United States Department of Agriculture

Draft Record of Decision

for the

Malheur, Umatilla, and

Wallowa-Whitman National Forests

Revised Land Management Plans

Baker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler Counties, Oregon; 

Asotin, Columbia, Garfield, and Walla Walla Counties, Washington

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: James M. Peña

Regional Forester

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

1220 SW 3rd Avenue

Portland, OR 97208 

For Information Contact: Eric Watrud

Forest Supervisor

Umatilla National Forest

541-278-3716

Steven K. Beverlin

Forest Supervisor

Malheur National Forest

541-575-3000

Thomas Montoya

Forest Supervisor

Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

541-523-6391

Website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision

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

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

prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance 

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

funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

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

audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-

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

information may be made available in languages other than English. 

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

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

and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-

9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) 

email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

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

Contents

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

Forest and Community Setting.................................................................................................... 1

Land Management Planning ....................................................................................................... 3

The Revised Land Management Plans........................................................................................ 3

Nature of the Land Management Plan Decision ......................................................................... 4

Need for Change ......................................................................................................................... 4

The Decision.................................................................................................................................... 5

Rationale for Decision ................................................................................................................ 7

Net Public Benefit....................................................................................................................... 8

Revision Topics........................................................................................................................... 8

Engagement with State and Local Governments, Tribes, other Federal Agencies, and the 

Public ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Alternatives............................................................................................................................... 24

Alternatives Considered in Detail ......................................................................................... 25

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study ............................................. 28

Environmentally Preferable Alternative................................................................................ 28

Range of Alternatives............................................................................................................ 31

Using Best Available Science ................................................................................................... 31

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations............................................................................... 32

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process (Objection Process) ............................................ 41

Implementation of the Land Management Plans........................................................................... 42

Maintaining the Land Management Plans, Adapting to New Information, Amendments, and 

Administrative Changes................................................................................................................ 44

Contacts......................................................................................................................................... 45

Approval........................................................................................................................................ 45

Draft Record of Decision

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

1

Introduction

This draft record of decision documents my decision and rationale for approving the revised land 

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

final environmental impact statement (https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/BlueMtnsPlanRevision).

The revised land management plans will provide guidance for future project and activity 

decisionmaking for the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. The revised 

land management plans replace the previous land and resource management plans, which were 

approved in 1990 (1990 plans). Upon completion of the objection resolution process, this draft 

record of decision will be separated into one final record of decision for each of the three revised 

land management plans. While the three final records of decision will be similar to each other, the 

final record of decision for each revised land management plan will reflect the uniqueness of each 

National Forest. 

Forest and Community Setting

The Malheur (and a portion of the Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur), 

Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, collectively referred to as the national forests 

in the Blue Mountains, are located in eastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and western 

Idaho. These three National Forests include approximately 5.5 million acres with the majority 

(5.1 million acres) in Oregon, about 310,000 acres in Washington, and the remaining 160,000 

acres in western Idaho (see Figure 2 of the revised land management plans). Approximate acreage 

for each of the three National Forests are as follows:

• Malheur National Forest: 1,709,000

• Umatilla National Forest: 1,404,000

• Wallowa-Whitman National Forest: 2,436,000

The Malheur National Forest includes a 240,000-acre portion of the Ochoco National Forest 

administered by the Malheur National Forest. The Umatilla National Forest straddles the OregonWashington border and is the northern-most national forest in the analysis area. The WallowaWhitman National Forest includes the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area. The revised land 

management plan, in combination with the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area

Comprehensive Management Plan (2003), constitute an integrated resource management plan for 

the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The revised land management plan retains in its entirety 

the Comprehensive Management Plan, which guides management of the Hells Canyon National 

Recreation Area (Appendix D of the revised Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan). 

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

important functions and play a central role in contributing to local economies through timber 

harvest, cattle and sheep grazing, mineral prospecting, and recreation, while also providing 

unique habitats for plant and wildlife species. The watersheds, rivers, and streams of the national 

forests in the Blue Mountains provide many ecological, economic, and social benefits. They 

support diverse communities of aquatic and terrestrial species, and surrounding communities rely 

on water from the three National Forests for drinking water, recreation, agriculture, industry, 

hydropower generation, and other uses. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

2

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

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

landforms and vegetative patterns. The Blue Mountains contain deep river canyons layered with 

gently sloping upland benches that are vertically cut by steep, V-shaped drainages. The area is 

known for extreme variations in elevations that range from less than 2,000 feet at the bottom of 

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

Mountains in Oregon and the Seven Devils Mountains in Idaho. Rocky outcrops and high peaks, 

ranging up to 9,000 feet, protrude along the backbone of the Strawberry, Aldrich, Elkhorn, 

Wallowa, and Wenaha Mountain ranges.

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

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

ash soils contribute to productive forest stands and herblands/grasslands that provide forage and 

browse. For over a century, these productive lands have generated forest products, contributing to 

the local and regional supply of forest products in response to national demands. 

Ranching represents a large portion of the economic base in the Blue Mountains area and is a 

valued contributor to local culture. Permitted livestock grazing on the National Forests is a part of 

many ranch operations; some permittees use the National Forests to supplement private land 

forage, whereas others rely on the National Forests for a large percentage of forage. Ranchers are 

permitted to graze cattle or sheep on specified allotments within the three National Forests during 

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

and are reinvested into range improvements.

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

area has been an important producer of gold, silver, and copper, and has been a source of lesser 

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

geothermal energy. 

The three National Forests are within the areas aboriginally occupied by several American Indian 

Tribes, each maintaining strong ties to the lands within the analysis area that plays a significant 

role in tribal life. Numerous archaeological and historical resources existing within the three 

National Forests are important to Tribes. Other areas and activities of importance to Tribes 

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

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

Tribal members also continue to practice religious activities within the three National Forests, 

finding spiritual renewal in sacred areas. Tribal activities depend on maintenance of healthy 

forests and herblands/grasslands across the Blue Mountains.

The Blue Mountains provide areas with an undeveloped character and backcountry setting. With 

seven designated wilderness areas, one national recreation area, and 13 wild and scenic rivers, the 

three National Forests offer a variety of diverse experiences. Several of the roads that provide 

access to the three National Forests are part of national, regional, and state scenic byways. Along 

the Hells Canyon, Blue Mountains, Elkhorn, and Journey through Time Scenic Byways, visitors 

and residents may enjoy scenic panoramas of pastoral valleys, mountain vistas, and rolling 

uplands interspersed with steep river canyons. An abundance and variety of wildlife species may 

be seen, including bald eagles in the winter and bighorn sheep in the summer and fall. 

Remarkable scenery and solitude are available in many areas, including the Vinegar Hill-Indian 

Rock Scenic Area located along the border of the Malheur and Umatilla National Forests. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

3

Recreational opportunities in the Blue Mountains attract visitors from across the nation as well as 

from regional population centers and local communities. Popular recreation activities include

fishing and boating on the numerous rivers in the area, hiking, biking, sightseeing, horseback 

riding, hunting, off-highway vehicle use, recreational prospecting, gathering forest products, 

driving for pleasure, and wildlife viewing. Winter sports enthusiasts can find snowmobiling and 

downhill and cross-country skiing opportunities on the three National Forests. These recreation 

opportunities are important to local economies, and the value of open space, personal 

independence, rural lifestyle, and minimal crowding provide incentives and offerings for local 

residents who choose to live in the many close-knit rural communities in and around the Blue 

Mountains.

Land Management Planning

The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are important to local 

governments because local citizens rely on the many benefits provided by these public lands. 

Most counties in the Blue Mountains “socio-economic impact zones” have lower median 

household incomes than state averages, and natural resources supply a substantial portion of the 

local economic base. To address local interests, the Forest Service met with local government 

officials throughout the planning process, and also addressed formal comments from local 

governments that were submitted in 2014. In addition to consulting with States and Tribes, the 

Forest Service worked with counties in and around the analysis area. 

Eleven counties have maintained "cooperating agency" status in the planning process, and 

cooperating agency meetings have provided a valuable forum for information exchange and 

discussion between county and Forest Service officials. Further, the Forest Service reviewed the 

relevant planning and land use policies of government entities, consistent with 36 CFR 219.7(c) 

of the 1982 Planning Rule, and the results of this review are displayed in the final environmental 

impact statement (Volume 3, Ch. 4). For more information about Forest Service engagement with 

local governments, please see the section below on “Engagement with State and Local 

Governments, Tribes, other Federal Agencies, and the Public.”

The Revised Land Management Plans

The revised land management plans and final environmental impact statement were developed 

according to the National Forest Management Act (1976) and its implementing regulations (36 

CFR1 part 219; National Environmental Policy Act (1969); the Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500–1508); and 

the Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act regulations (36 CFR 220). According to 

transition language of the 2012 Planning Rule,

2 the responsible official may elect to use the 

provisions of the prior planning regulations (1982 Planning Rule, dated September 30, 1982, and 

as amended) to prepare land management plan amendments and revisions. I have elected to 

follow the provisions of the planning regulations in effect prior to May 9, 2012, referred to 

collectively in this document as the 1982 Planning Rule, as this land management plan revision 

process was initiated before 2012. Also, most of the supporting analysis in the draft 

 

1 Code of Federal Regulations

2 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3)
Draft Record of Decision

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

4

Environmental Impact Statement was completed prior to 2012, further supporting the decision to 

use the 1982 Rule.3

References in this draft record of decision refer to the 1982 Planning Rule unless indicated 

differently in the citation. However, in consideration of transition time requirements identified in 

the 2012 Planning Rule, the revised land management plans include a monitoring plan per 36 

CFR 219.12 of the 2012 Planning Rule; and I have elected to use the pre-decisional 

administrative review process per 36 CFR 219.50, Subpart B, of the 2012 Planning Rule, to give 

individuals or entities an opportunity for an independent Forest Service review and resolution of 

issues before the approval of each of the revised land management plans. Where the 1982 

Planning Rule does not provide clearly stated definitions, we used the definitions established by 

the 2012 Planning Rule for added clarity, for example: plan components, including desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines.

With this decision, the selected alternative will become the revised land management plans for the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. These land management plans

replace the 1990s land management plans as amended. Compared to the 1990 land management 

plans (No Action Alternative), the revised land management plans focus on restoration of 

landscapes, including fire dependent landscapes; allocate management areas suitable for 

motorized access; recommend wilderness; apply landscape ecology concepts; integrate watershed 

restoration approaches; identify key and priority watersheds; and identify focal species for 

monitoring instead of management indicator species.

Nature of the Land Management Plan Decision

The nature of a land management plan decision is outlined in the National Forest Management 

Act. Similar to local government land-use zoning, the direction in land management plans is used 

to guide future management decisions and set consistent expectations for the types of activities 

permissible on a national forest. A land management plan provides overall guidance for the 

management of National Forest System lands and is based on law, science, and input from State 

and Federal agencies, local governments, Tribes, and the public. A land management plan

establishes goals, desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management areas, and 

land suitability to assure coordination of multiple uses (such as outdoor recreation, range, timber, 

watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness) and a sustained yield of products and services. 

The land management plan decision is strategic in nature, does not commit to the selection of any 

specific project, and does not dictate day-to-day administrative activities needed to carry on the 

Forest Service’s internal operations such as personnel matters, law enforcement, or organizational 

changes. The land management plan programmatic management direction will be implemented 

through the design, execution, and monitoring of future, site-specific activities such as harvesting 

timber, conducting a prescribed burn, or relocating a trail. Future activities must be consistent 

with the strategic direction provided in the revised land management plans and will be subject to 

separate environmental analysis as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Need for Change 

The existing land management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forests are almost 30 years old and have been amended a combined 172 times. Economic, social, 

 

3 Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1920.3, 9(b)
Draft Record of Decision

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

5

and ecological conditions have changed since these land management plans were approved in 

1990. The Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests are revising their 1990 

land management plans to:

• Meet the requirements of the National Forest Management Act; 

• Address changed conditions and provide consistent management direction (as appropriate) 

across the three National Forests; 

• Incorporate changes in law, regulation, and policy; and 

• Use best available scientific information.

In particular, the Blue Mountains Land Management Plan Revision interdisciplinary team 

addressed the following areas in the revised land management plans to:

1. More adequately protect and restore terrestrial plant and animal species and their habitats. 

2. More adequately protect and restore watersheds and aquatic habitats. 

3. Address management of fuels and fire risk. 

4. Address the effects of climate change. 

5. Recognize the interdependency of social and economic components with national forest 

management.

Each of these items is described in detail in the final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, 

Purpose and Need section. The following sections explain these subjects, along with the 

significant issues identified by the revision team (see the final environmental impact statement, 

Volume 1, Issue Statements), that contribute to the need to change the existing land management 

plans

The Decision 

I have reviewed the alternatives; considered the objectives and concerns of county, State and local 

governments, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and public comments; national direction and policy;

and internal management concerns. After considering the effects to the economic, social, and 

ecological environment as described in Chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement, I 

have selected the primary management direction identified in Alternative E-Modified. My 

decision approves the desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management area 

allocations, suitability determinations, and monitoring and evaluation direction as described in the 

revised land management plans and under Alternative E-Modified in Chapter 2 of the final 

environmental impact statement. 

Fully implementing Alternative E-Modified (the revised land management plans) will provide the 

following benefits compared to the existing 1990 land management plans:4

 

4 The outputs indicated are projections of potential benefits under fully implemented revised land 

management plans. Actual outputs will depend on future site-specific analysis, decisionmaking, and 

implementation, as well as the funding levels and capacity of the Forest Service and its partners.
Draft Record of Decision

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

6

• Increase potential employment by up to 1,173 jobs in the forest products, livestock, and 

recreation sectors – from 1,647 jobs under the existing land management plans to an 

estimated 2,820 jobs under the revised land management plans; 

• Increase the planned timber sale quantity, and replace the Eastside Screens 21-inch diameter 

limit with a guideline that allows harvest of large trees under certain scenarios;

♦ Increase timber sale program quantity by 104 million board feet (MMBF) – from 101 

MMBF harvested (recent average) under the existing land management plans to 205 

MMBF under the revised land management plans. 

♦ Thin up to 33 percent of overstocked dry-upland forest types during the planning 

period to improve forest health and reduce risk for severe wildfire, while also allowing 

treatments of other forest types.

