990 forest plans.

The Malheur National Forest 1990 forest plan includes the historic Sumpter Valley Railroad site 

in special interest areas along with geologic, botanical, and other unique sites.

The Umatilla National Forest 1990 forest plan includes the Greenhorn area, Olive Lake-Freemont 

Powerhouse area, and Target Meadows in special interest areas along with botanical areas, 

viewpoints, and other unique areas.

The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1990 forest plan does not recognize historic sites specific 

to any management area allocation.

Effects from Alternative A

Management direction would continue the inventory, documentation, evaluation, and protection 

of cultural resources at current levels. Additional sites would continue to be identified as surveys 

are conducted during project analysis. The cultural resources identified as part of special interest 

areas would continue to be identified with areas that have other resource values.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

477

Effects Specific to Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Management Direction

Historical areas have historic sites, buildings, or objects of significance. The specific areas 

identified for their historic or prehistoric value would be protected and enhanced, and, where 

appropriate, public use and enjoyment would be fostered. Historical areas would be added as a 

management area allocation (MA 2E) under these alternatives.

Effects from Alternatives B, C, D, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F

Indirect effects to cultural resources from Alternatives B and F would be similar to Alternative A. 

Alternatives D and E, F, E-Modified, and E-Modified Departure due to the proposal of more 

intensive management, would have a greater likelihood of identifying additional sites, but the 

likelihood that those management activities would damage sites is greater, as described 

previously. Alternative C, due to the proposal of fewer management activities and likely lower 

use levels by the public, would have the lowest potential for damaging cultural resources, but also 

would have the lowest potential for identifying additional sites.

Effects from Other Resource Management Areas

Potential Effects from Aquatic Resources Management on Cultural Resources

Cultural resources generally benefit from management actions that improve the stability and 

functionality of watersheds. This reduces erosion and stabilizes stream banks. Cultural resources 

have a high probability of occurrence along streams. Management actions that require ground 

disturbance or the use of heavy machinery have the potential to adversely affect cultural 

resources.

All alternatives would allocate miles of riparian area improvement and vary by alternative. 

Effects to cultural resources from riparian area improvement would be greatest in Alternatives A, 

B, and D (the least amount of restoration miles), are intermediate for Alternatives E, E-Modified, 

E-Modified Departure, and F, and are the least for Alternative C (largest amount of restoration). 

Effects to cultural resources from ground disturbance associated with restoration activities would 

be reduced, eliminated, or mitigated through project specific protection measures and mitigation.

Potential Effects from Wildfire Management on Cultural Resources

Fire suppression activities have a high potential to adversely affect cultural resources. Fire lines, 

helicopter landings, camp locations, and other fire suppression actions may adversely affect 

cultural resources. Wildfires have a high potential to adversely affect historic structures, such as 

ranches, homesteads, and mining structures. Prehistoric cultural resources, such as rock art, can 

be damaged by heat and smoke generated by wildfire, as well as by post-fire erosion. Post-fire 

management activities that promote rapid growth of ground cover can stabilize sites and reduce 

their visibility, thereby reducing their vulnerability to looting and vandalism.

The location of cultural resources related to vegetation type plays a role in the possible effects to 

sites. The temperature and duration of fire affects soil temperature, and buried archeological 

remains may be seriously affected by high temperatures and long fire duration. Fires in grasslands 

are generally of short duration and cooler temperatures, and have fewer effects. Fires in forested 

vegetation types are usually more intense and of longer duration than those in grasslands, and 

have the potential for greater effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

478

Wildfire consists of unplanned ignitions. Although the occurrence is unplanned, mitigation 

measures to reduce the effects to cultural resources include a program of pre-incident survey of 

potential fuelbreaks and other fire suppression-related activity locations. Where heritage 

resources are found, programmatic agreement standard protection measures such as project 

redesign, relocation and monitoring would be used to protect the affected heritage resources. 

Inventories should also occur on those incident activities not previously inventoried prior to the 

completion of the incident. Effective treatment measures should be used to rehabilitate fire 

suppression-related ground disturbance.

Potential Effects from Preliminary

Administratively Recommended Wilderness Areas Allocations on Cultural Resources

Wilderness areas are subject to far fewer land management activities than other multiple-use 

areas. Activities related to recreation use, such as dispersed camping, trail construction and 

maintenance, and hiking, along with livestock grazing and wildfire, can affect cultural resources 

in designated wilderness areas, but little other active management takes place in those areas. Few 

effects to known and unknown cultural resources would take place from these activities.

The majority of new cultural resource sites are identified during archaeological inventories 

conducted for proposed management activities, the majority of which are conducted in areas 

located outside of designated wilderness. In wilderness areas, new sites are discovered during 

inventories that are often conducted for the sole purpose of identifying cultural resources. This 

type of inventory is generally conducted by the heritage program staff, often with the assistance 

of volunteers, using dedicated heritage program funds. The frequency and extent of surveys 

within wilderness is dependent on funding which varies annually, but generally is relatively 

limited compared to the number of surveys conducted for site-specific projects for identification 

purposes per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Alternative C would allocate the largest amount of area to preliminary administratively 

recommended wilderness (MA 1B), followed by Alternatives E and F (equal amounts), then 

Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure with slightly less acres than Alternatives E 

and F, and Alternative B with the least amount. Both Alternatives A and D do not allocate any 

acreage to MA 1B. In general, alternatives that allocate larger amounts of acreage to MA 1B 

would conserve cultural resources, but reduce the opportunity for identification, and may increase 

the potential for wildland fire to affect cultural resources. Conversely, those alternatives with 

either an intermediate or lesser amount of acreage allocated to MA 1B would still allow for 

cultural resource conservation achieved through applying cultural resource protection laws and 

programmatic agreements. The opportunity for identification through project specific 

undertakings may increase, and effects from wildland fire would likely remain at the same levels 

through all alternatives.

Potential Effects from Livestock Grazing on Cultural Resources

Domestic livestock can affect both historic and prehistoric cultural resources. Potential impacts 

include: removal of surface vegetation, compaction or compression of archeological deposits, 

alteration of soil chemistry, livestock trailing or cutting through archaeological deposits, 

destruction of historic structures by rubbing or trampling, and breakage of historic and prehistoric 

artifacts from trampling.

All alternatives would allocate acres suitable for permitted cattle and sheep grazing and vary by 

alternative. The number of permitted animal unit months also varies by alternative. Effects to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

479

cultural resources from livestock grazing would be greatest in Alternative D, are intermediate for 

Alternatives A, B, E, E-Modified, E-Modified Departure, and F, and are least for Alternative C.

Potential Effects from Recreation and Access on Cultural Resources

Cultural resource vandalism and looting are potential impacts resulting from access and visitor 

use. Construction and maintenance of roads, trails, campgrounds, and other developed facilities 

may also impact cultural resources. Prehistoric and historic cultural resources are often found in 

optimum locations for developed recreation sites. Dispersed recreation may also impact cultural 

resources as modern camps are often located on prehistoric sites. Vandalism in the form of target 

practice or use for firewood often damages historic structures. Interpretation of these sites can 

reduce the adverse effects from recreation use.

Alternatives that provide for the greatest amount of road maintenance and the highest levels of 

access would have a greater effect on cultural resources. Effects to cultural resources from 

recreation and access would be greatest in Alternative D and E-Modified Departure; are 

intermediate for Alternatives E, E-Modified, and F; are slightly less than intermediate for 

Alternatives A and B; and are the least for Alternative C.

Potential Effects from Vegetation Management on Cultural Resources

Vegetation management involves ground disturbance ranging from minimal disturbance for some 

activities, such as noncommercial thinning and reforestation activities, to high disturbance for 

other activities, such as construction of access roads, skid roads, trails, and landings, and the 

felling of trees and the skidding of logs. Potential impacts to cultural resources include soil 

compaction, soil erosion, streambank erosion, surface mixing of soils, and damage to above- and 

below-ground features. These impacts are reduced, eliminated, or mitigated through project 

specific protection measures and mitigation.

