Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Sparta Vegetation Management Project Environmental Assessment
Whitman Ranger District, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Baker County, Oregon
April 2017
For More Information Contact:
Jeff Tomac Whitman District Ranger 1550 Dewey Ave, Suite A
Baker City, OR 97814 Phone: 541-523-1301
Email: [email protected] Fax: 541-523-6394
ii
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: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and
lender.
iii
Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 6 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 7
Desired Future Condition ........................................................................................................ 8 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 8 Purpose of and Need for Action ............................................................................................ 10
Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................. 10 Key Issues ................................................................................................................................. 11
Issue: Improvement of Long Term Forest Health Conditions and Sustainability ................. 11 Issue: Fire Behavior .............................................................................................................. 12 Issue: Old Growth................................................................................................................. 15 Issue: Economics .................................................................................................................. 16 Issue: Road Access ................................................................................................................ 17
Other Issues ............................................................................................................................... 17 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ..................................................... 19 Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................... 20
Elements Common to the Action Alternatives .......................................................................... 20 Alternative Descriptions ........................................................................................................... 25
Alternative One ..................................................................................................................... 25 Alternative Two - Proposed Action ....................................................................................... 25 Alternative 3 .......................................................................................................................... 28 Management Requirements, Constraints and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 31 Sparta - Alternatives at a Glance ........................................................................................... 49 Comparison of How the Alternatives Respond to the Key Issues ......................................... 51
Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................ 53 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 57 Forest Health and Sustainability .................................................................................................... 58 Fire and Fuels ................................................................................................................................ 84 Wildlife – Old Growth and Landscape Connectivity .................................................................. 108
A. Old Growth Habitat ....................................................................................................... 109 B. Old Growth Management Indicator Species .................................................................. 116 I. American Marten (Martes americana) ......................................................................... 116 II. Northern Goshawk ....................................................................................................... 120 III. Pileated Woodpecker ................................................................................................... 125
Social and Economics ................................................................................................................. 130 Wilderness, IRAs, and Undeveloped Areas ................................................................................ 136 Wildlife – Rocky Mountain Elk .................................................................................................. 141 Water Quality and Fisheries ........................................................................................................ 148
A. Watershed, Fish, and Aquatic Habitat ........................................................................... 148 B. Aquatic Management Indicator Species Analysis ......................................................... 176
Other Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 180 A. Snag and Log Habitat: Primary Cavity Excavators (PCEs) .......................................... 180 B. Land Birds, including Neotropical Migratory Bird Species .......................................... 191 C. Unique Habitats ............................................................................................................. 198
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS) ............................................ 198 A. Botanical Resources ....................................................................................................... 198 B. Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 200 C. Aquatic Species............................................................................................................... 201
iv
Soils ............................................................................................................................................. 202 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ................................................................................................ 227 Range Management ..................................................................................................................... 240 Access and Transportation Management ..................................................................................... 246 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...................................................................................... 258
A. Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 258 B. Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................... 260
Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 262 Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 264 Visuals/Scenery ........................................................................................................................... 273 Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River ............................................................................................ 289 Required and Additional Disclosures .......................................................................................... 295 Finding of No Significant Impact ................................................................................................ 298
Context .................................................................................................................................... 298 Intensity ................................................................................................................................... 298
List of Preparers and Reviewers .................................................................................................. 302
Appendices
Appendix A – Alternative 2 Datatables and Maps
Appendix B – Alternative 3 Datatables and Maps
Appendix C – Forest Plan Management Direction Map
Appendix D – Cumulative Effects Summary
Appendix E – Literature and References
Appendix F – Response to Comments
5
Introduction We are proposing to accomplish commercial harvest treatments which will include post-harvest
treatments such as precommercial thinning underburning, grapple piling and hand piling; non-
commercial vegetation management activities similar to the post-harvest treatments described
above; natural fuels underburning; temporary road construction to facilitate logging systems;
danger tree removal along haul routes; road decommissioning; aspen restoration work; and
replacement or reconstruction of one bridge and two bridge abutments which have been identified
as unsafe within the 17,951 acre project area. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the
Whitman Ranger District of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the above
proposed activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the
preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy
and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the
proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.
Cohesive Wildfire Strategy and WUI’s
In response to requirements of the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME)
Act of 2009, the Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) directed the development of the National
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (CWS). The CWS is a collaborative process with active
involvement of all levels of government and non-governmental organizations, as well as the public, to
seek national, all-lands solutions to wildland fire management issues.
Three primary factors have been identified as presenting the greatest challenges and the greatest
opportunities for making a positive difference in addressing complex wildfire issues. They are:
Restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes
Creating fire-adapted communities
Responding to Wildfires
The community wildfire protection plan for Baker County (2006) was prepared in compliance with
HFRA, the National Fire Plan, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, the Union County Emergency
Operations Plan, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Tri-County Natural Hazard Mitigation
Plan. The community wildfire protection plan is the result of an extensive planning and coordination
effort by members of the Oregon Department of Forestry, rural fire protection departments, Baker County
officials, the USDA-Forest Service, interest groups, and adjacent private and industrial landowners.
One of the goals of the protection plan was to identify, prioritize, and reduce hazardous fuels in the WUI
areas and to coordinate risk reduction strategies across the landscape. In Baker County, a “community at
risk” is defined as a group of homes or other structures with basic infrastructure and services within or
near federal land. A “wildland-urban interface” is the area that surrounds a community at risk, including a
community’s infrastructure or water source, and unless defined otherwise by the community wildfire
protection plan may extend beyond 1.5 miles from the community itself, depending on topography or
geographic features used as effective firebreaks. The project area for this project incorporates portions of
3 WUI’s identified in the community wildfire protection plan (Sparta, Surprise Spring, and Carson-Pine
Valley).
6
A total of twenty-one WUI areas were identified in Baker County through the plan’s collaborative
process. The Sparta and Surprise Springs WUI’s were rated as high priority for the potential for projects
and fire hazard reduction due to high fuel loadings and structural vulnerability which increase the risk of
loss in the event of a wildfire. The Carson-Pine Valley WUI rated out as a moderate priority.
We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the timber
management and fuel reduction activities within the project area may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By
preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and
Alternatives section of this document.
Proposed Project Location The 17,951 acre Sparta project area encompasses all or portions of the Paddy-Eagle and Little Eagle subwatersheds in the Eagle Creek watershed located approximately 15 miles northwest of the town of Richland, Oregon, south of the Eagle Cap Wilderness, and north of the town of Sparta. The planning area is within Baker County and encompasses portions of 3 different wildland urban interface areas (WUI’s). Within these WUI areas there are numerous buildings and residences along with industrial and non-
industrial private forest and range lands. The project area is located at Townships 7 and 8 South, Ranges 43, 44, and 45 East. Refer to Figure 1 – Sparta Project Vicinity Map. Figure 1 - Vicinity map
Forest Plan Management
Direction
This environmental assessment is
tiered to the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Land and Resource Management
Plan, as amended. Major Plan
amendments relevant to this project
include:
EA on Continuation of the Interim
Management Direction
Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem,
and wildlife Standards for Timber
Sales, as signed on May 20, 1994,
which provides additional
standards and guidelines (USDA,
1994, and commonly known as the
Screens);
Interim Strategies for Managing
Fish-Producing Watersheds in
7
Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada, as signed on
July 28, 1995, which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA, 1995, and commonly
known as INFISH).
The Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan was completed with a decision on
December 22, 1994. The Sparta project area includes approximately 6 miles of Eagle Creek that
is designated as a Scenic River and 3.4 miles of Eagle Creek that is designated as a Recreational
River (see map in Appendix C). The Sparta project responds to the goals and objectives of this
Wild and Scenic River plan and meets all management direction for Eagle Creek. The complete
report and the most recent Wild and Scenic inventory can be accessed online at
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa-whitman/specialplaces.
The Forest Plan, as amended, includes management goals and objectives and standards and guidelines,
both forest-wide and specific to land allocations. All proposed activities in this project are consistent with
the management guidance and direction provided in the Forest Plan.
The project area is allocated under the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan Forest and its
Environmental Impact Statements (as amended) to the following management areas. All applicable
management direction specific to the following management areas apply to this project area (refer to
Management Direction Map in Appendix C):
MA1 – (9,214 acres). Emphasizes wood fiber production on suitable timberlands while providing
relatively high levels of forage and recreational opportunities.
MA1W – (622 acres). Emphasizes timber production while meeting identified winter range
habitat objectives.
MA3 – (5,377 acres). This management area provides a broad array of forest uses and outputs
with emphasis on timber production. However, timber management is designed to provide near-
optimum cover and forage conditions on big game winter.
MA7 – (2,251 acres). Management is intended to preserve the special values of those river
(Eagle Creek in the Sparta project area) segments (meaning the river and its associated corridor)
which are part of the National Wild and Scenic River System. Management will not diminish the
special values which caused the river to be included in the National Wild and Scenic River
System and will maintain the characteristics which contributed to their classification.
MA15-7 – (487 acres). Old growth preservation within a Wild and Scenic River corridor (MAs 7
and 15 combined). These areas are intended to maintain habitat diversity, preserve aesthetic
values, and to provide old growth habitat for wildlife. Evidence of human activities may be
present but does not significantly alter the other characteristics and would be a subordinate factor
in a description of such a stand.
Need for the Proposal The purpose and need for action describes what the desired condition is for the Sparta area and how the
existing condition does not meet that desired condition answering the question “why here, why now?”
8
Desired Future Condition
Desired conditions are based on goals and management direction provided in the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990). The desired forested conditions are
summarized as follows:
Forest species composition is dominated by ponderosa pine and western larch across much of the
landscape in warm/dry forest environments.
Structural stages within the historical range of variability for their respective biophysical
environments. The understory re-initiation stage accounts for a lower percentage of the planning
area while single story structure is increased across the landscape, especially in warm/dry forest
environments.
The amount of high density (closed) forest is reduced and the amount of low density (open) forest
is increased to levels within the historical range of variability.
Mistletoe infection levels are within the natural ranges expected in a fire maintained landscape.
Mistletoe infections exist at an endemic level without threatening the development and
maintenance of late and old structural stands.
Insects and diseases operate mostly at endemic levels. Fluctuation occurs during normal outbreak
cycles.
Ponderosa pine, western larch and quaking aspen exist in the proportions found historically in the
planning area. Existing hardwood sites are protected.
Overall, less than 25 percent of the planning area has a high potential for supporting a stand
replacing wildfire.
Sawlogs, pulp, biomass and fuelwood are provided to private and public markets.
Existing Condition
Forest Structure - The planning area primarily consists of moist upland and dry upland forest
communities. The planning area reflects forest conditions shaped by past large wildfires, fire suppression
and forest management activities. Suppression of wildfire has allowed stands historically characterized
by more open grown widely spaced fire tolerant trees (such as ponderosa pine and western larch) to
develop dense, multi-layer stand conditions with increased amounts of less fire tolerant trees such as
grand fir. Past forest management included even aged regeneration harvests resulting in reduced levels of
larger diameter trees, increased amounts of smaller understory trees and areas of fragmented forest
patches.
An assessment of the current range of forest structures compared to the natural range indicate excess
levels understory re-initiation structures (“middle aged” forests – understory reinitiation (UR)) and
severely under-represented levels of more open large tree dominated older forest structures (Old Forest
Single Story - OFSS) across all forest types. Within the moist and dry forest types, younger forest stand
initiation structures (SI) are also under-represented compared to estimated historic ranges. Old forests
characterized by dense layered tree structural conditions (Old Forest Multi Story - OFMS) are above
historic ranges in both vegetation groups for this type of structure.
Fire Behavior – The Baker County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) identified three
communities, Surprise Springs, Sparta and East Eagle/Main Eagle area (adjacent to the project area) as
“high risk” and one of the communities, Carson/Pine WUI as “moderate risk” for loss or damage from
9
wildfire. The plan calls for fuel reduction activities as one of the actions necessary to lessen the wildfire
risk on all four WUI communities (Baker County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006).
Along with past disturbances, decades of successful fire suppression has led to development of denser
forest conditions, increased levels of shade tolerant/fire intolerant tree species (namely grand fir) and
accumulation of fuels and smaller understory trees resulting in an increased wildfire risk within the
planning area as well as the neighboring private, state and other federal forest and range lands. An
estimated 66+% of the forest stands exhibit high levels (overstocked) of existing tree densities and 55+%
of the planning area is characterized as departed from the natural fire regime.
Wildlife Habitat - The lack of older forest conditions characterized by more open stands of fire tolerant
species has also likely led to decreased abundance and distribution of wildlife that prefer these more open
old forest habitat conditions. White-headed woodpeckers, flammulated owls along with a variety of other
birds and mammals would benefit from increased amounts of old forest single story conditions across the
project area.
Economics - Public lands are an integral part of the high quality of life found in Northeast Oregon
providing a variety of social, economic and ecologic contributions to local residents and the public at
large. The communities of northeast Oregon have a strong reliance on the natural resources of the area
for providing fuel to heat homes, food for the table, employment opportunities and as a source of
recreational enjoyment. Local ranching and agriculture rely on the water produced on the public lands
and maintaining a healthy and reliable supply is critical for sustaining these key local industries.
Similarly, the established infrastructures (mills, railroad, and roads) benefit from resource management
activities on the public lands and the goods and services they provide.
Forest, ranching and recreational industries are key contributors to the local and regional economy and
resource management opportunities afforded on public lands are an important part of maintaining and
sustaining these industries, associated infrastructure and the overall quality of life. The Sparta project
offers a variety of opportunities to contribute to the local communities and economy through timber sale
offerings, forestry service contract work, forest products for commercial and personal use, water to
support ranching and agriculture, and providing a diversity of recreational activities for local and regional
residents to pursue.
Insects and Disease - Principal defoliators in the Sparta planning area are spruce budworm and Douglas-
fir tussock moth. The Sparta planning area has shown susceptibility to defoliators in the recent past with
spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth defoliation in late 1980s to early 1990s and Douglas-fir
tussock moth defoliation in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Both outbreaks were treated with insecticides as
part of larger region wide suppression projects. Stands dominated by host species, in multi-strata
structures at high densities in this planning area increases the potential for large scale defoliator
outbreaks.
Bark beetle risk is very high in this planning area, given that densities and structures in stands containing
host species generally far outside the HRV. Principal bark beetles in the Sparta planning area are western
pine, pine engraver, Douglas-fir beetle, and fir engraver. Vegetation types within this project area have
shown susceptibility to a variety of insect outbreaks in the past such as the pine engraver outbreak in 1989
and the Douglas-fir beetle outbreak in 1998. This past outbreak of Douglas-fir beetle coupled with the
current outbreak in the adjacent East Eagle drainage emphasizes current stand conditions with an
abundance of host species will likely continue to support beetle outbreaks.
Mistletoe infection that has spread throughout the landscape in all host species with infection levels so
high in some areas that stand development is jeopardized.
10
The increases in fir species support conditions for elevated levels of defoliating insects, root and stem
disease and dwarf mistletoe and are currently major factors in decreased stand health and loss of
resiliency to disturbances. Past timber harvest often targeted the large old trees of high value, resulting in
stands of late and old structure being well below historical levels.
Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose and need for action is generated by the difference between current conditions and desired
conditions.
In order to move conditions in the planning area toward the desired condition, the following objectives
have been identified.
Purpose and Need 1: Manage forest structure, composition and density towards landscape historic range
of variability (HRV) and improve sustainability.
Non-LOS: Create more single story structure; reduce stand densities to accelerate development of
LOS characteristics; and balance species compositions to site capabilities and disturbance
regimes.
LOS: Create more single story structure, reduce threats to existing LOS caused by overstocking,
ladder fuels, and encroachment of late seral species.
Purpose and Need 2: Maintain and increase landscape resilience to the risk of uncharacteristic
disturbance.
Wildfire: Reduce overall stocking, ladder fuels, multistory structure, overstory canopy closure
and dominance of fire susceptible species that contribute to higher fire intensities, higher post-fire
mortality rates and large fire potential, especially within WUIs to improve safe firefighting
options for fire managers.
Insects (bark beetles): Reduce presence of insect host species, overall stand density and multi-
layered stands.
Disease: (dwarf mistletoe/Indian paint fungus): Reduce presence of infected trees, host tree
species, overall stocking and multi-layered stands that contribute to accelerated levels of
outbreak.
Purpose and Need 3: Provide a supply of forest products to the public to utilize forest resources and to
provide a supply of materials to local markets.
Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during
the development of this EA:
The Sparta Vegetation Management Project was published in the Wallowa-Whitman Schedule of
Proposed Actions (SOPA), a quarterly publication, in January 2016 and has appeared in each quarterly
SOPA since then. This mailing is distributed to a mailing list of individuals, organizations, and agencies
and is published on the forest web page. The project and proposed action have also been published on the
Wallowa-Whitman Web page at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48947.
11
For this project, a scoping letter was sent to tribal members of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) on June 17, 2016, informing them of the Sparta
proposed project and requesting comment or concerns. The project was also included in the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest 2016 program of work presentation to the CTUIR on October 19, 2016 and the
Nez Perce on May 11, 2016 as part of the annual program of work presentation. Staff to staff meetings
were also held with CTUIR on May 25, 2016 and August 23, 2016. General concerns received from
tribal staff members included potential impacts to traditional properties and food resources, water quality,
endangered fish species, wildlife habitat and elk security, and treaty rights.
Scoping and consultation for the project was initiated and is ongoing with the Oregon Department of
Forestry, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODF&W).
A letter inviting comment on the proposed action was mailed on June 17, 2016 to approximately 70 forest
users, adjacent landowners, permittees, local government, and concerned publics soliciting comments and
concerns related to this project. A detailed description of the proposed action was posted on the forest
website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48947 on June 17, 2016. Twelve comment letters
were received.
This project has been reviewed and approved by the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO).
Consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened and endangered species has been
completed for this project.
An analysis file for this project is available for public review at the La Grande Ranger District. The
analysis file includes specialist’s reports, data specific to the project, public notifications and their
responses, meeting notes, and miscellaneous documentation.
Key Issues As a result of the public involvement described above, the following key issues were identified associated
with the proposed action. The interdisciplinary team of Forest Service resource specialists developed this
list of issues and concerns with input from public scoping. Specific issues brought up by the public can
be found in italics in the key issues and other issues sections below. The issues and concerns are the basis
for subsequent steps of the analysis in formulating alternatives or developing constraints and mitigation
measures.
Key issues were identified and subsequently used to develop a range of alternatives. The following
section describes the key issues identified for this analysis and the key indicators used to evaluate each
key issue.
Issue: Improvement of Long Term Forest Health Conditions and Sustainability
Approximately 92% of the forested Sparta area consists of dry upland forest including Douglas-fir
ponderosa pine plant associations and 8% is moist upland forest consisting of grand fir/twinflower and
grand fir/big huckleberry plant associations. Fire suppression allowed the establishment and dominance of
grand fir in the warm/dry grand fir vegetation type. Ponderosa pine was maintained historically as a major
species through frequent low-severity fires that thinned the understories of these stands and controlled
establishment of trees. Frequent fire also increased the competitive advantage of ponderosa pine in these
stands. Conversely fire exclusion allowed immature grand fir to have a competitive advantage and
12
developed in the understories of stands and eventually created multistory conditions. True fir dominated,
multi-storied stand conditions have persisted to today.
Ponderosa pine was also historically maintained as the dominant species by frequent low-severity fires in
the warm/moist Douglas-fir and warm/dry Douglas-fir types. Douglas-fir did not increase to the extent of
grand fir under similar conditions in the warm/dry grand fir vegetation types. Multistory conditions have
increased during the decades of fire exclusion and are present today in levels that are considered above
the range of reference conditions considered ‘resilient’ for this landscape.
In the Sparta project area mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, spruce beetle, fir engraver, Douglas-
fir beetle, western spruce budworm, and Douglas-fir tussock moth populations have shown an increase in
activity the last few years. Stands have pockets of beetle kill and recent attacks. Overstocked stand
conditions increase the risk of further insect and disease activity.
A Douglas-fir beetle outbreak occurred beginning in 1998 in the Sparta area. This past outbreak of
Douglas-fir beetle coupled with the current outbreak in the adjacent East Eagle drainage emphasizes
current stand conditions with an abundance of host species will likely continue to support beetle
outbreaks.
The Sparta planning area has also shown susceptibility to defoliators in the recent past with spruce
budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth defoliation in late 1980s to early 1990s and Douglas-fir tussock
moth defoliation in the late 1990s to early 2000s. Both outbreaks were treated with insecticides as part of
larger region wide suppression projects. Closed tree densities above HRV in all vegetation groups,
indicate that susceptibility of trees within the project area is also above HRV.
Adding the following factors together: stands dominated by host species, in multi-strata structures at high
densities, this planning area has a high potential for large scale defoliator outbreaks.
A combination of past management activities and exclusion of fire has led to an increase in stocking
levels, fuel loadings, and dense understories. Overstocking, insects, and disease are threatening the health
and vigor of stands within the project area. Stands are not growing to their site potential and if left
untreated in the proposed action, stand development could remain stagnated and increase the risk for
further loss from insect mortality, mistletoe, and wildfire.
Public feedback from the Proposed Action varied from support of commercial timber harvest within the
area as a tool to meet project objectives and reduce the risk of loss to insects and disease to pointing out
that insect activity is a beneficial natural disturbance event in the forest because when trees die they
provide important habitat for wildlife and bird species as well as replenishing the organics in the soil.
They also pointed out the importance of mistletoe as habitat for several key species of wildlife.
Key Indicators:
Tree Species Composition – Percent change relative to HRV for tree species composition
Landscape Structure – Percent changes relative to HRV for structures
Tree Density – Percent change in HRV for open and closed stand densities
Aspen Restoration - Acres of aspen restoration accomplished
Issue: Fire Behavior
Historically, fire was a dominant disturbance process in the Blue Mountains and based on the fire history
within this project area has continued to be one. Approximately 91 percent of the project area is within
13
fire regimes that would normally exhibit low severity fire in the event of a wildfire. All of these acres
have a moderate departure from the historic fire return interval.
There have been many wildfires in the past from lightning; however, due to effective fire suppression,
there have been just two recorded large fires in the area. A 1910 fire covered a majority of the project
area and the Eagle Fire 1984, covered 100 acres. The effects of the 1910 fire are unclear due to stand
management over the ensuing years. It is clear that remnant legacy trees that pre-date the fire exist
throughout the planning area. The Eagle fire was largely a grass fire but was a stand replacing event on
approximately 53 acres. These acres are warm/dry grand fir and have been reforested to ponderosa pine.
Today this area is a fully stocked stand of saplings.
Normally, low intensity fires crept through the drier forests and grasslands every 7 to 35 years while
moister sites generally experienced fire every 40 to 150 years. Within the other vegetation groups a
mosaic of vegetation patterns resulting from a combination of hot, intense fires, and light surface fires can
be observed. Fire regimes are a predicted frequency cycle for fire return intervals within a particular
vegetation profile and described in the table below.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) reflects the current conditions’ degree of departure from a modeled
reference conditions. FRCC assessments measure departure in two main components of ecosystems:
Fire regime (fire frequency and severity)
Associated vegetation
Table 1. Fire Regime Groups with Historical Fire Return Intervals
Fire Regime Group
Vegetation Types
Frequency (Fire
Return Interval)
Representative Potential Natural Vegetation Group
(PNVG)
Severity
1 All ponderosa pine types;
Dry-Douglas fir/ pine grass; and grand fir/pine grass.