• Provide a diversity of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities including desired 

conditions for road maintenance and for minimizing road-related effects on aquatic and 

terrestrial systems.

• Maintain current levels of recreation, contributing up to $4,564,000 annually in income from 

recreation related jobs;

• Recommend to Congress 70,500 acres for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation 

System; 

• Determine 10 rivers as eligible and 3 rivers as suitable for wild and scenic river designation; 

provide new proposals to establish 6 research natural areas; and add 4 botanical areas to the 

existing network. 

• Continue livestock grazing outputs consistent with the existing land management plans; 

approximately 242,800 animal unit months (AUMs). The three National Forests analyzed the 

potential for up to 51,600 additional AUMs associated with vacant allotments (vacant as of 

2013), including in the analysis the suitable acres for grazing and historic AUMs on those 

vacant allotments.

♦ The authorization of additional AUMs on vacant allotments will require separate, 

allotment-level environmental analyses, decisions to reauthorize grazing, and 

implementation, including infrastructure construction prior to permit issuance.

♦ Land management plan grazing guidance will support ongoing grazing activities while 

providing adequate protection of sensitive aquatic species, riparian habitat, and water 

quality.

• Integrate the Pacific Northwest Region Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS), 

adapted to Blue Mountain conditions, modernizing direction established under the Interim 

Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH) and the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy - Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada (INFISH), while supporting 

other uses, including timber harvest, grazing, recreation, and watershed restoration activities; 

• Ensure viable native fish and wildlife populations and incorporate current science and 

interagency direction for recovery of threatened and endangered species.
Draft Record of Decision

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

7

My decision is fully supported by the environmental analysis documented in the final 

environmental impact statement, as required by law and regulation. This decision applies only to 

National Forest System lands on the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests 

and the portion of the Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur National Forest. It 

does not apply to any other Federal, State, or private lands, although I considered the effects of 

these lands on the three National Forests and the effects of my decision on lands surrounding the 

Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

This decision will help create healthier forest conditions that are more resilient to wildfires, 

insects and diseases, and strengthen our stewardship of National Forest System lands to serve as a 

good neighbor to adjacent landowners. My decision will supply clean water for downstream 

communities and users while providing improved habitat for fish and wildlife. Finally, this 

decision fosters productive and sustainable use of National Forest System lands, creates “working 

forests” that support rural prosperity and economic development, continues livestock grazing to 

support surrounding agricultural communities, and provides access for wide-ranging recreational 

opportunities to enhance public enjoyment and health benefits from the National Forests.

Rationale for Decision

The selected alternative (Alternative E-Modified) provides the most balanced approach to 

management of the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, and provides for 

a variety of uses identified as important by stakeholders and the public. My decision is based on a 

careful and reasoned comparison of the environmental consequences of, and responses to, issues 

and concerns for each alternative. 

The selected alternative provides opportunities for active management and timber production. 

The general forest management area (MA 4A) provides the suitable base for timber production, 

while other management areas allow for timber harvest when conducting actions to achieve 

broader restoration goals. Activities in these management areas will move vegetation towards 

desired conditions for improved resiliency within the historical range of variability. My decision 

also provides areas with passive management and nonmotorized access, such as recommended 

wilderness and backcountry nonmotorized management areas. 

In contrast with the Departure Alternative (Alternative E-Modified Departure), in which the 

highest levels of timber harvest occur within the first decade, the selected alternative supports an 

economically and ecologically sustainable, even flow of timber from the three National Forests. 

Although the Departure Alternative would allow more rapid thinning than the selected alternative 

of the dry-upland forest areas that face higher risks from fires, insects, and diseases, the expected 

natural resource and socio-economic impacts of a front-loaded harvest schedule are problematic. 

Forest Service socio-economic analysis suggests that fully implementing the Departure 

Alternative would likely result in a "boom and bust" cycle affecting communities surrounding the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Modeling for the Departure 

Alternative indicates that harvest levels at or above 300 million board feet (for the three National 

Forests combined), could be reduced to half that level after 20 years. Such a rapid decline in 

timber harvest has a well-documented potential to decrease incomes, increase poverty, increase 

foreclosure and bankruptcy rates, increase crime rates, decrease populations and school 

enrollments, and decrease tax revenues. For these reasons, I decided not to select the Departure 

Alternative. All other things being equal, the selected alternative will still plan to aggressively, yet 

sustainably, thin the dry-upland forest areas (as well as other forest types) that are most in need of 

treatment to bring them closer to the historical range of variability.
Draft Record of Decision

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

8

The selected alternative is responsive to the diverse needs, issues, concerns, and opportunities 

expressed by State and local governments, Tribes, and other Federal agencies, organizations, and 

the public. The revised land management plans emphasize moving toward desired conditions and 

contributing to economic, social, and ecological sustainability, and promote sound land 

stewardship in partnership with local communities to conserve rural character and promote rural 

prosperity. I have made my decision with due consideration of the input from diverse citizens and 

stakeholders, several of whom shared their interests and preferences during one or more of 120 

formal opportunities provided for public input. The following sections describe how my decision 

(1) is responsive to the need for change identified throughout the planning process, (2) maximizes 

net public benefit, and (3) addresses the key concerns and comments expressed during the land 

management plan revision process (see the section below, titled "Engagement with State and 

Local Governments, Tribes, other Federal Agencies, and the Public" as well as the "Response to 

Public Comments" section in the final environmental impact statement, Volume 4, Appendix C.)

Net Public Benefit

The National Forest Management Act implementing regulations (1982 Planning Rule 219.1) state 

that land management plans must “...provide for multiple-use and sustained yield of goods and 

services from the National Forest System in a way that maximizes long-term net public benefits 

in an environmentally sound manner.”

I have considered the many competing public desires and uses of the three National Forests, the 

economic needs of the counties surrounding each National Forest, and the need for improved 

ecological diversity and integrity. I seek to make a decision that balances the need for resource 

conservation with one that contributes to the economic well-being of these communities.

I selected Alternative E-Modified because, in my judgment, it maximizes the net benefit to the 

public by:

• Increasing contributions to meet economic and social needs of people, cultures, and 

communities while emphasizing a diversity of high-quality motorized and nonmotorized 

outdoor recreation opportunities, as well as improvements in priority watershed conditions 

that support healthy and recovering fish populations on the Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests.

• Emphasizing restoration of vegetation and watersheds to improve resiliency to wildfires and 

other disturbances while supporting timber harvest, grazing, mining, recreation, and a variety 

of other uses.

• Aiding in conserving and recovering federally listed species and other species with viability 

concerns by incorporating updated science and recovery plans, while providing sustainable 

and predictable levels of products and services, such as timber and forage.

Revision Topics

Early in the land management plan revision process, a set of topics was developed to assess the 

1990 land management plans. The list of topics was reviewed and validated at each step in the 

land management plan revision process. Revision topics represent a systematic framework for 

discussing the revised land management plans. In addition, the revised land management plans 

carry forward other management direction not identified as needing change or that needed only 

minor changes to achieve the multiple-use balance sought in this decision. The following revision 

topics were used to develop alternatives.
Draft Record of Decision

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

9

Providing Access to the Three National Forests – Issue 1

With a large federal land base in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington, I recognize that 

local economies are dependent on access and use of the three National Forests. I heard from 

county commissioners and members of the public that any net loss in roads would not be 

acceptable. Therefore, the revised land management plans include a desired condition for a safe 

and sustainable access system that allows access for the public. The revised land management 

plans do not designate, open, or close specific roads, or change current designations for motor 

vehicle use on existing roads on the three National Forests. The revised land management plans 

do contain sideboards for how roads will be managed. The Umatilla National Forest will continue 

to modify its motor vehicle use map annually to reflect decisions that are made regarding the 

transportation system and its uses. The Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests will 

complete Travel Management Planning under the 2005 Travel Management Rule, 36 CFR 212, 

after the revised land management plans have been finalized. All of the three National Forests 

will use guidance in the revised land management plans when making subsequent travel 

management decisions. 

I heard from many people who access the three National Forests for gathering forest products, 

hunting, mountain biking, hiking, camping and winter recreation, just to name a few of the many 

types of access-related activities people enjoy. I also considered the nonmotorized types of 

activities that people told me they valued. Nonmotorized areas are desired for hunting and 

fishing, summer and winter recreation, secluded wildlife habitat, and biological reserves. 

Management areas and corresponding suitability ratings that support these nonmotorized 

activities and values include Designated and Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Study 

areas, Wild River Segments, Research Natural Areas, Nationally Designated Trails, Municipal 

Watersheds, and Backcountry (nonmotorized) areas. These management areas will provide a full 

spectrum of opportunities for nonmotorized uses.

The revised land management plans do not exempt the three National Forests from the need to 

develop and maintain motor vehicle use maps as required by the 2005 Travel Management Rule.5

The guidance in the revised land management plans, and the provisions of the Travel 

Management Rule, will govern subsequent motor vehicle use map decisions. Given the need to 

contribute to local communities and economies, I believe these subsequent decisions are vital to 

providing safe, well-maintained and efficient travel networks for resource management, 

recreation, and the subsistence activities that are so important locally and nationally.

Contributing to Social and Economic Sustainability – Issue 2

National forest management activities and the associated production of goods and services affect 

businesses within a number of sectors. Throughout the planning process, I heard from 

stakeholders and the public that the revised land management plans should support local 

communities by allowing for growth in potential economic outputs associated with the three 

National Forests, including forest products, recreation, and livestock grazing. I believe a 

productive working relationship between the three National Forests and local governments is vital 

for successfully implementing the revised land management plans, as is supporting the local 

economic base within the ecological framework of the revised land management plans. The 

Forest Service developed the selected alternative in response to public comment and local 

government requests to achieve multiple-use goals on the three National Forests. 

 

5 36 CFR part 212
Draft Record of Decision

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

10

The revised land management plans, if fully implemented, would support the following benefits: 

up to 2,820 jobs and up to $113,667,000 in annual labor income in the forest products, recreation, 

and livestock grazing sectors. These estimated economic outputs are only projections of potential 

benefits under fully implemented revised land management plans. Actual outputs will depend on 

separate site-specific analysis, decisionmaking, and implementation, as well as the funding levels 

and capacity of the Forest Service and its partners. Estimated economic outputs represent a 

potential increase of more than 1,000 jobs in these sectors compared to jobs contributed under the 

1990 land management plans, while more than doubling the potential labor income derived from 

these jobs. These figures can be broken down further by business sector. This decision has the 

potential to support up to 1,593 timber-related jobs, an increase of 985 jobs compared to the level 

of jobs supported by the 1990 land management plans. The revised land management plans 

support up to $91,204,000 in annual timber harvest-related labor income, an increase of more 

than $56,000,000 as compared to the 1990 land management plans. In contrast, the revised land 

management plans would maintain an estimated 144 recreation related jobs with an estimated 

labor income of $3,755,000 annually.

Similar to the recreation sector, economic outputs associated with livestock grazing under the 

revised land management plans are expected to continue at levels that are generally consistent 

with current outputs under the 1990 land management plans. However, in response to comments, 

the Forest Service analyzed the potential for additional animal unit months (AUMs) that could be 

supported by vacant allotments.6 Based on the additional AUMs that could be accommodated if 

vacant allotments were stocked, the final environmental impact statement identified the potential 

for up to 1,083 grazing-related jobs, an increase of 188 jobs above the 895 jobs currently 

supported by the 1990 land management plans. The analysis also identified the potential for up to 

$18,708,000 in annual grazing-related labor income, a 21 percent increase over the current 

estimated labor income under the 1990 land management plans.

The selected alternative will continue to support our productive working relationships with local 

governments and contribute to social and economic sustainability in rural communities as each 

National Forest implements projects under these land management plans to accomplish multipleuse goals and the mission of the Forest Service.

Livestock Grazing – Issue 3

Some individuals and stakeholders advocated for increases in grazing outputs, and others 

advocated for reductions. Some argued for the elimination of grazing on the three National 

Forests. The revised land management plans simply designate management areas as suitable or 

not suitable for grazing, consistent with the 1982 Planning Rule. All other grazing decisions will 

continue to be made for individual allotments in separate environmental analyses. 

Livestock grazing is a valuable local industry. The revised land management plans support 

sustainable livestock grazing while moving toward ecological, social, and economic desired 

conditions (see revised land management plans, Part 1, 3.3.2 Livestock Grazing, Desired 

Conditions). All management areas in the revised land management plans are suitable for 

livestock grazing, with the exception of research natural areas, administrative areas, municipal 

 

6 The revised land management plans do not authorize grazing on vacant allotments, which would require 

several additional steps, such as separate allotment-level environmental analysis and decision-making to 

reauthorize grazing, and subsequent implementation requirements, such as improvements to infrastructure,

prior to permit issuance.
Draft Record of Decision

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

11

watersheds, and botanical areas. The revised land management plans do not make allotment-level 

decisions, such as the number of animals that may graze a particular allotment, nor do the revised 

land management plans authorize grazing on vacant allotments, as discussed above. 

Many commenters, including county commissioners, were concerned about how aquatic and 

riparian plan direction would affect livestock grazing. The riparian vegetation use guideline 

included in the draft land management plan received considerable attention, as it provided 

indicators for streambank alteration, utilization of woody vegetation, and forage stubble height. 

Grazing interests expressed concern that the stubble height requirement was not implementable 

and that specific numbers were not appropriate for the revised land management plans. As 

described above, I have worked with regional stakeholders, including cooperating counties, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and subsequently 

modified the riparian vegetation use guideline for the revised land management plans. The 

guideline (now termed GM-3G) clarifies that only those grazing use indicators and numeric 

values appropriate to a given site and necessary for maintaining or moving towards desired 

conditions should be used. The updated guideline emphasizes that inference and professional 

judgment to interpret and apply the best available scientific information should be made at the 

site level. 

Use of the Watershed Condition Framework in the evaluation of existing conditions was a point 

of confusion and concern for the cooperating county agencies, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Watershed Condition Framework is now not 

specifically identified in the riparian vegetation use guideline as a means to establish existing 

watershed condition. However, the Watershed Condition Framework provides helpful information 

that can and will be used as part of the evaluation, along with other specific, local information, to 

establish existing conditions for a specific site. 