Alternatives that contribute to the greatest amount of vegetation management would have the 

greatest potential to effect cultural resources. Effects to cultural resources from vegetation 

management would be greatest in Alternative D, followed second by Alternative E-Modified 

Departure. Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative E and Alternative E-Modified would have 

intermediate effects and both Alternatives F and B are similar and effects would be slightly less 

than Alternative E. Alternative C would have the least effect.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area includes all of northeastern Oregon, southeastern 

Washington, and western Idaho, including all of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests, and the time period considered was the planning period. The Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area, under the administration of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 

contains thousands of prehistoric sites and historic sites. The Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area Comprehensive Management Plan, a part of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1990 

forest plan, includes added protections for these sites as outlined in Section 7 of the Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Act (P.L. 94-199). All historic properties on all three National Forests would 

be managed in accordance with laws, regulations, executive orders, and Forest Service policies 

and management direction.

Development of lands not protected by Federal or state cultural resource statutes and regulatory 

protection could decrease the regional resource base and lead to loss of resources. Cultural 

resources within the National Forests could increase in value and significance as sites outside the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

480

National Forests are developed or destroyed. Cultural resources are nonrenewable. Cumulative 

effects could occur through incremental degradation of the resource base on both public and 

private lands. Identification of significant cultural resource sites on public lands and the 

preservation and protection of those sites should reduce the downward trend of the cultural 

resource base and reduce the cumulative effects from management activities across the landscape.

Geology, Mining, Minerals, and Energy

Introduction

Geologic resources in the Blue Mountains include leasable energy minerals, such as oil, natural 

gas, coal, and geothermal; 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.

Oil and gas resources are known or suspected to occur in a deep sedimentary basin that underlies 

parts of the Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and all of the Umatilla National 

Forest. The potential extent of these resources has been estimated on a broad regional scale, but 

little interest or exploration has taken place to date near or within the National Forest System 

lands.

Coal deposits are known in the Troy and Flora areas, and west of Ukiah in the Arbuckle coal 

field. These coal deposits have been explored in the past, with little indication that the deposits on 

National Forest System lands are of economic value. There are no active, proposed, or anticipated 

coal mining or coal bed methane operations on National Forest System lands.

Geothermal resources exist throughout the Blue Mountains, revealed by numerous hot springs 

and warm water wells. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE 2003) reported the potential for 

occurrence and development of geothermal resources in northeast Oregon is rated moderate to 

high, indicating there may be potential for leasing of geothermal resources on Forest Service 

lands. However, geothermal resources on Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains are not well 

documented compared to areas surrounding the national forests. The Geothermal Information 

Layer for Oregon (http://www.oregongeology.org/sub/gtilo/background.htm) lists 110 springs and 

1,350 wells in or near the Blue Mountains, of which 8 springs and 10 wells are located on the 

national forests. Available data for Washington (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/programs-andservices/geology/publications-and-data/gis-data-and-databases) lists 5 springs and 11 high 

geothermal gradient wells in the northern Blue Mountains, none of which are located on the 

national forests. In Washington and Oregon combined, fewer than 7 percent of known geothermal 

springs and fewer than 1 percent of geothermal wells are located on National Forest System lands 

in the Blue Mountains.

Saleable or common variety mineral resources exist throughout the Blue Mountains. The 

abundance of basalt and andesite formations in many areas make this type of resource readily 

available, but there are some areas of the National Forests where high quality materials for 

construction or road aggregates are rare and not locally available.

Locatable mineral resources, such as gold, silver, copper, chrome, zinc, and other metals, have 

been produced from placer and lode mines in the Blue Mountains area. While locatable minerals 

are found on all three National Forests, they are primarily concentrated in a broad linear path 

beginning southwest of John Day, and extending northeast through Sumpter, Granite, Unity, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

481

Baker City, across to Durkee, Halfway, through the Eagle Caps, and exposed in the bottom of 

Hells Canyon. These locatable mineral deposits are closely associated with Jurassic age intrusive 

rocks.

Areas with potential for wind energy development have been mapped for northeastern Oregon 

and southwestern Washington by the U.S. Department of Energy. The most extensive areas with 

wind energy development potential occur outside the national forests rather than within them. 

Many areas outside of the forests have experienced wind energy development in recent years. The 

areas with highest potential for development on National Forest System lands are generally found 

at higher elevation, on ridgelines or other open areas, and many of these areas are likely to be 

either legally excluded from development or within management areas with limited suitability for 

placement of wind towers and associated utility lines.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

Aside from changes described in the Preface to this document, the following changes were made 

specifically to this section:

Revised Forest Plan Content: Guidelines were modified for leasable minerals and locatable 

materials concerning federally listed and sensitive species. These guidelines provide additional 

guidance for mineral lease activity and provide reference to Forest Service regulations for 

locatable mineral activity (36 CFR 228).

Multiple guidelines were developed under the Special Uses section (Section 3.3.3) to better 

address potential wind energy uses on the forests. Wind energy analyses were improved.

A standard was developed that provides additional information regarding forest transportation

system roads and mineral activity.

A standard was developed to provide guidance for vertebrate fossils.

Changes Made to the Environmental Analysis: The discussion of mineral resources has been 

updated to provide additional background description of the geology of the area, potential for 

development of leasable minerals, including oil and natural gas, and describe the process 

requirements for development of oil and natural gas.

The section on “Geothermal Resources” has been updated to better describe the distribution, 

occurrence, and potential for development of geothermal resources.

The description of locatable minerals has been revised in response to public comment. Additional 

background is provided to describe the types of mineral deposits and the areas that they are 

known to occur.

Geology, Mining, Minerals, and Energy – Affected Environment

Leasable Mineral Resources

Oil and Natural Gas

Oil and natural gas resources are known to occur within Mesozoic-age sedimentary rocks in the 

Columbia basin of Oregon and Washington in areas overlain by up to three miles of Columbia 

River basalt making exploration and development costly. Together, the Columbia and Central 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

482

Oregon Mesozoic basins underlie all or parts of 14 counties in central and eastern Oregon 

(DOGAMI 1989); in addition, the Columbia basin underlies much of eastern Washington. Parts of 

this resource are thought to underlie the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests and parts of the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Natural gas production is currently occurring in western 

Idaho from a gas field located between Weiser and Caldwell, Idaho. Production occurs from 

Miocene to Pliocene (8.5 to 2.0 million years old) lacustrine strata of the Idaho Group (Wood 

1994), a strata that extends into eastern Oregon near Vale. The only other production to date 

occurred in the 1930s occurred in the vicinity of the Pasco, Washington, in an area known as the 

Yakima fold belt.

Cretaceous marine and fluvial-deltaic sedimentary rocks exposed near Mitchell, Oregon are 

believed to be potential source rocks for hydrocarbons and have a total thickness exceeding 9,000 

feet (Oles and Enlows 1971), while the thickness of the entire sequence of Cretaceous to Tertiary 

sediments exceeds 19,000 feet (Wilkinson and Oles 1968). Exploration in the basin is made more 

difficult by thick sequences of the overlying Columbia River basalt which are exposed at the 

surface over much of the basin (Tennyson and Parrish 1987). Near Mitchell, Oregon and 

including the John Day Fossil Beds, sedimentary rocks of Mesozoic and younger age are overlain 

by as much as 1,000 feet of Columbia River basalt. In eastern Washington, the thickness of the 

overlying basalts exceeds three miles, and locally may exceed seven miles (Catchings and 

Mooney 1988).