0 – 35 years
(PPDF1) Ponderosa pine Douglas-
fir Inland Northwest Low severity
2 True grasslands 0 – 35 yrs (MGRA1)
Mountain Grassland Stand replacing,
high severity
3 Mixed Conifer 35 – 200+
yrs (GFDF)
Grand fir – Douglas-fir Mixed severity
4 Lodgepole pine, western
larch, spruce 35 – 200+
yrs
(SPFI5) Interior West Lower
Subalpine Forest
Stand replacing, high severity
5 Wet meadows,
discontinuous grass scabs on ridge tops
Greater than 200
years
(RIPA) Riparian
Mixed severity
Surface fuel conditions are an important factor in wildland fire behavior. Heavy surface fuel loadings
(over 10 tons per acre), lying under a dense tree canopy, create optimum conditions for crown fire. The
increase in probability for stand replacement fire events increases the potential for loss of the remaining
old forest.
Departure and condition class data can be used to document possible changes to key ecosystem
components. Examples include vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stage, stand
age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other
associated disturbances such as insect and disease mortality, grazing, and drought. Common causes of
departure include advanced succession, effective fire suppression, timber harvesting, livestock grazing,
introduction of and establishment of exotic plant species, and introduction of insects and disease (FRCC
Guidebook, 2010). The following table describes the three condition classes:
14
Table 2. Condition Class descriptions
Condition Class
Description
1 Represents ecosystems with low departure (<33%) and that are still within an estimated historical range of variation as determined by modeling.
2 Represents ecosystems which have been moderately altered (33 to 66%) from the reference conditions.
3 Represents ecosystems with a high departure (>66%) from the reference conditions.
Table 3. Condition Class Acres by Fire Regime Group for the Project Area
Existing Fire Regime Condition Class
Condition Class
Fire Regime 1
Fire Regime 2
Fire Regime 3
Fire Regime 4
Fire Regime 5
Percent of project area
1 0 0 0 0 0 100
2 16,335 1,616 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
% of project area
91% 9% 0 0 0 100
Figure 2. Example of Fire Regime 1, Condition Class 2
A community at risk” (CAR) is defined
as a group of homes or other structures
with basic infrastructure and services
within or near federal land. A wildland
urban interface area surrounds a CAR,
including a community’s infrastructure
or water source, and may extend
beyond 1.5 miles of the CAR,
depending on topography and
geographic features used as an
effective firebreak.
There are numerous private land
parcels within the project area,
approximately 15 miles of private land
interface along the southern edge of the project area and around interior private land parcels, and all or
portions of three wildland urban interface (WUI) areas located within the Sparta Project Area:
Carson/Pine Valley WUI - 111 structures
Surprise Springs WUI - 17 structures
Sparta WUI – 50 structures
A community wildfire protection plan has been prepared in compliance with the National Fire Plan, the
10-year Comprehensive Strategy, and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The Baker County Community
Wildfire Protection Plan CWPP identified three of the communities, Surprise Springs, Sparta and East
Eagle/Main Eagle area (adjacent to the project area) as “high risk” and one of the communities,
Carson/Pine WUI as “moderate risk” for loss or damage from wildfire. The plan calls for fuel reduction
activities as one of the actions necessary to lessen the wildfire risk on all four WUI communities (Baker
County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006).
The project area is also in a highly active lightning path which puts this entire area at risk to fire starts and
the potential for a wildfire to come out of or go into some or all of these WUIs. Surface and ladder fuels
have increased, and continue to increase as a result of suppression activities over the years. While there
15
was support expressed for treating adjacent to private lands, WUIs, and recreation residences; concern
was also voiced over the mechanical treatment of fuels in the proposed action and the potential for short-
term increases in fuel loadings/fire hazard due to logging slash and the drying effects of increased light
and winds reaching the forest floor in treated stands. Management designed to reduce hazardous fuels
could modify fire behavior thus reducing risk to property, wild and scenic river corridor values, resources
including downstream water quality and quantity, and increasing fire suppression opportunities.
Concern was raised over the blanket use of fuel reduction and CWS across the entire project area instead
of focusing on structure ignition areas (defined as within 100’ of structures).
Feedback on the Proposed Action indicated support for the use of prescribed fire, especially in fire
adapted ecosystems. There was also support for the use of mechanical fuels reduction (timber harvest) as
a pre-treatment for prescribed burning. Several commenters asked that mechanical treatment be
considered at all times before burning, because industry could use the fiber and wood products. The
effectiveness of thinning as a fuels reduction tool was supported by several commenters in warm/dry
biophysical environments, but thinning in cool/moist biophysical environments was not supported because
it cannot emulate the mosaic pattern of this fire regime. Comments were also received advocating for the
treatment of riparian areas in order to reduce fuel loadings and protect these sensitive areas in the event
of a wildfire.
Key Indicators:
Fuel Loading and associated Fire Behavior Potential –
Crown Fire Potential – Measure in percent of seral stage susceptible to crown fire.
Flame Length – measured in feet.
Surface fuel loadings – Measured in tons/ acre for material less than 3 inches in diameter.
Fire Regime Condition Class Departure –
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) of the landscape - Measured in percent departure
from reference conditions for FRCC and fire return intervals.
Issue: Old Growth An analysis of the historic range of variability (HRV) was done to assess how current forest conditions
compared to what ecologists believe existed during the pre-settlement era (Sparta Analysis File). The two
subwatersheds (Paddy-Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek) encompassing the Sparta project area were
used as the landscape scale to determine the amount and distribution of old forest habitat. This is an
appropriate scale to analyze HRV and is meaningful in terms of landscape patterns as they relate to the
distribution of wildlife habitat. HRV is important to wildlife populations because the distribution, quality
and quantity of habitat largely determine the potential for a wildlife species to exist at viable levels. As
habitat was converted, fragmented, and opened to motorized access, many species were reduced in
number and others were precluded from portions of their geographic range altogether. The following table
compares existing old growth acres to the HRV in the analysis area.
Table 4. Comparison of existing old forest to HRV by potential vegetation group (PVG) in the Sparta analysis area
PVG Existing Acres % of PVG Historical Range %
Old Forest Multi Stratum (OFMS)
Moist upland 1,152 26% 15-20%
Dry upland 2,912 16% 5-15%
16
PVG Existing Acres % of PVG Historical Range %
Cold upland 612 73% 10-25%
Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS)
Moist upland 146 3% 10-20%
Dry upland 875 5% 40-60%
Cold upland 31 4% 5-20%
While the table above indicates there are minor amounts of cold upland forest within the analysis area,
there are no acres of it within the project area; therefore, this project will have no effect on cold upland
LOS. It also illustrates that there are large deficiencies in OFSS for moist and dry upland sites. OFMS
levels are within HRV in moist potential vegetation groups (PVGs) and slightly above in dry upland
PVGs. The greatest opportunities to move stands toward OFSS structure exist in dry and moist upland
sites that are currently classified as OFMS. There are 487 acres of dedicated old growth areas within the
wild and scenic river corridor (MA 15-7) in the project area.
Because single story old forest levels are well below desired levels in the project area; existing stands
need to be maintained or enhanced and other stands accelerated toward old forest structure.
Some of the public input on the Proposed Action related to Old Forests advocated for the protection of old
growth within the project area and all trees with old growth characteristics regardless of their diameter.
They also indicated that treatments should be focused on ecologically appropriate dry plant association
group forests and not in moist old forests which they state are not outside of their historical pre-fire
suppression conditions. They also expressed concerns that there is no available science proving that
returning OFMS stand to OFSS structure has been proven to meet the needs of the wildlife species
dependent on this habitat.
While still others, who support active management within the project area were concerned that creating
LOS stands may have the potential to stifle management options within the project area.
Key Indicators:
Acres of OFMS restored to OFSS
Issue: Economics
There is a concern over the cost efficiency of timber harvest to achieve management goals while
protecting resource values. One of the goals of the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan is to provide for the
production of wood products to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies consistent with natural
resource objectives, environmental constraints, and economic efficiency. There is an opportunity through
project design of the Sparta project to meet the purpose and need within the project area, produce an
efficient timber sale offering, protect resources, and benefit local economies.
Factors which relate to cost efficiency include silvicultural prescriptions, stands selected for treatment,
size of harvest units, size of material to be removed and degree of merchantability, miles of road needed
in relation to selected stands, yarding systems, and fuel treatment measures. All these factors have the
potential to increase the cost involved with accomplishing management in this area.
Public comments supported having this project provide wood products and jobs to this distressed area as
a goal for the project. Concern was also raised over the Forest’s ability to fund non-commercial fuel
reduction and stand density management activities and recommendations were made to consider
17
increasing amount of timber removed or cutting trees >21 inches to help fund non-commercial treatments,
and making non-commercial units commercial to improve sale economics.
One commenter also pointed out that dead and dying trees are important to the survival of many natural
resources in the forest and doesn’t agree that the public supports removal of forest products.
Key indicators:
Benefit:Cost Ratio
Number of Timber and Non-Commercial Thinning Jobs
Issue: Road Access
Road access was identified within the project area as important for not only access to the public for
recreation activities and private land access needs, but also for wildfire suppression. There was also
support for decommissioning and road closures for resource protection. A few letters did not support
temporary road construction and reconstruction due to the longevity of those road beds on the landscape
and the potential for soils and water quality impacts. One commenter posited that scientific proof exists
that roads can damage the proper ecological functioning of natural resources in a forest.
There are approximately 158 miles of NFSR in the Sparta project area. Of these miles, 71 miles are
managed as open and 87 miles are managed as closed. Most of the road prisms within the project area
exist in a variety of conditions. Some are passable with no work needed, while some need road work to
become passable to high clearance vehicular traffic and for log haul. Some road prisms are still visible
from old roads which were decommissioned several decades ago.
The wooden bridge on Forest Road 7735 over Little Eagle Creek has extensive rot in the wood of the
deck extending into the stringers. There is currently a weight restriction and the existing abutments create
a restriction in the channel causing increased stream velocities which have elevated the scour risk and
damage by large debris. The bridges on Roads 7020 and 7735450 were constructed with cantilever
approaches across Main Eagle and Little Eagle creeks, respectively. The fill under the cantilever ends has
been lost due to flood and high water occurrences over the past several years and need to be replaced to
stabilize the approaches to these bridges.
Concern was also raised about the impacts of motor vehicle use on big game security habitat due to
motor vehicle use on open and closed roads in important winter and summer range in the project area.
Key Indicators:
Miles of new temporary road constructed
Miles of temporary road on existing wheel tracks
Miles of road reconstruction
Miles of currently closed roads to be reopened for project use
Miles of roads to be left open
Miles of roads to be closed
Miles of roads to be decommissioned
Other Issues The following issues were raised during public scoping for this project; however, they were either
resolved during project design or outside of the scope of actions proposed in this project.
Resolved in project design:
18
Retain all old trees regardless of their size: All old trees would be retained in the harvest
prescriptions using Van Pelt’s identification of old tree characteristics as a guide.
Thinning prescriptions should have skips and gaps: Variable density thinning is already part of the
commercial and non-commercial silvicultural prescriptions which will provide for connectivity
and areas of big game hiding cover.
Prioritize treatment of low elevation dry vegetation groups: 92% of the forested portion of the
project area is dry upland forest and 98% of the proposed treatments are within this vegetation
group.
Create an alternative that maximizes economic return: The proposed action treats everything
within the project area with an identified need while staying within the standards and guidelines
of the Forest Plan. Prescriptions are to the lower management zone with sawlog removal utilizing
the most efficient harvesting systems. In addition to the timber harvest the proposed action also
proposes thousands of acres of post-harvest thinning and fuels treatment which would require
service contracts. The prosed action is considered the maximum treatment alternative for the
Sparta area.
Re-look at noncommercial treatment areas for commercial opportunities: There are no
commercial opportunities within these areas as all trees are seedling and sapling sized. In
sufficient stems per acre are available to provide for any viable biomass opportunities within
these units.
Treat more aspen stands, fence aspen treatments, and leave fences for longer than 6 feet tall to
allow for recovery: Fencing is planned for all aspen treatments and fences would remain in place
until no longer needed. All aspen located during field reconnaissance was proposed for
treatment; however, aspen not on the Proposed Action map but located within treatment units will
also be treated. When aspen is found during sale layout and marking the prescription shifts into
the aspen restoration treatment.
Seasonally close roads recommended for decommissioning the year before they are
decommissioned – the roads recommended for decommissioning are already currently closed.
Protect soils, water quality, cultural resources, and sensitive plant species – Covered under project
design, management requirements, constraints, and mitigation measures.
Conserve large unroaded areas: There are no commercial treatments in the unroaded area
identified by Oregon Wild within their scoping comments. One small pre-commercial unit is
located on the far western edge of the identified area and a portion of the area is proposed for
prescribed burning.
Treat stands already degraded by past logging: All stand proposed for treatment within the
project area have been logged within the last 50 years.
Retain large trees infected by mistletoe: Large (greater than 21” dbh) trees with mistletoe will be
retained in treatment units; however, they will be girdled in order to protect the susceptible
understory.
Conserve large unroaded areas by using non-commercial restoration methods instead of
commercial logging: Only non-commercial treatments (precommercial thinning and prescribed
burning) are proposed in the unroaded area identified by the commenter.
19
Outside the Scope:
WUI treatments should focus on the “structure zone”: Structures are primarily located on private
inholdings in the Sparta area. The Sparta proposed action only proposes fuel reduction treatments
on Federal lands; therefore, it would be outside the scope of this project to perform fuels
reduction work on private lands.
Consider using more regeneration prescriptions within the project area to maximize economics –
Stand treatment prescriptions were determined during field reconnaissance based on desired fuels
reduction and stand health goals. Specific prescriptions were identified to meet these goals based
on the ecological needs of the stands. Outside of those stands being managed as connective
corridors, the treatments area planned to the lower management zone (LMZ) of stand density
index. The LMZ level of retention was chosen in order to allow for stocking reductions that will
provide the most sustained benefit to forest health while maximizing overall stand growth and
vigor. There is no ecological need to change intermediate prescriptions to regeneration
prescriptions outside of those already identified.
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study The following alternative options were considered during the development of this analysis but were
eliminated from detailed study as described below.
Alternative A – No Logging on Steep Slopes:
An alternative where no logging would occur on steep slopes within the project area was suggested by
one commenter during scoping for this project. Eliminating harvest and commercial removal of the wood
products on steep slopes would eliminate the potential to manage forested stands within approximately
40% of the project area. These areas are considered suitable for timber production and management
under the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan and are part of the lands allocated to meeting the goal of
providing for the production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and benefit local economies
consistent with multiple resource objectives, environmental constraints, and economic efficiency.
Because skyline yarding has proven to be less impactful on soils resources than some ground based
systems and analysis of the its’ use in this project was shown to meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines
and applicable laws, the Responsible official for this project felt it was unnecessarily arbitrary to consider
no treatment on any slopes greater than 35% in the project area.
This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it fails to respond to the purpose and need in
the project area and would not meet the goals of the Forest Plan.
Alternative B – Cut trees > 21” dbh:
In the original Snow Basin analysis removal of trees greater than 21” dbh was part of the preferred
alternative because removal of these trees was needed to meet the intent of the purpose and need in the
area north of the 77 road. This area is outside of the Sparta project area. This alternative was considered
by the interdisciplinary team; however, it was determined across the area that in most cases trees greater
than 21 inches in excess of what is needed to meet desired stand structure and green tree recruitment
requirements, etc. had already been removed in past timber sales or historic fires. Removal of the
remaining over 21” trees is not necessary to meet the Sparta purpose and need, would not significantly
increase sale economics, and would require a Forest Plan amendment. For these reasons, this alternative
will not be considered under this analysis.
20
Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered in Detail An ID team developed alternatives based on the purpose and need of the project and the key issues and
other concerns identified in Chapter 1 of this assessment. Forest Service management objectives are
incorporated into alternatives by following standards and guidelines of the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest Plan as amended.
NEPA requires that the agency study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommend
courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources.
Elements Common to the Action Alternatives The following elements are common to all action alternatives.
1. Silvicultural Treatment Prescriptions/Objectives
The following describes the treatment objectives, methods and anticipated outcomes for the proposed
vegetation management activities within the project area.
Stocking Levels for Forested Stands – Stand density ranges have been developed for each conifer plant association (PAs). See Powell et.al. (1999) for management zone basal areas. The range is based, in part, on the growing capacity (or site potential) of each plant association. Tree densities would be reduced to various basal area levels depending on management objectives. The recommended management zone (RMZ) for managing overall forest health is defined by the upper management zone and the lower management zones as described below:
Upper Management Zone (UMZ) – For the Sparta project area the UMZ will be the level of tree stocking that maintains the maximum amount of sustainable tree cover. This level avoids development of suppressed trees and precludes significant amounts of density-related tree mortality.
Lower Management Zone (LMZ) – The lower limit of full site occupancy where a significant portion of site resources can be allocated as tree growth.
Prescriptions:
Commercial Thinning harvest (HTH) prescription would remove understory trees to address
uncharacteristic species composition, under-represented stand structures and unsustainable tree
densities. These treatments would decrease competition and increase growth rates in the residual
stand. Thinning from below would also decrease the risk of uncharacteristic disturbance from
insects, disease and wildfire by promoting resistant species and increasing crown spacing.
Thinning from below would remove trees from the lowest crown class first followed by the next
lowest crown class until the target stocking is reached. Ponderosa pine trees less than 21 inches
dbh with dwarf mistletoe in the upper two thirds of the crown would be removed. Western larch
less than 21 inches dbh with moderate dwarf mistletoe infections (ratings 3 and 4) would be
removed. Severely infected (ratings 5 and 6) western larch would be retained because they do not
spread infection effectively as a result of their small crowns and their high probability of
mortality within a few years. Stands would be managed to within the RMZ. With the exception
of identified wildlife corridors (managed to the UMZ), the majority of stands receiving the HTH
21
prescription would be managed to at or near the LMZ in order to maximize treatment
effectiveness.
Overstory Removal harvest (HOR) prescription is the removal of some overstory trees. This
prescription is used to increase the growth and vigor of understory trees and reduce shade tolerant
seed source trees to promote stand health and increase resistance to stand replacing fires, insects
and disease. Overstory removal would allow early seral tree species regeneration currently
present in the understory to grow at an increased rate in stands that were historically dominated
by early seral species but have converted to grand fir dominated sites. These treatments would
focus on retention of the healthiest ponderosa pine and western larch. All residual overstory trees
21” dbh would be retained and trees less than 21” dbh would be retained to provide replacements
for snags and logs through time via natural mortality (green tree replacements). At least 16 trees
per acre in the larger diameter classes, primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, would be
retained to provide a source for green replacement trees for snag dependent wildlife. All
ponderosa pine and western larch less than 21” dbh infected with dwarf mistletoe would be
removed to protect the understory from infection. Due to the light removal associated with this
prescription, reduction in stocking levels would not be significant enough to move stands in or
out of their respective management zones.
Precommercial thinning (PCT) treatments increase growth rates, tree vigor, promote historical
species compositions and reduce ladder fuels. This treatment is proposed in stands where most of
the trees needing removal are seedling and sapling sized, up to a maximum size of 9 inches DBH.
Trees would be thinned from below to 100-200 trees per acre depending on the plant association
and site characteristics. Some areas may require post-treatment piling and burning. On slopes
with less than 30 percent rise, machine piling may be used. Stands would be managed to within
the RMZ. Residual stocking within the RMZ will vary depending on fuel levels, site potential and
plant association.
Post-harvest follow-up:
Units would be monitored following harvest activity for site preparation, regeneration, or stand
improvement needs. Reforestation work would be accomplished on sites that are below
recommended stocking levels through planting or natural regeneration. Other post-harvest
treatments may include precommercial thinning, site preparation and/or fuels reduction with fire,
grapple/slashbuster manipulation of slash, and site preparation by whip felling.
2. Fuels Reduction
Prescribed underburning (RXF) is proposed commercial/noncommercial harvest to reduce fire intolerant
understory seedling and sapling densities, raise base canopy height, reduce mistletoe infection and to
reduce activity-created and natural surface fuels. These treatments would begin approximately 1-2 years
after the mechanical activities are completed and would take an estimated 7-10 years to finish (based on
2,500 acres treated by Rx fire on average on the district) Actual acres of fuels treatments are less than
shown due to different fuels treatments occurring on the same acres.
Prescribed underburning as a stand-alone treatment is proposed on to reduce the potential fire intensity of
future wildfire events by reducing existing woody debris accumulations, ladder fuels, and small fire
susceptible species such as grand fir. Prescribed fire would be used to limit mistletoe infection within
lower one third of crowns as a result of crown scorch. Prescribed fire would also revitalize certain surface
vegetation, recycle nutrients stored in debris and prepare sites for planting or natural regeneration. More
than one prescribed fire entry may be needed within the first 10 years of treatment depending upon the
22
success of the initial burn treatment in meeting project objectives. Follow-up maintenance burning is
planned on an average 10 year cycle on the warm and hot dry sites within the analysis area.
Underburn units may require preparatory work to protect trees prior to ignition, particularly for areas
around large ponderosa pine. This could include reducing ladder fuels and/or physically removing surface
fuels from around selected trees. Burn prescriptions may also be tailored to reduce surface and ground fire
intensity to provide similar protection.
Prescribed fire unit boundaries would use natural fuel breaks whenever possible; however, containment
lines may be constructed on some units to provide boundaries for burning and to separate units into
manageable sizes. Slopes ranging from zero to 30 percent rise may be lined by tractor (maximum fireline,
to mineral soil, width of less than 4 feet) or all-terrain vehicle plow (18 inches width). Slopes with rise
exceeding 30 percent are normally fire line by hand (18 inches width). Units are ignited to allow fire to
burn through a majority of the area. Underburns may occur in the spring or fall depending on weather
conditions and specific objectives.
Within riparian habitat conservation areas, fire would be allowed to continue to burn and spread, usually
as a backing fire, without further influence from ignition sources. Under circumstances where un-
manipulated fire activity threatens to exceed maximum prescription parameters and/or control of the burn
is threatened, hand ignition would continue into the riparian habitat conservation areas as necessary.
3. Fuels Treatment Priority Ratings
Each treatment unit (commercial, noncommercial, and prescribed burning) has been prioritized to focus
fuels treatments in the highest priority areas first (units within ¼ to ½ mile of structures, adjacent private
lands, administrative sites) to be followed by those of lower priority such as post-harvest fuels treatments
and maintenance burns greater than ½ mile from structures and private lands.
Priority Short Description Fuels Priority Definition
1 Adjacent Structures Units within ¼ to ½ mile directly adjacent to private lands which contain residences/structures and any other high value private or public holdings.
2 Adjacent Private Lands Units within ½ mile (approximately) of private lands not meeting priority 1 definitions.
3 Infrastructure Protection Units adjacent to high value infrastructure such as high voltage power lines, gas line, railroad tracks, etc. to create defensible fuel zone adjacent to and under the power line.
4 Administrative Site Buffer Units adjacent to administrative sites such as designated campgrounds, seed orchards, cabin site, etc. to create a defensible fuel zone around the site.
5 Prescribed Fire Density Management
Units designated as silviculture density management units utilizing prescribed fire, when no other silvicultural or fuels reduction prescription is designated. Also includes units identified for prescribed fire within selected MA15 (old forest) stands.
6 Prescribed Fire Fuels Activities
Units designated as prescribed fire units by silviculture as a follow up treatment to other designated treatments.