Guideline GM-3G is intended to provide consistent, objective grazing management across the 

three National Forests, based on best available science, to maintain or improve riparian vegetation 

and stream conditions, thereby improving the viability of the Regional Forester’s sensitive 

aquatic species, contributing to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, and 

facilitating the attainment of State water quality standards over the long-term. I believe these are 

positive changes to the revised land management plans, which will improve and protect riparian 

and aquatic habitats, as well as promote consistent grazing management across the three National 

Forests.

Restoring and Sustaining Landscapes – Issue 4

The selected alternative identifies approximately 36 percent of the three National Forests as 

suitable for scheduled timber production within the General Forest management area, and allows 

active restoration in all management areas except Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness and 

Wilderness Study Areas. I believe the lands within the General Forest management area represent 

areas where timber production is feasible, based on other resource requirements and compatibility 

with management area desired conditions. Outside the General Forest management area, an 

additional 27 percent of the lands will be suitable for timber harvest to maintain or move the 

forest toward desired conditions, making timber harvest a restoration tool on more than 63

percent of the three National Forests. 

Where desired conditions are being met, the revised land management plans will maintain forest 

structural stages and tree species composition and densities within the historical range of 

variability; where desired conditions are not being met, the revised land management plans will 
Draft Record of Decision

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

12

facilitate restoration actions to move forest vegetation toward the desired conditions using a 

variety of tools. Natural ecological disturbance processes, such as wildland fire, may be used to 

move the three National Forests toward desired conditions, depending on expected disturbance 

effects and resource objectives. Desired conditions for forest structure will provide for increased 

ecological resilience to disturbances such as fire, insects and diseases. 

The selected alternative does not prohibit the harvest of trees greater than 21 inches in diameter, 

as mandated by the Eastside Screens amendment to the 1990 land management plans. Instead, the 

revised land management plans incorporate a forestwide guideline (OF-1G) for old forest and 

large tree management that specifies the circumstances where old7 trees, large8 trees and legacy9

trees may be harvested. These circumstances include: to move stands towards their desired 

conditions for species composition or density when removal of small trees alone cannot meet 

goals; to control or limit insects and diseases; to reduce fuels within the wildland-urban interface; 

to provide important instream structure; or for safety reasons. Old forests will not be tied to 

particular parcels of land or a single management area. The revised land management plans will 

maintain or foster the development of old forest within the historical range of variation in various 

management areas throughout the three National Forests. I believe this guideline will protect old, 

large and legacy trees and foster the development of late structure forest stages across the 

landscape, while allowing adequate management flexibility to achieve desired conditions. 

The allowable sale quantity10 for the revised land management plans is 80 million board feet 

(MMBF) for the Malheur, 53 MMBF for the Umatilla, and 64 MMBF for the Wallowa-Whitman 

per year. The timber sale program quantity11 for the revised land management plans will be 84 

MMBF for the Malheur, 56 MMBF for the Umatilla, and 65 MMBF for the Wallowa-Whitman 

per year. Actual volume offered in a given year may vary due to budget or regulatory conditions. 

Both the allowable sale quantity and timber sale program quantity for the revised land 

management plans represent substantial increases from recent averages under the existing land 

management plans.

Recommending Wilderness – Issue 5

Public opinion regarding wilderness recommendation varies widely. The three National Forests 

received many comments about recommended wilderness throughout the planning process. Many 

people favor recommending additional areas for wilderness while many others do not agree with 

any new wilderness recommendations. The cooperating agency county commissioners do not 

 

7 For the purpose of this guideline, the definition for the terms are as follows: “Old” trees are live trees with 

distinct features indicating ages of generally 150 years or older. (See revised land management plans, Part 

3, Goal 1, 1.14 forestwide standards and guidelines for old forest). 8 "Large" trees are live grand fir over 30-inches diameter at breast height or live trees of any other species 

over 21 inches diameter at breast height.

9 “Legacy” trees are old trees that have been spared during past harvest or have survived stand-replacing 

natural disturbances and are thus significantly older than the average trees in the general area. This 

distinguishes them from other ‘residual’ trees, which may also have been spared from harvest but are not 

always significantly older than the average trees in the area.

10 The allowable sale quantity is the upper limit of the amount of timber volume potentially available for 

harvest from land suitable for timber production.

11 The timber sale program quantity is the actual planned objective level of harvest volume, assuming full 

implementation, including firewood, expected to be sold annually from harvests for any purpose (except 

salvage harvest or sanitation harvest) on all lands in the Plan Area, not just lands suitable for timber 

production.
Draft Record of Decision

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

13

support additional recommended wilderness in the revised land management plans. However, I 

believe that a balanced approach to managing the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests includes managing some areas for their already existing semi-primitive and 

primitive character. These areas are important to some members of the public for the 

opportunities they provide for a recreational experience with a sense of solitude and self-reliance. 

These areas also provide unfragmented blocks of wildlife habitat with relatively little human 

disturbance. 

My decision results in recommending an additional 70,500 acres to Congress as wilderness 

allocations (approximately 1.4 percent of the three National Forests, and about 20,000 acres less 

than what was proposed in the draft environmental impact statement and its accompanying draft 

land management plan). Recommended areas include additions to the established Strawberry 

Mountains (2,990 acres, Malheur National Forest), North Fork John Day (1,170 acres, Umatilla 

National Forest), North Fork Umatilla (280 acres, Umatilla National Forest), and WenahaTucannon (8,650 acres, Umatilla National Forest) Wildernesses. I also administratively 

recommend the McClellan Mountain (23,580 acres, Malheur National Forest), Hellhole (21,780 

acres, Umatilla National Forest), and Twin Mountain (12,020 acres, Wallowa-Whitman National 

Forest) areas to recommended wilderness allocation (see final environmental impact statement 

Appendix E). 

My decision allows existing mountain biking and chainsaw use for maintenance of existing trails 

to continue in recommended wilderness areas until these areas are designated as wilderness by 

Congress. The revised land management plans contain direction for the monitoring of 

mechanized use in recommended wilderness areas, as well as direction to address this use if they 

cause any increase in user-created trails. Other ongoing activities, including grazing and mineral 

exploration, will continue to be suitable uses in these recommended wilderness areas.

Additionally, approximately 62,350 acres (88 percent) of these recommended wilderness areas 

are located within inventoried roadless areas as identified under the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule. Currently, these areas are managed consistent with the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule, which prohibits road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting 

in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands, except where specific 

circumstances exist (36 CFR 294, Subpart B). Managing these areas as recommended wilderness 

under the revised land management plans does not represent a change to the way they are 

currently managed. 

Despite the revised land management plans’ consistency with most county land use plans, and the 

three National Forests’ ongoing work with the community and collaborative groups, issues persist 

regarding economic effects related to expected timber outputs and recommendations for 

wilderness designation. The social and economic section in final environmental impact statement 

(Volume 1, Chapter 3) discusses these issues. I acknowledge the counties still dispute whether my 

decision will strike the correct balance between ecological protection and local economic need; 

however, I believe this decision is appropriate and meets my legal and regulatory responsibilities 

during the land management plan revision process for evaluating and recommending areas that 

fully exhibit wilderness characteristics.

To further ensure I met these requirements, I directed the interdisciplinary team to again look for 

areas that met the criteria of recommended wilderness areas prior to the release of the final 

environmental impact statement. Public comment and ground verification pointed to limited areas 

adjacent to the McClellan Mountain (435 acres) and Strawberry Mountain (1,830 acres) 
Draft Record of Decision

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

14

Wilderness areas on the Malheur National Forest, and adjacent to the North Fork Umatilla (45 

acres) Wilderness on the Umatilla National Forest, and adjacent to the Twin Mountain (2,490 

acres) Wilderness on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest that met the criteria for 

recommended wilderness. As a result, those areas were added to the recommended wilderness in 

the selected alternative. Additionally, limited areas of Hellhole (200 acres) and North Fork John 

Day Wilderness area additions (71 acres), and Upper Tucannon (230 acres) Recommended 

Wilderness areas on the Umatilla National Forest were determined to not meet the recommended 

wilderness criteria. Those areas have been removed from the selected alternative. Finally, the 

Greenhorn Mountain Recommended Wilderness area on the Malheur National Forest (6,139 

acres) and Umatilla National Forest (7,733 acres) and Huckleberry recommended wilderness area 

on the Wallowa- Whitman National Forest (10,770 acres) were also removed from the selected 

alternative. This decision was based on multiple considerations including existing summer and 

winter motorized use, existing mining activity, boundary manageability, adequate range of 

existing management direction, and lack of sufficient wilderness characteristics to be suitable for 

wilderness designation. Overall, this review resulted in a reduction of about 20,343 acres (-3,874 

acres on the Malheur National Forest, -8,189 acres on the Umatilla National Forest, and -8,280 

acres on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest) of recommended wilderness in the selected 

alternative than what was published in the preferred alternative of the draft environmental impact 

statement and draft land management plan. 

My recommendation, paired with the already designated wilderness areas on the Malheur 

National Forest (82,600 acres), Umatilla National Forest (304,200 acres) and Wallowa-Whitman 

(372,900 acres)12 National Forest, would result in a combined total of about 17 percent of the 

three National Forests to be managed as wilderness if Congress should act to formally designate 

these recommended wilderness areas. I believe that this approach for recommended and 

designated wilderness provides balance with managing for other desired conditions across the 

Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. These areas provide valuable habitat 

for wildlife species that benefit from unfragmented environments. Managing these areas as 

recommended wilderness does not mean that fire suppression would not occur if conditions and 

incident objectives determined that fire suppression would be the appropriate course of action.

Actively Restoring Ecological Resilience – Issue 6

Resilience is defined as the ability of an ecosystem and its component parts to absorb, or recover 

from the effects of disturbances through preservation, restoration, or improvement of its essential 

structures and functions and redundancy of ecological patterns across the landscape. Resilient 

landscapes have a greater capacity to survive natural disturbances and large-scale threats to 

sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future environmental conditions, such as 

those driven by climate change and increasing human uses. Concern about the amount, type, and 

extent of management activities that would be aimed at restoring ecological resilience in the 

proposed action was expressed during the scoping comment period. Based on perceptions of the 

current vegetation condition and its resilience, some people believe management approach under 

the proposed action would be too aggressive while others expressed a desire for a more 

aggressive approach. The level of public concern is heightened because the management actions 

taken to restore ecological resilience influences the ecosystem services the three National Forests 

provide in the Blue Mountains. 

 

12 This number does not include designated wilderness in the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area
Draft Record of Decision

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

15

The final environmental impact statement assessed ecological resilience using six indicators: four 

that measure the level of projected management activity and two that predict the outcomes of 

management activity.

Four indicators for projected management activity are:

1. acres of annual forested vegetation restoration actions; 

2. miles of road treatments in priority watersheds; 

3. miles of improved riparian areas; and 

4. forage use intensity in priority watersheds

Two indicators for outcomes of management activity are:

1. the number of watersheds in improved condition; and 

2. improvement in the dry upland forest potential vegetation group departure index value at 

year 50.

Tables 131, 132 and 133 in the final environmental impact statement (Volume 1) display a 

summary of the key indicators used in the analysis of ecological resilience.

Past fire management policies, combined with historical timber harvesting practices, have had 

substantial effects on existing forest structures and contributed to more highly departed forest 

landscapes. 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. Across the three National 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. 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 analysis in the final environmental impact statement (Volume 1) revealed a positive 

correlation between the degree of active vegetation restoration treatments and improvements in 

the ecological resilience indicators. The selected alternative, along with Alternatives D, E and EModified Departure, all make substantial and roughly equal progress moving forest vegetation 

composition, structures, and density closer to the historical range of variation. The selected 

alternative will thin a large amount of what is now dense, mid-aged stages, prioritized to dry 

upland forest, and convert it to more stable, low-density, mid-aged stages, less prone to atypical 

severe wildland fire behavior. By reducing the proportion of overstocked dry upland forest, the 

selected alternative results in one of the lowest departure index scores for the dry upland forest at 

year 50.

The ecological resilience issue is complex, involving physical and biological factors as well as 

human actions. Risks to resilience arise from many sources, both natural and human caused. 

Reducing risks in one component of the ecosystem may increase risks in others. No one 

alternative best addresses the issue of ecological resilience. Reliance on natural processes may be 

the fastest way to achieve desired conditions for some ecosystem components, while others 
Draft Record of Decision

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

16

components may require active restoration. However, the selected alternative more than 

adequately addresses the issue of ecological resilience while also addressing several other issues 

including old forest, livestock grazing, restoring and sustaining landscapes as it contributes to 

social and economic sustainability.

Engagement with State and Local Governments, Tribes, 

other Federal Agencies, and the Public

The revised land management plans reflect the valuable input provided by State and local 

governments, Tribes, other Federal agencies, and the public. Since 2004, the Forest Service has 

organized over 120 formal opportunities for input, plus many other informal opportunities for 

information exchange. The timeline below summarizes the key phases of public and stakeholder 

engagement during the planning process. 

• 2004-2010: During proposed action development, held pre-scoping public meetings, 

workshops, and field trips to inform the proposed action. The Forest Service, public, and 

stakeholders also adapted to changes in forest planning rules in 2005, 2008, and then later in 

2012. 

• 2010: For the scoping comment period, published a notice of intent in the Federal Register on 

March 29, 2010, requesting written comment on the proposed action. The Forest Service 

organized a series of public meetings during and following the comment period. Responses 

included 110 unique comment letters and 4,025 organized form letters. 

• 2011-2013: During alternative development, met with States, counties, Tribes, advisory 

committees, collaborative groups, industry representatives, and interest groups, and the public 

to develop Alternatives for the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 2014: Published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014, 

requesting formal written comment on the draft environmental impact statement and draft 

land management plan. During the comment period, the Forest Service hosted 14 public 

meetings and a webinar to provide information, answer questions, and listen to public input. 

The Forest Service extended the comment period from 90 to 150 days and received over 

1,000 letters containing over 4,000 comments. Following the release of the draft 

environmental impact statement in 2014, some commenters recommended that the planning 

process should start over from the beginning, because those commenters did not agree with 

elements of the draft environmental impact statement or draft land management plan 

(Alternative E). The Forest Service determined, however, that substantive comments could be

addressed within the existing range of alternatives or with modifications to Alternative E. 