Potential hydrocarbon reservoirs occur throughout the Columbia basin which was complexly 

folded both before, during, and after eruption of the Columbia River basalts (Taylor 1960, 1981; 

Camp and Hooper 1981; Reidel et al. 2013).

There is some indication the area of highest potential for occurrence of economic deposits is in 

central Washington (Tennyson and Parrish 1987), including a study the U.S. Geological Survey 

(2008) which suggested that up to 90 percent of potential gas resources may be in Pasco Basin of 

eastern Washington. Based on that assessment, the potential for occurrence of gas oil resources on 

the National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains is moderate to low, and the development 

potential is likely low to very low, at least in the near future, and as long as more productive 

basins exist elsewhere in the U.S. It is possible that knowledge of the productive potential of the 

Columbia Basin for oil or natural gas could change in the future with the discovery of an 

economic deposit, as such a discovery would likely lead to increased exploration interest in the 

basin.

The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries records indicate a number of 

exploratory permits have been issued in Grant, Harney, Baker, and Umatilla counties, mostly in 

the 1950s. For some of these sites the records are incomplete, but none of them are known to have 

been on National Forest System lands, or successfully developed into production wells. There are 

no current or pending leases for gas or oil exploration on the any of the three national forests of 

northeastern Oregon and southeast Washington.

The Forest Service has made oil and gas leasing decisions for parts of the Umatilla National 

Forest outside of the Snake River Basin and all of the Malheur National Forest (USDA Forest 

Service 1995), which categorized all of those lands as either (i) open to development subject to 

the terms and conditions of the standard oil and gas lease form, (ii) open to development but 

subject to additional constraints, or (iii) closed to leasing, distinguishing between those areas that 

are closed through exercise of management direction, and those closed by law, regulation, etc. (36 

CFR 288.102 (c)), such as wilderness areas and wild river corridors.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

483

For the Umatilla and Malheur National Forests, all lands classified no lease in the 1995 leasing 

analysis and record of decision should be classified as unsuitable for oil and gas development. All 

other lands would be classified as generally suitable, although more recent information suggests 

that development potential on these lands is likely low to very low. Portions of the 1995 leasing 

decision may need to be revisited prior to leasing, due to potential significant new information or 

circumstances as defined in 40 CFR 1502.9 requiring further analysis (36 CFR 228.102(e)).

For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, all existing wilderness areas and wild river corridors 

would be classified as unsuitable for oil and gas development. Areas that are outside of existing 

wilderness areas and wild river corridors would be classified as general suitability not determined 

because an oil and gas leasing analysis and decision for the forest has not yet been made. 

Available information suggests that development potential for oil and natural gas within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is low.

Coal

To date there has been very little coal development on National Forest System lands in the Blue 

Mountains. Coal deposits are known in the Troy and Flora areas, and west of Ukiah in the 

Arbuckle coal field. These coal deposits have been explored in the past, with little indication that 

the deposits on National Forest System lands are of economic value. There are no active, 

proposed, or anticipated coal mining or coal bed methane operations on National Forest System 

lands.

Geothermal Energy

The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 added geothermal resources to the list of leasable resources 

on Federal lands. A report by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE 2003) identified all areas 

of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests as having medium to high 

potential for geothermal resource development (USDOE 2003). The USGS further defines 

moderate-temperature (90° to 105°C; 194° to 302°F) and high-temperature (greater than 150°C) 

geothermal systems (USGS 2008).

Section 222 of the 2005 Energy Policy are requires “All future forest plans and resource 

management plans for areas with high geothermal resource potential shall consider geothermal 

leasing and development.” As evidenced by the presence of hot springs throughout the Eastern 

Oregon, temperature gradients are relatively high when compared to most continental lands.

Some of the better known hot springs in the Blue Mountains National Forests area include the 

Blue Mountains Hot Springs near Prairie City, Medical Springs east of North Powder, Hot Lake 

Springs near La Grande, Radium Hot Springs near Haines, Ritter Hot Springs near Ritter, Suplee 

Hot Springs near Weberg, and Lehman Hot Springs between Ukiah and La Grande. None of these 

hot springs emerge on National Forest System lands, but some are very close to the national 

forest boundaries, and Lehman Hot Springs is on a private inholding within the Umatilla National 

Forest and represent higher than normal geothermal gradients in the area. There are other known 

geothermal springs located on National Forest System lands. Geothermal areas with known high 

temperature water (greater than 90 degrees Celsius or 194 degrees Fahrenheit), either near the 

land surface or at depth, may have higher development potential than other geothermal resources. 

In the vicinity of the Blue Mountains, the areas mapped as having known or potential high 

temperature geothermal sources are near Vale, Oregon and Hot Springs Lake near La Grande, 

Oregon (NREL 2009). There are no other commercial high temperature geothermal areas 

developed in northeastern Oregon or southeast Washington. However, emerging technologies are 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

484

now be utilized to provide direct use geothermal heating to work and living space at much lower 

temperatures than needed to generate electricity. Uses include “...district heating, greenhouses, 

fisheries, mineral recovery, and industrial process heating.” Some low-temperature resources are 

being used to the generate electricity using binary cycle electricity generating technology. As 

these technologies become increasingly practical, increased demand for geothermal resources on 

and near the Forests may occur.

The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries records indicate that two permits for 

geothermal exploration were issued in Union County in 1974. One was cancelled and records for 

the other are incomplete, but neither are known to have been on National Forest System lands, or 

successfully developed into production wells. There have been many permits issued in eastern 

Oregon by the Department of Geology and Mineral Industries since the 1990s, but all of those 

have been issued in Deschutes, Harney, Lake, and Klamath counties. Today, there are no 

geothermal leases within the Blue Mountains National Forests. Consequently, an analysis to 

consider the effects of geothermal leasing will be completed as the need arises.

As with oil and gas, geothermal leasing of National Forest System lands can only occur with the 

consent of, and subject to conditions prescribed by, the Secretary of Agriculture. All lands 

administered by the Secretary of Agriculture (including all National Forest System lands) are 

subject to geothermal leasing (30 U.S.C. 1002), subject to certain prohibitions. Forest Service 

consent for BLM to lease geothermal resources for any of the Forests, covered by this analysis, 

would be based on specific land management prescriptions. Stipulations determined in the 

consent analysis to be necessary and appropriate to protect the lands and resources involved 

would be applied as enforceable lease terms by the BLM.

Locatable Minerals

Locatable mineral exploration and development from National Forest System lands is authorized 

under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Historically, about 75 percent of all of the 

gold mined in Oregon has come from within broad zone extending from Canyon Creek, near John 

Day, Oregon, north across the Middle and North Forks of the John Day River to the vicinity of 

Granite, Oregon and east across the Elkhorn Mountains and the southern Wallowa Mountains to 

the Snake River. Placer mining has occurred in Canyon Creek, the Upper, Middle and North 

Forks of the John Day River, North Fork and lower Burnt River, Eagle Creek and Pine Creek, and 

the upper Grande Ronde River. Each of these areas is associated with, or downstream of major 

areas of past gold production (Ferns and Huber 1984). Gold mineralization in the Blue Mountains 

may have resulted from multiple geological sources, but many of the areas of gold mineralization 

are associated with late Jurassic and older granitic rocks (Ferns and Huber 1984).

Gold has been produced from placer deposits and hard rock or lode deposits within and outside of 

the National Forest System lands. Many claims were patented under the General Mining Law of 

1872, as amended, whereby they became privately owned land within the national forest 

boundaries. Mining activity in this area became relatively large scale in the early 1860s, with the 

most active period between 1895 and 1908. There were intervals where activity increased and 

decreased up until about 1954, after which production dropped of drastically. Exact figures were 

never recorded for early gold production from the Blue Mountains, as much of the gold was sent 

to a mint in San Francisco and was credited to California. But it has been estimated that 

approximately $23 million in placer gold and $5 million in lode gold had been produced from 

mining operations in Grant and Baker counties by 1900. The estimated dollar value for placer and 

lode gold produced from the area between 1900 and 1965 is $47 million (Orr and Orr 2000). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

485

Ferns and Huber (1984) estimated gold production of 480,000 ounces from placer mining 1913 

and 1954; about 60 percent of that production came from the upper Powder River.