7 Prescribed Fire Harvest Activities
Silviculture units (i.e. skyline units) where levels of slash are increased above natural fuel loadings for the stand type and are not being treated with other means.
8 Prescribed Fire Maintenance Units
Units designated for prescribed fire to maintain the area in current condition class or continue moving the unit towards desired condition class. These units have previously been treated under prior projects within the area utilizing prescribed fire and /or other fuel treatments.
9 Prescribed Fire Natural Fuels Units
Silviculture units that do not meet any of the above treatment priorities and any other areas identified as prescribed fire-natural fuels units (units that have not had previous prescribed fire). Prescribed fire will be utilized to lower ground fuel loadings to a desired level, reintroduce fire across a larger portion of the landscape, and reduce ladder fuels.
10 No Fuels Treatment These units would not have a fuels treatment associated with them.
23
4. Roadside Hazard Trees
Danger trees (standing trees that present a hazard to people due to conditions such as, but not limited to,
deterioration or physical damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs and the direction of the lean of
the tree would allow that tree to reach the roadway if it fell) would be cut along all haul roads
(approximately 15 trees/mi). Danger trees would be identified by qualified personnel using an established
protocol (Toupin et. al. 2008). Trees that threaten the road and public or forest worker safety would be
felled. Trees within 1.5 tree lengths of the road prism would be evaluated for risk and felled when
presenting an unacceptable risk. If the trees are within no-activity RHCA buffers as described previously
or needed to meet down wood requirements they would be cut and left on site. If they are outside of those
areas or not required to be retained for other resource needs and are of commercial value, they may be
removed with this timber sale.
5. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA)
Intermediate commercial harvest treatments within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) where
the silvicultural application would move vegetation characteristics closer to desired conditions. The areas
proposed for treatment have no riparian vegetation. Units with RHCA treatments are primarily completed
using forwarder yarding systems to protect sensitive riparian soils. Impacts of forwarder trails and
landings would be minimized by maximizing skid trail spacing in these areas and only using existing
landings. Only the outer extent of RHCAs, which are upslope of existing Forest Service system roads
would have harvest and skid trails. No activity buffers in treated RHCA acres are based on 2 times the site
potential tree height for Category 1 fish bearing streams and one site potential tree height for Category 2
perennial non-fish bearing streams; 200 feet buffer of a Category 1 streams, 100 feet buffer on Category 2
streams. These distances meet the requirements for INFISH RHCA widths for these stream categories.
There would be 50 feet no activity buffers on Category 4 streams. Existing landings in riparian habitat
conservation areas above these roads would also be used. Use of existing Forest Service system roads and
existing landings would reduce the need for construction of additional temporary roads within riparian
habitat conservation areas. Prescribed fire treatment unit boundaries within RHCAs would rely on natural
barriers and minimize constructed line where practical. Fire would be allowed to back into RHCAs where
natural barriers do not exist.
6. Wild and Scenic River Corridor
Activities within the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor consist of prescribed fire,
precommercial thinning, and commercial harvest. Treatments would maintain and enhance the
outstandingly remarkable values (recreation, scenery, geology/paleontology, fisheries and historic cultural
resources) within each of these sections.
7. Connective Corridors
The goal within these units would be to maintain and enhance their canopy closure and structural complexity.
Harvest units within wildlife connectivity corridors between late/old structure areas and MA 15 areas
would maintain canopy closure within the upper one third of site potential. The resulting overstory
canopy closure would be maintained above 40 percent within dry forest PVGs and above 50 percent in
moist forest PVGs. In addition, the extensive riparian habitat conservation system would maintain
existing canopy closure between many late/old structure areas and MA 15 areas.
All snags greater than or equal to 12 inches dbh would be retained. Down logs would be retained at the
following levels:
200 lineal feet per acre
Minimum lengths of logs 20 feet or largest available
24
Minimum of 12” small end diameter logs or largest available
8. Snags in Harvest and Fuel Reduction Units
With the exception of an occasional snag removed for safety or construction clearing, no snags >12 inches
dbh would be removed within these units.
Protect existing standing large snags (>12 inches dbh) during firing operations through avoidance or fuels
distribution requirements (FDR) as practical. If large trees are killed through project implementation they
would generally be left for wildlife snags, unless they pose a safety hazard to roads, the public, or project
personnel.
9. Dwarf Mistletoe Management
All prescriptions manage dwarf mistletoe to reduce dwarf mistletoe severity through removal of infected
trees in order to increase normal development, diameter growth and survival of residual uninfected trees.
Proposed treatments would protect uninfected understory trees by either removing infected overstory trees
of the same species and by spacing infected trees away from same species uninfected trees. All infected
Douglas-fir trees less than 21 inches dbh would be removed. All uninfected Douglas-fir trees less than 21
inches dbh within 30 feet of an infected Douglas-fir would be removed. All Douglas-fir trees less than 21
inches dbh within 30 feet of ponderosa pine or western larch 21 inches dbh or larger would be removed.
To protect developing understories and create snags and future large woody debris any mistletoe infected
trees >21inches dbh in overstory removal units (HOR) would be girdled. In commercial thinning units
(HTH) trees >21inches dbh with dwarf mistletoe in the top 2/3rds of the crown would be girdled.
Mistletoe would be retained at endemic levels in order to provide biodiversity on the landscape.
10. Enhancement Work
A. Aspen Enhancement - Aspen restoration conifer overstory removal would remove all conifers
except old ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (trees >21 inches dbh) from 12 sites covering a total of
14 acres to address conifer competition in declining aspen stands. Approximately 7 acres of aspen
treatments are located within commercial thinning units. Conifers within 100 feet of the south and
west edges of the aspen stands and within 50 feet on the north and east edges of the aspen stands
would be removed. Whole tree yarding would be used to limit slash concentrations within the
aspen stands. Excessive slash would be hand piled and burned to minimize the use of heavy
equipment within aspen stands. To initiate suckering of the root system, units may be burned or
aspen girdled or felled. Where necessary to insure regeneration success, these sites may be fenced
to exclude livestock and/or big game until the aspen reach 6 feet in height.
B. Watershed Enhancement – The following watershed enhancement work would occur to reduce
sediment and repair water quality issues on three roads within the project area:
Road 7010130 – Remove 2 plugged culverts on Class IV streams and replace with
armored dips.
Road 7010150 – Reconstruct 0.8 miles of the road to elevate the road surface and
improve drainage to prevent runoff into a Class IV stream.
Road 7010175 – Reconstruct 0.2 miles of road to elevate the road surface and improve
drainage to prevent runoff into a Class IV stream.
25
11. Road Right-of-Way and Bridge Reconstruction Work
The wooden bridge on Forest Road 7735 over Little Eagle Creek has extensive rot in the wood of the
deck extending into the stringers. There is currently a weight restriction posted at the bridge which will
likely be further reduced after the next inspection. The existing abutments, while serviceable, create a
restriction in the channel, causing increased stream velocities which have elevated the scour risk and
damage by large debris. This bridge it has exceeded its service life and replacement of the entire structure
is recommended.
On Roads 7020 and 7735450, both bridges were constructed with cantilever approaches across Main
Eagle and Little Eagle creeks, respectively. The fill under the cantilever ends has been lost due to flood
and high water occurrences over the past several years. It is proposed to replace this fill under the
cantilevers and behind the piers of the bridges to stabilize the approaches to these bridges.
Right-of-Way (ROW) access would be acquired for 0.67 miles of road 7010250, 0.33 miles of 7020175,
0.24 miles of 7020200, 0.08 miles of 7735325, 0.68 miles of road 7735490, and 0.03 miles of road
7005215 across inholdings of private lands within the project area in order to facilitate logging and fuel
reduction activities. The Forest will proceed with permanent easement acquisition. In the event a
permanent easement cannot be acquired before a project will be implemented, the Forest will seek a
temporary road use permit (refer to Alternative maps in Appendices A-B).
Alternative Descriptions The following is a brief description of the proposed action and alterative(s) that meet the need for action.
Alternative One
This alternative constitutes the "No Action" required by NEPA. Fuel reduction activities, road work,
timber harvest, and white bark pine enhancement opportunities identified in this analysis would be
deferred. This alternative forms the baseline for comparison of the action alternatives.
Alternative Two - Proposed Action
This alternative focuses on improving stand health and meeting the goals of the Cohesive Wildfire
Strategy (CWS) to restore and maintain landscapes, create fire adapted communities, and improve fire
response times. Treatments are designed to manage stocking levels, reduce surface fuel loadings, ladder
fuels, and canopy bulk densities in strategic locations throughout the project area. Refer to the map and
data tables in Appendix A for specifics.
This alternative responds to key issues for fire behavior, old growth below HRV, economics, forest health
and sustainability, and road access.
Commercial Vegetation Management & Fuels Reduction Treatments
The following vegetation management and fuels reduction treatments would occur within the project area
to address the purposed and need (see also maps in Appendix A):
Table 5. Commercial Treatment Acre Totals by Silvicultural Prescription for Alternative 2
Prescription Acres
Commercial thinning - HTH 4,196
Overstory Removal – HOR 217
Total Commercial Treatment 4,413
Commercial Thinning harvest (HTH) - Affected Units: 1-9, 11-17, 19-39, 41, 43, 45-50, 53-
54, 75-82, 84-97, 99-120, 122-123, 125-129, and 131-153.
26
Overstory Removal (HOR) - Affected Units: 18, 40, 42, 44, 83, 124, and 130.
Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction & Vegetation Management Treatments
Table 6. Non-Commercial Treatment Acre Totals for Alternative 2
Prescription Acres
Pre-Commercial thinning - PCT 1,362
Underburn 1,362
Grapple Piling 625
Hand Piling 38
Total Non-Commercial Treatment Acres 1,362
Pre-commercial Thin (PCT) - Affected units are: 21A, 27, 28A, 45A, 51, 52, 55, 57-67, 69, 73,
74.
Fuels Blocks - Prescribed Burning
Approximately 4,793 acres of prescribed burning is proposed within the area implemented over
the next 10 years. Affected units are: 602 – 642.
Table 7. Prescribed burning block acres for Alternative 2
Prescribed Burning
Burn Block Total Acres
602 16
603 20
604 21
605 7
606 91
607 40
608 54
609 27
610 121
611 104
612 79
613 260
614 325
615 1,101
616 203
617 39
618 311
619 66
620 117
621 80
622 10
623 54
624 66
625 15
626 25
627 9
628 18
629 5
630 367
631 17
27
Prescribed Burning
Burn Block Total Acres
632 22
633 156
634 211
635 333
636 165
637 86
638 45
639 37
640 25
641 29
642 16
Total 4,793
Alternative Design Criteria
Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) treatments – 32.59 acres within RHCAs would
be treated. Affected units: 13, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 50, 87, 133, and 134.
Wild and Scenic River – Activities within the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor
consist of 68 acres of prescribed fire,13 acres of precommercial thinning, and 90 acres of
commercial harvest in the Recreation section and 1,106 acres of prescribed fire, 15 acres of
precommercial thinning, and 46 acres of commercial harvest in the Scenic section. Treatments
would maintain and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (recreation, scenery,
geology/paleontology, fisheries and historic cultural resources) within each of these sections.
Affected units: all or portions of 1-7, 26, 28, 28A, 29, 30, 49, 55, 81, 114, 615, 618, 633-640, and
642.
Connective Corridor Units – Affected units: 11-19, 28-29, 32-36, 44-49, 53-54, 75, 78, 80-81,
83-89, 89A, 90-92, 94-96, 102-107, 109-118, 120, 122-136, 138-139, 144-149, and 151.
Removal Systems Summary:
Proposed harvest treatments are estimated to result in removal of approximately 22.8 million board feet of
saw and non-saw material using the following yarding systems.
Skyline based yarding systems 569 acres
Tractor yarding systems 2,715 acres
Forwarder yarding systems 1,129 acres
No new permanent road construction is proposed with this project. Approximately 2.9 miles of temporary
road construction are proposed to facilitate harvest systems. Approximately 0.34 of those miles are on
existing wheel tracks on the ground and would require very little in the way of ground disturbance to be
used for harvest activities. The remaining 2.56 miles would be newly constructed. Temporary roads
would be treated after use by implementing some or all of the following activities: installation of erosion
control devices, ripping to reduce soil compaction, seeding, and camouflaging roads to discourage further
use.
47.6 miles of currently closed roads will be re-opened to facilitate harvest and fuel reduction activities. In
general, currently closed roads opened to facilitate project activities would be reclosed at the conclusion
of fuel reduction/harvest activities (refer to the post-sale road management plan section below and
attached map). If winter logging is done using the 7000 (Forshey snowmobile trail), 7015 (Empire Gulch
28
snowmobile trail), 7020 (Lily White snowmobile trail), 7700 (Eagle Drive snowmobile trail) roads, use
would be coordinated with the District Recreation Manager to designate an alternative snowmobile route
while log haul is occurring.
Post-Sale Road Management Plan (refer to map in Appendix A):
A road management plan has been developed for the Sparta project area. In general, the current
open road system will remain the same following implementation of the Sparta Vegetation
Management project with the exception of the roads below which will have the following
changes:
Roads 7010175 and 7015075 – (4.17 miles) would remain open following project
implementation because current road densities are below Forest Plan standards in this area
and these roads were identified as not creating any resource damage and would create a loop
for use by the public.
8.98 miles of roads which are currently open would be closed to move road densities toward
Forest Plan standards in areas above. (Roads 7000060, 7000063, 7000075, 7000080,
7010125, 7010150, 7739175)
With the exception of the roads described above, any road currently closed by gate or
barricade to be re-opened and used to facilitate harvest/fuel reduction activities would be re-
closed at the conclusion of harvest activities within the units they access.
6.94 miles of roads identified as either duplicate access or no longer needed on the landscape
for resource management and recreation access and would be decommissioned, returned to
resource production, and removed from the road system. Many of these have grown in and
have not received any use in the last 20 years.
Alternative 3
Design of this alternative reflects the general purpose of meeting the fuel reduction and Cohesive Wildfire
Strategy (CWS) goals; however, it focuses more intently on responding to the to key issues related to
management in old growth, and road access. This alternative was also designed to respond to concerns
about treatment in moist upland forests and in RHCAs. Alternative 3 was developed to respond to the
issues raised during scoping by using the Proposed Action as a base and incorporating the following
changes:
Old Growth Habitat:
No commercial treatments within any LOS stands with OFMS structure
Road Access:
No construction of new temporary roads
Use of temporary roads on existing wheel tracks would occur
No use of currently closed roads which would require reconstruction to be used when opened
Post-sale road management will reflect the minimum sustainable road system for the project
area as defined in the 2015 WWNF Travel Analysis Report. No additional roads would be
left open for public access.
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas:
29
No commercial removal within RHCAs identified for treatment under Alternative 2 would
occur. Skid trails within these would be designated and only yarding through these areas
would be allowed.
Moist Upland Forest (MUF):
No commercial treatments would occur within MUF stands
Non-commercial treatments may occur
Refer to the map and data tables in Appendix B for specifics.
Commercial Fuels Reduction & Vegetation Management Treatments
The following fuels reduction and vegetation management treatments would occur within the project area
to address the purposed and need under this alternative (see also maps in Appendix B):
Table 8. Commercial Treatment Acre Totals by Silvicultural Prescription for Alternative 3
Prescription Acres
Commercial thinning - HTH 3,600
Overstory Removal – HOR 181
Total Commercial Treatment 3,781
Commercial Thinning harvest (HTH) - Affected Units: 5, 7, 11-14, 16-17, 19-20, 26, 29-30,
32-39, 41, 43, 45-46, 48-50, 53-54, 75-81, 84-87, 89-90, 92-97, 101, 103-105, 110-111, 115-120,
122-123, 125-129, 131-132, 134-136, and 139-150.
Overstory Removal (HOR) - Affected Units: 18, 40, 42, 44, 124, and 130.
Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction & Vegetation Management Treatments
Table 9. Non-Commercial Treatment Acre Totals for Alternative 2
Prescription Acres
Pre-Commercial thinning - PCT 1,510
Underburn 1,400
Grapple Piling 710
Hand Piling 70
Total Non-Commercial Treatment Acres 1,510
Pre-commercial Thin (PCT) - Affected units are: 1-4, 15, 21, 21A, 22-25, 27-28, 28A, 45A, 47,
51, 52, 55, 57-67, 69, 73, 74, 91, 101A, and 102.
Fuels Blocks - Prescribed Burning
Approximately 4,543 acres of prescribed burning is proposed within the area implemented over
the next 10 years. Affected units are: 602 – 608, 610-627, 630-642.
Table 10. Prescribed burning block acres for Alternative 3
Prescribed Burning
Burn Block Total Acres
602 16
603 20
604 21
605 7
606 91
607 40
608 54
30
Prescribed Burning
Burn Block Total Acres
610 121
611 104
612 79
613 248
614 293
615 954
616 203
617 39
618 311
619 66
620 117
621 80
622 9
623 54
624 66
625 15
626 25
627 9
630 367
631 9
632 22
633 156
634 211
635 333
636 165
637 86
638 45
639 37
640 25
641 29
642 16
Total 4,543
Alternative Design Criteria
Riparian habitat conservation area (RHCA) – RHCAs within affected units: 13, 32, 33, 35,
36, 40, 41, 44, 46, 50, 87, and 134 (from Alternative 2) would not be harvested under this
alternative; skid trails would be designated through these areas to facilitate access to the adjacent
roads during skidding operations.
Wild and Scenic River – Activities within the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor
consist of 68 acres of prescribed fire, 55 acres of precommercial thinning, and 46 acres of
commercial harvest in the Recreation section and 1,061 acres of prescribed fire, 15 acres of
precommercial thinning, and 23 acres of commercial harvest in the Scenic section. Treatments
would maintain and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values (recreation, scenery,
geology/paleontology, fisheries and historic cultural resources) within each of these sections.
Affected units: all or portions of 1-7, 26, 28, 28A, 29, 30, 49, 55, 81, 615, 618, 633-640, and
642.
31
Connective Corridor Units – Affected units: 11-14, 16-19, 29, 32-36, 44-46, 48-49, 53-54, 75,
78, 80-81, 84-87, 89, 90, 92, 94-96, 103-105, 110-111, 115-118, 122-132, 134-136, 139, 145-149.
Removal Systems Summary:
Proposed harvest treatments are estimated to result in removal of approximately 17.5 million board feet of
saw and non-saw material using the following yarding systems.
Skyline based yarding systems 323 acres
Tractor yarding systems 2,324 acres
Forwarder yarding systems 1,134 acres
No new permanent road construction is proposed with this project. Use of approximately 0.34 miles of
temporary roads on existing wheel tracks is proposed to facilitate harvest systems. These would require
very little in the way of ground disturbance to be used for harvest activities. Temporary roads would be
treated after use by implementing some or all of the following activities: installation of erosion control
devices, ripping to reduce soil compaction, seeding, and camouflaging roads to discourage further use.
42.6 miles of currently closed roads will be re-opened to facilitate harvest and fuel reduction activities. In
general, currently closed roads opened to facilitate project activities would be reclosed at the conclusion
of fuel reduction/harvest activities (refer to the post-sale road management plan section below and
attached map). If winter logging is done using the 7000 (Forshey snowmobile trail), 7015 (Empire Gulch
snowmobile trail), 7020 (Lily White snowmobile trail), 7700 (Eagle Drive snowmobile trail) roads, use
would be coordinated with the District Recreation Manager to designate an alternative snowmobile route
while log haul is occurring.
Post-Sale Road Management Plan (refer to map in Appendix B):
A road management plan has been developed for the Sparta project area using the minimum
sustainable road system from the WWNF Travel Analysis Report. In general, the current open
road system will remain the same following implementation of the Sparta Vegetation
Management project with the exception of the roads below which will have the following
changes:
12.27 miles of roads which are currently open would be closed to achieve road management
objectives in the area. (Roads 7000060, 7000075, 7000080, 7005165, 7005180, 7010125,
7010150, 7010175, 7015075, 7020175, 7700331, 7735220, 7737130, 7739175)
With the exception of the currently closed roads to remain open above, any road currently
closed by gate or barricade to be re-opened and used to facilitate harvest/fuel reduction
activities would be re-closed at the conclusion of harvest activities within the units they
access.
6.94 miles of roads identified as either duplicate access or no longer needed on the landscape
for resource management and recreation access and would be decommissioned, returned to
resource production, and removed from the road system. Many of these have grown in and
have not received any use in the last 20 years.
Management Requirements, Constraints and Mitigation Measures
The following items are included in all action alternatives, unless otherwise noted, and provide the
measures necessary to keep project impacts at acceptable levels. These items would be applied to the
proposal as it is implemented on the ground. Unless specifically identified as a mitigation measure, the
following are considered either management requirements or constraints.
32
A) Soil and Water Quality Mitigation Measures
The mitigating measures listed below will be implemented to meet the standards and guidelines in the
Wallowa-Whitman LRMP. Best management practices (BMPs) are forest management practices designed
to prevent the degradation of forest lands and water quality during and after timber harvest. Forestry
BMPs have been shown to be effective at controlling sediment, erosion, and nutrients from forest
management activities (Lynch and Corbett 1990; Stuart and Edwards 2006).
Temporary Roads Management-
Sediment Mitigation Strategy- Provide low impact designs. Locate on benches where possible to reduce
cut/fill construction, sedimentation risks. Provide adequate drainage. Adopt storm-proof designs by
outsloping, water drainage features, and location. Have a post-harvest rehabilitation plan for temporary
roads that include culvert removal, out-sloped template, scarification, placement of slash materials, and
seeding as appropriate. Utilize existing non-NFS road templates where possible. Temporary culverts will
be located at stable sites to the extent possible.
Log landings-
No new log landings or landing associated with slash pile burning within 100 feet of any channel. Any
existing landings within RHCAs must be upslope of the road system at the base of a unit. Rehabilitate
landings to minimize bare soil and promote vegetation growth.
Soils-
The mitigating measures listed below will be implemented to meet the standard in the Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
These standards state:
Minimize detrimental soil conditions with total acreage impacted (compaction, puddling,
displacement, and severe burning) not to exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the project
area including landings and system roads.
The Plan requires use of "approved skid trails, logging over snow or frozen ground or dry soils, or
some equivalent system for limiting the impact and aerial extent of skid trails and landings and to
prevent cumulative increases from multiple entries in tractor logging areas.”
Skid trails and forwarder roads: Maintain a minimum of 100 feet between main skid trails to the
extent possible. Where Forwarding is required, to the extent practicable, slash will be left in
forwarder roads from clearing and product manufacture to create ‘slash mats’. Forwarder roads
will utilize existing skid trails to the extent practicable. Forwarder roads will maintain a minimum
of 60 feet between roads to the extent possible.
Soil Moisture: Skidding, forwarding and mechanical felling operations shall not be allowed when
soils are wet enough that ruts >6 inches deep 50 feet long or more would form.
Existing skid trails will be used as much as possible, except where existing skid trails are
inappropriately located, such as draw bottoms or too close together.
33
Grapple piling shall be done with low ground pressure (< 8.5 psi) on dry, frozen or snow covered
soil, and machinery would stay on existing skid trails where possible. On subsoiled units, ideally
subsoiling and grapple piling will be accomplished in the same operation.
Region 6 Soil Quality standards and the WW LRMP require projects to:
Minimize detrimental soil conditions with total acreage impacted (compaction, puddling,
displacement, and severe burning) not to exceed 20 percent of the total acreage within the project
area (individual unit) including landings and system roads.