This decision reflects the agency's commitment to an iterative process to meet the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

• 2015-2016: Worked with local stakeholders to identify key topics from the comment period 

that were in need of further community discussion: pace and scale of restoration, livestock 

grazing, access, and wilderness. From June 2015 through February 2016, the Forest Service 

hosted or attended 24 public listening sessions in communities near the three National 

Forests. Each session was professionally facilitated to ensure that every participant had time 

to speak, listen to others, and propose solutions. Individual citizens, local government leaders, 

and a variety of interest groups actively participated in these listening sessions. Their input 

brought additional context to the 2014 formal comments and enhanced the Forest Service’s 

understanding of how different alternatives may affect diverse public interests. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

17

• 2016-2018: Continued tribal consultation meetings. Continued engagement with states, 

counties, and other federal agencies. The Forest Service also continued to communicate with 

the public about the ongoing land management plan revision process through newsletters, 

mail, email, website updates, and public conference calls. In response to public and 

stakeholder input, the Forest Service developed two modified alternatives (Alternative EModified and E-Modified-Departure) and analyzed them in detail in the final environmental 

impact statement. The modified alternatives were informed by formal public comments, 

listening session input, and revised recommendations by resource specialists. The Forest 

Service also updated the analysis of other alternatives in the final environmental impact 

statement based on comments to the draft revised land management plan and environmental 

impact statement. Modifications made to the land management plan and environmental 

impact statement, including the two modified alternatives, are based on substantive formal 

comments. The Forest Service did not consider these modifications to be substantial changes

or new issues, circumstances, or information relevant to environmental concerns.

13 Therefore, 

we determined that a supplement to the environmental impact statement and subsequent 

comment period would not be necessary. Overall, the Forest Service analyzed eight 

alternatives in detail. 

• 2018: Published the revised land management plans, draft record of decision, and final 

environmental impact statement for the objection and resolution process. 

Additional details regarding Forest Service engagement with State and local governments, Tribes, 

other Federal agencies, and the public can be found in Volume 3, Chapter 4 of the final 

environmental impact statement. Formal comment letters from government entities, submitted in 

response to the 2014 draft environmental impact statement, are also included in Volume 3, 

Chapter 4 of the final environmental impact statement. Additionally, Forest Service responses to 

2014 formal comments (categorized as concern statements) are available in Volume 4, Appendix 

C of the final environmental impact statement. Below is a summary of interests expressed by 

State and local governments, Tribes, Federal agencies, and the public.

States

The Plan Areas for the revised land management plans include parts of Oregon and Washington. 

State agencies that submitted comments on the revised land management plans include the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Forestry, and the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The interdisciplinary team carefully considered the 2014 

comments submitted by the States in response to the draft environmental impact statement. 

State agency comments requested better acknowledgement of current (and potential future) 

collaboration to improve forest health and habitat across boundaries. The Forest Service 

welcomes the opportunity to work more closely with State agencies on a variety of common 

priorities, and the interdisciplinary team improved language in the revised land management 

plans to reflect the ongoing collaborative work between the three National Forests and States. 

Specifically, the Forest Service added language to the revised land management plans regarding 

the value of working with local collaborative groups and the value of an all-lands approach. 

State agencies also recommended more measurable plan direction, including desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines, with more quantitative targets that would facilitate an assessment of 

achievement over time. In response, the Interdisciplinary Team enhanced plan direction to make it 

 

13 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)
Draft Record of Decision

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

18

more measurable and specific in many resource areas, including vegetation management, riparian 

management, and wildlife habitat. The interdisciplinary team also updated the definitions of 

desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and other plan components based on the 2012 Planning 

Rule. In response to the States, the interdisciplinary team conveyed that different plan 

components can work together to provide direction for forest management, and project-level 

analysis and decision-making will bring further specificity and measurability that may not be 

appropriate at the programmatic level of the land management plans. 

Both the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife recommended strong links 

between the land management plans and future travel management decisions to help reduce the 

impacts of roads on wildlife and water quality. The Forest Service clarified that travel 

management under subpart B of the Travel Management Rule (designation of summer motorized 

routes), will be done on the Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur National Forests after the revised 

land management plans are complete (the Umatilla National Forest has already completed the 

requirements under subpart B of the Travel Management Rule). Therefore, the Wallowa-Whitman 

and Malheur land management plans do not include references to designated routes to avoid the 

pre-decisional use of that term. 

The Departments of Fish and Wildlife identified a variety of measures to improve habitat for big 

game, with focus on Rocky Mountain elk and bighorn sheep. The State and Forest Service joint 

effort to discuss ways to strengthen land management plan direction for elk and bighorn sheep 

demonstrates the value of partnership needed between agencies. Using a collaborative process 

that also involved tribal biologists (described above), the Forest Service developed more 

measurable guidelines and a standard to improve elk security. The intent of these elk-related plan 

components is to help improve the distribution of Rocky Mountain elk across all seasonal ranges 

on the three National Forests. 

The Forest Service, after coordination with State and tribal specialists, also strengthened 

standards in the revised land management plans to protect bighorn sheep. I acknowledge that 

State and tribal partners sought a more aggressive position regarding the recreational use of 

domesticated pack goats than is found in my decision. In response, the interdisciplinary team 

clarified that the Forest Service does not currently authorize or permit the use of pack goats on 

the three National Forests, nor does the Forest Service currently restrict this use. Restricting pack 

goat use would require separate, site-specific analysis and decisionmaking. However, the 

effective separation approach (described above in the “Tribes” section) still applies to the use of 

pack goats. The revised land management plans clearly state: "The use of pack goats shall not be 

authorized in occupied bighorn sheep habitat or where effective separation from bighorn sheep 

cannot be reasonably maintained" (BHSM-2S). 

Further, the States encouraged the Forest Service to work with partners to develop a multiorganizational monitoring and evaluation strategy, which would ideally include funding 

commitments. The Forest Service updated the monitoring sections in the land management plans 

to be consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule. Per planning policy, however, additional 

monitoring or funding commitments are not appropriate in the land management plans. 

Nevertheless, I acknowledge the value of coordinated monitoring efforts outside of the land 

management plan process and intend to pursue a coordinated approach with State agencies and 

other partners to conduct monitoring.
Draft Record of Decision

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

19

Local Governments: Counties 

County elected officials (commissioners and judges) have consistently represented local 

government interests to the Forest Service during the planning process. Key county concerns are 

summarized below, and additional details are available in the Responses to Comments section in 

Volume 4, Appendix C of the final environmental impact statement.

The Forest Service provided opportunities for county involvement throughout the planning 

process. For example, county officials participated in scoping and in the alternative-development 

process; they submitted formal comments on the draft environmental impact statement and draft 

land management plan in 2014; and they actively participated in public listening sessions during 

2015-16. The Forest Service continued to meet with county officials during 2016-18 with over 20 

separate meetings. Eleven counties in the three National Forests have current memoranda of 

understanding confirming their cooperating agency status in the planning process. Both before 

and after the release of the draft environmental impact statement, cooperating agency meetings 

provided a valuable forum for information exchange and discussion between county and Forest 

Service officials. Further, the Forest Service reviewed the relevant planning and land use policies 

of other government entities, including those of counties, consistent with 36 CFR 219.7(c) of the 

1982 Planning Rule. The results of this review are displayed in the final environmental impact 

statement (Volume 3, Ch. 4).

All of the counties within, or adjacent to, the three National Forests include rural communities 

and active user groups that value the many forest products and recreational opportunities 

provided by the three National Forests. Therefore, county officials advocated for plan direction 

that supports rural prosperity and lifestyles. Topics of primary concern for county officials have 

included increasing timber harvest and sales, continuing livestock grazing, maintaining motorized 

access, and minimizing special management area allocations that may impact the existing uses of 

local citizens. 

Consistent with county interests, the revised land management plans (if fully implemented) would 

allow for a significant increase in timber harvest and sales. The timber sale program quantity 

would more than double, from a recent average of 101 million board feet under the existing land 

management plans to 205 million board feet under the revised land management plans. Further, to 

improve forest health and reduce the risk of severe wildfire, the revised land management plans 

would allow the thinning of up to 33 percent of the overstocked dry-upland forest types during 

the planning period, while also allowing treatments of other forest types. 

Livestock grazing would continue under the revised land management plans at a level consistent 

with the existing land management plans—approximately 242,800 animal unit months (AUMs). 

Grazing guidance would support ongoing grazing activities while providing adequate protection 

of sensitive aquatic species, riparian habitat, and water quality. In response to comments, the 

interdisciplinary team analyzed the potential for up to 51,600 additional AUMs associated with 

vacant grazing allotments (vacant as of 2013), including in the analysis the suitable acres for 

grazing and historic AUMs associated with those vacant allotments. However, the authorization 

of additional AUMs on vacant allotments would require separate, allotment-level environmental 

analyses, decisions to reauthorize grazing, and implementation, including infrastructure 

construction prior to permit issuance. 

The revised land management plans are generally consistent with existing motorized access. Any 

future modifications of approved uses will be subject to separate, site-specific analysis and 

decision-making processes. For example, 3,809,485 acres across the three National Forests are 
Draft Record of Decision

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

20

suitable for summer motorized use under the revised land management plans, an estimated 

increase of 4 percent compared with the existing land management plans. Acres suitable for 

winter motorized use total 3,826,885 acres across the three National Forests under the revised 

land management plans, an estimated 4 percent decrease compared with the existing land 

management plans. In comparison, 1,022,275 acres across the three National Forests are suitable 

for only nonmotorized use. 

The revised land management plans include 70,500 acres of recommended wilderness across the 

three National Forests, which contrasts with the request of some counties for no additional 

recommended wilderness. The interdisciplinary team analyzed recommended wilderness areas in 

accordance with the Wilderness Act and direction associated with the 1982 Planning Rule. 

Recommendations are generally consistent with existing uses and reflect a balanced consideration 

of a range of public comments. 

Overall, the revised land management plans reflect county input regarding the need to support 

rural prosperity and lifestyles. Fully implemented, the revised land management plans (in 

comparison to the 1990 land management plans) would annually support up to 1,173 new jobs 

and up to $59.5 million in additional annual income, for a total of up to 2,820 jobs and $113.6 

million in annual income in the forest products, livestock, and recreation sectors associated with 

the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

Tribes

Within the three National Forests in the Blue Mountains, a significant portion of lands ceded by 

Tribes in various treaties was designated as part of the National Forest System by the Organic 

Administration Act of June 4, 1897. Lands were ceded through the treaties of 1855 by the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Indian Nation of the Yakama Reservation. The Klamath Tribes, via 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. Other federally recognized Tribes with interests in the three National Forests 

include the Burns Paiute Tribe, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, the 

Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribes, the Fort Bidwell Indian Community of Paiute 

Indians, and the Chief Joseph Band of the Nez Perce, which is now part of the Confederated 

Tribes of the Colville Reservation. 

Two federally recognized Tribes have consistently engaged in the Blue Mountains land 

management plan revision process and also submitted formal comments on the 2014 draft land 

management plan: 

• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla 

Tribes), based in Pendleton, Oregon. The Confederated Tribes’ reservation shares a boundary 

with the Umatilla National Forest. 

• Nez Perce Tribe, based in Lapwai, Idaho. The Nez Perce Tribe’s reservation is near the 

northern boundary of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

These Tribes have treaty-reserved rights within the three National Forests, and Forest Service 

staff and leadership regularly consult with the Tribes on each National Forest’s program of work 

and on specific projects. The Tribes’ cultural resource departments work with the three National 

Forests to protect significant sites and artifacts, and to ensure that tribal members can continue to 
Draft Record of Decision

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

21

exercise treaty-reserved rights by accessing ceremonial, medicinal, and subsistence resources. 

The Tribes’ natural resource departments are also engaged with Forest Service staff, seeking to 

restore the habitats, populations, and distributions of native fish and wildlife. 

The Forest Service has engaged in staff-to-staff and government-to-government consultation with 

the Tribes on the revised land management plans. Planning staff worked closely with tribal staff 

to include or edit specific language in the revised land management plans and final environmental 

impact statement to address tribal concerns. 

Key concerns of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation that have been 

addressed in the revised land management plans or final environmental impact statement include: 

treaty rights, cultural resources, culturally significant foods, cultural resources that are not placebased, historical areas, traditional cultural properties, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, bighorn sheep, and elk. 

Key concerns of the Nez Perce Tribe that have been addressed in the revised land management 

plans include: treaty rights, treaty-reserved resources (for example, fish, game, roots, and berries), 

economic contributions of the Tribe, consultation, cultural resources, traditional cultural 

properties, historic properties (like trails), sacred sites, species viability, fisheries, aquatic habitat 

and riparian areas, range and plants, timber, bighorn sheep, and elk. 

Both Tribes expressed similar concerns regarding bighorn sheep and elk. Bighorn sheep are an 

important tribal resource and a federal trust responsibility on the three National Forests. The 

Tribes and the Forest Service share a common concern about disease transmission to bighorn 

sheep from domestic sheep or goats. The Forest Service carefully considered the Tribes’ 2014 

formal comments and engaged with tribal staff to strengthen the plan components for bighorn 

sheep in the revised land management plans. Forest Service specialists engaged with the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Although the revised land 

management plans include many changes requested by the Tribes, some differences in approach 

remain. For example, the Confederated Tribes requested that the land management plans 

“Classify all currently unoccupied bighorn sheep habitat (including source habitat) as unsuitable 

for domestic sheep and goat grazing and trailing,” while the Nez Perce Tribe similarly 

recommended that "...all areas modeled as potential but currently unoccupied bighorn sheep 

habitat on the three National Forests be classified as unsuited for domestic sheep grazing.” The 

revised land management plans do not meet these requests as written. Instead, under the revised 

land management plans, a standard has been created (BHSM-2S) “domestic sheep or goat use 

would not be authorized where effective separation from bighorn sheep cannot be reasonably 

maintained.” The effective separation standard would allow bighorn sheep populations to expand 

and move into new areas over time, which is the intent of the Tribes' suggested language. The 

revised land management plans focus on effective separation because this approach is based on 

best available science and national direction.

Both Tribes submitted comments that elk are being pushed out of traditional ranges on the 

National Forests, resulting in economic and social impacts, including elk not being available to 

tribal members exercising their treaty-reserved hunting rights. In response, the Tribes, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Forest 

Service worked together to define elk security based on the best available science. The Forest 

Service subsequently identified priority areas on the National Forests to reach 30 percent or 

greater elk security at the subwatershed scale. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

22

Other Federal Agencies 

A number of Federal agencies have interests within, or adjacent to, the three National Forests. 