Gold and silver are often found within the same lode ore deposits. $2 million dollars of silver is 

estimated to have been produced from within the Blue Mountains between 1900 and 1965. There 

has also been some production of copper, mostly from the Iron Dyke mine near Homestead, as 

well as small amounts of chrome, zinc, and other metals from mines within the Blue Mountains 

national forests. There are also many isolated gold and other metal deposits, including mercury, 

which were discovered and mined outside of the main mineralized areas in the Blue Mountains. 

These isolated deposits include the Idol City Mining District northeast of Burns, the RobaWestfall, Roba Brothers, and York and Rannels mercury mines southwest of John Day, and 

others.

Locatable mineral exploration and development is often dependent upon the supply and price of 

global mineral commodities; however, economic conditions and availability does not often affect 

the number of mining claims and approved operations for small-scale mining operations. Most of 

the modern mining activity in the Blue Mountains is conducted be small-scale miners. According 

to Bureau of Land Management records as of March of 2011, the Malheur National Forest had 84 

locatable mineral claims, the Umatilla National Forest had 34, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest had 748. Approved plans of operation are required to conduct exploration or mining 

operations on National Forest System lands. When the District Ranger determines a Plan of 

Operations submitted for exploration or mining on National Forest System lands may cause 

significant disturbance, an environmental analysis of the effects of implementing the Plan may be 

required. In 2016, 28 plans of operation were approved in the Granite Mining Record of Decision 

and 42 plans of operation were approved with the North Fork Burnt River Record of Decision. An 

additional 23 plans of operation are pending approval by the Powder Mining Environmental 

Impact Statement, which is in progress.

Certain areas, where resources or capital investments are determined to warrant additional 

protection, not provided by law or Forest Service regulations, may be withdrawn from entry 

under the General Mining Law. However; when valid existing rights are established prior to the 

date of withdrawal, the holder of those rights may conduct exploration and mineral development 

activities within the boundaries of their validated mining claim(s). Procedurally, lands are 

withdrawn from mineral entry, under a public land order issued by the Secretary of the Interior as 

provided in Sec. 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Withdrawals are subject to 

renewal or expire at the end of the withdrawal term under BLM regulations found in Chapter 43 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 2300.

Saleable Minerals

Saleable or common variety mineral resources exist throughout the Blue Mountains. These are 

usually low unit value materials and typically need to be located both near existing transportation 

routes and the point of use to be economically viable. In northeast Oregon, basalt and andesite are 

commonly used as construction materials and road aggregates, because they are readily available. 

These rock types are abundant in many areas of the national forests but scarce to nonexistent in 

other areas where other rock types may be used despite having less desirable qualities. There are 

also some deposits of sand, gravel, limestone, and rock suitable for landscape or building stone 

that occur within the national forests.

The National Forests have an extensive network of common variety materials sources that were 

developed over time in conjunction with development of national forest transportation systems. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

486

The total number of these sources on the three Blue Mountains national forests probably exceeds 

500, but many are considered inactive or have not been used for many years. Some of the sources 

are located near state and Federal highways or major county roads and have been used 

extensively by those agencies as well. Use of these types of sources is down dramatically 

compared to when the national forest transportation systems were being rapidly expanded. They 

are still used intermittently by the national forests for in-service uses, and a few sources are still 

used frequently by other government agencies, usually through issuance of free-use permits.

Common variety minerals are also available through the issuance of small free-use permits to 

individuals or sales to private parties for personal or commercial uses, but the amount of materials 

disposed of through these permits is usually relatively minor.

Sales, free use, or in-service use of mineral materials would not meet the management objectives 

of withdrawn National Forest System lands, inventoried roadless areas, and areas of unique or 

special characteristics. These lands would be categorized as unsuitable for mineral material 

development. All other lands would be classified as generally suitable. Some expansion of the 

boundaries or size of active common variety minerals sources is likely to occur in the next 10 to 

15 years, but the development of new sources is expected to be relatively rare unless an 

unforeseeable demand should occur.

Wind Energy

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encourages energy development in acceptable areas, including on 

Forest Service lands. Wind energy development in the Pacific Northwest has increased recently, 

as evidenced by wind tower installation at sites along the Columbia River in Oregon and 

Washington, in Baker Valley, and several other sites surrounding National Forest System lands in 

northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. Currently, there is no wind energy development on 

the Forests. If location and development of wind towers on National Forest System lands occurs 

in the future, it will be guided by provisions of the Forest Service Special Uses Handbook.

In the Blue Mountains region, areas with potential for wind energy development mainly occur 

outside of the Blue Mountain national forests. The Forest Service lands with highest potential for 

wind project development are generally found at higher elevation, on ridgelines, or other open 

areas. However, many sites with high potential for wind development are also likely to be within 

management areas that are not suitable for placement of wind towers and associated utility lines.

Suitability for Wind Energy Development (All Alternatives)

Wind energy potential maps were developed by the U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in 1986 (http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/). For the 

Blue Mountains area, NREL estimated 388,500 acres on National Forest System lands that 

exhibit a wind power classification that may be adequate for further evaluation and development. 

This includes 39,000 acres on the Malheur National Forest, 168,500 acres on the Umatilla 

National Forest, and 181,000 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Wind energy 

development will be generally unsuitable on sites where development is incompatible with 

desired conditions, where unacceptable impacts cannot be mitigated, or in areas where 

development is legally excluded, such as in in Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas. The 

following criteria were used to determine general suitability of particular management areas for 

wind development on National Forest System lands.

• Forested sites, areas with slopes less than 20 percent, and valley bottoms generally do not 

have high wind exposure and will likely have low wind power development potential.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

487

• Designated wilderness areas, proposed or potential wilderness areas, wild and scenic river 

corridors, and inventoried roadless areas are either legally excluded from wind energy 

development or are areas where wind energy development would be limited by available 

road access, and new road construction would be inappropriate.

• Areas with existing high scenic value within Scenic Classes 1, 2, and 3 are unsuitable due 

to the desire to maintain scenic integrity.

• Key watersheds may or may not be excluded due to a limitation on increasing road density 

above current levels.

• Municipal watersheds are guided by existing agreements between the agency and 

individual cities. Energy development would require approval by the cities and 

development could only occur under the provision that drinking water quality is protected.

• In some areas, for example in elk winter or summer range, motor vehicle access is limited 

during specific time periods. This limitation may not by itself determine suitability of a site 

for development, but may influence how sites are developed, and would place seasonal 

restrictions on motor vehicle access.

• Botanical areas are managed to preserve specific vegetative characteristics. Disturbance 

that would degrade these characteristics, including but not limited to siting of utility 

corridors or placement of high-voltage power lines, would not be a compatible use.

• Geological areas are managed to preserve specific geological features and development that 

could degrade these features would not generally be allowed.

• Motor vehicle use is generally not allowed within research natural areas and motor vehicle 

access would not be appropriate in the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range.

• Access or proximity to existing utility corridors and, more specifically, high-voltage power 

lines may be a prerequisite for development.

Wilderness areas (MA 1A), proposed recommended wilderness areas (MA 1B), wilderness study 

areas (MA 1C), wild and scenic rivers (MA 2A), and backcountry areas (MA 3A and 3B) would 

be generally unsuitable for wind energy development because such use would either conflict with 

the purpose for which an area was designated, or would be inconsistent with the intended uses of 

the area. Wind energy development in special areas (MA 2A through MA 2J) would normally be 

inappropriate, with few exceptions, as such development would likely be inconsistent with the 

intended use, or would be difficult to implement while still protecting the intended use of each 

area. Administrative sites may or may not be suitable sites for placement of individual wind 

towers but would likely not be suitable sites for commercial-scale wind farms.