Subsoiling and Scarification
Winter Logging/Subsoiling: If pre-implementation or post-implementation field monitoring
indicate the need, then landings and skid trails, or forwarder roads will be subsoiled or winter
logging will be required or both.
Cover the subsoiled area with slash. This shall be done in the same pass as the subsoiling, without
creating new disturbance. Slash cover shall provide a minimum of 65% effective ground cover,
but shall not exceed the fuels prescription for the area. Ideally subsoiling and grapple piling
would occur at the same time in a single pass.
Subsoiling shall utilize a winged subsoiling attachment on an excavator.
Subsoiling shall occur when soils are at an optimum moisture for the soil type. Subsoiling shall
not occur when soils are wet, or when moisture is high enough to cause clodding.
Subsoil to a depth of 20 – 24 inches.
Subsoiling passes shall be made close enough to cause complete subsurface fracturing between
passes, and passes shall lift and fracture, not turn over the soil. To better facilitate water
dispersion, subsoiling passes shall be accomplished in a herring bone or other pattern that does
not create a furrowed pattern that follows the treated trail of road.
Discontinue subsoiling where large rocks are continually brought to the soil surface, or operate
with the shoes at a shallower depth (15 inches).
Water Bars-Erosion
Construct water bars on skid trails and mechanical firelines where soil disturbance is evident (and
at the direction of the sale administrator and district watershed personnel), using the spacing
guide below:
Gradient Spacing
Under 20 % 80 ft.
20 - 39 % 40 ft.
Greater than 40 % 25 ft.
Logging activities within RHCAs will be primarily restricted to processor/forwarder operation.
Skidding logs downstream courses or ephemeral draws will not occur. Locate trails crossings at
right angles to stream channels. Prior approval of crossing locations is required. Suitable
crossings will be mitigated to minimize impacts. Mitigation may include slash mats or rock
amour. Damaged stream banks and crossings shall be reshaped to stable conditions. Within
RHCAs, where soil has been exposed, operate equipment on slash as much as possible. For roads
34
within RHCAs, only allow skidding to road when the road is at least 100 ft away from perennial
streams, and 50 ft away from intermittent stream channels. Existing landing within RHCA s may
be used for decking and loading of logs only. No whole tree operations within RHCAs.
Rehabilitate skid trails using water bars, slash placement, and seeding as appropriate.
Seed roads, landings, and skid trails after logging is completed, as needed, with site-specific seed
mix, for erosion control.
B) Water Quality
1. Water Quality Standards
Meet (or show progress toward meeting) water quality standards for Waters of the State of
Oregon (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340-41) through project design, application and
monitoring of best management practices (BMPs) as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations
[40CFR 130.2(m)]. BMPs are used for various situations encountered during layout and
administration of the timber sale contract and other activities. BMPs area listed in several
sections of these constraints, including the “Logging and Sale Design” section, and in other
documents, including the Wallowa-Whitman Watershed Management Practices Handbook, which
is on file at the Whitman Ranger District.
2. Erosion Control Mitigation Methods
Highly disturbed areas (which may include: skid trails, roads, landings, road cuts and fills, etc.)
will be seeded with a mix of native species, or a non-native species mix approved by the District
Diverse Species Program (contact program coordinator for the exact species mix and seeding
schedule). Non-native species may include one fast germinating annual grass species to provide
immediate ground cover that facilitates establishment of native species. Seed application rates
will be adjusted, as needed, to compensate for the broadcast method of application, and to
generate vegetation densities adequate to provide a deterrent to noxious weed invasion.
Seed will be certified weed free, per the Wallowa-Whitman Integrated Noxious Weed
Management Plan protocol.
Erosion control measures will be taken on all skid trails and temporary roads as needed. Spacing
of waterbars will be determined by on the ground conditions and guidelines stated in the Sale
Administration Handbook.
Slash and soil material may be left in the trail to divert water, or the subsoiling can be done to
provide lead-off drainage from the trails.
C) Riparian Habitat and Fisheries Mitigation Measures
RHCAs were delineated along all riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that
help maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems. RHCAs 1) influence the delivery of sediment, organic
matter, and woody debris to streams, 2) provide root strength for bank and channel stability, 3) shade the
stream, and 4) protect floodplains and water quality.
35
The following INFISH RHCA widths described below are minimum widths to be applied in all treatment
units. With the exception of site specific RHCA treatments within the RHCAs described under each
action alternative, the remainder of the units will have no activity within these RHCAs:
Table 11. RHCA widths for Sparta Project Area.
RHCA Category
Stream / Feature Type Description
1 Fish Bearing Streams Distance equal to 2 site potential trees or 300 feet slope distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest
2 Perennial Non-fish Bearing Streams Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest
3 Ponds, Wetlands (≥1 acre in size) Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest
4 Intermittent Non-fish Bearing Streams,
Wetlands (<1 acre in size)
Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 100 feet slope distance from the edge of the active channel, whichever is greatest
4 Landslides and Landslide-prone Areas Distance equal to 1 site potential trees or 100 feet slope distance from the edge of the landslide or landslide-prone areas, whichever is greatest
In ephemeral draws, trees will be left at a minimum of two large trees per 100 feet of draw bottom for
future down woody material recruitment. All bank stabilizing, hardwood, and non-merchantable trees
will be left.
Fire/Fuels RX in RHCAs
Prescribed fire will be allowed in RHCAs consistent with a goal of enhancing or maintaining Riparian
Management Objectives (RMOs).
No active lighting will take place within default RHCAs buffers except for pile burning. RX fire would be
allowed to back into RHCAs, unless direct ignition is needed to reduce the intensity of fire within RHCA.
Avoid handpiling within 50 feet of Category 1, 2 and 4 stream channels.
Avoid machine piling within RHCAs (except at approved landings in RHCAs.)
Channel Stability - Maintain natural LWD and trees needed for future recruitment to protect or enhance
stream channel and bank structure, enhance water quality, and provide structural fish habitat within all
stream systems.
Stream Temperature - Prevent measurable (greater than 0.5oF change) temperature increases in Category
I streams. Temperatures on other streams may be increased only to the extent that water quality standards
on downstream, fish bearing streams will not be affected. Normally stream shade management on
category III streams will differ little from treatment on Category I streams.
Roads - Avoid constructing temporary roads within RHCAs. Any planned reconstruction or construction
of roads crossing riparian areas will not alter stream or groundwater flow characteristics to the extent that
it will impact the riparian area. Design and maintain road drainage to prevent the influx of significant
amounts of road sediment runoff into stream courses. When use of closed roads is complete, re-close as
soon as possible. Seed as appropriate.
36
Road reconstruction within RHCAs - Limit vegetation modification to the road prism, road surface plus
ditch lines, to what is needed to maintain a safe travelway and functional drainage system.
Layout and marking of treatment units with treatments within the RHCAs will be done in conjunction
with the watershed specialist identified for the project.
For each planned road, meet the Riparian Management Objectives and avoid diverse effects on listed fish
by minimizing road and landing locations in RHCAs, avoiding sediment delivery to streams from the
road surface, avoiding disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, avoiding sidecasting of soils, and
sidecasting of road material is prohibited on road segments within or abutting RHCAs in priority
watersheds,
Provide and maintain fish passage at all new road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing streams.
Design fuel treatment so as not to prevent attainment of RMOs, and to minimize disturbance of riparian
ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and
identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management actions could perpetuate or be
damaging to long-term ecosystem function, or designated critical habitat / or inland native fish.
Trees may be felled in RHCAs when they pose a safety risk. Keep felled trees on site when needed to
meet woody debris objectives.
D) Wildlife
1) Down Woody Material (for wildlife and soils) Mitigation Measures
Where material is available, all treatment units (harvest and prescribed burn) will exceed the
minimum levels for down woody material described in the table below for each species.
Table 12. Minimum pieces of large down dead wood.
SPECIES PIECES PER AC
PIECE LENGTH AND DIAMETER SMALL END
Diameter | Min Length
TOTAL LINEAL LENGTH
Ponderosa Pine 3-6 12” | 6ft 20-40 ft
Mixed Conifer 15-20 12” | 6ft 100-140 ft
Lodgepole pine 15-20 8” | 6ft 120-160 ft
The above pieces per acre are the minimums required by the Forest Plan for wildlife and would be
used in the appropriate contract provision; it is desirable to meet the following tons/acre of coarse
woody material for soil productivity after harvest/burn operations:
Table 13. Desired requirements for woody material.
TONS PER ACRE
PLANT ASSOCIATION
5-10 Douglas-fir/spirea, Douglas-fir/elk sedge, Douglas-fir/pinegrass, Grand fir/pinegrass, Ponderosa pine/pinegrass, ponderosa pine/elk sedge, ponderosa pine/snowberry
7-15 Grand fir/twinflower, grand fir/huckleberry, grand fir/spirea
Coarse wood material includes all diameter classes. The large (>12”) snags and logs should be
protected during all phases of the project including prescribed burning.
37
3) Green Tree Replacements (GTRs) Mitigation Measures
In addition to the guidelines for logs and snags, sufficient green trees of adequate size are to be
retained in harvest units to provide replacements for snags and logs through time via natural
mortality. Generally GTRs need to be retained at a rate of 16-74 trees per acre, depending on
vegetation group. All harvest prescriptions in the project would retain GTRs within or above this
range. See the WWNF Green Tree Snag Replacement Guidelines for details associated with
managing for induced mortality.
4) Raptors and Cavity Nesters
Active raptor nest sites found during field reconnaissance for this project will be protected during
project activities. If active raptor nests are located during layout, marking, or project activities,
appropriate protection measures will be prescribed as described in the Wildlife Inventory document
in the project file.
Cavity-nester/Denning Habitat - All non-merchantable grand fir 35 inches dbh or larger will be
retained within treatment units.
White-headed Woodpecker Nest Site - Ensure that the known white-headed woodpecker nest tree is
protected during implementation of prescribed fire-only treatments in units 614/622. Also, conduct
prescribe fire treatments within units 614/622 outside the nesting season (after July 31), unless the
nest tree is known to be unoccupied.
Conduct goshawk surveys prior to implementing timber harvest or prescribed fire-only treatments. If
goshawk nesting is confirmed, apply appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Eastside
Screens. Units 67, 68, and 69
5) Sensitive Habitats Mitigation Measures
Plant communities adjacent to sensitive/unique habitats will be protected by maintaining vegetative
structure characteristic of the edge inherent to these areas. These areas include cliffs, caves, talus,
natural openings, and meadows. No harvest buffers, feathered buffers, or retention of higher basal
area will be used to maintain the context of these features.
Buffer widths for sensitive habitats will be at least 100 feet, possibly more on some habitats. The
degree of activity allowed within these buffers will vary depending on the type of sensitive habitat.
Natural openings will generally not receive a buffer but will have prescription modifications to retain
basal areas in the upper half of the management zone to maintain the integrity of the inherent edge
for these areas.
Grassy scabs and meadows will not be used as locations for landings or skid trails unless no other
location is practical. In those situations where landings are necessary, using the edge of these
openings is preferred.
6) Big Game Winter Range
Logging operations will be conducted outside the period between December 15 through April 30 in
the following units:
Affected Units:
Alternative 2: 45, 75-82, 84-89, 89A, 99, 100, 102, 103, 111, 114-119, 149, 150
38
Alternative 3: 45, 75-81, 84-87, 89, 103, 111, 115-119, 149, 150
Waivers to operate during this time period may be requested and will be evaluated on a case by case
basis by the District Ranger.
7) Management Indicator and Neotropical Migratory Species
If management indicator species, other than those protected by the design criteria and specifications
or the stream buffers discussed earlier, are discovered in any units programmed for prescribed
burning the following protective measures could be applied either separately or in combination to
reduce possible impacts to snags with nest cavities, and to protect other nest sites during burning: a)
fuel distribution (pull back) around snags, b) varied lighting techniques, c) fall burning, d) deferred
burning until after the unit is no longer being used during the reproductive period.
To reduce the potential for impacts to nesting landbirds, prescribed burning activities projected to
occur on or after May 20, and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out, will be reviewed by a district
or forest wildlife biologist. The District Biologist will then provide recommendations concerning
prescribed burning after May 20 and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out.
To reduce the potential for loss of snags during prescribed burning, employ passive lighting
techniques near snags larger than 12 inches. Techniques include lighting at a slope position above
snags, and avoid lighting directly adjacent to or at slope positions directly below snags. For larger
snags (> 20 inches dbh) at higher risk due to heavy fuels accumulations at the base, pullback of fuels
may be necessary prior to prescribed burning.
8) Diameter Harvest Limits
No live trees greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh will be cut unless they create a safety hazard
during logging operations.
9) Snags
All snags will be retained unless identified as posing a safety hazard. Snags felled for safety reasons
will be retained onsite to contribute to coarse wood where coarse wood amounts are deficient.
E) Fuels and Smoke Management
Where mechanical fuel reduction is necessary, use low ground pressure equipment such as grapple
mounted excavator to reduce the impacts on the soil resource.
Smoke Management Mitigation Measures:
Burns which consume more than 10 tons of fuel must follow requirements in the State of Oregon
Smoke Management Plan.
Smoke Management forecasts will be obtained through Oregon Department of Forestry, the
morning of ignition, and each subsequent day of ignition. Forecast must be favorable or reviewed
with forecaster for the burn to proceed.
Prescribed burning activities are coordinated with the Oregon Department Forestry Smoke
Management Division to assure that all air quality standards for personal health are met. Visual
quality standards will be protected in the Eagle Cap Wilderness area during the peak recreational
39
use period of July 1 through September 15. These actions respond to the non-key issue of air
quality. All smoke generating project activities will comply with the Clean Air Act.
Fire lines will have appropriate waterbars in steep sections to reduce erosion and sedimentation.
RHCA Burning Mitigation Measure Procedures:
There will be no direct ignition within INFISH RHCAs for the remainder of the burn blocks, fire
will be allowed to back into RHCAs. Direct ignition will be prohibited within 300’ of class I
streams, within 150 feet of class III streams, and within 100 feet of class IV streams in all RHCAs
not within the excepted burn blocks.
Prescribed fire line will be kept to a minimum inside RHCAs. Brushline (no mineral soil
exposed) will be constructed if necessary within RHCAs to keep fires from burning riparian
vegetation.
Prescribed Burn Units:
Selected Overstory Protection: FDR - Pullback of fuel accumulation as needed from designated
trees prior to prescribed burning to limit overstory mortality from prescribed fire. Follow
recommendations in RMRS-GTR-238.
Rehab firelines that have the potential to increase public off-road motor vehicle travel as
necessary to ensure created firelines are near natural appearing, and do not pose potential for
increase public off-motor vehicle and/or forest resource long-term adverse impact.
Protection of large diameter ponderosa pine prior to and during prescribed fire.
No direct ignition will occur immediately adjacent to large down logs or large snags.
Water sources needed during prescribed fire operations will consist of temporary sumps. Sites to
be identified at a later date will be constrained by the following:
a) Locate site to minimize washout and erosion potential.
b) Springs and elk wallows will be avoided.
c) Avoidance of potential habitat of PETS plant species.
F) Logging and Sale Design
The sale area boundary will be the project area boundary as described under Project Area Description,
section I of this EA and identified on alternative maps in the appendix.
The normal operating season for the analysis area is July 1 to October 31.
Operating restriction - Pine Engraver. Restricts the creation of pine engraver breeding habitat (ponderosa
pine) slash from December 1 to June 30. Applies to harvesting and road construction/
reconstruction/maintenance to prevent outbreak of pine engraver beetles. In harvest units of greater than 2
MBF per acre gross harvest volume of ponderosa pine, avoid leaving the resulting green ponderosa pine
slash in the woods from December 1 through June 30th. Applicable units would be based upon the cruise
volume. Should green ponderosa pine slash be created during this period, Pine Engraver breeding habitat
(green cambium) should be destroyed prior to July 1st. Log decks containing any ponderosa pine logs
should be hauled prior to July 1st.
40
Operating restriction - quaking aspen units. Requires heavy machinery access within the aspen treatment
units to be pre-approved by the USFS, in order to protect the aspen root system. Affected units: A1, A2,
A9, A11, A12, A17, A18 (only under Alternative 2), A19, A23, A25, A26, A29.
Beetle (IPS Pini)- Timber Harvest. In harvest units of greater than 2 MBF per acre gross harvest volume
of ponderosa pine- Avoid leaving greater than or equal to 4” diameter small end ponderosa pine in the
woods from December 1 through June 30th. Avoid piling landings of ponderosa pine slash during this
period.
Danger trees (some 21+) would be removed or felled to protect the public and forest workers. Danger
trees could be alive or dead and be of any size capable of creating a hazard. They would occur along haul
roads and near landings, skid trails, felling areas (operational trees). They would be identified by a
qualified person using the Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response.
Trees selected for retention under the Tree Improvement Program will be protected during project
activities.
Slash piles will not be constructed or burned on scablands.
In order to protect sensitive plant species units identified in the PETS section below will be coordinated
with the District Botanist and will have areas designated to protect (ATP) during layout and
implementation on the contract maps.
Where treatment is proposed in RHCAs:
Minimize skid trails by maximizing spacing between trails (60 to 70 feet apart).
No new landings will be constructed in RHCAs. Existing landings in RHCAs will be used where
a road is located between the landing and stream channel. In general, landings in RHCAs should
be at least 100 feet from stream channels. Existing landings adjacent to stream channels will not
be used.
Use forwarder logging system to transport logs to landings located in RHCAs.
Soil and Water Mitigations:
Ground-based harvest will not normally operate on slopes greater than 30%. Small inclusions of
greater than 30% slope are included during layout if they can be operated on without causing
excessive soil disturbance. Directional felling and winching of trees on slopes greater than 30%
can be done on small inclusions of steep ground. Ground based equipment will not be operated
within RHCAs on slopes greater than 30%.
Designated skid trails will be pre-approved in advance of felling operations by the Forest Service
Representative or Sale Administrator to minimize detrimental soil impacts. A unit-by-unit
evaluation of detrimental soil conditions will be made in sensitive units upon completion of
logging activities. Where detrimental soil impacts exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total
acreage within the project area, including landings and system roads, restoration treatments will
be considered. Detrimental soil conditions include compaction, puddling, displacement, and
severe burning, surface erosion and mass wasting.
Recommended average minimum skid trail spacing for ground-based equipment is 60 feet, center
to center for mechanized harvesting, and 80-100 feet for conventional hand felled trees. Require
directional felling to minimize soil disturbance during skidding operations. Recommended
minimum skyline corridor spacing is 150 feet, center to center, to minimize ground disturbance
and protect residual trees. See Soil Quality section.
41
Utilize existing user built roads where possible to avoid previously undisturbed soil when
designating temporary road or skid trail locations.
Transportation
System roads planned for project use will be maintained to a standard needed for project use.
Maintenance activities will be in accordance with the Wallowa-Whitman standard specifications
for timber sales. Typical maintenance activities include; blading and shaping roadbeds, cleaning
ditches and culverts, installing and replacing temporary culverts, removal or ramping over of
small slumps and slides, road-side brushing of overhanging limbs and small diameter trees,
logging out blow downs and felling danger trees. Haul activities may include; dust abatement on
primary haul routes, and snow removal for winter haul. Post-haul maintenance includes; water
barring and blocking closed roads; re-establishing and adding to cross ditches on lower standard
open and closed roads, and final blading and shaping of all roads, as necessary.
System roads needing work beyond the intent of the road maintenance specifications will be
reconstructed to the minimum standard needed to support haul. Typical reconstruction work
includes heavy clearing, drainage work (springs, culvert replacements), removal and stabilization
of landslides, relocating road segments, placing rock subgrade reinforcement and surfacing. Non-
typical reconstruction included removal and replacement of a bridge structure.
System roads that are closed will be opened for project use only and re-closed.
Temporary roads will be constructed and then stabilized and blocked under the terms of the
contract. Location, clearing width and any special construction requirements (including post-haul
treatment) will be agreed to in writing prior to construction.
Existing roads that are not system roads will be used for the project under the timber sale contract
terms for temporary roads. Location, clearing width, and any special requirements (including
post-haul treatment) will be agreed to in writing approval prior to construction and they will be
closed and stabilized after use.
Open and closed (ML1 and 2) system roads not necessary for public access may be closed to the
public and signed for project use only during project operations.
Bridges and culverts will be installed during instream work window. Culverts to be installed on
Category 4 streams will occur during dry channel conditions.
Prevention of Pine Engraver Beetle (IPS Pini) during road clearing and maintenance would be
accomplished by avoiding leaving greater than or equal to 4” diameter small end ponderosa pine
slash in the woods from December 1 through June 30th. Avoid piling or decking during this
period.
To prevent road damage and maintain water quality, road use will be restricted to dry or frozen
conditions. If road use is approved outside the normal operating season, drainage structure will
be kept in a functional condition, and daily operations will be managed to minimize sediment
transport from roads. Operations will cease when roads turn muddy and/or rutting occurs,
resulting in sediment transportation.
Road maintenance will maintain existing drainage features. Post-haul maintenance will protect
the road surfaces during future periods of inactivity and may require construction of additional
42
drainage features. Cross drains will not discharge onto erodible slopes or directly into stream
channels, including ephemeral drainages.
G) Range Mitigation Measures
1. All range improvements must be protected during project activities. If fences are damaged,
repairs must be made immediately to prevent livestock from entering areas outside of established
allotments.
2. No trees used as anchor trees along a fence line shall be marked for harvest.
3. All gates must be closed while livestock are within the allotment adjacent to the harvest units.
4. Treatments located within Grazing Allotments will be coordinated with the District Range
Management Specialist prior to treatment to adapt the administration of the allotment (if needed).
5. The allotments will be administered to standard following treatment to ensure the Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines set for allowable use (Wallowa Whitman Land and Resource
Management Plan 4-51 to 4-54) are met.
6. All burning activity will be coordinated with the District Range Management Specialist to
identify needed adjustment to grazing activity based on the specifics of each burn block.
H) Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS)
Biological evaluations and/or assessments have been completed for plants, fish, and wildlife PETS
species. Contract provisions will be included to provide for the protection of areas where PETS occur and
for those that may be discovered in the area during the contract period.
The following specific units contain sensitive plant species or habitat and will have layout and
implementation coordinated with the District Botanist and have a designation of an “Area To Protect”
Known TES plant populations (Carex cordillerana) ATP’s are marked on the ground and on
project area maps. Any known or newly discovered populations would be protected (through
avoidance) from post activity burning, site preparation, road closures, etc. The District Botany
Specialist would make locations known to sale administrators if TES plants are discovered during
any phase of project implementation.
Affected harvest units: 20, 21, 23, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84, 91, 106, 107, 109, 112.
Affected Prescribed Fire Units: 613, 616, 617, 623, and 628.
Avoid locating temp road construction, skidding, landing piles, slash piling on previously undisturbed
non-forest openings. These sites contain shallow soils and provide habitat for diverse plant species.
I) Managing Competing and Unwanted Vegetation
An assessment report of known noxious weed populations is available in the Analysis File. Noxious
weed locations also appear on project maps in the analysis file. If new noxious weed infestations are
located within the project area, a noxious weed inventory and site assessment will be completed.
The analysis for vegetation management is conducted in accordance with the 1990 Forest Plan Standards
and Guidelines, the 1998 Forest Noxious Weed EA, the Integrated Noxious Weed Management Plan –
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (INWMP, 1992), the 2005 Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant
Program Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants FEIS, and the 2010 Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest Invasive Species Plan FEIS and ROD. Management activities will give consideration and
evaluation of prevention strategies during the planning process (INWMP, Chapter V. Prevention
Strategies, Section B).