These agencies include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). The interdisciplinary team carefully considered and addressed the formal 

comments submitted by other Federal agencies in response to the draft environmental impact 

statement. The Forest Service also worked with Federal officials during the development of the 

revised land management plans. For example, under the Endangered Species Act, the Forest 

Service is required to engage in a formal consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Moreover, the Forest Service reviewed the 

relevant planning and land-use policies of other Federal agencies to ensure consistency and 

compliance in the revised land management plans.

Most comments received by the Forest Service came from the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Their comments are summarized below. 

The EPA’s main concerns were directed to land management plan components for watersheds and 

riparian management areas. The EPA expressed a concern for the lack of quantitative riparian 

management objectives for water temperature, large wood, bank stability, bank angle, widthdepth ratio, and pool frequency. The EPA further recommended that the final environmental 

impact statement and land management plans include additional specificity about the types of 

harvest treatments that would be pursued in riparian zones. The EPA also recommended the 

revised land management plan incorporate the grazing utilization rates and residual stubble 

heights for riparian areas as for Alternative F, because the EPA believes these rates would result in 

higher rates of animal rotation. 

In response to EPA’s concerns, the revised land management plans express desired conditions for 

watersheds and riparian management areas in qualitative terms, rather than specifying 

quantitative benchmarks, because parameters for watershed, riparian and water quality will vary, 

for example, by landform and stream channel type. The revised land management plans include 

ten standards and guidelines that direct the conduct of silvicultural practices and timber harvest 

within riparian management areas. Standard TM-1S is the overarching guiding standard: 

“Silvicultural treatments shall occur in riparian management areas only as necessary to maintain, 

enhance or restore desired conditions for aquatic and riparian resources” and that these activities 

shall “avoid or minimize adverse effects to aquatic and riparian resources.” The revised land 

management plans include guideline GM-3G, which establishes stubble heights and grazing 

utilization rates that are generally the same as with Alternative F. Stubble heights and utilization 

rates would vary according to whether or not desired conditions have been attained. Guideline 

GM-3G prescribes more conservative stubble heights and utilization rates where desired 

conditions have not been attained to foster attainment of desired conditions. 

The EPA also recommended that guideline OF-1, related to old tree management, should better 

define the approach to be used to identify older forest. The EPA recommended that the sitespecific approach for identifying old growth should take into account geographic context, tree 

size, tree age, tree species, spatial distribution, relative abundance, the historical range of 

variability, forest health, and the potential of an area to grow large trees. 

The Forest Service modified guideline OF-1G in the revised land management plan to incorporate 

several of EPA’s concerns. The revised land management plans do not include a firm age-limit, 

but do include a guideline that requires retention and recruitment of old trees, large trees, and 
Draft Record of Decision

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

23

legacy trees, with specific exceptions to accommodate progress toward related desired conditions 

for forest vegetation. Components in the revised land management plans are designed to allow 

management flexibility to address desired conditions for forest vegetation structure class, density 

and species composition, as well as desired conditions for old forest. Specific methods to identify 

old trees would be developed at the project level during implementation and would take into 

account factors such as species-specific characteristics, geographic context, and the potential of a 

site to grow large trees.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service were mainly concerned 

with direction for watershed health, riparian area management, and, in particular, how grazing 

management would be carried out in riparian management areas. The Rationale for the Decision 

section above on page 7 addresses these issues. Grazing management in riparian areas was also a 

topic of interest among other commenters. For additional details, please refer to the Responses to 

Comments in Volume 4, Appendix C (Grazing: Utilization) of the final environmental impact 

statement. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also recommended that several guidelines for the 

management of federally and candidate listed plant species be crafted to function as standards 

rather than guidelines. The Forest Service made the recommended changes to several guidelines 

to function as standards for federally listed and candidate plant species.

The Public

Local residents rely on many of the benefits provided by the Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests. The benefits, such as livestock grazing, timber harvest, motorized 

access, recreation, tourism, and subsistence activities (hunting, fishing, woodcutting, and 

gathering of mushrooms, berries, and plants) are important to economic and social life in and 

around the three National Forests. Formal public comments from individual citizens and nongovernmental organizations reflected a wide range of perspectives and positions on a diverse set 

of issues, including: access, aquatics, climate change, cultural resources, energy, forest 

management, grazing, lands and special uses, management areas, mining, planning process, 

plants, public involvement, recreation and scenery, social and economic issues, soil, water quality, 

watersheds, wilderness areas, backcountry areas, wild and scenic rivers, wildfire, and wildlife. As 

part of an iterative National Environmental Policy Act process, the interdisciplinary team 

developed and analyzed a range of alternatives to address these diverse public concerns, and I 

believe that Alternative E-Modified responds best to the full range of public concerns.

Under the revised land management plans, citizens will continue to enjoy current uses of these 

three National Forests. In support of rural prosperity, many areas on the three National Forests 

will continue to serve as “working forests” and have the potential to deliver more jobs and 

income in forest products, livestock, and recreation. The three National Forests will remain open 

for multiple uses, including motorized uses, and access will remain free of charge in the vast 

majority of areas. The revised land management plans will not directly close any roads; such sitespecific decisions will be handled separately from the revision of the land management plans, 

either on a project-by-project basis or as part of a larger travel management process. Overall, the 

revised land management plans support healthier forests that are more resilient to wildfires, 

insects, and diseases. 

Fully implementing the land management plans will allow the Forest Service to be a better 

neighbor to adjacent landowners, provide better habitat for wildlife and fish, benefiting the many 

hunters and fishermen who rely on these resources, and supply cleaner water for downstream 

communities and farmers.
Draft Record of Decision

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

24

Alternatives

To provide important context for the decision being made, this section describes how I considered 

the alternatives, their benefits, and their tradeoffs. The Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests analyzed eight alternatives in detail: no action, the modified proposed action, 

and six alternatives developed in response to issues raised by local governments and the public. 

These alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 2 of the final environmental impact 

statement.

Development of alternatives was driven by the need for change, as described above, and were 

developed through extensive engagement with State and local governments, Tribes, other Federal 

agencies, and the public. These alternatives include different options to address identified issues 

and to respond to the purpose and need. While all the alternatives provide a range of multiple uses 

and goods and services, each responds to issues in different ways. One example is how 

management areas, with their different emphases, were distributed across the landscape to address 

one or more of the land management plan revision topics. 

All plan revision alternatives represent, to varying degrees, the principles of multiple-use and 

ecological and economic sustainability. The alternatives provide basic protection of forest 

resources and comply fully with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. In addition, all plan 

revision alternatives would:

• Meet the purpose and need for change or address one or more significant issues;

• Provide sustained multiple uses, products, and services in an environmentally acceptable 

manner (including leasable and locatable minerals, timber, livestock forage, and recreation 

opportunities);

• Retain existing designated areas (wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, scenic byways, and 

national historic trails);

• Retain all existing permitted activities and facilities; 

• Protect heritage resources;

• Recognize the unique status of American Indian tribes and their rights retained by trust and 

executive order with the United States, including consultation requirements;

• Conserve soil and water resources and not allow significant or permanent impairment of the 

productivity of the land;

• Provide protections for riparian areas;

• Contribute to the recovery and viability of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and plant species; 

and

• Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State, and/or local standards or 

regulations.

In addition, the following plan components are included in all plan revision alternatives: Goals, 

desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management areas, designated areas, 

suitability, and a monitoring program. These plan components are defined in Part 1 of the revised 

land management plans and described in detail in Parts 2 and 3 of the revised land management 

plans.
Draft Record of Decision

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

25

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In addition to the no action alternative and the proposed action, the Forest Service developed six 

plan revision alternatives, which respond to the needs for change and issues identified by the 

public. Complete descriptions and comparisons of the alternatives are provided in “Developing 

the Alternatives” in Volume 1, Chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement; and 

Appendix A, Volume 4 of the final environmental impact statement provides the details of plan 

components for each alternative. Appendix A in each land management plan contains the 2018 

Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS). This document was 

developed from the 2008 Pacific Northwest Region ARCS, as modified from public comments 

received on the February 2014 draft environmental impact statement. The strategies in the 2018 

Blue Mountains ARCS apply only to Alternative E-Modified and Alternative E-Modified 

Departure. Alternatives B through F would still follow the guidance of the original 2008 Pacific 

Northwest Region ARCS. Compared to the 2008 Region ARCS, the 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS 

adds some new standards and guidelines, and changes some existing guidelines to standards and 

vice versa.

Alternative A: No Action Alternative

Alternative A (no action) would continue management direction under the 1990 land management 

plans as amended. The portion of the Ochoco National Forest administered by the Malheur 

National Forest’s Emigrant Creek Ranger District would continue to be administered using the 

1989 land management plan for the Ochoco National Forest. These land management plans 

emphasized the production of wood products using even-aged management and assumed that 

ecological conditions were healthy and that disturbances, such as wildland fire or insect and 

disease outbreaks, would not substantially affect planned actions, desired outcomes or outputs. 

The existing land management plans provide a mix of natural resource-based goods and services, 

such as timber and wood products, livestock forage, big game, and minerals in an 

environmentally sound manner. This alternative reflects the current level of goods and services 

provided by each administrative unit and the most likely amount of goods and services expected 

to be provided in the future if current management direction continues (see 36 CFR 219.12(f)(7) 

1982). At the same time, Alternative A provides for other uses and values, such as scenery, 

recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water. The PACFISH, INFISH, and 

Eastside Screen amendments to the land management plans (intended to provide interim direction 

until land management plans were revised) would continue.

Alternative B: The Modified Proposed Action

Substantial public input contributed to the development of the proposed action. Based on a series 

of public meetings and coordination between 2003 and 2010 with various interest groups 

including county, State, and local governments, tribal governments, and other Federal agencies, 

several needs for revising the 1990s land management plans were identified. The proposed action, 

developed to address those needs for change, was distributed for public review as part of public 

scoping in March 2010. Based on public responses received at that time, modifications were 

incorporated into the proposed action.

Alternative B emphasizes restoring landscape functions and processes to create resilient 

landscapes that are adaptable to the effects of disturbances and to address climate change. 

Alternative B includes desired conditions that would emphasize an integrated strategy for 

managing National Forest System lands. Management allocations would become more consistent 
Draft Record of Decision

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

26

between the three National Forests. Alternative B would emphasize a combination of active 

management and natural processes to restore landscapes on the three National Forests.

Alternative C 

Alternative C varies from Alternative B by emphasizing the role of natural processes in forest 

restoration (also referred to as passive restoration). When compared to the other alternatives, less 

timber would be harvested, more areas would be allocated for nonmotorized recreation, and more 

areas would be allocated to recommended wilderness areas. Similar to Alternative A, old forest 

would be mapped and allocated to a management area. The harvest of large trees (21 inches 

diameter or larger) would be prohibited. Managed wildland fire for resource benefit to achieve the 

desired condition would be highest in this alternative. Wildlife corridor management areas would 

be identified. This alternative would make substantial reductions to the permitted number of 

domestic livestock. The default width of riparian management areas would be greater than what is 

proposed for the other alternatives.

Alternative D

Alternative D, developed in coordination with the cooperating counties, would increase active 

management of forest and range vegetation to maximize the outputs of goods and services, while 

meeting minimum requirements to conserve other resources such as soils and water quality. 

Alternative D projects the highest volumes for timber harvest and would emphasize active 

management using mechanical treatments to restore the forested landscape. Alternative D 

responds to requests to increase public motor vehicle access. No areas would be allocated to 

preliminary administratively recommended wilderness areas or to backcountry (nonmotorized). 

This alternative does not include a standard or guideline prohibiting the harvest of trees 21 inches 

diameter or larger, but relies exclusively on desired conditions. Alternative D generally retains the 

same standards and guidelines under that apply to MA 4B – Riparian Management Areas as 

Alternatives B, E, and F, using the 2008 Pacific Northwest Region Aquatic and Riparian 

Conservation Strategy. However, under Alternative D, these standards and guidelines apply to 

much smaller areas. For example, the buffer width for fish-bearing streams under Alternative D is 

100 feet, versus 300 feet under the other alternatives.

Alternative E

Alternative E was used to develop the 2014 draft land management plan that accompanied the 

draft environmental impact statement. Alternative E would use vegetation management and 

aquatic and wildlife habitat treatments to increase the scale of restoration activities, while 

emphasizing the potential benefits to water quality and watershed condition. Alternative E 

responds to public concerns and questions regarding the environmental effects of accelerating 

efforts to improve ecological resilience. While similar in many regards to Alternative B, 

Alternative E would increase objectives for both the number and extent of restoration projects 

that would be undertaken on the three national forests in the Blue Mountains. Objectives for 

riparian and aquatic habitat improvement activities and road maintenance proposals to improve 

aquatic conditions within key and priority watersheds would be substantially greater than 

proposed in Alternative B. Similarly, area (acres) allocated to Management Area 1B (preliminary 

administratively recommended wilderness areas) would be more than proposed in Alternative B.

Alternative E-Modified (Selected Alternative)

Alternative E-Modified was developed in response to substantive comments received from the 

public, State and county governments, Tribes, and other Federal agencies, and the public on the 
Draft Record of Decision

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

27

draft environmental impact statement and draft land management plan. Alternative E-Modified is 

the alternative that the revised land management plans are built upon. 

Alternative E-Modified would maintain an overall level of projected timber volume sold, slightly 

more than under Alternative E (205 versus 203 million board feet). To protect old trees, this 

alternative includes a revised old tree guideline that would emphasize retaining trees having 

certain old tree characteristics, with certain specific exceptions (see the final environmental 

impact statement, Appendix A, Alternatives in Detail).

Alternative E-Modified would emphasize active restoration, especially in dry forest types, 

through vegetation management, and it incorporates the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS). This strategy promotes improvements to aquatic and 

terrestrial wildlife habitats while increasing management flexibility. 

Objectives for riparian and aquatic habitat improvement activities and road maintenance 

investments in aquatic restoration within key and priority watersheds are similar to Alternative E 

but are substantially higher than objectives proposed in Alternative B.

Alternative E-Modified would allocate approximately 70,500 acres to MA 1B (preliminary 

administratively recommended wilderness areas), which is about 20,000 fewer acres than would 

be allocated under Alternative E, but 57,000 acres more than for Alternative B. 