Areas of the National Forests that are likely to be suitable for wind development will generally be 

in MA 4A General Forest. Areas within MA 4A with wind resources that may be adequate for 

development include 9,505 acres on the Malheur National Forest, 79,104 acres on the Umatilla 

National Forest, and 33,184 acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Other considerations 

that may restrict this suitable area even further on the National Forests include:

• Cultural resource protection

• Protection of treaty and tribal trust resources

• Scenic integrity

• Protection of wildlife habitat
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

488

• Elk habitat, including summer and winter range, and elk calving areas

• Lookouts and communications sites

• Protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species

• Unstable sites

• Proximity to or ability to construct utility lines

• Road access

Additional protection measures for individual resources may exclude additional areas from 

consideration, based on project-level analysis. Oregon, Washington, Idaho, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Department of Energy all have siting 

criteria and other information that can be used in the assessment of wind energy projects.

Other Geologic Resources

Fossils

Invertebrate and plant fossils, and some vertebrate fossils, are known to occur in sedimentary 

rocks and ash deposits within the National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. 

Invertebrate marine fossils are common in some of the Jurassic and Triassic formations in 

sedimentary and meta-sedimentary rocks, and typically include ammonites and bivalves. The 

occurrence of vertebrate fossils is known in the geological sequence of rock formations in which 

the John Day Fossil Beds occur, but vertebrate fossils in older formations are less well 

documented. The most notable occurrences are an Ichthyosaur (a marine reptile) fossil from the 

Triassic Martin Bridge Limestone near Eagle Creek within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

(Orr 1986), and the upper jaw of a Jurassic reptile, tentatively identified as a small crocodile, 

discovered in 2010 near Delintment Lake in a marine sandstone deposit on the Emigrant Creek 

Ranger District of the Malheur National Forest.

The John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, located west of the Blue Mountains National 

Forests, is famous for its plant and animal fossils from the Clarno and John Day Formations. 

Vertebrate fossils, such as dogs, cats, camels, rhinoceroses, horses, turtles, and others have been 

found there.

Current guidelines relative to fossils are based largely on the Organic Act of 1897, the 

Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 1906, the Paleontological Resources Preservation 

Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

and Forest Service regulations published at Chapter 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 291 (36 

CFR 291.10 -13. Regulations governing collection of paleontological resources are found at 36 

CFR 291. Vertebrate fossils (bones, bone fragments, teeth, and/or tracks) are not available for 

collection by the public, and commercial fossil collection is not permitted on any National Forest 

System lands. Collection of vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, and/or trace fossils as part of scientific 

studies, mitigation or conservation efforts is allowed only by qualified researchers that have been 

issued permits for specific projects or research (see 36 CFR 291.14).

Petrified Wood

Petrified wood is known to occur in many localities on the Blue Mountains national forests, 

including within the Clarno Formation and in some formations with deep volcanic ash deposits. 

Portions of standing petrified trees have been discovered in a few locations. Petrified wood is 

defined as a mineral material with 1962 amendment to the Mineral Materials Act of 1947. 

Regulations for the collection of petrified wood on NFS lands are found at 36 CFR 228.62(e). No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

489

permit is required to collect petrified wood specimens for amateur collectors and scientists for 

limited quantities of material provided that such collection does not result in the disturbance of 

archaeological resource.

Groundwater

Groundwater potential is largely unexplored and undeveloped in the National Forest System lands 

of the Blue Mountains National Forests. The groundwater potential can be assumed to be highly 

dependent on the hydrogeological and geologic properties of local and regional formations. For 

example, metamorphic and the older volcanic formations would generally have low permeability 

aquifers with low hydraulic conductivities, and many wells in these materials would usually yield 

only a few gallons per minute. On the other hand, the younger volcanic rocks, and in particular 

the Columbia River Basalts, have been heavily developed on private lands around Hermiston, 

Pendleton, Athena, Milton-Freewater, Walla Walla and in the Grande Ronde Valley in Union 

County. Irrigation wells completed in each of these areas typically yield between 500 and 2000 

gallons per minute. Withdrawal from the basalt aquifers in some areas of this formation have 

caused local water level declines up to or exceeding 300 feet (Snyder and Haynes 2010).

Groundwater resources have seen very minor exploration and development on the National Forest 

System lands of the Blue Mountains National Forests to date. Small volume wells for 

campgrounds and administrative sites are currently the most common uses of groundwater within 

the national forests. There are also a few wells that were drilled specifically for fire suppression 

and road construction and maintenance activities within the portion of the Ochoco National 

Forest administered by the Malheur National Forest. The Malheur National Forest has issued 

about 20 domestic water supply special use permits, and there are numerous spring developments 

for stock watering as well.

Geology, Mining, Minerals, and Energy – Environmental 

Consequences

Indirect and Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives

Energy and mineral development can have significant effects to physical and biological resources. 

Those effects are discussed in other sections of this document. The alternatives vary in their 

influence on mineral, geological, and energy resources primarily through differences in 

management area designation, as follows.

Leasable Minerals

Oil and Natural Gas

Approximately 1.2 million acres of the Umatilla National Forest and 1.35 million acres of the 

Malheur National Forest were identified as available for oil and gas leasing (USDA Forest 

Service 1995). These lands are subject to one of four lease stipulations imposed to protect surface 

resources. Under the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing and Reform Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-

203), identification of lands available for leasing is the first of four required stages, each requiring 

a separate environmental analysis, before energy production can occur on National Forest System 

lands. However, the lands identified in the 1995 analysis were not formally made available for 

lease; at least parts of that analysis should be revised using the management area designations of 

the selected alternative. In 1995, it was predicted that one application for permit to drill could be 

received on each National Forest. This did not occur and it is unlikely an application for permit to 

drill would be expected over the next 10 years given the updated information now available on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

490

the potential occurrence of oil or natural gas. The predicted potential for discovery and 

development of oil and gas resources beneath the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests is lower 

now than it was believed to be in 1995. Exploration interest in the resource may increase if a 

discovery is made in the area of the basin with the highest potential for occurrence (the Pasco 

Basin).

For rivers identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, the 

Forest Service would provide recommendations or consent to BLM stipulating any leases, 

licenses or permits issued under mineral leasing laws for the protection of the identified values of 

each river corridor. Rivers officially determined to be eligible and suitable for wild and scenic 

designation cannot be legally excluded from mineral entry (except within a 1⁄4 mile corridor of 

either side once they are officially designated). Eligible rivers may be stipulated that no surface 

occupancy is allowed for mineral leasing. The rivers to which this would apply are listed in Table 

399 on page 446.

The acres of preliminarily administratively recommended wilderness areas on each forest are 

identified in Tables 108-110 (FEIS Volume 1). Total recommended wilderness acres for each 

forest are summarized by alternative in Table 111 of Volume 1. No change in the status of these 

lands, or their availability for mineral leasing would occur until they are recommended, and 

officially designated as wilderness by Congress. At that time they may be legally excluded from 

leasing. There would be no effect from Alternatives A or D, since they do not include any 

recommended wilderness acres. A total of up to 2,600 acres on the Umatilla and Malheur 

National Forests, would be legally excluded from oil and gas leasing under Alternative B, 

332,300 acres under Alternative C, 70,500 acres under Alternatives E and F, and 58,500 acres 

under Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure.

No direct or indirect effects would occur due to oil and gas leasing and development until such 

time as specific lands are actually made available for leasing, the effects of leasing specific lands 

are analyzed, application of permit to drill is issued, and drilling actually occurs. The effects of 

each of these actions would be assessed in separate analyses.