43
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce new establishment or spread of noxious weeds
and responds to the non-key issue of noxious weeds:
1. Noxious weed locations are on maps located in the Sparta analysis file. A copy of these will be
included in the contract preparation package, for use by the sale administrator. These sites will be
reviewed with the contractor and mitigations explained.
2. Project personnel would inform invasive species personnel pre-seasonally of upcoming
ground disturbing project activities so reprioritization of treatment and inventory can begin
prior to the start of project activities.
3. Rock pit and sources should be inspected, and cleared prior to use of any materials.
4. Before road maintenance activities on roads with active infestations occurs the contracting officer
(COR) will contact the District Noxious Weed Coordinator, to inform them of maintenance plans.
The Noxious Weed Coordinator will take the appropriate action to treat the noxious weeds on the
infested portions of these roads. (Note: Recommended treatment includes removal of previous
year's stalks, to be conducted before maintenance activities occur there; and maintenance
activities should not be conducted after the current year's plants have bolted and flowered (mid to
late June) unless prior treatment of current year's growth occurs.)
5. If new noxious weed infestations are located within the project area, a noxious weed inventory
and site assessment (as defined in the W-W INWMP) will be completed. Location of other
species, conditions or future treatments may require additional analysis to determine the
appropriate treatment method.
6. All mapped weed sites will be designated as "Areas to Avoid" (no decking, skidding or
equipment) and include in the contract package, for use by the sale administrator. Logs
should not be skidded or yarded through areas infested by noxious weeds. Landings and log
decks should not be built on or near sites of noxious weed infestation. Coordinate with
invasive species specialists for exceptions.
7. When roads are opened for logging operations, Sale Administrator will notify the Noxious
Weed coordinator. Known infestations should be designated as “Areas to Avoid”, and no
grapple or hand piling of slash should be allowed there.
8. Highly disturbed areas (which may include: skid trails, landings, road cuts and fills, etc.) will be
seeded. The seed mix to be used will consist of native species, or a non-native species mix, to be
approved by the District Diverse Species Program. This may include one fast germinating annual
grass species to provide immediate ground cover. Seed application rates will be adjusted, as
needed to compensate for the broadcast method of application, and to generate vegetation
densities adequate to help in deterrence of noxious weed invasion.
9. Seed will be certified weed free, per the Wallowa-Whitman INWMP protocol.
10. All hay or straw used for mulching, erosion control, or other rehabilitation purposes will be weed
free (per the Wallowa-Whitman INWMP protocol).
11. All equipment to be operated on the project area will be cleaned in a manner sufficient to prevent
noxious weeds from being carried onto the project area. This requirement does not apply to
passenger vehicles or other equipment used exclusively on roads. Cleaning, if needed, will occur
44
off of National Forest System lands. Cleaning will be inspected and approved by the Forest
Officer in charge of administering the project.
J) Water and Material Sources
Material sources, if needed, will be existing sources. No expansion of sources is anticipated. All work
will stay within existing source boundaries. The following rock pits have been identified for project use
pending noxious weed inventories:
Table 14. Rock source locations
Pit Name Legal
Location Road Access Type of Material
Cougar Ridge – Empire Gulch
T7S, R44E, Sec. 20 NW ¼
7015075
MP 0.3 Crushed, pit-run, grid-roll, rip-rap
Snow Fork #1 T7S, R44E,
Sec. 14 NW ¼ 7735175
MP 1.7 Crushed, pit-run, grid-roll
Snow Fork #2 T7S, R44E,
Sec. 14 SW ¼ 7735185
MP 0.1 Crushed, pit-run, grid-roll
Lily White T7S, R44E,
Sec. 7 SW ¼ 7020160
MP0.1 Pit-run, grid-roll
Dempsey T7S, R44E,
Sec. 30 NE ¼ 7700060
MP 0.2 Crushed, Pit run, grid-roll, rip-rap
Water sources will be designated from the Whitman Ranger Districts Water Source Inventories.
A limited use water license should be obtained from the Oregon State Water Resources Department prior
to any use of water from a stream. The streams that could potentially be used are: Eagle Creek, Little
Eagle Creek, Paddy Creek, Lily White Spring, and Snow Fork Creek. Streams considered for use in this
project would need the appropriate permits and licenses to be obtained. Use of any water source, other
than a commercial supplier, would be required to use of screens on the drafting equipment.
K) Cultural Resource Protection Mitigation Measures
Several existing historic and prehistoric sites are located within the project area. Sites requiring
protection have been mapped and avoidance areas and buffer zones for site protection for Sparta
Vegetation Management Project activities will be flagged by the WWNF South Zone Archaeologist prior
to the onset of project activities. Activities are excluded from any known archaeological sites, except on
established (open) roads; or allowed with coordination with the archaeologist and consulted upon with the
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Historic sites that could potentially be damaged by fire or associated preparatory activities will be avoided
and/or protected. During the layout and development of prescribed burn plans, district fuels specialists
will work with forest heritage staff to determine the location and appropriate protection measures for
known heritage sites.
Wooden structures are at the greatest risk of damage or loss during burning activities. In order to
eliminate the risk of damage from fire an appropriately sized buffer zone around structures will be
excluded from areas to be burned. Depending upon the size of the buffer zone and the fire behavior
anticipated and observed during burning operations, additional protection from embers may also be
required. In some instances unit boundaries will be modified to provide the necessary buffer zone, in
45
others fire control methods will be identified and applied prior to or during burn operations in order to
prevent fire spread into buffer zones. Fire control methods include the construction of control lines, by
hand or with machinery, around historic sites (generally done prior to burning) and the use of wetlines,
hoselays, engines or hand crews to prevent fire spread into buffer zones. If previously unknown historic
sites are identified during implementation of burning, protection actions will be developed and
implemented, including if necessary the delay of burn activities.
Linear features and other historic evidence of human occupancy are at risk of some damage during
burning activities, generally through the construction of control lines. Linear features will be identified in
burn plans. Pre-burn fireline construction will be limited to the use of handlines and/or wetlines where
potential exists to impact historic linear features. A dozer boss will be present to assist in identifying and
avoiding historic sites when machinery is used in fireline construction.
Water Transportation Ditches (Sparta, Brooks, No Name (adjacent to Eagle Creek) Ditch)
1) No machinery within 50 feet from the center of the ditch in either direction.
2) No trees will be marked for harvest on the ditch; this includes dead or green trees.
3) No new crossings or landings on the ditch without the Zone Archaeologist review or
agreement.
4) Trees adjacent to the ditch will be directionally felled away from the ditch. If trees cannot be
felled away from the ditch, they will be left.
5) Any tree which falls on the ditch will be left, until the District Archaeologist can review the
area.
6) Hand bucking and piling of slash will be the only method used within the ditch corridor.
Slash may be hand piled immediately adjacent to, but not within the ditch.
7) Prescribed burning will only be used if no wooden features are present. No fire line other than
light hand line should be constructed within the ditch corridor.
8) Tree planting may occur up to within five feet of the sides of the ditch, but no closer, nor
within the ditch itself.
It is recognized that even the most intensive field surveys may not locate all heritage sites therefore:
If cultural resources are located/relocated during implementation of any of the action alternatives,
work will be halted and the District Archaeologist will be notified. The cultural resource will be
evaluated and a mitigation plan developed in consultation with the Oregon SHPO if necessary.
If paleontological resources are located or relocated during implementation of any of the action
alternatives, work will be halted and the Forest Geologist/Paleontology Staff will be notified.
Tractor units (115 and 118) will have the most effect to potential paleontological resources if
tractors were continually running over outcrops. Rubber tired or tracked tractors need to be used
to prevent fracturing and crushing of the bedrock and therefore the vertebrate fossils inside. A
paleontological trained person will be on site to observe temporary road building (T-10) in tractor
units that are partially or entirely within the Martin Bridge Limestone (Units 115 and 118).
During timber sale activities such as skidding and cross country travel, all limestone outcrops
should be avoided and a paleontological trained person should be notified during work in the
above units to do spot checking.
Three small road segments (7735084, 7735086, and 7735087) ranging in length from 0.08 to 0.16
miles in length are proposed for decommissioning in Alternatives 2 and 3. These road may be
46
decommissioned; however, no ripping would be permitted. Placement of down wood or large
rocks and boulders would be allowed.
(Should further ground disturbing actions take place outside the proposed temporary roads and
tractor units, or other activities come in contact and cut into bedrock, a Forest Service
paleontologist will be contacted to determine if the resources on site will be impacted. If
paleontological resources are found to be impacted during vegetation management activities, a
survey will be required and further conservation strategies will be developed.)
L) Recreation
Maintain the character of dispersed camping sites by cleaning up project-created slash. Maintain access
to dispersed sites on roads to be left open. Leave adequate space for camping at the point where roads are
closed.
M) Scenery Management Mitigation Measures
Screen landings from Forest roads 77, 7015, 7735, and the Martin Bridge Trail.
Limit naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 5 to 10 acres in size with blended edges in areas of
Retention and Partial Retention in both Middle and Background from Forest roads 77, 70, 7015, 7725,
and 7735.
New temporary roads and landings may be evident but must remain subordinate to the shape and pattern
of the natural appearing forest canopy. In areas of Retention and Partial Retention foreground from Forest
roads 77, 70, 7015, 7020, and 7735.
In areas of Retention and Partial Retention in both Middle and Background from Forest roads 77, 70,
7015, 7020, 7725, and 7735 foreground clearings (not to exceed 2 acres) should not be used frequently
but can be used in specific circumstances to treat insect or disease infestations, or to open views to scenic
attributes such as rock formations, large ponderosa pine or components, or views to distant mountain
peaks.
In areas of Retention foreground as seen from Forest roads 77, 70, 7015, 7020, 7725, and 7735 skid
patterns, slash, soil exposure and stumps should be visually minor or unnoticed (4” maximum height of
stumps).
Cut stumps at a height less than 4” that are within 100’ of Forest road 77 within the Wild and Scenic
River Corridor.
Slash piles shall not be located within the immediate Foreground, (100’) of Forest roads 77, 7015, 7020,
7735, and the Martin Bridge Trail.
After burning piles within landings, scatter residue of burn piles and seed area within the areas of
Foreground.
N) Improvement-Mitigation Measures with KV or Appropriated Funds
The following projects and opportunities have been identified as possible candidates to receive funding
under the Knutsen-Vandenburg Act. These are commonly referred to as KV funds and are collected from
the sale of timber. If KV funds are limited, appropriated funding would be pursued for the implementation
of these activities. KV/Sale Area Improvement (SAI) projects associated with the implementation of
47
Alternatives 2 and 3 are analyzed for environmental effects in the Environmental Impacts section of this
document.
The following projects were identified by the ID team and prioritized in the following order:
ESSENTIAL KV – None
MITIGATION (Non-essential KV - in order of priority)
A. Noxious weed control - Grass seeding, control, and monitoring.
Control – Treat existing invasive populations within units (hand work, chemical,
mechanical or biological)
Alternative 2 = 99.1 acres @ $175/acre - $17,343
Alternative 3 = 84.4 acres @ $175/acre - $14,770
Monitor KV Work – Monitor effectiveness of 50% of treated populations for 3
years.
Alternative 2 = 50 acres @ $25/acre - $1,250
Alternative 3 = 42 acres @ $25/acre - $1,050
ENHANCEMENT (in order of priority)
A. Non-commercial thinning within tractor harvest units
Alternative 2 – 3,428 acres @ $150/acre = $514,200
Alternative 3 – 2,078 acres @ $150/acre = $311,700
B. Grapple piling of non-commercial thinning slash in tractor harvest units
Alternative 2 – 1,668 acres @ $200/acre = $333,600
Alternative 3 – 1,540 acres @ $200/acre = $308,000
C. Non-commercial thinning units
Alternative 2 – 1,362 acres @ $150/acre = $204,300
Alternative 3 – 1,510 acres @ $150/acre = $226,500
D. Grapple piling in non-commercial treatment units
Alternative 2 – 625 acres @ $150/acre = $93,750
Alternative 3 – 710 acres @ $150/acre = $106,500
E. Snag Creation
Alternatives 2 and 3 – 168 trees @ $10.25/tree = $1,722
F. Road Decommissioning of roads no longer needed
Alternatives 2 and 3 – 6.94 miles @ $5,000/mile = $34,700
G. Revegetation of decommissioned roads with native seed
Alternatives 2 and 3 – 6.94 miles @ $250/mile = $1,735
48
H. Aspen Enhancement Work (felling of conifer trees and fencing)
Alternative 2 – 14 acres @ $1,523/acre = $21,364
Alternative 3 – 13 acres @ $1,523/acre = $19,799
I. Closure of Roads not used in Sale Activities
Alternative 3 – 8.98 miles @ $1,500/mile = $13,470
J. Bridge Reconstruction Work
Alternatives 2 and 3 – Replace/reconstruct 1 bridge @ $150,000
Reconstruct 2 bridge abutments @ $20,000
K. Non-commercial thinning in skyline harvest units
Alternative 2 – 569 acres @ $150/acre = $85,350
Alternative 3 – 323 acres @ $150/acre = $48,450
L. Monitor and treat noxious weeds outside of activity areas in project area*
Alternative 2 – Treat 179 acres @ $175/acre = $31,325
Alternative 3 – Treat 186 acres @ $175/acre = $32,550
Alternative 2 – Monitor 90 acres @ $25/acre = $2,250
Alternative 3 – Monitor 93 acres @ $25/acre = $2,325
*Weed treatments are implemented as part of the district program, authorized under the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plants Treatment Project (WWNF 2010).
M. Watershed Enhancement Road Work (Culvert removal and road reconstruction)
Alternatives 2 and 3:
a) Road Reconstruction = 1 mile @ $15,450/mile = $15,450
b) Culvert Removal = 2 culverts @ $750/culvert = $1,500
49
Sparta - Alternatives at a Glance
Table 15. Alternative Overview
Alternative Elements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Project Area Boundary (PAB) Acres 17,951 Acres
Subwatersheds: Paddy-Eagle Creek Little Eagle Creek
13,332 Acres 4,619 Acres
WUI Acres: Carson/Pine Valley WUI Surprise Springs WUI Sparta WUI Total WUI Acres
1,113 2,214 8,529
11,856
Total Harvest/Noncommercial Treatment Acres 0 5,775 5,291
Harvest Treatment Acres (total) 0 4,413 3,781
Total Acres Treated by Prescription Type (Commercial)
HTH 0 4,196 3,600
HOR 0 217 181
Noncommercial Treatments 0 1,362 1,510
Total Acres Treated by Prescription Type (Noncommercial)
PCT 0 1,362 1,510
Underburn 0 1,331 1,400
Grapple Pile 0 625 710
Hand Pile 0 38 70
Post-Harvest Treatment Activities
Post-Harvest Treatment Activities (Acres)
Precommercial Thinning 0 3,997 3,401
Underburn 0 4,196 3.476
Grapple Pile 0 1,668 1,540
Hand Pile 0 81 52
Prescribed Fire (Acres) Total Burn Block Area 0 4,793 4,543
Treatments within RHCAs (Acres)
Commercial Harvest Treatments 0 32.59 0
Logging Systems: Tractor Forwarder
0
4.32 28.27
0
Yarding Systems (Acres)
Tractor/WTY 0 2,715 2,324
Skyline/LTA 0 569 323
Forwarder/CTL 0 1,129 1,134
Road Work (Miles)
Reconstruction 0 26.6 25.7
Temporary Roads - Total
Miles on Existing
Miles of New
0 2.9
0.34 2.56
0.34 0.34
0
Miles of Closed Roads Opened 0 47.6 42.6
50
Alternative Elements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Decommissioning 0 6.94 6.94
Miles of Roads with an Objective to be Closed to be Left Open
0.63 4.17 0
Miles of Currently Open Roads to be Closed
0 8.98 12.27
Enhancement/Safety Work
Danger Tree Removal No Yes Yes
Aspen Restoration (Acres) 0 14 13
Harvest Volume in million board feet (MMBF)
Sawtimber Volume 0 21.2 17.5
Non-Saw Volume 0 1.6 1.4
Total Volume (MMBF) 0 22.8 18.9
51
Comparison of How the Alternatives Respond to the Key Issues
The following table compares each alternative with the key issues and key indicators identified in the
public involvement section of this EA.
Table 16. Alternative Comparisons
Comparison Factors Alternatives
Key Issue Key Indicator(s) 1 2 3
Improvement of Long Term Forest Health Conditions & Sustainability
Percent Change in Moist PVG Stand Structures from HRV
SI
SE
UR
OFMS
OFSS
HRV
20-30
20-30
10-20
10-20
15-20
3
13
56
26
3
3
15
54
25.5
3.5
3
14
55
26
3
Percent Change in Dry PVG Stand Structures from HRV
SI
SE
UR
OFMS
OFSS
HRV
15-25
10-20
5-10
5-15
40-60
5
22
52
16
5
5
40
34
14
7
5
40
34
16
5
Percent Change in Tree Densities from HRV in Dry PVG
Open Canopy Closure
Closed Canopy Closure
HRV
80-90
5-20
31
66
72
26
55
42
Percent Change in Tree Densities from HRV in Moist PVG
Open Canopy Closure
Closed Canopy Closure
HRV
30-40
60-80
24
76
35
65
29
71
Percent Change in Tree Species Composition from HRV Dry PVG
Early Seral
Mid Seral
Late Seral
HRV
75-90
N/A
5-20
54
NA
43
69
NA
28
67
NA
30
Percent Change in Tree Species Composition from HRV Moist PVG
Early Seral
Mid Seral
Late Seral
HRV
30-60
20-40
10-30
22
42
36
32
36
32
23
42
36
Acres of Aspen Restoration 0 14 13
Fire Behavior Potential
Crown Fire Potential - % Seral Stage Susceptible to Crown Fire
Stand Initiation
Stem Exclusion
Understory Re-initiation
Old Forest Multi-Stratum
Old Forest Single Stratum
20%
30%
50%
70%
10%
40%
10%
10%
10%
10%
40%
10%
10%
10%
10%
52
Comparison Factors Alternatives
Key Issue Key Indicator(s) 1 2 3
Percent of Area with Mod-High Crown Fire Potential
66% 36% 38%
Flame Length (feet)
% Area w/flame lengths >4 feet
2-6
95%
2
62%
2
65%
Surface Fuel Loading (tons/acre <3” diameter)
% Area w/Fuel Loadings >30 tons/acres
30-80
95%
20
61%
20
65%
Landscape FRCC Departure – (% departure from FRCC reference conditions)
55% 42% 45%
Old Growth
Acres of OFMS restored to OFSS
Dry OFSS Percent HRV
Dry OFSS Percent Post-Harvest
0
40-60
5
526
40-60
8
0
40-60
5
Economics
Benefit/Cost Ratio of Timber Sale and Related Projects
0 1.17 1.12
Timber Harvest Jobs Created 0 21 17
Non-commercial Thinning Jobs Created 0 21 19
Road Access Miles of New Temporary Road Constructed 0 2.56 0
Miles of Temp Road on Existing Tracks 0 0.34 0.34
Miles of Road Reconstruction 0 26.6 25.7
Miles of Closed Roads Opened for Project Use
0 47.6 42.6
Miles of Roads to Remain Open In Project Area
71.2 62.22 58.93
Miles of Currently Open Roads to be Closed 0 8.98 12.27
53
Monitoring Plan Monitoring specific to project activities, and not in conjunction with research studies, would be
accomplished to assure that activities conform to objectives of the Forest Plan. Project level monitoring
is a component of Forest Plan monitoring. The following types of monitoring will be accomplished:
Implementation Monitoring - Are mitigation measures and BMPs being implemented as planned?
For example, monitoring of sale layout and timber designation will occur to assure proper application of
all identified resource objectives, constraints, and mitigation measures. Monitoring will also consist of
timber sale contract administration and firewood cutting utilization and effects to ensure that all required
mitigation measures are properly implemented and are effective.
Included in the monitoring activities is compliance monitoring of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive species (PETS). If PETS species are discovered in the area during project activity they will be
protected in accordance with appropriate contract provisions. Additional site monitoring by the district
fisheries and watershed staff during road construction, pre-sale layout and marking, and timber harvest
will be undertaken to assure compliance with water quality standards, hydrology, and soil parameters.
Effectiveness Monitoring - Did mitigation and protection measures result in desired effects?
A walk-through survey of the project area during implementation and after sale closure will be conducted
to qualitatively monitor on-site and downstream effects of project implementation.
If monitoring shows that mitigation measures of BMP's are not being implemented as planned or are not
being effective in meeting resource objectives, activities will cease or be modified to correct problems.
Botany
a. Monitor known sites for five years to detect changes in population levels and plant community
composition of Carex cordillerana.
Fuels Treatments - Fuels treatment effectiveness will be monitored using the Region 6 fuels monitoring
protocol, currently under development. The protocol uses a three tiered system, involving a combination
of short and long term monitoring techniques. All level 3 monitoring should be integrated with other
resources. Final results will be documented using Fuels Quick Monitor or its replacement. A complete
description of the Region 6 fuels monitoring protocol can be found in the Sparta Analysis File.
Intensity Level 1
Required Compliance: 100% of all treatment units
Task and Method: Map treatment unit footprint within agency-established GIS systems,
protocols, and data standards, including metadata.
Intensity Level 2
Required compliance level: 10% of treatment units
Task: qualitatively assess whether the treatment created the desired vegetation structure and
species composition specified in the applicable NEPA decision document and project design and
whether the direct effects of the treatment were acceptable.
Minimum Standard: a pre- and post-treatment walk through and report describing pre- and post-
treatment conditions and how these relate to the prescribed conditions and direct effects.
54
Intensity Level 3
Required compliance level: situation specific
Level 3 monitoring may occur under any of the following circumstances:
The project or its expected effects are controversial, or
The expected project effects are at least moderately uncertain, or
The activity or treatment is new relative to the unit or ecosystem, or
The treatment is complex (more than 3 activities in combination), and
The treatment area is accessible by road or short (<1 mile) hike.
There may be other conditions that would trigger the need for Level 3 monitoring. Some Level 3
monitoring may occur as a check on the accuracy of Level 2 monitoring.
Task: quantitatively assess whether the treatment created the desired vegetation structure and
species composition specified in the applicable NEPA decision document and project design and
whether the direct effects of the treatment were acceptable.
Minimum Standard: follow established protocols and standards when using an existing method,
such as a stand exam or range plot. For FIREMON plots, establish a minimum of two permanent
plots in the treatment unit. Sample only vegetation/fuels or direct treatment effects relevant to the
specific treatment objectives or constraints on allowable impacts.
Prescribed Burning Monitoring
a. Fire Management will conduct monitoring of the prescribed burned acres in accordance with
‘Monitoring Fuels Treatments on FS/BLM-Managed Lands in Oregon and Washington’
b. Smoke Dispersal Monitoring – The Prescribed Fire Manager or Burn Boss will take nephelometer
site readings as well as visual observation to measure implementation and effectiveness
monitoring results.
Noxious Weeds - The following elements will be monitored and documented; for a list of the species and
the responsible person, refer to the Invasive Species Report in the analysis file:
Table 17. Noxious Weed Monitoring
Type Activity Monitored Frequency and Timing
Responsible Person
Implementation
Noxious weed inspections, equipment cleaning, weed infestation avoidance, weed inventory, documentation and communication.
Prior to move onto NFS lands and during active operations near noxious weed infestations.