Alternative E-Modified analysis includes suitable acres of rangeland for livestock grazing and the 

animal unit months (AUMs) associated with active allotments, plus the suitable acres of 

rangeland and potential AUMs associated with vacant allotments as of 2013 (AUMs based on 

historic values for these vacant allotments).

Alternative E-Modified Departure

Plan components for Alternative E-Modified Departure are identical to plan components for 

Alternative E-Modified except for objectives in E-Modified Departure that increase the pace and 

scale of vegetation restoration over the next 20 years. The National Forest Management Act limits 

the allowable sale quantity to a volume of timber that can be harvested annually “in perpetuity,” 

which is known under the 1982 planning regulations as a “nondeclining even-flow.” The intent 

of nondeclining even-flow is to prevent higher than sustainable harvest levels in one decade from 

resulting in lower harvest levels in future decades, which is especially important for communities 

where a consistent supply of wood products from national forests contributes to and helps 

maintain the stability of the local economy.

The 1982 planning regulations14 allow for the evaluation of alternatives that “depart” from the 

nondeclining even-flow requirement if doing so will better attain the overall objectives of 

multiple-use management when any of the following conditions are indicated:

• high mortality losses from any cause can be significantly reduced or prevented; or

• forest size or age-class distributions can be improved, thereby facilitating future sustainedyield management; or

 

14 36 CFR 219.16 (a)(3)
Draft Record of Decision

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

28

• implementation of the base sale schedule15 would cause a substantial adverse impact upon a 

community in the economic area of the forest; or 

• overall multiple-use objectives would otherwise be better attained.

Under Alternative E-Modified Departure, the Total Sale Program Quantity would increase by 59 

percent as compared to Alternative E-Modified. Within 20 years, Alternative E-Modified 

Departure would thin a larger proportion (approximately 70 percent) of the dense, overstocked, 

dry, upland forest in lands suitable for timber production compared to Alternative E 

(approximately 30 percent). With most of the thinning of dry upland forest completed in the first 

20 years, harvest levels for Alternative E-Modified Departure would be expected to decrease 

substantially in future decades, compared to Alternative E-Modified, as the National Forests 

transition to a lower overall sustainable, “maintenance” level of harvest.

Alternative F

The management emphasis for Alternative F is the same as stated for Alternative E: to use 

vegetation management and aquatic and wildlife habitat treatments to increase the scale of 

restoration activities, while emphasizing the potential benefits to water quality and watershed 

condition. However, management objectives for active restoration, while greater than proposals 

made for Alternative B, would be less than the proposals for Alternative E. Both riparian and 

aquatic habitat improvement activities and road maintenance proposals for aquatic restoration 

within key and priority watersheds are significantly greater than the Alternative B proposals. The 

budget assumptions for vegetation treatments would be the same as proposed for Alternative B. 

Alternative F proposes the same desired conditions and management areas as Alternative E.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating 

any alternatives that were not developed in detail.16 Public comments received in response to the 

proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. 

Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this revision effort or duplicative 

of the alternatives considered in detail. Eleven additional alternatives or variations of alternatives 

were considered, but dismissed from detailed study for reasons summarized in Volume 1, Chapter 

2 of the final environmental impact statement and in the Response to Public Comments section 

(final environmental impact statement, Appendix E).

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations require agencies to specify the alternative or 

alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable.17 The Forest Service handbook (FSH 

1909.15) defines environmentally preferable as: “An alternative that best meets the goals of 

section 101 of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act]. ... Ordinarily this is the 

 

15 Base sale schedule: A timber sale schedule 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, and this planned sale and harvest for any decade is not greater than the long-term 

sustained yield capacity.

16 40 CFR 1502.14 17 40 CFR 1505.2(b)
Draft Record of Decision

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

29

alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best 

protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, and natural resources.”

I find, based upon the laws and regulations guiding National Forest System management, that 

Alternative E-Modified is the environmentally preferable alternative. Although Alternative C 

would allow the fewest mechanical ground-disturbing activities and lowest acres allowing 

motorized use, it does not address the six goals of the National Environmental Policy Act

(outlined below) as well as Alternative E-Modified does. I base my finding on the following 

comparison showing how the alternatives address the goals of section 101 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act:

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustees of the environment for 

succeeding generations

Alternative E-Modified emphasizes moving forest conditions toward desired future 

conditions while contributing to ecological, social, and economic sustainability. Alternative

E-Modified provides movement towards vegetation desired conditions while providing 

sustainable levels of timber production. The timber harvest levels under Alternative EModified provide the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests sustainable 

share of products and public uses, while having a higher probability of improving and 

restoring vegetation for future generations than other alternatives considered in detail (see 

final environmental impact statement, Chapter 3, Ecological Resilience.)

2. Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings

Alternative E-Modified achieves maintenance of safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically 

and culturally pleasing national forests better than the other alternatives because it provides 

the best mix of resource utilization, active and passive management, and motorized and 

nonmotorized recreation uses along with the safeguards provided by standards and guidelines 

for maintaining water quality, scenery, and wildlife habitat. Alternative E-Modified also 

provides greater timber harvest levels compared to the no action alternative and maintains 

access to important recreational areas better than Alternative C. 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, 

risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences

The beneficial uses that are most varied between alternatives include timber production, 

aquatic management and a reasonable balance between motorized and nonmotorized

recreation opportunities. Alternative E-Modified achieves a higher level of beneficial uses 

than the other alternatives. While Alternative E provides almost the same level of wood fiber 

production as Alternative E-Modified, it provides less flexibility and fewer provisions for 

aquatic restoration and maintenance. Alternative E-Modified provides for greater assurance of 

maintenance of large trees across the landscape over time and provides balanced movement 

of vegetation species, densities, and structure toward desired conditions. This improves the 

health of our forests and watersheds, enhances wildlife habitat, and creates resistant and 

resilient forests to the effects of disturbances including insects, diseases, and wildfire and to 

address climate change. Alternative E-Modified includes the 2018 Blues Mountains Aquatic 

and Riparian Conservation Strategy (Appendix A of the land management plans), which 

provides greater benefit to aquatic and riparian resources than other alternatives. Additionally, 

Alternative E-Modified provides a reasonable balance between motorized and nonmotorized
Draft Record of Decision

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

30

recreation opportunities and provides continued access to private lands and access for 

administrative use and special use authorizations. 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage 

and maintain, wherever possible, an environment, which supports diversity and 

variety of individual choice

Part of preserving our historic and cultural national heritage is recognizing that humans are a

natural aspect of our national heritage. Humans have utilized the physical and biological

resources within the Blue Mountains region for thousands of years. Recognizing this fact, I 

find that the best way to preserve this heritage, and the environment that supports diversity 

and variety of choice, is to manage for national forests that provide a balance between the 

physical and biological resource use and the appropriate protection of cultural and historic 

resources. Based upon collaborative public efforts, tribal consultation, and the effects of each 

alternative displayed in the final environmental impact statement, I find that Alternative EModified meets this goal better than the other alternatives. Alternative E-Modified improves 

on the no action alternative by adopting a landscape scale approach, including the 2018 Blue 

Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy, and an adaptive monitoring strategy. 

It provides the best balance of uses between Alternative C’s emphasis on wilderness values 

and protection of backcountry areas and Alternative D’s emphasis on achieving desired 

conditions through mechanical means. 

5. Achieve a balance between population and resource use, which will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities

The public demands a variety of products and uses that can be provided by the three National

Forests. National Forest System lands and resources contribute to local economies and the 

quality of life in the region. The final environmental impact statement’s analysis of 

alternatives compares the various values the public uses to determine their quality of life, 

varying from economic resource extraction values (timber harvest and minerals) to less 

tangibly defined resources such as recreation, wilderness values, and backcountry protection. 

I find that Alternative E-Modified best achieves the balance sought in this goal by increasing 

estimated timber volumes and jobs, maintaining livestock grazing, providing a balance of 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities, and designating 1.4 percent of the three 

National Forests as recommended wilderness.

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources

I find Alternative E-Modified enhances the quality of renewable resources and provides 

sustainable use of renewable resources. The standards and guidelines and the management 

area allocation under Alternative E-Modified provides for levels of resource use that are 

greater than current levels under the no action alternative, while providing protection 

measures and maintaining areas as backcountry or recommended wilderness. While other 

alternatives provide a higher level of resource use, they do not provide plan components that 

maintain and enhance wildlife habitat to the same degree or do not allow for sustained yield 

as does Alternative E-Modified. Alternative C emphasizes more passive management and 

greater amount of backcountry and recommended wilderness, but it does so at the expense of 

resource utilization and does not achieve as much vegetation restoration as Alternative EModified.
Draft Record of Decision

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

31

Range of Alternatives

After considering the analysis of all the alternatives, and the alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study, I believe a range of reasonable alternatives was carefully 

evaluated based on the need for change and compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 

Two modified alternatives were added to the alternatives considered in detail, as a result of public 

comments on the draft environmental impact statement and draft land management plan. These 

modified alternatives refined the preferred alternative in the draft environmental impact statement

(Alternative E), altering wilderness recommendations, increasing the pace and scale of 

restoration, focusing restoration on dry forests that are most departed from desired conditions, 

and balancing riparian and aquatic species conservation needs, especially for federally listed 

species, through the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and Riparian Conservation Strategy. All plan 

revision alternatives are realistic, implementable, and responsive to the revision topics.

Using Best Available Science

The development of the final environmental impact statement and the land management plans 

was based on consideration of the best available science throughout the planning process. The 

interdisciplinary team comprehensively reviewed available scientific research and other 

information relevant to the resource areas addressed. Scientific conclusions were drawn from 

well-supported data sources and data availability was disclosed. Scientific sources were cited, 

responsible opposing views were discussed, incomplete and unavailable information was 

acknowledged, and scientific uncertainty and risk was addressed in relevant portions of the final 

environmental impact statement or project record. In addition, specific modeling and analysis 

methods were documented as appropriate. 

For the three National Forests, scientific studies in this analysis included science supporting the 

Interior Columbia Basin Management Project (Quigley et al. 1996, 1997), a project initiated in 

1993 to “develop a scientifically sound ecosystem-based strategy for management of eastside 

forests.” A final environmental impact statement and proposed decision for the Interior Columbia 

Basin Ecosystem Management Project were published in December 2000. In January 2003, the 

Regional Executives for the Forest Service, Forest Service Research, BLM, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the EPA signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding completing the project. The agencies signing the memorandum agreed to 

cooperatively implement the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, to use the scientific findings of 

the Strategy’s science, and to integrate new information and best available science as they are 

developed. 

The Strategy was updated in 2014, incorporating the science data and resource information 

developed by the Interior Columbia Basin Management Project, as well as more recent science, 

into land use plans (Forest Service land management plans and BLM resource management 

plans) and project implementation. The Strategy identifies key principles that are relevant to 

future planning efforts including an update of ecological principles. The Blue Mountains revised 

land management plans have been designed to be responsive to the guidance and expectations 

identified in the Strategy. For more information on the Strategy, including expectations for 

incorporating guidance from the Strategy in land management plan revisions, refer to the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project website at: 

https://icbemp.gov/html/ICBEMP_Frameworkmemorandum-and-strategy_2014.pdf
Draft Record of Decision

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

32

In addition, the specialists on the interdisciplinary team have used and referenced appropriate 

scientific information, models, and data to develop the analyses and conclusions in the final 

environmental impact statement. This science has been continually updated throughout the land 

management plan revision and environmental analysis process. The final environmental impact 

statement explains how scientific information has been compiled and used. Each resource section 

analyzed in Chapter 3, Environmental Consequences, discloses the methods used and cites the 

scientific sources relied on to disclose the effects of the alternatives.

Findings Related to Laws and Regulations

The Forest Service manages the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in 

conformance with many laws and regulations. I have reviewed the statutes specific to individual 

resources as described in Chapter 3 of the final environmental impact statement, and I find this 

decision represents the best possible approach to both harmonizing and reconciling the current 

statutory duties of the Forest Service. The revised land management plans are strategic and 

programmatic in nature, providing guidance and direction to future site-specific projects and 

activities. Following are summaries of how the revised land management plans address 

compliance with some of the more prominent applicable laws and regulations.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act requires the development, maintenance, amendment, and 

revision of land management plans for each unit of the National Forest System. These land 

management plans help create a dynamic management system so that an interdisciplinary 

approach to achieve integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic, and other sciences 

will be applied to all future actions on the unit.18 The Forest Service is to ensure coordination of 

the multiple uses and sustained yield of products and services of the National Forest System.19

The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate 

regulations for developing and maintaining land management plans. On April 9, 2012, the 

Department of Agriculture issued a final planning rule for National Forest System land 

management planning (2012 Planning Rule).20 According to transition language of the 2012 

Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.17(b)(3), the responsible official may choose to use the provisions 

of the prior 1982 Planning Rule (dated September 30, 1982, and as amended21) to prepare land 

management plan amendments and revisions. The Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

National Forests chose to use the provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule for revising the land 

management plans. 

The following sections discuss consistency of the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman 

revised land management plans with required elements of the 1982 Planning Rule.

Establishment of Forestwide Multiple-Use Goals and Objectives, Desired 

Conditions, and Quantities of Goods and Services (36 CFR 219.11(b)) 

Consistent with the 1982 Planning Rule, forestwide goals, desired conditions, and objectives are 

defined in Part 1 of the revised land management plans, and established in parts 1, 2 and 3 of the 

 

18 16 U.S.C. 1604(b), (f), (g), and (o)

19 16 U.S.C. 1604(e)(1) 20 77 FR 68 [21162-21276] 21 The 1982 provisions can be found online at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/includes/nfmareg.html.
Draft Record of Decision

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

33

revised land management plans. The “quantities of goods and services” are established in the 

objectives located in part 2 of the revised land management plans. 

Establishment of Management Area (MA) Direction (Multiple-use Prescriptions) 

with Associated Standards and Guidelines (36 CFR 219.11(c)) 

Standards and guidelines are defined in part 1 of the revised land management plans and 

established for forestwide resources in part 3 of the revised land management plans. The 

forestwide standards and guidelines were carefully crafted and strike a balance between providing 

assurances that management direction is followed, while allowing managers flexibility in the case 

of site-specific circumstances. 