Geothermal Energy

No known areas with high potential for geothermal development that could be utilized for 

electricity generation are known to occur on National Forest System lands in the Blue Mountains. 

Potential for low and moderate geothermal resources occurs throughout the analysis area. It is 

unlikely that there would be any effect to the potential for development of geothermal energy 

from any of the alternatives. There could be indirect effects to National Forest System lands or to 

groundwater underlying national Forest Systems lands due to development of geothermal 

resources on lands adjacent to the national forests.

Locatable Minerals

National Forest System lands are open to mining except those specifically withdrawn from 

mineral entry. The forests each have a responsibility to identify areas with resources values and 

capital investments which could be negatively or irreparably affected by mineral exploration and 

mining activities. National forests that identify areas that may not be adequately protected by 

existing law or agency regulations must prepare an application and follow the process identified 

by the Secretary of the Interior and BLM regulations to withdraw the lands from minerals entry.

For rivers identified as eligible or suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River 

System, mineral entry would be subject to the conditions necessary for the protection of the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

491

values of each identified river corridor in the event it is subsequently included in the national 

system. New mining claims would be prohibited on eligible or suitable wild rivers once those 

rivers are officially designated and legislatively withdrawn. The rivers to which this would apply 

are listed in Table 399 on page 446.

No change in the status of lands identified as recommended wilderness, or their availability for 

mineral entry would occur until they are recommended, and officially designated as wilderness by 

Congress. At that time, the mineral potential of each designated area would be evaluated and 

withdrawn from mineral entry as directed by Congress.

Saleable Minerals

The disposal of saleable minerals is a discretionary decision of the local district ranger, but may 

be allowed on eligible or suitable scenic or recreational rivers to protect the values for which 

individual rivers were deemed eligible. Pit development would be prohibited within 1⁄4 mile of 

eligible or suitable wild rivers once those rivers are officially designated. No eligible or suitable 

rivers are identified for alternative A. The miles of eligible rivers are the same for all alternatives 

on the Malheur National Forest (3.3 miles classified as wild). The miles of eligible rivers for the 

Umatilla National Forest for Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F are 72 miles classified as wild and 42 

miles classified as scenic or recreational; and Alternatives E-Modified and E-Modified Departure 

are 57 miles classified as wild and 59 miles classified as scenic or recreational. On the WallowaWhitman National Forest 65 miles of eligible rivers are classified as wild and 96 miles as scenic 

or recreational rivers in Alternatives B and C; and 14 miles of suitable rivers classified as wild 

and 19 miles of suitable rivers classified as scenic or recreational in Alternatives D, E, EModified, E-Modified Departure, and F.

Wind Energy

The suitability for development of wind energy on National Forest System lands varies primarily 

by management area designation. The suitability of management areas for wind energy 

development is displayed in tables A-19 through A-23 in appendix A. Because wind energy 

development would require a special use permit, the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of a 

new wind energy project would be evaluated in a project-level analysis before any permit would 

be issued.

Average annual wind resources were estimated for the nation by NREL. For the Blue Mountains 

area, NREL estimated 388,500 acres of national forest lands (39,000 acres within the Malheur 

National Forest, 168,500 acres within the Umatilla National Forest, and 181,000 acres within the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest) exhibit a wind power classification that may be adequate for 

further evaluation and development. However, based on a preliminary analysis by Gecy (2010) of 

the NREL wind resources compared to suitability of management areas on each forest for wind 

development, approximately 2 percent of National Forest System lands, or 122,000 acres, may be 

suitable for wind development. For the most part, these areas are located in areas of high wind 

exposure, and are often on ridgelines. Forested areas, valley bottoms, and other areas with low 

wind exposure, by their nature, have low wind energy potential. Additional limitations could 

reduce the availability of potentially suitable areas further, but would not be determined until a 

specific project analysis is completed. The acres suitable for wind energy development would be 

similar among the alternatives but slightly lower in alternatives that recommend more areas of 

designated wilderness or additions to the Wild and Scenic River System (Alternative C) and 

greater in the alternatives that would add the fewest acres to these designations (Alternative D).
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

492

Fossils

Collection of invertebrate and plant fossils for personal use is allowed on National Forest System 

lands, but casual collection of vertebrate fossils is not allowed by Federal law. Scientific 

collection of vertebrate fossils is allowed under permit. This will not change regardless of the 

alternative selected. The ability to access potential collection sites by motor vehicle would be 

most limited under Alternative C because it has the highest number of acres of areas in which 

motor vehicle use would be restricted, but access to sites would otherwise not be limited under 

any of the alternatives.

Groundwater

Potential effects of the alternatives on groundwater uses are discussed in the “Watershed 

Function, Water Quality and Water Uses” section of this document.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area includes all of northeastern Oregon, southeastern 

Washington, and western Idaho, including all of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests, and the time period considered was the planning period. All mineral resources 

on all three national forests would be administered in accordance with laws, regulations, and 

Forest Service policies and management direction.

Section 11 of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act states: “Notwithstanding the 

provisions of section 4(d)(2) of the Wilderness Act and subject to valid existing rights, all Federal 

lands located in the recreation area are hereby withdrawn from all forms of location, entry, and 

patent under the mining laws of the United States, and from disposition under al laws pertaining 

to mineral leasing and all amendments thereto.” The Hells Canyon National Recreation Area 

Comprehensive Management Plan the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act include 

additional regulatory and statutory direction for mineral resources.

No cumulative effects are expected to occur from the development of oil, natural gas, or 

geothermal leasing. Leasing of National Forest System lands for these resources is possible but 

not expected during the planning period. Available information suggests that the possibility of 

development of oil and natural gas resources on the national forests in the Blue Mountains is 

limited, at least until an economic discovery occurs in the Columbia Basin. The potential for 

development of geothermal in the Blue Mountains was rated as moderate to high by the 

Department of Energy (2005), but the most recent assessment provided by the Argonne National 

Laboratory (Zvolanek et al. 2013) suggests that the potential for development of geothermal 

resources on national forests in the Blue Mountains varies spatially, and is rated as low to 

moderate where it exists.

The development of locatable minerals, primarily gold, will continue on the national forests in 

areas that are available to mineral entry under the mining laws of the United States. The direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of mineral development of individual mines and plans of 

operation have been or are being addressed in area-wide environmental analyses (such as the 

Granite Mining, North Fork Burnt River Mining, and Powder Mining Environmental Impact 

Statements). The Forest Service retains the authority determine the measures needed to protect 

surface resources. All alternatives contain standards and guidelines that affect mineral operations 

that are similar to what currently exists under PACFISH and INFISH. Alternatives E-Modified 

and E-Modified Departure include a standard that requires mineral activities to avoid or minimize 

effects to threatened and endangered species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

493

The management, availability, and disposal of saleable minerals is not expected change under any 

of the action alternatives. There is one pending proposal on the Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest for development of a new quarry. Development of the quarry and consideration of 

alternative sites has not begun as of January 2018. The environmental effects of development of 

the quarry would be based on a site-specific analysis and are not within the scope of this analysis.

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from development of wind energy on the national forests 

will occur until the feasibility of development on a specific site is determined and a project is 

permitted. Although the capability of wind generation exists on the three national forests, the 

feasibility of wind tower placement within the national forests is currently unknown.

The casual collection of invertebrate and plant fossils will continue to be allowed. The collection 

of vertebrate fossils will be allowed only by permit to qualified applicants. Collection of 

invertebrate and plant fossils that involves more than minimal surface disturbance may be 

allowed by permit, but could result in the closure of some sites to fossil collection.

Groundwater resources on the national forests could be affected by any of the activities in this 

section, but is more likely to occur in response to development of geothermal or oil and gas 

resources. No effects to groundwater is expected from these activities until completion of 

appropriate environmental analysis of an individual project and application for permit drill is 

granted. Effects to groundwater and surface water from the mining of locatable minerals are 

addressed through analysis of the effects of individual or grouped plans of operation.