Contract Administrator
Effectiveness Noxious weed survey and inventory
Annually for 3 years following project end.
Zone Invasive Plant Coordinator
Implementation Broadcast seeding of disturbed soils (landing piles, temporary roads, and skid trails)
Within the seeding period following soil disturbance
Sale Administrator and Road Maintenance Foreman or COR
Implementation Road rock sources, pits and/or quarry noxious weed inspections
Prior to use for road construction, reconstruction or maintenance
Zone Invasive Plant Coordinator; Zone Engineer
Implementation Noxious weed avoidance while prescribed burning
Included in burn plans prior to burn approval
Burn Plan Coordinator
55
Fisheries and Watershed - The following is a list of monitoring activities for fisheries and watershed
resources, which have been or will be implemented prior to and following the completion of the project.
These activities will provide information on evaluation of the sale and for future planning of projects in
the area.
a. Monitor the project to ensure that all standards and guidelines in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest
Plan are met through implementation of mitigation measures as identified by the interdisciplinary
team.
b. Pre-project monitoring for each Forest Management project includes on the ground survey of the
project area, and the proposed treatment units. Monitoring of the proposed treatment units
includes survey of any stream channels, RHCAs, slope stability, and general riparian vegetation
characteristics.
c. Monitor the implementation of RHCA buffers on streams and wetland to determine the proper
buffer widths were adhered to.
d. Monitoring of the implementation of the project and protection measures will take place
throughout the life of the project by the TSA and Watershed Specialist. For example, if an intense
thunderstorm caused overland flow and subsequent excessive soil displacement or sediment
production, harvest operations would cease until the soil moisture decreased or protection
measures were complete. Potential effects from log haul on roads which parallel RHCAs will be
monitored throughout the life of the project by the TSA and Watershed Specialist. Timber harvest
operations would be halted if adverse impacts are observed at any point during the operation.
e. Post-harvest activities will be monitored to ensure that guidelines to minimize soil disturbance are
being followed. Site preparation activities such as area subsoiling/scarifying and burning will be
monitored to ensure the purpose is achieved without causing additional soil damage.
f. Post-project effectiveness monitoring includes implementation and effectiveness monitoring to
determine if applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures were
effective in meeting soil and water resource protection
Soils - Monitoring would be undertaken to:
a. Ensure that best management practices and mitigating measures incorporated into the sale are
being followed. Effectiveness monitoring of BMPs will take place during and after project
activities for a percentage of units. BMP implementation monitoring which is evaluation of
whether BMPs are used during the project is also going to take place. This monitoring will be
carried out by the timber sale administrator, or by the district hydrologist or soil scientist.
b. Determine if these practices and measures are adequate to meet the intent of management
directives.
Monitoring of sale layout and contract administration will be undertaken to ensure proper
application of all identified constraints and mitigating measures. Ground-based harvest units will
be monitored to ensure adequate spacing between skid trails, restriction of equipment to skid
trails, prevention of wet weather yarding, and effective subsoiling of compacted skid trails and
landings.
Post-harvest activities will be monitored to ensure that guidelines to minimize soil disturbance are
being followed and DSC levels remain within Forest Plan standards. Site preparation activities
56
such as area subsoiling and burning will be monitored to ensure the purpose is achieved without
causing additional soil damage.
Special emphasis for monitoring is recommended for the following units: Units 4, 54, 66, 67, and
81 all have high sediment delivery potential and are either tractor and/or machine pile units.
Units 32, 48, 87, 91, 92, 96, 104, 115, 117, 118, 113, 140 and 152 all have high risk for soil
erosion when disturbed and are either tractor and/or machine pile units. These units listed should
receive special attention during treatment to reduce the potential for surface erosion and sediment
delivery. It is recommended that additional BMP effectiveness monitoring take place during
project implementation in these units, with a special emphasis on proper water bar construction
and spacing.
Range – Monitoring would be undertaken to:
Type Activity Monitored Frequency and Timing
Responsible Person
Implementation All activities to avoid damage to range improvements
Daily during active operations.
Sale Administrator FMO
Effectiveness Forage Utilization and administration to standard
Following treatment in active pastures
Range Manager
Effectiveness Burning activity Following prescribed fuels treatments
Fuels management
Heritage/Paleontology
a. Monitor any known heritage sites receiving protective treatments upon completion of the project
to assure the preservation and protection of the heritage resources and determine the success of
the proposed treatments.
b. Monitor temporary road construction (T-10) in units that are partially or entirely within the
Martin Bridge Limestone.
c. Monitor utilizing spot checks in units (115, 116, 118) that are partially or entirely with the Martin
Bridge Limestone.
Timber/Silviculture
a. Implementation monitoring to verify silviculture prescriptions, vegetation response, landscape
change (HRV) will be completed by the project/District silviculturist and Fuels planner. Visual
reconnaissance during sale preparation, harvesting, and implementation of thinning, burning, and
reforestation activities. Harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire units would receive a field
examination to assess implementation and to update the vegetation database.
Recreation
a. Timber sale administration will monitor dispersed recreation sites to ensure no project activities
occur within the site or the 25 foot buffer.
Scenery/Visuals
a. Monitor stump and slash treatments within the immediate foreground of concern of level 1 and 2
road segments.
Wildlife – Monitoring would be undertaken to:
57
a. Ensure adequate levels of snags and down logs are retained during logging operations and for one
year after logging by sale administration and wildlife personnel.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives To facilitate the reader’s understanding of the effects analysis, this chapter describes the current resource
conditions to provide a baseline for assessing effects associated with proposed activities. The No Action
Alternative (Alternative 1) and Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) are described in detail in
Proposed Action and Alternatives section, and a comparison of the alternatives is presented in the
Alternatives at a Glance table (Table 15). This discloses the anticipated environmental consequences of
the No Action and the Action Alternatives on various resources for which there are potential direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts. The effects analysis forms the basis of comparison of the alternatives
through evaluation of the key issues and select non-key issues.
The duration and geographic scale of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects varies, and is addressed by
each resource and subject area. In addition, the type of projects considered under the cumulative analysis
varies according to the resource and nature of project being considered. Key indicators will be used to
measure how each alternative responds to key issues. The effects will be discussed by resource or subject
area, with key issues and indicators addressed as appropriate.
For the purposes of this EA, the cumulative impacts are the sum of all past and present actions, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past activities are considered in the existing condition baseline for
this project. Present and reasonably foreseeable future activities on Forest Service, BLM, and private
lands are described in Appendix D of this EA. The purpose of the cumulative effects analysis in the EA is
to evaluate the significance of the No Action’s and Action Alternatives’ contributions to cumulative
impacts. A cumulative impact is defined under federal regulations as follows:
"...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result
from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time"
(40 CFR 1508.7).
The best available science is considered in preparation of this EA; however, what constitutes best
available science might vary over time and across scientific disciplines. As a general matter, we show
consideration of the best available science when we insure the scientific integrity of the discussions and
analyses in the project NEPA document. Specifically, this EA and the accompanying Project Record
identifies methods used, references reliable scientific sources, discusses responsible opposing views, and
discloses incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (See 40 CFR, 1502.9 (b),
1502.22, 1502.24).
The Project Record references all scientific information considered: papers, reports, literature reviews,
review citations, academic peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground-based
observations to validate best available science. This EA incorporates by reference (as per 40 CFR
1502.21) the Project Record, including specialist reports and other technical documentation. Analysis
was completed for the following resource areas: Silviculture, Wildlife, Botany, Proposed, Endangered,
Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species, Fire/Fuels, Economics, Soils, Watershed and Fisheries, Access
and Travel Management, Range, Noxious Weeds, Cultural/Heritage, and Recreation/Visuals. Information
58
from these reports has been summarized below in this Chapter. The Project Record is located at the
Whitman District Office.
This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action and alternatives for each impacted
resource.
Forest Health and Sustainability
Introduction
The area being evaluated is approximately 17,951 acres on National Forest System lands in the Eagle
Creek-Paddy, and Little Eagle Creek sub-watersheds. The project area is managed under the management
area direction for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(Richmond, 1990) as described under the Proposed Project Area description earlier in the EA.
Forest vegetation has changed over the past several decades of fire exclusion and selective removal of
large high value trees. In this analysis, forest vegetation is characterized in terms Potential Vegetation
and the ranges of variability (RV) for forest landscape structure, tree density, and tree species
composition. These factors determine a landscape’s susceptibility to disturbances; insects, disease, and
fire and therefore its degree of resiliency. Resiliency is defined as the ability of a social or ecological
system to absorb disturbance while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning. This report
does not analyze fire. However, fire will remain the over-riding disturbance on this landscape.
The key indicators used to measure the effects of implementing the alternatives analyzed in this project on
forest health and sustainability are:
Tree Species Composition – Percent change relative to HRV for tree species composition
Landscape Structure – Percent changes relative to HRV for structures
Tree Density – Percent change in HRV for open and closed stand densities
Aspen Restoration - Acres of aspen restoration accomplished
Existing Conditions
The affected environment consists of the forested vegetation within the Sparta Project Area, as described
by the following; tree density, tree species composition, landscape structure, susceptibility to insects and
disease, quaking aspen, and western juniper.
Potential Vegetation Groups (PVG)
Potential Vegetation Group Acres % of Forested Area
Dry Upland Forest 13,199 92
Moist Upland Forest 1,083 8
Total 14,282 100
Coniferous Potential Vegetation is displayed in 8 and Figure 3. It is comprised of Dry Upland Forest
(DUF) 13,199 acres and Moist Upland Forest (MUF) 1,083 acres. Twelve stands of quaking aspen were
located including those on upland and riparian sites.
59
Table 18. Sparta Vegetation Classification (acres)
Potential Vegetation Group Acres % of Forested Area
Dry Upland Forest 13,199 92
Moist Upland Forest 1,083 8
Total 14,282 100
Figure 3. Potential Vegetation Group Map for Sparta project area.
Quaking Aspen
Twelve quaking aspen
sites have been identified.
The health and
distribution of quaking
aspen has declined from
the lack of disturbance
over the past several
decades (Bartos). Due to
its extreme shade
intolerance (Baker),
quaking aspen conifer
invasion has reduced
survival, growth, and
development. Healthy
root systems are the
means by which aspen
regenerate and persist at a
particular site. Once the
root system of an aspen
stand dies out it is
unlikely that it would
return naturally. The
strict requirements for
aspen seed germination
(Maini) make the
establishment of new
aspen sites unlikely. A
stand reinitiating
disturbance is necessary
to restore the existing
aspen sites (Sheppard).
60
Past Management
Virtually the entire forested landscape has experienced past timber management. This is evident by timber
records, GIS past activities records, and stumps dating back as far as the early 1900s, old landings, and
skid trails. Stump evidence indicates timber harvest dating back to at least the 1920s.
Range of Variation (RV) Analysis
Assessments for the
Blue Mountains
province and Columbia
River Basin indicate that
if tree density, forest
structure, and species
composition are within
RV, then an upland
forest ecosystem could
be characterized as
healthy, sustainable, and
resilient. (Caraher, et al.,
1992) (Gast, et al.,
1991) (Lehmkuhl,
Hessburg, & Everett,
1994) (Quigley, Haynes,
& Graham, 1996).
To analyze the health,
sustainability, and
resiliency of the Sparta
Project Area, this
section displays the RV
analysis for forest
landscape structure, tree
density, tree species, and
susceptibility to insects
and disease.
Figure 4. Landscape structure map
Landscape Structure
The analysis area totals
30,021 acres and encompasses all of Little Eagle and Paddy-Eagle Creek subwatersheds. This area is
within the recommended size of 15,000 to 35,000 acres for landscape analysis (USDA Forest Service,
1995). A Historic Range of Variability (HRV) analysis was conducted for landscape structure. The results
are found in Table 19 and displayed on Figure 4.
The analysis shows the following:
Old Forest Single-stratum (OFSS) is below HRV
Old Forest Multi-strata (OFMS) is above HRV
61
Stand initiation (SI) is below HRV
Stem Exclusion (SE) is above in the DUF and below in the MUF
Understory Reinitiation (UR) is above HRV
The data reflects the past removal of large trees resulting in the lack of OFSS and fire exclusion resulting
in multi-story structures exceeding HRV and the lack of Stand Initiation.
Old Forest
Old forest stands were identified based on data from Forest Service Vegetation database (FSVEG). Stands
identified as old forest were then examined with a stand exam (USDA Forest Service, 2015) to insure they
met the old forest definition. Old Forest stands are defined by the Region Six Old Growth definitions
(USDA Forest Service, 1993). In this guide, old forest stands are defined by the number of live trees that
are 21” DBH or greater or the number of live trees that are 150 years of age or greater.
The age of an individual tree is determined at 4.5 feet above the ground on the high side
(http://www.fs.fed.us/nrm/fsveg/index.shtml). Trees of 150 years of age and greater would be identified
by characteristics, as defined in Van Pelt (Van Pelt, 2008). These stands are further delineated by stand
structure as Old Forest Multi Strata (OFMS) or Old Forest Single Strata (OFSS).
Table 19 shows that OFMS and OFSS comprise approximately 16% and 5% of the DUF respectively. The
historic condition was 5% to 15% for OFMS and 40% to 60% for OFSS. In the MUF, OFMS is currently
at approximately 26% and OFSS is at 3%. Historically OFMS was at 15% to 20% and OFSS was at 10%
to 20% within the MUF.
A large percentage of the old trees were harvested prior to the 1990s. This is evident by the lack of large
trees and the large diameter stumps that exist throughout the project area.
Table 19. Landscape Structure - HRV compared to existing condition for NFS within the Paddy-Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek Subwatersheds.
Structure Stage
Description
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest
HRV % Existing
(%) HRV %
Existing (%)
Stand Initiation (SI)
Following a stand-replacing disturbance growing space is occupied rapidly by vegetation that either survives the disturbance or colonizes the area. A single canopy stratum of tree seedlings and saplings is present in this stage.
15 - 25 5 20 - 30 3
Stem Exclusion (SE)
Trees initially grow fast and quickly occupy all of their growing space, competing strongly for sunlight and moisture. Because trees are tall and reduce light, understory plants (including smaller trees) are shaded and grow more slowly. Species needing sunlight usually die; shrubs and herbs may go dormant. In this stage, establishment of new trees is precluded by a lack of sunlight or by a lack of moisture.
10 - 20 22 20 - 30 13
Understory Reinitiation (UR)
As the forest develops, a new age class of trees eventually gets established after overstory trees begin to die or because they no longer fully occupy their growing space. Regrowth of understory seedlings and other vegetation then occurs, and trees begin to stratify into vertical layers. This stage consists of a low to moderate density overstory with small trees underneath.
5 - 10 52 10 - 20 56
Old Forest Multi Stratum (OFMS)
Multi-layer stands with old trees in the uppermost stratum. Snags and decayed fallen trees may also be present, leaving a discontinuous overstory canopy.
5 - 15 16 15 - 20 26
62
Structure Stage
Description
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest
HRV % Existing
(%) HRV %
Existing (%)
Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS)
A dominant single-layer with old trees in the uppermost stratum. A low stocking of understory trees may be present.
40 - 60 5 10 - 20 3
Tree Density
The Sparta project area is the analysis area for analyzing tree densities levels. Tree density levels for the
Sparta Project Area were estimated utilizing FSVEG data and the vegetation dynamics disturbance tool
(VDDT) modeling program for this localized area. Density levels are based on canopy closure percentage
by PVG (Countryman 2008 & 2011).
Tree Density Level Parameters
Dry Upland Forest
Open Stand: Less than -40% canopy closure
Closed Stand: Greater than 40% canopy closure
Moist Upland Forest
Open Stand: Less than 60% canopy closure
Closed Stand: Greater than 60% canopy closure
Results of the tree density analysis are summarized in Table 20 and depicted in Figure 5; show that the
Sparta dry upland forest PVG has 31% in open density and 66% in closed density and the moist upland
forest PVG has 24% in open density and 76% in closed density. This analysis indicates that closed density
forest exceeds the high end of the HRV range within the DUF PVG which encompasses the majority of
the project area. In closed density stands, individual tree diameter growth is suppressed due to
competition for site resources, primarily sunlight. Slow diameter growth; pre-disposes trees to successful
bark beetle attacks, delays reaching diameters that are fire resistant, and delays stand attainment of
becoming old forest. In mixed species closed density stands, shade intolerant species are at a competitive
disadvantage.
In addition, the percentage of the landscape in closed density may be underestimated due to the age of the
vegetation data from which it is derived and not accounting for tree growth since the date of data
collection.
Table 20. Tree density- Historic Range of Variability compared to existing condition.
Vegetation Cover Type
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest
HRV (%)
Existing (%)
HRV* (%)
Existing (%)
Open 80-90 31 30 - 40 24
Closed 5-20 66 60 - 80 76
Data Gap - 3 *Data is for all Moist Upland Forest Plant Associations. Those in Sparta are grand fir big huckleberry. The driest MUF plant association. Additionally, the Sparta MUF stands occur as islands surrounded by DUF. Therefore these HRVs may overstate Closed Density and understate Open Density.
Tree Species Composition
The Sparta project area is the analysis area for the tree species composition analysis.
A Range of Variability (RV) analysis was completed for species composition of the forest vegetation in
the project area (Table 21). The analysis describes species composition as seral stages. Seral stages were
adapted to describe tree species. The analysis depicts how the landscape looked in the past.
63
Within the DUF PVG, Douglas-fir and grand fir are considered late seral species while ponderosa pine is
an early seral species. Within the MUF PVG grand fir and Engelmann spruce are considered late seral
species and western larch, lodgepole and ponderosa pine (when present) are considered early seral
species. The concept of “seral species” here is described in terms of tolerance, to shade, fire, drought, and
the relative ability of a species to regenerate and establish new plants, and survive in a forested
environment.
Figure 5. Tree density map for Sparta Project Area.
For example, ponderosa pine
and western larch are very
intolerant to shading. These
species simply do not thrive if
the crowns are shaded. Grand
fir on the other hand is very
tolerant to shade, but can also
thrive in full sunlight.
Douglas-fir is considered
intermediate in shade
tolerance but will out compete
larch and ponderosa pine over
time. Conversely, at a young
age, grand fir and Douglas-fir
are intolerant of repeated
surface fire, whereas,
ponderosa pine and western
larch are much more tolerant.
Ponderosa pine and western
larch establish most
successfully following a
disturbance where there is
some level of bare mineral
soil, or less organic matter,
and good access to light. Such
conditions can be created by
fire or logging. These species
do not regenerate well in
forest environments that have
deep organic layers on the soil
and are at moderate to high
forest density. These are
characteristics of forests that have not had a disturbance for long periods of time. Grand fir, on the other
hand, establishes and thrives in open or shaded areas, bare mineral soil or deep organic layers.
In the grand fir vegetation series, due to the differences in tolerance to environmental factors and in the
absence of disturbance, grand fir will eventually succeed to dominance. Likewise, on Douglas-fir sites,
Douglas-fir will eventually become the dominant species. The succession of grand fir and Douglas-fir
would result in ponderosa pine and western larch eventually disappearing, or becoming very minor
components of the ecosystem. Due to the long history of disturbance on the landscape, particularly fire,
64
this has not occurred prior to human intervention. The primary form of human intervention affecting tree
species has been fire exclusion.
In an environment of high frequency disturbance, primarily fire, ponderosa pine and western larch have a
competitive advantage over grand-fir and to some extent Douglas-fir. This is why the forests of the Blue
Mountains were extensively dominated by ponderosa pine before European settlement (Munger, 1917).
Early seral species, in this context ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir on some sites, are able
to form stable, long lasting, large tree dominated stands referred to as Old Forest Structure (OF).
Historically on these sites frequent disturbance, usually fire, prevented the succession to grand fir.
Moist upland forest in the Sparta project area occurs as relatively small islands surrounded by Dry Upland
Forest (Figure 3). These islands would have similar fire occurrence and severity as the surrounding dry
upland forest (Fire and Fuels Report).
The species composition analysis below is a way to look at the landscape and determine its degree of
departure.
Description of Seral stages by PVG for HRV Comparison
Dry Upland Forest
Early seral- dominance of more shade intolerant species (ponderosa pine)
Mid seral- no mid seral stage within DUF
Late seral- shade tolerant species (Douglas-fir and grand fir) are dominate, more shade intolerant
species (ponderosa pine) may still be present in low numbers.
*Moist Upland Forest
Early seral- dominance of more shade intolerant species (western larch and lodgepole pine)
Mid seral- more shade tolerant species (Douglas-fir and Grand fir) are increasing and are
approaching equal proportions with shade intolerant species (western larch and lodgepole pine)
Late seral- shade tolerant species (grand fir and Engelmann spruce) are dominate, more shade
intolerant species (western larch, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir) may still be present in low
numbers.
Table 21. Tree species composition- Historic Range of Variability compared to existing condition.
Seral Stage
PVG
Dry Upland Forest *Moist Upland Forest
HRV% Existing HRV% Existing
Early 75 - 90 54 30 - 60 22
Mid NA NA 20 - 40 42
Late 5 - 20 43 10 - 30 36
Data Gap 3 *Data is for all Moist Upland Forest Plant Associations. Those in Sparta are grand fir big huckleberry. The driest MUF plant association. Additionally, the Sparta MUF stands occur as islands surrounded by DUF. Therefore tree species composition often closely resembles the adjacent DUF stands and contains ponderosa pine as a minor component in portions of these stands.
The hot/dry plant association group is comprised of ponderosa pine plant associations. In these groups
ponderosa pine is the only tree species. These sites cannot change into another seral stage. In the
warm/dry plant association group, species can change over time with and without disturbance to Douglas-
fir in the Douglas-fir Series, and to grand fir in the grand fir series. Table 21 shows that the Late Seral
stage is above HRV indicating that this portion of the landscape, without disturbance, is succeeding to
these species.
65
Insects and disease
Portions of the landscape have severe infections of dwarf mistletoe in one or more tree species including:
Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch. Indian Paint Fungus is common in large diameter grand
fir. Mortality from bark beetles, including Pine Engraver, Western Pine Beetle, and Mountain Pine Beetle
has been observed throughout the analysis area in patches of less than one acre (Sciarrino, 2016). The
following insect and disease susceptibility HRV analysis was performed for NFS lands within the Sparta
project area boundary. The methodology used is in the analysis file.
Susceptibility
Susceptibility is defined as a set of conditions that make a forest stand vulnerable to substantial injury by
insects or diseases. Susceptibility assessments do not predict when insects and diseases might reach
damaging levels; rather, they indicate whether stand conditions are conducive to declining forest health
and increasing levels of tree mortality caused by insect and disease organisms. (Hessburg, et al., 1999),
(Lehmkuhl J. F., Hessburg, Everett, Huff, & Ottmar, 1994).
Defoliating Insects
Principal defoliators in the Sparta project area are Spruce Budworm (SPBW) and Douglas-fir Tussock
Moth (DFTM). Conditions favoring these species are directly related to; presence of host species, multi-
story structure, tree density (Stoszek, Mika, Moore, & Oorne., 1981) (Kegley, Livingston, & Gibson,
1997).
Host species- The data in Table 21 indicates that the stands dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir (late
seral in DUF and mid seral in MUF), the primary hosts for SPBW and DFTM, are above HRV
contributing to defoliator susceptibility. Defoliators may be found in all plant associations except in the
ponderosa pine vegetation type which makes up only 3% of the DUF PVG.