The revised land management plans allocate 18 management areas across the Malheur, Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests (exclusive of the Hells Canyon National Recreation 

Area) that each have specific management direction (see management area allocations and the 

emphasis of each management area described in part 2 of the land management plans, under the 

Management Area section.) The management area prescriptions include specific standards and 

guidelines, which are listed by management area in part 2 of the revised land management plans. 

Additionally, unless otherwise stated in the revised land management plans, forestwide standards 

and guidelines also apply to all management areas.

Land within the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests may be assigned to 

more than one management area. For example, several research natural areas and wild and scenic 

rivers overlap into congressionally designated wilderness areas. In such cases, the most restrictive 

plan direction applies to the area of overlap.

The standards and guidelines included in the land management plans provide sufficient 

requirements and management direction for management areas and forestwide resources, provide 

for resource protection, and reflect the intent of the revised land management plans. Standards 

and guidelines were developed in an interdisciplinary manner, and provide for maintenance or 

achievement of the revised land management plan objectives and desired conditions.

Recommendations to Congress for Additions to the Wilderness Preservation 

System (36 CFR 219.17(a)) 

The land management plans recommend addition of 1.4 percent of the three National Forests as 

wilderness (see Rational for Decision, Recommending Wilderness section on page 12 above for a 

more detailed discussion). Components of the revised land management plans direct that current 

uses in these areas, including mountain biking and chainsaw use on existing trails, may continue 

so long as the wilderness characteristics and potential for each area recommended remains intact 

until congressional action is taken or the area is released from consideration through a future plan 

amendment or revision.

This recommendation is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further 

review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and 

the President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on 

wilderness designation. Until such time Congress chooses to act to designate these areas, these 

areas will be managed under the revised land management plans. 
Draft Record of Decision

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

34

Determine Suitability and Potential Capability of Lands for Resource Production 

(Timber and Grazing) (CFR 219.14 and 219.20)

A timber suitability analysis following the requirements of the National Forest Management Act 

was completed as a part of the planning process (final environmental impact statement, Volume 2, 

pages 167-168, 172-173). This process begins with a series of subtractions of land from the total 

forest land base using the four categories listed in the regulation at 36 CFR 219.14(a) to identify 

lands not available for timber production, resulting in areas tentatively suitable for timber 

production. Areas tentatively suitable for timber production may further be removed from lands 

suitable for timber production during the development of alternatives. These areas include 

riparian management areas, old forest, inventoried roadless areas, and other backcountry areas. 

Similarly, suitability determinations and analysis for livestock grazing was completed as part of 

the planning process (final environmental impact statement, Volume 1, pages 152-153, 179-184). 

Capability is the initial step in determining suitability and is determined by identifying all the 

lands within the analysis area that are National Forest System lands or other lands administered 

by the Forest Service, and subtracting areas with soil types not meeting criteria to sustain forage 

or grazing, areas covered by water, and areas with overstory tree canopy cover or unpalatable 

shrub cover greater than 60 percent. The remaining area is identified as capable rangeland. 

Rangeland suitability is further refined from the capable rangeland. Once the capable rangeland is 

determined, acres that do not have a proposed management area prescription that would allow for 

grazing are subtracted. Administrative sites, recreation areas, and other areas of specific use are 

also subtracted, as are areas specifically closed to grazing by past actions or incompatibility of 

use between resources. The remaining area is identified as suitable rangeland to be used in the 

land management planning process. 

Suitability determinations and potential capabilities of lands for resource production for both 

timber production and livestock grazing are integrated into the Malheur, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forests. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant 

with the National Forest Management Act.

National Forest Management Act Diversity and Viability Requirements

The National Forest Management Act also requires that land management plans “provide for 

diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific 

land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives 

of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section, provide, where appropriate, to the 

degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that 

existing in the region controlled by the plan.”22 The 1982 Planning Rule requires that “Forest 

planning shall provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent 

with the over-all multiple-use objectives of the planning area” (36 CFR 219.26). In addition, land 

management plans shall provide direction to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable 

populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the Plan Area (36 CFR 

219.19). 

The interdisciplinary team identified the species that occur on the three National Forests, 

determined which of those species have special concerns, narrowed down which species could be 

affected by forest management, screened the risks to species through a coarse filter (ecosystem 

 

22 16 U.S.C. 1604 6 (g)(3)(B)
Draft Record of Decision

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

35

diversity), and developed additional plan components where necessary through a fine filter 

approach (species diversity). 

The overall goal for ecological sustainability is to sustain native ecological systems and support 

diversity of native plant and animal species. The focus in the sustainability analysis was on 

species that are of regional or local concern as indicated by documented threats to populations or 

habitats. Native vertebrates and invertebrates known to occur on land administered by the 

Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests also were considered. In addition to 

viability, the revised land management plans establish surrogate species that represent the habitats 

and risk factors that relate to a broader group of species. There are 30 surrogate terrestrial and 

aquatic species listed for the revised land management plans. The final environmental impact 

statement (Chapter 3) documents how the revised land management plans provide for diversity 

and viability of these surrogate species.

The revised land management plans ensure viable native fish and wildlife populations as well as 

restoration of forest health on a broad scale including the diversity of vegetation structure and 

composition across the three National Forests. Rather than evaluating the viability of each 

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

represent a group of species. Surrogate species serve as an indicator of the welfare of other 

species using the same habitat and with similar habitat requirements. The surrogate species 

approach is a credible and scientifically rigorous method to assess ecosystem conditions that 

contribute to the viability of wildlife species. The viability analysis in the final environmental 

impact statement demonstrates that the selected alternative, E-Modified, shows little risk of 

impact on viability for any of the species due to strong protections provided by plan components.

The planning process and the final environmental impact statement indicate the revised land 

management plans and their preparation meet National Forest Management Act viability and 

diversity requirements. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant with 

the act.

Establishment of Monitoring and Evaluation Requirements that

Provide a Basis for Periodic Determination and Evaluation of the

Effects of Management Practices (2012 Planning Rule)

The monitoring plans, described in part 4 of the revised land management plans, are consistent 

with the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.11(d) and 219.12(k). Each monitoring question links 

to one or more goals, desired conditions, or objectives. However, the monitoring programs strive 

to be realistic in terms of budget and capacity and do not include a monitoring question for every 

plan component. The monitoring requirements established in part 4 of the land management plans 

will provide the information necessary to evaluate implementation of the revised land 

management plans and will facilitate adaptive management in response to monitoring results and 

other new information. 

Research Station Director Concurrence

Consistent with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1921.04.b.4 and 4063.04.b.1.b, revised land 

management plan components for experimental forests and research natural areas were reviewed 

by the Station Director, Pacific Northwest Research Station. The Station Director, by March 22, 

2018 letter, has approved the revised land management plans’ management direction for 

experimental forests and research natural areas.
Draft Record of Decision

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

36

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

The purpose of the Archeological Resources Protection Act is to provide protection for 

archaeological resources found on public lands and Indian lands of the United States. The 

legislation provides civil and criminal penalties for those who remove or damage archaeological 

resources in violation of the prohibitions contained in the act. The act prohibits the removal of 

archaeological resources on public lands or Indian lands without first obtaining a permit from the 

affected Federal land manager or Indian Tribe, and requires Federal agencies to develop plans to 

survey lands under their management to determine the nature and extent of archaeological and 

cultural resources.

The revised land management plans are strategic and programmatic in nature, providing guidance 

and direction to future site-specific projects and activities. Compliance with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800 regulations also meets the intent of this act by 

requiring assessments and surveys to identify the presence of historic properties within the area of 

potential effect for site-specific activities and to assess their effects on these resources. In 

addition, the three National Forests will continue to consult with Tribes during site-specific 

management activities that may impact cultural sites and cultural use. The revised land 

management plans include desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and management focus 

provisions to consider the effects of project and management activities to American Indian rights, 

interests, and cultural resources. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully 

compliant with this act.

Clean Air Act 

According to the Clean Air Act of 1990, the Forest Service has the responsibility to protect the 

air, land, and water resources from the impacts of air pollutants produced within national forest 

boundaries and to work with states to protect those same resources from degradation associated 

with the impacts of air pollution emitted outside of national forests.

The revised land management plans do not create, authorize, or execute any activities with the 

potential to alter air quality, although it does provide for the consideration of certain types of 

activities such as prescribed burning. Forestwide desired conditions and guidelines include 

direction for meeting air quality standards established by Federal and State agencies during 

prescribed burns. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant with this act.

Clean Water Act

The intent of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters. The revised land management plans do not create, authorize, or 

execute any ground-disturbing activity, although they do provide for the consideration of certain 

types of activities. The revised land management plans contain direction to ensure all site-specific 

projects meet or exceed State water quality standards by implementing best management 

practices prepared under guidance of the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the revised land 

management plans is expected to contribute to protecting or restoring the physical, chemical, and 

biological integrity of surface and ground water within the national forests in the Blue Mountains 

in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully 

compliant with this act.
Draft Record of Decision

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

37

Endangered Species Act

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon 

which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide for the 

conservation of such endangered species and threatened species. Section 7(a)(1) of the act 

requires Federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered species and 

threatened species. In addition, the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to insure 

that any agency action does not jeopardize the continued existence of the endangered species and 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species’ designated 

critical habitat (Endangered Species Act, section 7(a)(2)). The act also requires the Forest Service 

to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on 

projects that may affect federally listed species and for the three agencies to base the consultation 

on the use of the best scientific and commercially available data.23

In accordance with section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service identified the listed and proposed threatened or 

endangered species and their critical habitats that may be present on the three National Forests. A 

biological assessment was prepared by the three National Forests to assess the effects of the 

revised land management plans on the identified terrestrial, aquatic, and plant species and their 

critical habitats, as well as the effects of the land management plans on candidate species. 

The terrestrial portion of the biological assessment found implementation of the revised land 

management plans may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the endangered gray wolf, the 

threatened Spalding’s catchfly, the proposed wolverine, and the candidate species, whitebark 

pine. No designated critical habitat occurs for these terrestrial species. The biological assessment 

outlines the specific reasons why implementation of the revised land management plans may have 

short-term adverse effects to these species but result in overall net conservation and recovery 

benefits. 

The aquatic portion of the biological assessment found implementation of the revised land 

management plans may affect, and is likely to adversely affect bull trout, Middle Columbia River 

steelhead, Upper Snake River Basin steelhead, and Snake River spring/summer and fall Chinook 

salmon, and may affect, and is likely to adversely affect designated critical habitat for these fish 

species. The revised land management plans may have short-term adverse effects to these species 

and their critical habitat, but result in overall net conservation and recovery benefits. The land 

management plans provide a suite of protective desired conditions, standards, and guidelines 

aimed at avoiding or minimizing these adverse effects. Two forestwide standards (WM-1S and 

RMA-1S) apply to all management activities and require that aquatic and riparian baselines that 

are within desired conditions be maintained. Where baselines are not within desired conditions, 

projects must restore or not retard attainment of desired conditions, to the degree that the project 

contributes to it. Short-term adverse project effects may occur when the project supports or does 

not diminish long-term recovery of watershed function, desired conditions, and federally listed 

species—unless the three National Forests have limited authorities to deny the project (for 

example, under the Greater Mining Act of 1872). In these situations, project effects shall be 

minimized to the greatest extent possible. The National Marine Fisheries Service concluded in 

their April 20, 2018, biological opinion that these two standards are instrumental in ensuring that 

the aggregate of any adverse effects from future site-specific activities will be small and will be 

 

23 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)
Draft Record of Decision

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

38

offset by beneficial actions, such that environmental baselines in watersheds containing listed 

anadromous fish continue to be maintained or improved. 

Furthermore, the land management plans and Appendix A: the 2018 Blue Mountains Aquatic and 

Riparian Conservation Strategy (ARCS), include a comprehensive strategy for conserving aquatic 

resources, particularly because of the Strategy’s restoration objectives and focus on priority 

watersheds. As restored watersheds accumulate over time through implementation of focused 

aquatic restoration activities, larger blocks of high-quality, well-connected aquatic and riparian 

habitat will be created, increasing the amount of refugia. In the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy, 

the Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the EPA identified seven fundamental elements that the revised land management plans should 

include to promote and achieve conservation of aquatic and riparian resources (BLM et al. 2014). 

The revised land management plans and 2018 Blue Mountains ARCS include all seven elements. 

Each element, as described in the land management plans and ARCS, is likely to avoid or keep 

small the aggregate adverse effects resulting from future site-specific projects or benefit listed 

fish species and their habitat and will be offset to at least some degree by beneficial actions. 

Based on the land management plans’ protective suite of standards and guidelines, and on the 

ARCS’s focus on stream and riparian habitat restoration in priority watersheds, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service expects the land management plans will maintain or improve the 

viability of the populations of listed anadromous species in the plan areas. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a biological opinion and concurrence opinion for the 

revised land management plans on May 29, 2018. The biological opinion determined that the 

actions as proposed in the revised land management plans are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of gray wolf, Spalding’s catchfly, wolverine, whitebark pine, or bull trout, 

and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify bull trout critical habitat. Furthermore, the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the Forest Service finding that the actions proposed 

under the revised land management plan may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect the gray 

wolf.

The National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion for the revised land 

management plans on April 20, 2018. The biological opinion determined that the revised actions 

as proposed in the land management plans are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

Middle Columbia River steelhead, Snake River Basin steelhead, and Snake River spring/summer 

and fall Chinook salmon, and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical 

habitat for these species. Because of the programmatic nature of land management plan planning, 

neither the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nor National Marine Fisheries Service issued an 

incidental take statement, as incidental take is to be assigned, as necessary, when planning future, 

site-specific projects. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant with the 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

The procedures of the 1982 Planning Rule24 require that at least one alternative be developed that 

responds to and incorporates the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act

Program’s tentative resource objectives for each National Forest as displayed in regional guides. 

However, in 2001, the Pacific Northwest Region’s Regional Guide was retracted. Therefore, for 

purposes of ensuring consistency with the act, we designed all plan revision alternatives to 

 

24 36 CFR 219.12(f)(6)
Draft Record of Decision

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

39

support the broad resource objectives of the Forest Service’s Strategic Plan for 2015–2020. The 

Strategic Plan was developed in lieu of a Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act Program, and in accordance with the Government Performance Results Act and the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Therefore, the revised land management plans are 

fully compliant with this act.

Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act

Consistent with the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 196025, the Forest Service manages the 

National Forest System to sustain the multiple use of its renewable resources in perpetuity while 

maintaining the long-term health and productivity of the land. Resources are managed through a 

combination of approaches and concepts for the benefit of human communities and natural 

resources. As demonstrated in the final environmental impact statement and as required by the 

act, the revised land management plans guide sustainable, integrated resource management of the 

resources on the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in the context of the 

broader landscape, giving due consideration to the relative values of the various resources in 

particular areas. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant with this act.

National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires public involvement and consideration of 

potential environmental effects of new projects and programs. The environmental analysis and 

public involvement processes for the revision of the land management plans comply with the 

major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

26 These include (1) considering a broad 

range of reasonable alternatives, (2) disclosing cumulative effects, (3) using high quality and 

accurate scientific information, (4) consideration of long-term and short-term effects, and (5) 

disclosure of unavoidable adverse effects.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted written comments, dated August 15, 

2014, summarizing their review of the draft environmental impact statement and draft land 

management plan. The Forest Service addressed EPA’s recommendations in the Response to 

Comments section of the final environmental impact statement. Additionally, the Forest Service 

provided EPA a draft response letter and hosted a conference call between EPA and Forest 

Service staff to discuss how the final environmental impact statement and revised land 

management plans will address EPA’s recommendations.

The Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests considered a broad range of 

alternatives in the final environmental impact statement and have compiled a comprehensive 

record of the effects relevant to the alternatives considering best available scientific information. 

The revised land management plans adopt all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm. These means include provisions for providing the ecological conditions 

needed to support biological diversity and standards and guidelines to mitigate adverse 

environmental effects that may result from implementing various management practices. The 

revised land management plans include monitoring requirements and an adaptive management 

approach to assure needed adjustments are made over time.

 

25 16 U.S.C. 528–531 26 40 CFR 1500-1508
Draft Record of Decision

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

40

The revised land management plans do not represent an irreversible or irretrievable commitment 

of resources. The revised land management plans are a programmatic-level planning effort and do 

not directly authorize any ground-disturbing activities or projects. Future ground-disturbing 

activities and projects will be made consistent with the revised land management plans and will 

be subject to additional site-specific public involvement, environmental analysis, and predecisional review processes. Therefore, the revised land management plans are fully compliant 

with the National Environmental Policy Act and Council on Environmental Quality 

implementation regulations.

National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires each Federal agency to take into 

account the effects of its actions on historic properties, prior to approving expenditure of Federal 

funds on an undertaking or prior to issuing any license. Furthermore, an agency must afford the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (an independent Federal agency created by the act) an 

opportunity to comment on any of the agency's undertaking that could affect historic properties. 

National forests must work closely with the appropriate scientific community and American 

Indian Tribes concerning cultural resources. In addition, the laws and policies that govern cultural 

resource protection on Federal lands are coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officers 

of Washington and Oregon, who serve in an advisory capacity.

The revised land management plans are a programmatic level planning effort and do not directly 

authorize any ground disturbing activities or projects. Future site-specific projects undertaken in 

response to direction in the revised land management plans will fully comply with laws and 

regulations that ensure protection of heritage resources. The revised land management plans 

include forestwide desired conditions, standards, and guidelines for cultural resources to fully 

integrate heritage resource management with other management activities. Therefore, the revised 

land management plans are fully compliant with the National Historic Preservation Act.

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Management direction for inventoried roadless areas is compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule.27 The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule includes a prohibition on road 

construction and reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas, and prohibitions on timber cutting, 

sale, or removal except in certain circumstances. The revised land management plans are a 

programmatic level planning effort and do not directly authorize any road construction, 

reconstruction, or timber removal. Inventoried roadless areas overlap multiple management areas 

with the majority overlapping three management areas: 1A – Recommended Wilderness Area, 

3A – Backcountry (nonmotorized use), and 3B – Backcountry (motor vehicle use). Lesser 

amounts of overlap occur in special areas that contain scenic, historical, geological, botanical, 

zoological, paleontological, and other special characteristics. The desired conditions, standards,

and guidelines for these management area designations require consistency with the regulations 

outlined in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Therefore, the revised land management plans 

are fully compliant with this rule.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System with three 

classes of river systems: wild, scenic, and recreational. The purpose of the act is to protect select 

 

27 36 CFR 294 Subpart B, published at 66 Fed Reg. 3244-3273
Draft Record of Decision

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

41

rivers “...for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations” and to “preserve select 

river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values.”

Evaluation of the eligibility of rivers and streams for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System was conducted during the preparation of the revised land management plans as 

required by the act and Forest Service Manual policy (FSM 1924.03). In addition, management 

area direction in the revised land management plans provide protection for the outstandingly 

remarkable values identified for those rivers identified as eligible or suitable as well as for 

designated rivers. Therefore, the revised land management plans are compliant with this act.

Wilderness Act 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be 

administered in such a manner as to leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. It provides the statutory definition of wilderness, how areas are added to the 

wilderness system, and management requirements for congressionally designated areas. 

Evaluation of existing wilderness and areas recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System was included in the environmental analysis for the revised land 

management plans. The revised land management plans provide direction for designated 

wilderness through goals, desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and suitability that preserve 

the wilderness character of each designated wilderness area. Specific direction for the 

management and protection of wilderness characteristics in recommended wilderness is included 

in the revised land management plans and complies with the planning regulations (36 CFR 219) 

and agency policy (Forest Service Handbook 1900). Therefore, the revised land management 

plans are compliant with this act.

Pre-decisional Administrative Review Process 

(Objection Process)

This decision is subject to objection pursuant to the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR Part 219. 

Objections must be filed by way of regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, or express delivery 

with the Objection Reviewing Officer, USDA Forest Service.

• Electronic objections must be submitted to the Objection Reviewing Officer via e-mail to 

objections-chief@fs.fed.us, with a subject line stating: “Objection regarding the Revised Blue 

Mountains Forest Plans.” Electronic submissions must be submitted in a format (Word, PDF, 

or Rich Text) that is readable and searchable with optical character recognition software.

• Faxed objections must be sent and addressed to “Objection Reviewing Officer” and must 

include a subject line stating: “Objection regarding the Revised Blue Mountains Forest 

Plans.” The fax coversheet should specify the number of pages being submitted. The fax 

number is (202) 649-1172.

• Hardcopy objections may be submitted by regular mail to the following address: USDA 

Forest Service, Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, EMCLEAP, Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250. Hardcopy submissions must include a subject 

line on page one stating: “Objection regarding the Revised Blue Mountains Forest Plans.”

• Hardcopy objections also may be submitted by carrier or hand deliveries to the following 

address: USDA Forest Service, Attn: Objection Reviewing Officer, 210 14th Street, SW, 
Draft Record of Decision

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

42

EMC-LEAP, Mailstop 1104, Washington, DC 20250.Office hours are Monday through 

Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm, excluding Federal holidays. Carrier deliveries may call 202-791-

8488 during regular business days and hours, above, to coordinate delivery of objections. 

Hardcopy submissions must include a subject line on page one stating: “Objection regarding 

the Revised Blue Mountains Forest Plans.”

• Individuals who need to use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) to transmit 

objections may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 

between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 60 days following the day after 

publication of the notice of the opportunity to object in The Oregonian, the newspaper of record. 

The objection period begins the first day after the publication date of the notice. Objections or 

attachments received after the 60-day objection period will not be considered. The publication 

date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an 

objection. Those wishing to object to these land management plan revisions should not rely upon 

dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. 

Individuals and entities who have submitted substantive formal comments related to land 

management plan revision during the opportunities for public comment (as provided in subpart A 

of 36 CFR part 219) during the planning process for that decision may file an objection. 

Objections must be based on previously submitted substantive formal comments attributed to the 

objector unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal 

comment. Objections received in response to the notice, including names and addresses of those 

who object, will be considered part of the public record and will be available for public 

inspection.

Prior to the issuance of the reviewing officer’s written response, either the reviewing officer or 

the objector may request to meet to discuss issues raised in the objection and their potential 

resolution. Interested persons who wish to participate in meetings to discuss issues raised by 

objectors must have previously submitted substantive formal comments related to the objection 

issues. Interested persons must file a request to participate as an interested person within 10 days 

after a legal notice of objections received has been published. Requests must be sent to the same 

email or address identified for filing objections, above, and the interested person must identify the 

specific issues they have interest in discussing. During the objection meeting, interested persons 

will be able to participate in discussions related to issues on the agenda that they have listed in 

their request to be an interested person.

Implementation of

the Revised Land Management Plans

The revised land management plans provide a framework and text to guide resource management 

options. They are strategic, programmatic documents and do not make project-level decisions or 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources. Those kinds of commitments would be 

made after more detailed, site-specific analysis, and further public comment as part of the sitespecific environmental analysis process.

After the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all objections, the revised land 

management plans for the Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests will 
Draft Record of Decision

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

43

become effective 30 days after the date of the publication of notice of approval (per the 2012 

Planning Rule, 36 CFR 219.17(a)).

Project and Activity Consistency

with the Revised Land Management Plans

To ensure better consistency of projects, activities, and resource plans with the 2012 Planning 

Rule, I am adopting the consistency provisions as described at 36 CFR 219.15 of the 2012 

Planning Rule. The following explains how new and ongoing projects and activities, and existing 

resource plans, will be made, as appropriate, consistent with the revised land management plans, 

per guidance in the 2012 Planning Rule.

Application to Projects or Activities

Authorized after the Land Management Plan Decision

Direction in revised land management plans will apply to all projects that have decisions made on 

or after the implementation date of the final records of decision. All projects and activities 

authorized by the Forest Service after approval of the revised land management plans, subject to 

valid existing rights, must be consistent with the revised land management plans. All subsequent 

project or activity approval documents will describe how the project or activity is consistent with 

the land management plans using the criteria identified in the revised land management plans (see 

Consistency with Plan Components, pages 7-8 in the land management plans). 

Application to Projects or Activities

Authorized before the Land Management Plan Decision

All ongoing national forest projects and activities shall be revised to be consistent with the 

revised land management plans as soon as practicable, subject to valid existing rights28 as 

follows:

• Contracts, authorizations of occupancy and use, or other instruments subject to annual 

operating instructions or operating plans will be made consistent with all applicable revised 

land management plan direction through the annual operating instructions or annual operating 

plans during the operating season after the final records of decision for the revised land 

management plans are signed. Exceptions to this requirement include where the revised land 

management plan states a timeline for consistency that is different than described in this 

paragraph. For the process of determining a grazing allotment’s monitoring indicators and 

allowable use levels associated with guideline GM-3G, these determinations will be 

completed within 5 years for allotments with federally listed fish and 7 years for all other 

allotments. 

• Contracts, authorizations of occupancy and use, or other instruments not subject to annual 

operating instructions that will expire within 5 years of the implementation date of the final 

record of decision for a revised land management plan where federally listed species or 

habitat may be affected will be made consistent with revised land management plan direction 

within 1 year of the implementation date of the record of decision for the revised land 

management plan. Where federally listed species or habitat is not affected, these activities 

will be made consistent upon renewal of the contract or authorization.

 

28 16 U.S.C. 1604(i)
Draft Record of Decision

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

44

• Contracts, authorizations of occupancy and use, or other instruments that will expire more 

than 5 years after the implementation date of the final record of decision will be made 

consistent with revised land management plan direction within 5 years of the implementation 

date where federally listed species or habitat may be affected. Where federally listed species 

are not affected, these activities will be made consistent with revised land management plan

direction within 7 years of the implementation date. 

Application to Existing Resource Plans

Resource plans previously developed by the Forest Service that apply to resources or land areas 

within the analysis area will be reviewed for consistency with the revised land management plan’s 

components and, as soon as practicable, will be updated, as needed, to make such resource plans 

consistent with the revised land management plan components,29 with one exception: the Hells 

Canyon National Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan is being incorporated into 

the revised Wallowa-Whitman Land Management Plan unmodified.

Maintaining the Land Management Plans,

Adapting to New Information, Amendments,

and Administrative Changes

The land management plans may be amended at any time based on a preliminary identification of 

the need to change them. In addition, certain minor changes to the land management plans may be 

made administratively. The preliminary identification of the need to change the land management 

plans may be based on a new assessment, land management plan monitoring, or other 

documentation of new information, changed conditions, or changed circumstances. The 

amendment and administrative change processes that will be followed for any future amendment 

or administrative change of these land management plans are described in the 2012 Planning Rule 

at 36 CFR 219.13(b) and (c).

Adaptive Management

The revised land management plans are an integral part of an adaptive management cycle that 

will guide future management decisions and actions on the three National Forests. The revised 

land management plans provide for the sustainability of the resources of the Malheur, Umatilla 

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, while directing the coordination and management of 

multiple uses of National Forest System land such as recreation, timber, mining, wildlife, fish, 

watershed, and wilderness. Recognizing that conditions on the Malheur, Umatilla and WallowaWhitman National Forests do not remain static, that new information is constantly emerging, and 

that scientific uncertainty is associated with some conclusions regarding resource effects, the 

revised land management plans embrace a monitoring and adaptive management approach. The 

adaptive management process under the revised land management plans will include:

• Defining and measuring progress toward accomplishing land management plan objectives;

• Monitoring management outcomes and changing circumstances at the land management plan 

level and broader scale (per requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule at 36 CFR 219.12); and

 

29 Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 section 21.41
Draft Record of Decision

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

45

• Revising management strategies accordingly.

The revised land management plans identify measureable objectives that will be monitored via 

the three National Forests’ land management plan-level monitoring programs. Additionally, 

broader-scale monitoring actions will contribute additional knowledge to this adaptive 

management cycle. This adaptive management cycle will enable the three National Forests to 

identify and respond to changing conditions, changing public desires, and new information, such 

as that obtained through research and scientific findings.

Contacts

For more information regarding a specific national forest or general information regarding the 

land management plan revisions, please contact the respective National Forest Supervisor, below. 

• Thomas Montoya, Wallowa-Whitman Forest Supervisor 541-523-6391

• Steven K. Beverlin, Malheur Forest Supervisor 541-575-3000

• Eric Watrud, Umatilla Forest Supervisor 541-278-3716

Approval

Date

Regional Forester

Pacific Northwest Region