Lands and Special Uses

Introduction

This section addresses landownership administration and adjustments and special uses of 

National Forest System lands on the Blue Mountains national forests. 

Management of landownership includes survey and marking landlines and other boundaries, 

purchase and exchange of lands with private parties and non-federal government entities, 

handling of title claims and other assertions of title, and acquisition of rights-of-way. 

Adjustments of land ownership can occur through congressionally mandated conveyances, 

exchanges, and acquisitions, or through Forest Service administrative activities. 

The objectives of the Forest Service landownership adjustment program (FSM 5402) are to: 

• Achieve the optimum landownership pattern to provide for the protection and 

management of resource uses to meet the needs of the nation now and in the future; 

• Avoid land use conflicts with non-Federal landowners by settling land claims equitably 

and promptly; and 

• Provide resource administrators readily accessible and understandable title information 

affecting the status and use of lands and resources they administer. 

Land occupancy and use by private parties and other government entities is managed through the 

issuance of special use authorizations. Authorized special uses on the Blue Mountains national 

forests include industrial or commercial uses, private uses, and a variety of recreational uses. 

All occupancy, use, or improvements on National Forest System lands that are not directly related 

to timber harvest, grazing, mining activities, and recreation are referred to as “non-recreation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

494

special uses.” Typically, non-recreation special uses includes: roads, utilities, easements, storage 

facilities, and agricultural improvements. Recreation special uses include: resorts, ski areas, 

outfitters and guides, and a variety of uses that provide access to National Forest System lands by 

commercial ventures. 

Use and occupancy of National Forest System lands may be authorized when such use is 

determined to be in the public interest.

Changes Made Between

the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements

The section presented below was developed for the Final Environmental Impact Statement. The 

information discussed and presented below was available and reviewed as part of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, and has since been compiled into the current section for further 

review and analysis. 

Lands and Special Uses – Affected Environment

Lands

The Blue Mountains national forests landownership pattern varies with location and can be 

characterized as:

• Large blocks of uninterrupted, contiguous National Forest System lands; 

• Checkerboard situations with alternate sections of private and National Forest System

lands; 

• Isolated tracts of private lands surrounded by National Forest System lands; 

• Isolated tracts of National Forest System lands surrounded by private lands; and 

• Large blocks owned by corporate landowners.

Non-National Forest System lands are located within the proclaimed boundary of the Blue 

Mountains national forests and are comprised of state and local government, other agency, and 

corporate and private ownership. 

Special Uses

Special use authorizations permit occupancy and use on National Forest System lands by federal, 

state, and local agencies, Indian Tribes, private industry, and individuals. Non-recreation special 

uses vary from low-intensity, often short-term actions such as filming or locations for scientific 

instruments, to larger developed facilities such as roads, communication sites, dams, and 

utility/energy transmission infrastructure. 

As of 2014, there are approximately 620 special use authorizations in effect on the Blue 

Mountains national forests: 104 permits are authorized on the Malheur National Forest; 230 

permits are authorized on the Umatilla National Forest; and 282 permits are authorized on the 

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

495

Lands and Special Uses – Environmental Consequences

Effects from Alternative A (no action) 

This alternative reflects the 1990 Forest Plans, as amended to date, and accounts for current laws 

and regulations that have been issued since the original Forest Plans and the amendments were 

adopted. The 1990 Forest Plans recognized the desirability of adjusting landownership in order to 

improve manageability of National Forest System lands. This alternative does not propose to 

acquire or dispose of any lands but did identify lands that were desirable to be acquired and lands 

that were available for disposal (see 1990 Malheur National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Appendix M; 1990 Umatilla National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan, Chapter 4; and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 

Appendix D). 

Effects Common to the Plan Revision Alternatives 

None of the alternatives proposes to make any site-specific changes to the existing landownership 

on the Blue Mountains national forests. No conveyances (acquisitions, disposals, or exchanges) 

are proposed. Any of these actions would only be considered at the project level. Until an external 

entity presents a proposal there would be no changes to the existing landownership pattern. 

Because no changes in landownership are proposed, the number of acres of NFS lands remains 

the same for all the action alternatives. 

None of the alternatives proposes to make any site-specific changes to existing special use 

authorizations or rights-of-way on the Blue Mountains national forests. Because no changes in 

special use authorizations or in rights-of-way are proposed, there is no difference between 

Alternative A (no action) and the action alternatives. 

Since 2009, the three national forest have undertaken additional land acquisition and land 

exchange activity. Specifically, the Malheur National Forest has acquired 13,085 acres through 

one land acquisition project; the Umatilla National Forest has acquired 1,185 acres and disposed 

of 491 acres through four separate land acquisition and exchange projects; and the WallowaWhitman National Forest has acquired 1,225 acres through five separate land acquisition and 

exchange projects. None of these acquired areas are included in the acreage totals or the analysis 

for this Environmental Impact Statement. Each area will be further analyzed through subsequent 

project planning and site-specific analysis, including regulations at 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 254.3 (e) and (f). Similarly, these acres did not contribute toward the total 

acreages regarding timber and range suitability determinations, as these determinations will be 

made through future site-specific analysis. 

Consequences to Lands and Special Uses from Forest Plan Components 

Associated with other Resource Programs or Revision Topics

Effects from Management Area Prescriptions

Some MA allocations, such as National Forest System lands which have been statutorily 

designated for a specific use (e.g., Management Area 1A – Congressionally Designated 

Wilderness Areas, Management Area 2A – Eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers) or lands that have been 

administratively designated for a specific use (e.g., Management Area 1B – Recommended 

Wilderness Areas, Management Area 2B – Research Natural Areas) are less likely to be 

considered for disposal or exchange. Based on Management Area allocations, Alternative C 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Chapter 3, Biological Environment

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

496

would have the greatest number of acres that would be less likely to be considered for disposal or 

exchange, followed by Alternatives E and F, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, B, and D. 

Similar to lands, some special uses authorizations are less likely to be considered in Management 

Areas 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B. Based on Management Area allocations, Alternative C would have 

the greatest number of acres that would be less likely to be considered for special use 

authorizations, followed by followed by Alternatives E and F, E-Modified and E-Modified 

Departure, B, and D.

Effects from Vegetation Management 

Vegetation treatments may impact the appraised value of National Forest System lands, and 

depending on the type of treatment, the value may increase or decrease. Alternative D has the 

potential for the highest amount of vegetation treatment and is most likely to result in fluctuations 

in land values, followed by E-Modified Departure and Alternative E-Modified, E and F, B, and C. 

Effects from Wildlife Management 

National Forest System lands that provide secure habitat or contribute as linkage areas are less 

likely to be considered for disposal or exchange. Alternative C has the most area allocated to 

wildlife corridors, followed by Alternatives E and F, E-Modified and E-Modified Departure, D, 

and B. 

Effects from Recreation Management 

National Forest System lands with developed recreation sites (e.g., campgrounds) are less likely 

to be considered for disposal or exchange. None of the alternatives proposes to make any sitespecific changes to existing designated campgrounds resulting in no difference between the 

alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area includes all of northeastern Oregon, southeastern 

Washington, and western Idaho, including all of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests, and the time period considered was the planning period. The Hells Canyon 

National Recreation Area, under the administration of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 

was congressionally designated in 1975 and contains designations for the national recreation area 

along with additional wilderness and wild and scenic rivers designations. Section 9 of the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area Act (P.L. 94-199) contains additional considerations for land 

acquisition for lands within the National Recreation Area. 