Multi-story structure- The data in Table 19 shows that Understory Re-initiation and Old Forest Multi
Strata are above HRV contributing to defoliator susceptibility.
Tree density- The data in Table 20 indicates that Closed Density is above HRV in the DUF PVG
contributing to defoliator susceptibility across the majority of the project area.
Adding the factors together, stands dominated by host species, in multi-strata structures at high densities,
demonstrates that this project area is moderately to highly susceptibility to defoliators (Tables 22 and 23,
and Figure 5).
The level of Defoliator Susceptibility is rated at high across 26% of the DUF within the non-ponderosa
pine plan associations and 77% of the MUF within the project area (Tables 22 and 23). The higher
percentage within the MUF is primarily a function of the smaller area within that PVG relative to the
amount of multi-story structure compared to the large area within the DUF PVG. However, high
susceptibility levels are actually above HRV in the DUF and within HRV in the MUF.
Ponderosa Pine Bark Beetles
Principal Ponderosa pine bark beetles native to the Sparta project area are Western Pine and Pine
Engraver. Conditions favoring these species are directly related to an abundance of host species
(ponderosa pine) and high stand densities (Schmitt & Powell, 2005) (Miller & Keen, 1960) (Berryman &
Ferrell, 1988) (Schmitz & Gibson, 1996). Although ponderosa pine is not typically a major component of
Moist Upland Forest types it is found within portions of this PVG within the Sparta Project area due to
the isolated and scattered spatial arrangement of the PVG and the fact that it is surrounded by Dry Upland
Forest types. The presence of ponderosa pine within the MUF may suggest that these areas have moved
66
from a more open, dryer condition (more representative of DUF types) to a closed canopy MUF type in
the absence of disturbance (primarily fire).
Host species- Ponderosa pine is found throughout the analysis area.
Tree density- The data in Table 20 suggests that Closed Density is above HRV in the DUF PVG and
within HRV for the MUF. However, the density parameters for closed density are considerably higher
within the MUF than the DUF PVG. Due to the physiologic characteristics of ponderosa pine and the
relatively lower tolerance for high tree density the mere presence of the species within the MUF PVG
elevates the level of risk to beetle attack.
Figure 6. Defoliator’s Susceptibility
The level of Beetle
Susceptibility is
rated at high across
70% of the DUF and
77% of the MUF
within the project
area (Tables 22 and
23).
Disease
The presence of
dwarf mistletoe is
common throughout
the project area
affecting western
larch, Douglas-fir,
and ponderosa pine.
It occurs as low,
moderate, and
severe severity.
Dwarf mistletoe
severity consists of
its ability to spread
from tree to tree and
from stand to stand
and to intensify with
a single tree. The
presence of host
species, multi-story
structure, and closed
densities facilitates
spread and
intensification
(Hessburg, et al.,
1999), (Alexander &
Hawksworth, 1975)
(Roth, 1971)
(Hawksworth,
67
1965).
Fire is the only natural control of dwarf mistletoe. Prior to fire exclusion, fire reduced spread by reducing
susceptible tree densities and multi-strata structures and reduced Intensification by pruning lower crown
infections. Lower crown brooms are more susceptible to ignition due to density of foliage and the
tendency of needle fall to accumulate in them. Lower broom ignitions increased the chance of torching
and therefore mortality of the infected tree (Koonce, 1980), (Conklin & Armstrong, 2001).
Data in Tables 22 and 23, show that more of the landscape exhibits low susceptibility to insect and disease
agents prior to settlement. The current large percentage in High susceptibility indicates a landscape
developing into high susceptibility across all insect and disease factors. In addition, Moderate and High
susceptibility is likely under represented due to the age of the vegetation data on which this analysis is
based. Douglas-fir
dwarf mistletoe
(DFDMT)-
Douglas-fir is found
throughout the
project area.
Approximately 79%
of the acreage
within the DUF are
rated as highly
susceptible to
DFDMT. This is
well above HRV for
DUF. Within the
MUF, 87% of the
landscape rates as
highly susceptible.
This is also well
above HRV. Over
time, without
disturbance, the
spread and
intensification of
DFDMT can be
expected to increase
as Douglas-fir
increases.
Figure 7. Bark Beetle Susceptibility in Ponderosa pine
Western larch dwarf
mistletoe
(WLDMT)- Western
larch is only found
in the grand fir/big
huckleberry plant
association which is
within the MUF
68
type. This plant association covers approximately 3% of the forested landscape within the project area
and roughly 37% of the MUF within the project area (approximately 393 acres). Approximately 85% of
the acreage within this plant association within the MUF rates as high susceptibility. Over time, without
disturbance, the
presence of
WLDMT can be
expected to
decrease as larch
becomes less
prevalent due to
succession.
Ponderosa pine
dwarf mistletoe
(PPDMT)- This
mistletoe occurs
in all plant
associations.
Approximately
70% of the area
in DUF and 77%
of the MUF
currently rates as
highly
susceptible to
PPDMT. Over
time, without
disturbance, the
presence of
PPDMT can be
expected to
increase in the
ponderosa pine
plant
associations due
to spread and
intensification
and decrease in
the Douglas-fir
and grand fir
plant
associations as
ponderosa pine
becomes less
prevalent.
Figure 8. Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe Susceptibility
69
Figure 9. Ponderosa pine Dwarf Mistletoe Susceptibility
70
Table 22. Insects and Disease Susceptibility- Historic Range of Variability compared to existing condition in DUF PVGs.
Susceptibility in Dry Upland Forest (DUF)
Insect/Disease Low Moderate High
HRV % Existing
% HRV %
Existing %
HRV % Existing
%
Bark Beetles- ponderosa pine
35 - 75 <1 15 - 35 29 10 - 20 70
*Defoliators 40 - 85 71 15 - 30 3 5 - 15 26
Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe (DFDMT)
30 - 60 4 10 - 35 17 20 - 35 79
Ponderosa Pine Dwarf Mistletoe
71 <1 19 29 10 70
*Existing percentages for Defoliators are based on acreage within the susceptible plant associations (all except ponderosa pine) not total acreage of the DUF PVG
Table 23. Insects and Disease Susceptibility- Historic Range of Variability compared to existing condition in MUF PVGs.
Susceptibility in Moist Upland Forest (MUF)
Insect/Disease Low Moderate High
HRV % Existing
% HRV %
Existing %
HRV % Existing
%
Bark Beetles- ponderosa pine
30 - 65 1 15 - 30 22 15 - 35 77
Defoliators 5 - 20 21 20 - 30 2 35 - 80 77
Douglas-fir Dwarf Mistletoe
30 - 65 2 20 - 45 11 10 - 20 87
Ponderosa Pine Dwarf Mistletoe
71 1 19 22 10 77
*Western Larch Dwarf Mistletoe (WLDM)
5 - 20 5 15 - 40 10 40 - 70 85
HRVs from Schmitt and Powell, 2008 (Schmitt & Powell, 2012). For Ponderosa pine dwarf mistletoe, no range was available. The displayed historical vulnerability percentages are from GTR- 458. * Existing percentages for WLDM are based on acreage within the susceptible plant association (grand fir/big huckleberry) not total acreage of the MUF PVG.
Environmental Consequences
The environmental consequences to the affected environment result from implementation of the
alternative actions.
Methodology
The Sparta silvicultural analysis is based on vegetation data in the existing FSVEG database. This data
was gathered by Common Stand Exam (CSE) exams, R6 stand exams, walk-through observations, and
aerial photo interpretations. All but the CSE data is summarized data from the EVG vegetation database.
For this analysis, CSE field data was collected in 2013 from a variety of stand types and conditions
representative of the Sparta forested vegetation.
Analysis of the effects of implementing the alternatives in the Sparta project are based on the
implementation of the following:
Prescription features common to all action alternatives; and
Project design features
Prescription features are described in detail in the Silviculture Report in the Sparta Analysis File.
71
The silvicultural and fuels treatments are displayed in Table 15 (Alternatives at a Glance). Table 24
displays the treatments by Potential Vegetation Group (PVG).
Table 24. Treatments by potential vegetation group (acres).
Prescription Alternative
2 Alternative
3
Potential Vegetation Group
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Moist Upland Forest
Dry Upland Forest
NF Moist
Upland Forest
Dry Upland Forest
NF
HTH 4,196 3,600 103 4,011 82 0 3,528 72
HOR 217 181 0 217 0 0 181 0
PCT (not connected to harvest)
1,362 1,510 13 1,330 19 62 1,430 18
NF (non-forest) acres are non-forest inclusions in treatment units.
Assumptions
Existing vegetation conditions are outside of their historical ranges of variability (HRV) for species
composition, forest structure, and tree density. These factors result in the landscape’s increased
susceptibility to insects and disease. Climate change predictions present an opportunity for the project to
improve the landscape resiliency. Silviculture activities proposed for implementation in any action
alternative are designed to address these concerns.
The following indicators are used to assess pre-treatment and post-treatment trends for vegetation
conditions:
Forest Structural Stages – Percent change relative to historic ranges (HRV)
Tree Density Classes - Percent change Open and Closed Densities relative to HRV
Tree Species composition - Percent change relative to HRV
Insect Susceptibility - Percent change relative to HRV
Aspen restoration – Acres of aspen restoration accomplished
Species composition, forest structural stages, tree density factors combine to affect susceptibility of the
landscape to insects and diseases. Direct effects are assumed to occur only on the portion of the forest
vegetation affected environment included in Alternatives 2 and 3.
Landscape Structure Effects Methodology/Assumptions
The effects of the treatments in terms of HRV as they appear in Tables 26 and 27 were derived by
prescription as follows.
HTH: All UR stands treated with HTH were changed to SE. SE stands treated with HTH
remained SE.
HOR: HOR treatments are within stands containing a fully stocked understory or mid story and
scattered residual over story trees that are diseased or undesirable as seed trees. Landscape
structure levels remained the same after treatment.
PCT: All UR stands treated with PCT were changed to SE. SE stands treated with PCT remained
SE.
RXF: Stands treated solely with prescribed fire did not change the pre-treatment structure stage.
SI Stands: Treatments in SI did not change the pre-treatment structure stage.
72
Old Forest: HTH treatments in OFMS moved the pre-treatment structure stage to OFSS. OFSS
stands remain OFSS post-treatment for commercial or NCT treatments. Noncommercial
treatments in OFMS stands would remain OFMS post-treatment.
Tree Density effects methodology/assumptions
The effects of the treatments in terms of HRV as they appear in Table 28 were derived by prescription as
follows.
HTH/PCT: All acres with these prescriptions were changed to Open Density
HOR: HOR treatments are within stands containing a fully stocked understory or mid story and
scattered residual over story trees that are diseased or undesirable as seed trees. Landscape
structure levels remained the same after treatment.
RXF: Stands treated solely with prescribed fire did not change the pre-treatment structure stage.
Tree Species Composition effects methodology/assumptions
The effects of the treatments in terms of HRV as they appear in Table 29 were derived by prescription and
vegetation type as follows.
All commercial or non-commercial thinning treatments in the ponderosa pine plant association
group remained Early.
All commercial or non-commercial thinning treatments in the Douglas-fir and Grand fir plant
association groups that were Early pre-treatment, remained Early. All treatments that were Mid or
Late changed to Early.
Insect and Disease Susceptibility Effects Methodology/Assumptions
The predicted effects are a combination of the effects of structure, tree density, and seral stage.
All harvest and PCT treatments would reduce Moderate and High susceptibility to Low.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential effect on forest
vegetation:
Mechanical control lines for burning
Temporary Road on existing wheel tracks
Road Decommissioning
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction work
Bridge Abutment Reconstruction
Culvert Replacement
Road ROW Acquisition
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Forest Vegetation
Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative
Existing vegetation conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural
disturbance events that have affected this project area. Therefore, this analysis relies on current
73
environmental conditions as a proxy for impacts of past actions. Public scoping for this project did not
identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. In addition, the
Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, supporting this
approach regarding analysis of past actions. This memorandum stated that agencies can conduct an
adequate cumulative effects analysis using the existing condition as the aggregate effects of past actions.
Past actions, including timber harvest and fire exclusion, helped create existing conditions in the project
area. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would alter current forested vegetation
conditions of the project area.
Under this alternative, existing management would remain unchanged. Fire suppression can be expected
to continue and be successful at keeping fires small. Large fires would result when susceptible vegetation,
fuels, weather conditions, and multiple ignition events exceed initial attack capabilities. Current stand
processes could be expected to continue until a large-scale natural disturbance of insects or fire alters
conditions. The most likely large-scale event would create larger areas of stand replacement effects at
scales not seen in recent times.
No silvicultural activities are proposed for implementation in Alternative 1; therefore, there would be no
effects. The existing condition description describes the effects of No-action.
Scale of effects analysis. All effects analysis contained in this report pertain to all National Forest System
lands within the Sparta Analysis Area. In order to use Data Analyzer, stand characteristics from a large
area were used. This area appears on a map in the analysis file.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The description of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Alternatives 2 and 3 are generally the same.
The alternatives differ only in the number of acres each would implement; therefore, they will be
discussed together in the analysis below.
The direct effects on species composition, forest structural stages, and tree density are a consequence of
implementing the silvicultural activities such as: commercial thinning, overstory removal, aspen
restoration, and non-commercial thinning. Maps located in EA Appendices A and B show the locations of
the Alternative 2 and 3 activities in the project area.
Indirect effects consider the impact of implementing Alternatives 2 and 3 on the larger forest vegetation
affected environment in which they occur. The direct effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 implementation are
applied to the entire affected environment (forested vegetation in the Sparta project area) to estimate the
indirect effects.
A. Managing Landscape Structure
Old Forest
Lack of wildfire due to past suppression policies and efforts as well as a lack of forest management has
resulted in old forest structure classes outside of HRV ranges. Old Forest Multi Strata (OFMS) is slightly
higher than HRV and the Old Forest Single Strata (OFSS) structure type is drastically below HRV. Lack
of disturbance (natural or manmade) has resulted in an excess of stands with multi canopy layers and a
lack of stands with a more even aged, over story dominant structure. The resulting conditions consist of
elevated understory fuel levels (ladder fuels), increases in shade tolerant, late seral species and a lack of
more drought tolerant early seral species. These stand conditions have increased the risk of wildfire and
insect and disease outbreaks within the remaining old forest habitat. Proposed harvest and fuels reduction
treatments have the potential to reduce fire risk as well as insect and disease susceptibility and accelerate
the development of OFSS structure within the project area.
74
Proposed treatments include both commercial and non-commercial thinning followed by hand and
machine piling of slash and burning of the piles. Prescribed fire would occur over time to maintain
desirable conditions.
The proposed treatments are expected to result in improved resiliency to disturbance. Insect and disease
susceptibility would be reduced by reducing tree density, improving species composition, and reducing
dwarf mistletoe infection. Fire severity would be reduced by reducing the multi-story canopy profiles and
the depth of the duff layer, and by reducing competing understory trees.
The current structural condition of old forest stands can be improved by moving the landscape towards
HRV particularly in the OFSS structure class. This is expected to occur as a result of retaining the
remaining old trees, managing for characteristic tree species, improving the landscape’s resiliency and
reducing the amount of multi-story, over stocked stands. The time it takes the landscape to reach HRV can
be reduced by accelerating the diameter growth of the largest trees on a sufficient number of acres.
Approximately 16 % of the Paddy-Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek Subwatersheds is currently in
OFMS structure stage and approximately 4% is in the OFSS structural stage (across all PVGs). This
equates to approximately 4,676 and 1,052 acres respectfully. Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve
conditions across non-old forest stands as well as the current old forest stands. Approximately 5,055 and
4,938 acres of non-old forest stands for Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively would be improved by treatment
and put into a condition that would move them into old forest conditions over time. Approximately 716
and 353 acres of current old forest stands for Alternative 2 and 3 respectively would be enhanced by a
combination of treatments creating conditions that would be more resilient to disturbance increasing
sustainability of old forest conditions for a longer timeframe.
Table 25. Measurement indicators for old forest.
Measurement Indicator
Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Description
Acres of old forest restoration
716 353
Combination of commercial and non-commercial harvest as well as prescribed burning to reduce stocking levels, disease and susceptibility to fire. Treatments also increase growth rates of residual trees creating more large trees across the landscape over time.
Acres of improved conditions for stand development into old forest.
5,055 4,938
Managing tree density to improve resiliency to disturbance and the rate of large tree development. Managing tree species composition to improve resiliency to disturbance.
Structural Stages by PVG
There is currently an abundance of acreage in the UR phase and a large deficit in the SI phase (Table 19).
SE is slightly above HRV in the dry and below in the moist upland forest groups. OFSS is well below
HRV and OFMS is above HRV within both PVGs. These conditions can also be attributed to lack of
disturbance over time. Treatments included in Alternatives 2 and 3 would assist in moving these structural
stages toward HRV across the landscape.
Tables 26 and 27 show the direct effects of implementing the silvicultural activities associated with
Alternatives 2 and 3 in the dry and moist PVGs. The data exhibits the effects immediately after
implementation (implementation is assumed to begin in 2018). Within the DUF PVG SE would change
from 22% to 40% for Alternatives 2 and 3. UR would change from 52% to 34% under both alternatives.
OFMS moves from 16% to 14% under Alternative 2, but there is no change in Alternative 3. OFSS moves
from 5% to 7% in Alternative 2, but does not change under Alternative 3.
Within the MUF PVG SE would change from 13% to 15% and 14% under Alternatives 2 and 3
respectively. UR would change from 56% to 54% and 55% under Alternatives 2 and 3 respectively. There
75
is no change to the old forest structure stages under Alternative 3 and the changes under Alternative 2 are
less than 1% for both OFMS and OFSS.
In addition, the commercial thinning treatments are expected to create various size openings on the
canopy within both PVGs. These areas are not captured in the data below but would create small patches
of SI over time and assist in moving that structure stage toward HRV.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would only result in moving the OFMS structural stage to within HRV in the DUF
PVG immediately post-treatment. However, both alternatives create conditions that would enhance the
ability for these forested systems to move into HRV over time across all stages. Treatments would create
an immediate increase in SE acreage moving further away from HRV. However, this excess in SE and the
current surplus of UR would grow into OFSS and OFMS at a faster rate than untreated stands due to the
reduction in inter-tree competition as well as increased resiliency to disturbance. Future treatments
would be required to maintain the gains made by Sparta and to continue moving further towards HRV.
Table 26. Direct and Indirect changes in dry PVG HRVs with implementation of the alternatives expressed as % of 18,179 acres.
Alternative Percentages by Stand Structure (DUF)
SI SE UR OFMS OFSS
HRV 15 - 25 10 - 20 5 - 10 5 - 15 40 - 60
Alternative 1 5 22 52 16 5
Alternative 2 5 40 34 14 7
Alternative 3 5 40 34 16 5 SI: Stand Initiation, SE: Stem Exclusion, UR: Understory Reinitiation, OFMS: Old Forest Multi-stratum, OFSS: Old Forest Multi-Strata
Table 27. Direct and Indirect changes in moist PVG HRVs with implementation of the alternatives expressed as % of 4,511 acres.
Alternative Percentages by Stand Structure (MUF)
SI SE UR OFMS OFSS
HRV 20 - 30 20 - 30 10 - 20 10 - 20 15 - 20
Alternative 1 3 13 56 26 3
Alternative 2 3 15 54 25.5 3.5
Alternative 3 3 14 55 26 3
B. Managing Tree Density
Tree density classes are expected to change in response to implementation of silvicultural activities
proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3. Implementing the silvicultural activities is expected to cause a direct
effect of consistent reduction in tree density within the treatment units.
Table 28 shows the direct effects of implementing Alternatives 2 and 3 on tree density when spread across
the entire forest vegetation affected environment. As a result of implementation of the alternatives, the
tree density classes change. In Alternative 2, the open density class increases from 31% to 72% in the
DUF PVG and from 24% to 35% in the MUF PVG. There is a corresponding decrease in closed density
across both PVGs. In Alternative 3, the open density class increases from 31% to 55% in the DUF PVG
and 24% to 29% in the MUF PVG with a corresponding decrease in closed density across both PVGs.
Table 28. Direct and Indirect change in Tree Density HRV with implementation of the alternatives.
Alternatives
Percent Change in Tree Density
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest
Open Closed Open Closed
HRV 80 - 90 5-20 30 - 40 60 - 80
Alternative 1 31 66 24 76
76
Alternatives
Percent Change in Tree Density
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest
Open Closed Open Closed
Alternative 2 72 26 35 65
Alternative 3 55 42 29 71
These lower density levels decrease inter-tree competition for resources and subsequently increases stand
resiliency thru an increase in tree growth and vigor. These lower densities play a major factor in lowering
over all susceptibility to insect and disease agents as well as risk of stand replacement wildfire.
C. Tree Species Composition
Species composition, as represented using forest seral stages, is expected to change in response to
implementation of silvicultural activities proposed for Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 29). Changes to seral
stages vary by vegetation type. Treatments in the ponderosa pine vegetation type would not change seral
stage as ponderosa pine is the only tree species in this type. Treatments in the Douglas-fir and grand fir
vegetation types would change seral stage as the amount of shade tolerant species are reduced and amount
of shade intolerants is increased thru time. Table 29 shows that the Late and Mid (within MUF) seral
stages decrease with a corresponding increase in the Early seral stage.
Table 29 shows that the direct effects of implementing Alternatives 2 and 3 has indirect effects on species
composition when spread across the entire forest vegetation affected environment. The changes in seral
stage created by Alternatives 2 and 3 move the landscape towards HRV. This means the landscape’s tree
species composition is closer to that characteristic of the historical composition, improving the
landscape’s resilience to future disturbance.
Table 29. Direct and Indirect change in Tree Species Composition HRV with implementation of the alternatives.
Seral Stage Dry Upland Forest PVG
HRV% Alternative 1 Alternative 2 % Alternative 3 %
Early 75 - 90 54 69 67
Mid NA NA NA NA
Late 5 - 20 43 28 30
Moist Upland Forest PVG
Early 30-60 22 32 23
Mid 20-40 42 36 42
Late 10-30 36 32 36
D. Susceptibility to Insects and Disease
Susceptibility refers to the potential occurrence of a disturbance event (wildfire, insect outbreak, disease
epidemic, etc.) as related to inherent stand or site characteristics such as species composition, tree density,
and forest structure (Schmitt and Powell 2005).
Susceptibility amounts would be expected to change, by rating factor of high, moderate, or low as a result
of implementing the proposed silvicultural activities. Existing susceptibility is relatively high in the
Sparta project area for defoliators (consisting of western spruce budworm and Douglas-fir tussock moth),
bark beetles, and dwarf mistletoe.
Having an ecologically appropriate representation of insect and disease susceptibility well distributed
throughout the Sparta project area is a desired condition for forest vegetation. The information presented
in Table 30 and 31 suggests that implementing the Alternatives 2 or 3 would move a substantial
proportion of the treated acreage from a high or moderate susceptibility condition (the pre-treatment
condition) to a low condition (the post-treatment situation). The results presented in Table 30 and 31
77
suggest that the proposed silvicultural activities would reduce overall susceptibility. Maps of these post-
treatment analyses can also be found in Appendix B of the Silviculture Report in the Sparta Analysis File.
Susceptibility is typically measured by a forested systems’ vulnerability to sustaining substantial injury
from insects or disease agents. When the pattern, extent or intensity of disturbances exhibit significant
changes over the landscape there may be an indication of an impaired system (Sampson & Adams 1994).