The Blue Mountains national forest’s landownership pattern will continue to be modified to 

accomplish Forest Plan desired conditions. Opportunities for improving the landownership 

pattern will likely continue and will be achieved through land exchanges, purchases, donations, 

transfers, interchanges, and disposal. 

Private land transactions that either border or are located within administrative boundaries of 

National Forest System will likely continue. Such lands remain subject to State statutory 

frameworks, local government ordinances, and land planning and zoning regulations. These 

combined regulations will likely result in minimal changes to the character of private, state, and 

corporate land holdings surrounding National Forest System lands that may result from private 

land transactions.
Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

497

Index

1982 Planning Rule, 2, 3, 4, 7, 40, 43, 47, 190, 225, 

228, 298, 316, 439

2012 Planning Rule, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 43, 225, 

228, 229, 241

A

access, ii, 239, 252, 269, 306, 320, 416, 421, 427, 429, 

430, 433, 434, 465, 480, 488

air quality, ii

alternatives, i

alternatives considered but eliminated, i

Analysis of the Management Situation, 88

aquatic and riparian plants, 392

ARCS (Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy), 1

2008 Regional ARCS, 1, 14, 21, 83

Blue Mountains ARCS, 1, 21, 28, 257, 266

aspen, 118

aspen and cottonwood, 376, 377

B

best management practices, 64, 65, 73, 83, 85, 87, 

462

big game, 228, 240, 306, 360, 417, 427

bighorn sheep, 321, 325, 329, 330, 334, 336, 337

disease transmission, 322, 331, 333

botanical areas, 440, 455

bull trout, 17, 24, 26, 27, 28, 37, 50, 69, 71, 72, 90, 96

C

Canada lynx, 280, 281

carbon sequestration, 161, 217

climate change, 122, 184, 219, 220, 267, 269, 270

effects to species, 94, 353

cultural resources, 475

E

ecological resilience, ii, 127, 163, 166, 170, 177, 186, 

190, 204

energy resources

coal, 481, 484

geothermal energy, 484, 491

oil and gas, 490

wind energy, 487, 492

environmental justice, 418

essential fish habitat, 7

F

fire and fuels

fire regime condition class, 198, 200, 201, 202, 

203, 210, 212, 213, 222

fire return interval, 198

fire severity, 200, 214

fuel treatments, 205

historical fire regime, 196

wildland urban interface, 216

firewood, 162, 166, 238, 240, 249, 259, 260, 261, 262, 

264, 269, 270, 278, 480

focal species, 228

forest species composition, 116, 138, 139, 140, 141, 

142, 143, 144, 145, 146

forest stand density, 121, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 156, 157, 158

forest structural stages, 110, 128

fossils, 489, 493

G

geological areas, 440, 456, 457

grasslands, 219, 357, 358, 359, 360, 382, 383, 384, 

420

gray wolf, 281, 282

groundwater, 394, 490, 493, 494

H

Hells Canyon National Recreation Area

Comprehensive Management Plan, 12, 36, 71, 418, 

438, 473, 480, 493

heritage resources, i, 361, 450, 452, 474, 475, 476, 

477

historic range of variability (HRV), 270, 351, 417

historical areas, 439, 440, 457, 475

hunting and fishing, 429

I

insects and diseases, i, 179, 180, 185, 190

bark beetles, 182

defoliators, 182, 183, 191

mistletoe, 183

root disease, 183

issues, i, ii

L

land ownership, exchange, and acquisition, 494, 496

landscape patterns, 182, 251

livestock grazing, ii, 101, 238, 256, 257, 316, 317, 318, 

319, 343, 363, 379, 382, 384, 385, 400, 479
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Index

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

498

M

Magnuson-Stevens Act, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 90

management areas, 440

designated and eligible wild and scenic rivers, 440, 

441, 445, 449

management indicator species, 3, 7, 12, 40, 47, 88, 

94, 228, 229, 297, 298, 300, 320

migratory birds, 228

minerals

locatable minerals, 485, 491

saleable minerals, 486, 492

minerals and mining, 239

mining, minerals and energy, i, 481, 482, 490

mollusks, 38

mule deer, 239, 313, 314, 315, 318

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, 466

municipal watersheds, 440, 462, 464

N

National Forest Management Act, 4, 5, 40, 167, 169, 

170, 228, 229, 233, 234, 297, 362, 466

Native American tribes, i, 196, 222, 413, 415, 445

Native American uses, 415, 416, 417

nonmotorized recreation, 421, 425, 430, 432, 434, 

435, 436, 437

nonnative invasive species, i, 405, 406, 407

nonnative plants, 240

O

Ochoco National Forest, 9, 39, 40, 42, 358, 490

old forest, ii, 267

old forest multi-story, 111, 120

old forest single story, 111

outfitting and guiding services, 373, 422

P

PACFISH, 1

partnerships, 93, 420, 441

plan components, 362, 363, 408, 409, 496

preferred alternative, 7, 27, 28, 84

proposed action, i, 368, 410, 430, 438

public involvement and collaboration, i, ii

R

range of variability, 108

recreation, 240, 422

developed recreation, 423, 424, 430, 431

dispersed backcountry motor vehicle use, 432, 

433, 434

dispersed backcountry nonmotorized, 425, 426, 

434, 435, 436

winter recreation, 426

redband trout, 19, 32, 38, 50, 77

research natural areas, 439, 440, 450, 451, 452, 453, 

496

rights-of-way, 167, 494, 496

roads, 227, 244, 245, 246, 349, 392, 411, 416, 421, 

439, 440, 458, 459

rocky mountain elk, 300, 302, 306, 317

S

sagebrush, 378, 381

sage-grouse, 339, 340, 343

salmon

fall Chinook salmon, 36

sockeye salmon, 36

spring Chinook salmon, 17, 21, 37, 65

salvage harvest, 177

scenery management, i, 465, 466, 470, 472

effects from vegetation management, 471, 472

scenic integrity, 467, 471

scenic stability, 470, 471

scenic areas, 439, 440, 461

scenic byways, 439, 440, 458, 459

sculpin, 39

sensitive plants, i, 356, 370

sensitive species, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 32, 38, 84, 87, 

94, 228, 237, 279, 280, 282, 291, 292, 293, 296, 

339, 363

snags and down wood, 259

social and economic considerations, ii, 418

special areas, i, 421, 438, 439

special uses, i, 482, 487, 494, 495, 496

species viability (aquatic), 47

species viability (terrestrial), 233, 236

stand initiation stage, 111

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range, 440, 462, 488

steelhead trout, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 28, 37, 42, 44, 

50, 72, 73, 75, 76, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 97

stem exclusion stage, 111

surrogate species, 6, 7, 17, 54, 89, 235, 241, 243, 246, 

252, 256, 257, 259, 263, 273, 274, 276

T

threatened and endangered species, 6, 12, 21, 28, 36, 

81, 89, 93, 228, 280

plants, 358

timber

allowable sale quantity, 163, 169, 170, 174

growth and mortality, 167

land suitability, 104, 167, 172

long-term sustained yield, 163, 168, 174

non-declining flow, 170

timber sale program quantity, 163, 171, 175

timber and forest products, i, 127, 162, 164, 172, 216, 

227, 281

trails

nationally designated trails, 439, 440, 460
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2 

Index

Land Management Plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

499

U

understory reinitiation, 111, 112, 120

W

watersheds and water uses, ii, 2, 20, 48, 56, 57, 82, 

418

westslope cutthroat trout, 39

whitebark pine, 120, 149

wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, 441

designated rivers, 442

eligible rivers, 444

outstandingly remarkable values, 444

suitable rivers, 447

wilderness, ii, 425, 434, 435, 436

Eagle Cap Wilderness, 120, 287, 329, 372, 453, 455

recommended wilderness, 425, 430, 434, 435, 436, 

479, 496

wolverine, 230, 242, 243, 268, 274, 276, 277, 287, 

292, 352