Reducing overall susceptibility to ranges that are within or closer to HRV increases the ability of a stand
or landscape to withstand or respond to periodic disturbances more effectively (Powell 2010 & Johnson et
al. 1994).
Changes to the stand dynamics tree density, species composition and structural stage (multi or single
canopy layer) all act as direct influences to the susceptibility of the landscape to disturbance in the form
of insects and disease.
In addition, each insect and disease agent listed below continues to contribute to the level of susceptibility
or conversely the level of resilience of this landscape to disturbance. Each factor may act as a form of
disturbance alone or in combination with one another. Combining these factors intensifies the magnitude
of the disturbance and its effects on the landscape. The further away from HRV the landscape moves
(both in the level of susceptibility as listed in Tables 30 and 31 and in the stand dynamics listed above) the
more susceptible it becomes to significant injury during the disturbance process.
Bark Beetles
An important objective of the silvicultural activities is to address concerns related to insect and
disease susceptibility. Trees with increased insect or disease susceptibility often occur in dense
forests where they face greater competition for soil moisture, nutrients, and other resources.
Ponderosa pines in high-density stands have greater drought stress. These trees also have
decreased resistance to insect and pathogen attack (Kolb, Holmberg, Wagner, & Stone, 1998).
Western conifer forests experience periodic drought in response to recurring climate cycles
(Heyerdahl, Brubaker, & Agee, 2002), and trees growing in dense stands are thought to be
especially vulnerable to insect or disease attack and mortality during dry periods such as drought
(Smith, Rizzo, & North, 2005).
Once trees respond to a thinning (usually 3-5 years after treatment), their improved vigor
enhances beetle resistance (Christiansen, Waring, & Berryman, 1987) (Franceschi, Krokene,
Christiansen, & Krekling, 2005) (Kolb, Holmberg, Wagner, & Stone, 1998) (Mitchell & Martin,
1980). Thinning treatments contributing to high tree vigor levels could help forestall development
of outbreaks (Raffa & et.al., 2008).
Post-treatment tree density levels reaching the lower limit of the management zone stocking value
(Cochran, 1994) are expected to reduce insect and disease susceptibility to acceptable levels and
maintain higher diameter growth rates for longer periods of time than higher residual tree
densities.
The changes to tree density, species composition, and structure will have a positive effect on the
susceptibility to insects and disease. Tables 30 and 31 display the direct and indirect effects of the
alternatives. Within the DUF both alternatives reduce susceptibility to within HRV for the low
and moderate susceptibility levels. The high susceptibility is drastically reduced but still slightly
higher than HRV. Within the MUF susceptibility remains below HRV in the low susceptibility
level, moves to within HRV for the moderate and is still high in the high susceptibility category
under both action alternatives.
78
Although not all susceptibly levels are moved to within HRV with treatment, they are moved
closer to the HRV. Movement toward HRV will increase the resiliency of the stand to bark beetles
in comparison to no action alternative which would continue to move conditions away from HRV.
Tree density will have the greatest influence on bark beetle susceptibility. Under the no action
alternative tree densities will continue to increase over time increasing the susceptibility to beetle
attack.
Defoliators
Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the host tree species for defoliating insects. Grand fir would
be reduced in the warm/dry grand fir and cool/moist grand fir types. Douglas-fir would be
reduced in the above grand fir types as well as in the warm/moist Douglas-fir and warm/dry
Douglas-fir types. A reduction in host tree species would reduce the severity and extent of future
defoliator outbreaks. A characteristic tree species composition across the landscape would allow
for endemic populations of defoliators. Management through time would be required to maintain
shade intolerant tree species.
The acres of multistory stand structure (UR) would be reduced, as well as the contiguous area of
multistory conditions. This would reduce the spread of insects and limit the extent of future
outbreaks, as multistory stands are more susceptible to defoliation then single story stands.
(Wickman, 1978) (Williams, 1980) (Carlson C. E., 1987)
Thinning would reduce the ability of insects to travel from tree to tree by increasing the distance
between trees. This would reduce the spread of insects and therefore limit the extent of future
outbreaks (Carlson C. E., 1989).
Tables 30 and 31 display the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives. Within the DUF
Alternative 2 would maintain the low susceptibility level within HRV and move the high to
within HRV. The moderate level would remain below HRV. Under Alternative 3 the low
susceptibility level would remain within HRV while the moderate level remains below HRV and
the high level is still slightly above HRV.
Within the MUF the low susceptibility level is above HRV post treatment, moderate is below
HRV and the high remains within HRV for both alternatives.
Both alternatives move conditions toward HRV across both PVGs with the exception of the low
susceptibility level in the MUF. However, the reduction of the high and moderate susceptibility
levels play the most crucial role in increasing the landscapes resiliency to disturbance. Both
alternatives reduce susceptibility in the moderate and high categories.
Defoliator infestations do not always cause mortality within the stand or individual tree.
However, repeated attacks (successional years) on a large scale can cause mortality or reduce the
vigor of the stand and predispose to disease or attack by other insects.
Ponderosa pine (PP), Douglas-fir (DF), and Western larch (WL) dwarf mistletoe (DMLT)
Stand susceptibility to dwarf mistletoe, spread, and inter-tree and stand intensification is expected
to be reduced through removal of moderate to severely infected trees, spacing crowns, and
releasing understories from infected over-stories. Tables 30 and 31 show the direct effect of
treatments. It also shows the indirect effects of the treatments as they affect the landscape
reduction of high to moderate susceptibility and corresponding increase to low susceptibility that
would be achieved with implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3.
79
DFDMT within DUF: The low susceptibility level would move to within HRV, moderate would
remain below HRV and the high would be reduced but remain slightly above HRV for both action
alternatives.
DFDMT within MUF: The low and moderate susceptibility levels would remain below HRV
and the high would be reduced but remain above HRV for both action alternatives.
PPDMT in DUF & MUF for Alternatives 2 & 3: HRV is an average for this species. Therefore,
treatment results will indicate if susceptibility levels are moved toward those averages rather than
within a range. The low susceptibility level is drastically increased (particularly in the DUF)
however still remains below the historic average. The moderate level is reduced to near the
average historic level and the high is reduced but remains above the average.
WLDMT in DUF: Under Alternative 2 the low susceptibility level moves from slightly below
HRV to above HRV as a result of reducing the high and moderate levels. Moderate remains below
HRV and high is slightly above HRV. Under Alternative 3 the low is moved to within HRV,
moderate remains below HRV and high is slightly above HRV.
Reduction of dwarf mistletoe within the high and moderate susceptibility levels have the greatest
impact on reducing the overall susceptibility and level of disturbance and increasing resiliency of
the landscape to this disease. This is accomplished thru both action alternatives. Susceptibility is
not moved to within HRV across all PVGs, host species and susceptibility levels. However,
susceptibility proportions are moved closer to HRV in the high and moderate categories for all
host species. In the absence of treatment it is expected that the disease will continue to spread and
climb above HRV levels posing a threat to forest stand health and predisposing trees to other
disease, insect agents or wildfire.
Table 30. Direct and Indirect effects to Insect and Disease susceptibility in DUF
Insect and Disease
Existing % HRV % Alternative 2 % Alternative 3 %
L M H L M H L M H L M H
Bark Beetles
<1 29 70 35 - 75 15 - 35 10 - 20 43 17 40 42 24 35
Defoliators 71 3 26 40 - 85 15 - 30 5 - 15 84 1 15 83 < 1 17
DF DMT 4 17 79 30 - 60 10 - 35 20 - 35 45 8 47 42 8 50
PP DMT <1 29 70 71 19 10 43 17 40 39 18 43
Table 31. Direct and Indirect effects to Insect and Disease susceptibility in MUF
Insect and Disease
Existing % HRV % Alternative 2 % Alternative 3 %
L M H L M H L M H L M H
Bark Beetles
1 22 77 30 - 65 15 - 30 15 - 35 12 20 68 11 20 69
Defoliators 21 2 77 5 - 20 20 - 30 35 - 80 29 2 69 28 2 70
DF DMT 2 11 87 30 - 65 20 - 45 10 - 20 13 11 76 10 11 79
PP DMT 1 22 77 71 19 10 12 20 68 9 22 70
WL DMT 5 10 85 5 - 20 15 - 40 40 - 70 22 6 72 18 10 72
E. Quaking Aspen
Twelve aspen sites (14 acres) are treated under Alternative 2 and 11 (13 acres) under Alternative 3.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would remove all conifers except greater than or equal to 21” DBH and those
meeting old growth characteristics.
The health and viability of quaking aspen is expected to change as a result of the treatments implemented
in Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 32 shows the acres of aspen treated. Reduction of competing conifers will
80
immediately reduce competition for sunlight and soil moisture. As a result of the treatments, the existing
aspen are expected to survive and release following removal of competing conifers. The extent of the
aspen is expected to increase as the aspen root system spreads laterally and occupies additional suitable
area. Both would result from the improved condition of the root system. A healthy viable root system is
expected to respond to future fire with abundant reproduction.
Aspen Shoots and Roots
The aspen roots systems would respond to increased sunlight, soil warming, and soil moisture from the
reduction of the live conifer canopy. Aspen have the capability of 2 sprouts per inch of root. District
specialist’s experience with prior aspen restoration units, is that the growing season following conifer
removal, there would be root sprouting. Removal of the majority of the competing conifers would result
in high aspen growth rates (Huffman).
Available soil moisture would increase due to the reduction of conifers (Harper, 1981). This soil moisture
would be available to the aspen, as well as the surface flora beneath the aspen.
Increased soil moisture, sunlight, and soil warmth would rebuild the aspen roots systems allowing them to
aggressively respond to a future disturbance.
Aspen Overstory
Aspen trees would respond to increased sunlight and soil moisture depending upon their level of
deterioration. Aspen would increase live crown, roots, and diameter growth rates. Experience has shown
that aspen released from heavy conifer overstory may sunscald, experiencing crown die back and in some
cases death. Both these reactions have resulted in increased root sprouting.
Area of Aspen (acres)
Aspen would fill in any gaps within the present stand. In addition, aspen would spread laterally
colonizing adjacent ground. The area immediately around the aspen stems would be expected to be fully
occupied by aspen sprouts by the third growing season following conifer removal. During this period,
lateral expansion of the aspen stand would begin to occur. The extent of this expansion is site specific
depending on local soil and moisture conditions but district experience is that there is up to a 100%
increase in stand size. Assuming a modest 50% lateral expansion, the alternatives would result in an
additional 7 acres of aspen in Alternative 2 and 6 acres in Alternative 3.
Damage from Livestock and Big-Game
New shoots are currently being browsed by ungulates. The increased aspen health and new shoots
resulting from root sprouting would increase the palatability and desirability of aspen to deer, elk, and
livestock. Browsing by these species can result in unsuccessful aspen restoration. Deer and elk
browsing damage are limited to specific areas of the forest where these species concentrate for extended
periods of time. Where necessary, fencing would be used to protect aspen sites from browsing. Barbed
wire fencing would stop damage from livestock. Fences would be maintained for three to five years after
conifer removal. Big-game fences (buck and pole) would be used to stop damage in areas prone to elk
activity. These would be maintained for three to five years after conifer removal. At that point, the
fencing may be moved to another site or left in place.
Future Management
Removal of the majority of the conifers, reduction of fuels, and protection of aspen regeneration would
result in healthy aspen stands with viable root systems able to respond to future disturbance. Future
management of these sites would occur through periodic maintenance burning. Burning would occur by
81
matching the characteristic fire interval of the surrounding conifer forest. Burning would kill the above
ground aspen and initiate root sprouting, replicating the characteristic effects of fire. It would also be just
as important to reduce the number of invading conifer seedlings.
Table 32. Effects to Quaking Aspen
Aspen Restoration Alternative 2
(acres) Alternative 3
(acres)
Direct improvement of health and viability 14 13
Indirect additional acreage 7 6
Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects - When considering the direct and indirect effects of the
project‘s proposed actions on forest health, vegetation vigor, and ecosystem resilience (as reflected by
changes in species composition, forest structure, and tree density following implementation of proposed
actions), the effects are considered to be positive for forest health and sustainability. The estimated effects
for Alternatives 2 and 3 are considered to be positive when compared with those for Alternative 1.
Cumulative Effects on Forest Vegetation
Alternative 1
Because there would be no management of forest vegetation occur within the project area under this
alternative there would be no measureable cumulative effects from this alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Past actions and processes, including timber harvest, tree planting, prescribed fire, noncommercial
thinning, and the exclusion of wildfire, helped create existing conditions in the project area. Proposed
actions are designed to address the project‘s purpose and need by improving forest health, vegetation
vigor, and ecosystem resilience to fire, insects, and disease. Proposed silviculture activities respond to the
purpose and need by helping to move species composition, forest structure, and tree density towards their
historical ranges of variability.
Appendix D of the EA describes all of the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities that would
occur within the project area. There are no present (ongoing) or reasonably foreseeable future activities
that overlap in time and space with the Sparta project which would produce a measureable cumulative
effect on forest vegetation in the project area; therefore, there are no cumulative effects.
Consideration of Potential Effects of Climate Change
Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative
Under the No-action alternative, the project area is predicted, under internationally accepted climate
change scenarios, to experience a suite of effects including:
Extended growing seasons- more soil moisture demand by vegetation
Lower soil moistures- less available to vegetation
Increased late-season moisture stress on vegetation- increased susceptibility to disturbance.
The effects of climate changes if No-action is taken in the project area are highly uncertain. A warm and
dryer climate in western North America will likely affect forests directly through soil moisture stress and
indirectly through increased extent and severity of disturbances (McKenzie, 2009). Increases in fire
disturbance superimposed on forests with increased stress from drought and insects may have significant
effects on growth, regeneration, long-term distribution and abundance of forest species, and short- and
long-term carbon sequestration. The effects of stress complexes will be magnified given a warm and
82
drying climate (McKenzie, 2009). Although higher CO2 levels stimulate plant growth, the effects of
disturbance (like fire and insect infestations) also become more frequent due to the generally hotter, drier
climatic conditions and may offset increased growth (Mote et al 1999).
Alternatives 2 and 3
The potential effects of climate change were considered in the development of this project using the
following process.
The Forest Plan direction for the desired condition was assessed against projected climatic trends
derived from the Pacific Northwest Climate Impacts Group (based on IPCC (2000) scenarios
A1B and B1) and vegetation trends for the project area (Peterson and Peterson 2001, Mote et al.
1999).
Large scale trends were also considered from two peer-reviewed climate change vulnerability
assessments/syntheses for this region: Regional Impacts of Climate Change: an Assessment of
Vulnerability (IPCC 1997), and the Pacific Northwest Mega-Region Overview of Climate Change
Impacts (U.S. Global Change Team 2000).
A web-based tool called the Climate Wizard (www.climatewizard.org) was used to estimate future
mid-summer temperature and precipitation conditions at a regional scale (Oregon). The results of
this worst case scenario for mid-summer (August) 2080 are displayed in Figure 10.
83
Figure 10. Projected, worst-case scenario for temperature and precipitation change for Oregon in the year 2080.
The Sparta project area occurs in a zone where the change in average July temperature could increase by
9 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (top), and the change in average July precipitation could decrease by 35 to
40% (bottom), as compared to recent empirical temperature and precipitation trends (parameters:
Ensemble Average, SRES emission scenario A2; the SRES A2 scenario is worst-case because it reflects
no societal or economic restraints on carbon dioxide emissions). Modeled climate projections are based
on a suite of international general circulation models used for the fourth assessment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007).
Taken together, these reports suggest the following key trends for the project area:
Extended growing seasons- more soil moisture demand by vegetation
Lower soil moistures- less available to vegetation
Increased late-season moisture stress on vegetation- increased susceptibility to disturbance.
Considering the above, the desired condition accommodates the kinds of possible changes that are
projected to occur under climate change scenarios and represents a feasible silvicultural goal that will
create and sustain a more resilient forest. The silvicultural treatments are designed to improve landscape
resiliency and allow maintenance of these conditions with periodic fire. Managing tree species
composition and stand/landscape structure and tree density towards HRV creates favorable conditions
under current climatic conditions and for the predicted warmer and dryer and dryer climate.
Compatibility of Silviculture Activities with Climate Change
Climate change is predicted to occur as a warming and drying trend (Figure 10). A warmer and dryer
climate would appear as rising temperatures, less snow, more rain, less water stored in snowpack, and
earlier spring snowmelt. These changes would impact forested vegetation and disturbance in the form of:
Sparta
84
longer summer drought, increased water stress on vegetation, more intense insect infestations, and more
intense wildfires.
The silvicultural activities are included in the Sparta proposed action. Projected changes in future
temperature and precipitation for a large region containing the Sparta project area, as presented in Figure
10, are expected to have interactions with estimated effects from the proposed silvicultural activities.
Figure 10 suggests that drought conditions will be more common in the future because mid-summer
temperatures are expected to be higher than at present. Dense tree stands exist in a sort of perpetual
physiological drought because there is not enough soil moisture to meet the water needs of all trees;
intermediate cutting is used to alleviate this moisture stress and allow the residual trees to survive and
continue growing. It is expected that future climate conditions would have demonstrably more impact on
dense stands than is produced by the current climate. Therefore, the need for thinning and other
intermediate treatments is expected to be much greater in the future than at present, primarily because
thinning improves physiological vigor, and trees with improved vigor produce more of the resins used to
repel insect and disease attacks (Kolb, Holmberg, Wagner, & Stone, 1998), (Mitchell, Waring, & Pittman,
1983), (Salinger, Sivakumar, & Motha, 2005). Thinning also disrupts canopy fuel continuity, which could
help address future crown-fire susceptibility (Agee, 1996) (Scott, 1998). Insect outbreaks and wildfire are
both predicted to occur at significantly higher levels in a warmer and dryer future than at present
(Canadell & Raupach, 2008), (Kurz, et al., 2008) (Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, & Swetnam, 2006).
Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Policy
Forest Plan Compliance
Alternatives 2 and 3 comply with the goals for timber in the 1990 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
(WWNF) forest plan as amended by providing for production of wood fiber to satisfy National needs and
benefit local economies consistent with multiple resource objectives, environmental constraints, and
economic efficiency. Opportunities for fuelwood gathering for personal and commercial uses would be
available within the project area. These alternatives meet the forest plan standards and guidelines for
timber because prescriptions have been prepared and reviewed by a certified silviculturist, meet the
silvicultural needs of the stands being treated including stand structure and species composition, limit
created opening sizes, utilize the appropriate yarding system for stand and ground conditions, and call for
pre-commercial thinning of young stands to accelerate their growth. All action alternatives also propose
to harvest timber only on lands suitable for timber management.
Fire and Fuels
Introduction
The following describes existing and desired conditions relative to fire management for the Sparta project
area, objectives for fuels management as described in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Plan, and
the effects of implementing the alternatives relative to fire management.
A primary fire management challenge in this project area is to reduce uncharacteristic fuel loadings
commensurate to the standards established for specific vegetation groups. Fuel loadings and the
vegetative composition of those fuel loads are a primary contributing factor influencing fire risk.
Implementing treatments that impact fire risk would begin moving the project area toward the historic
range of variability for the various potential vegetation groups (PVGs) in the project area, and
substantially reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire to natural resources, adjacent private property,
and the public. Fuel hazard is one of the key components of fire risk and one of the two most effectively
influenced by management actions (the other is ignition hazard).
85
The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000, following a catastrophic wildland fire season, with
the intent of actively responding to severe wildfires and their impacts to communities while ensuring
sufficient firefighting capacity for the future. The National Fire Plan addressed five key points:
Firefighting, Rehabilitation, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability.
Hazardous fuels reduction is a key part of the National Fire Plan. Hazardous fuels reduction treatments
are designed to reduce the risks of high severity wildland fire to people, communities, and natural
resources while restoring forest ecosystems to closely match their historical structure, function, diversity,
and dynamics. Such treatments accomplish these goals by removing or modifying wildland fuels to
reduce the potential for severe wildland fire behavior, lessen the post-fire damage, and limit the spread or
proliferation of invasive species and diseases. Treatments are accomplished using commercial and non-
commercial thinning, whip felling, pruning, mechanical and hand piling, grazing, and prescribed fire, or
combinations of these and other methods.
Because of the prolonged absence of periodic surface burning, low and moderate severity fire regimes in
the analysis area have developed multi layered tree densities, changed species composition proportions,
and accumulated live and dead vegetation outside the range of historical fire regimes. These areas will
support intense, stand replacing fire events which could result in the loss of late old structure (LOS) and
wildlife habitat cover at scales outside historic levels.
What appears to be different about recent fires is that fewer ignitions are contributing to larger burn areas.
In 1910, 3.1 million acres in the Northern Rockies were burned, ignited by more than 1,700 fire starts. In
2000, 380,000 acres around Bitterroot valley burned due to 78 starts. In 2002, the 450,000 acre Rodeo-
Chedeski fire burned as the result of two ignitions, and the 138,000 acre Hayman fire burned as the result
of one. On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, the average annual fire occurrence and burn acreage
over the period 1970-2015 was 139 fires for an average of 25,589 acres burned; however, from 2007-
2015 an average of 95.6 fires occurred for an average of 51,215 acres in size. These recent and large
wildfires all seem to exhibit uncharacteristically intense wildfire behavior and increased fire severity
(RMRS-GTR-120. 2004, Pg. 6). All of these recent fires are occurring in an age of fully mechanized and
organized fire suppression response.
Climate Change
The earth has entered an area of rapid environmental changes. The warming and drying trend predicted
under the climate change scenarios will also increase the likelihood of intense large fires. These fires will
be larger and more severe, especially at higher elevations. There will be fewer trees regenerating after a
fire due to increased regeneration mortality from higher insect and pathogen activity (Forest, Insect &
Pathogens and Climate Change: Workshop Report, Beukema 2007).
Resource managers will need to integrate adaptation strategies (actions that help ecosystems
accommodate changes adaptively) and mitigation strategies (actions that enable ecosystems to reduce
anthropogenic influences on global climate) into project design (Climate change and Forest of the Future:
Managing in the Face of Uncertainty, et al Milar, 2007).
A review of available information relative to the analysis area indicates the following fire/fuel related
climate related trends that are possible or likely (Salo, 2010).
Increase in the percentage of winter precipitation that falls as rain, rather than snow
Earlier snowmelt
Increased potential for higher peak stream flows and extensive droughts
Extended growing seasons
Lower soil moistures
Increased late-season moisture stress on vegetation
86
Potential effects on plant growth due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2 (“fertilization”)
Adaptive strategies include:
1. Resistance options – manage forest ecosystems and resources so that they are better able to
resist the influence of climate change or to stall undesired effects of change.
2. Promote resilience to change – resilient forests are those that not only accommodate gradual
changes related to climate but tend to return toward a prior condition after disturbance either
naturally or with management assistance. Promoting resilience is the most commonly
suggested adaptive option discussed in a climate-change context (Dale et al. 2001, Price and
Neville 2003, Spittlehouse and Stewart 2003). Forest management techniques such as
prescribed burning or thinning dense forest, can make forest more resilient to wildfire and
decrease fire emissions.
3. Enable forest to respond to change – This group of adaptation options intentionally
accommodates change rather than resist it, with a goal of enabling or facilitating forest
ecosystems to respond adaptively as environmental changes occur (Milar, 2007).
Desired Condition
The desired future condition for the landscape is a Condition Class 1 (Fire regimes are within or near
historical ranges, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation conditions in term
of species composition and structural stages are intact and functioning within the historical range).
Existing surface fuels and ladder fuels would not support large scale crown fire on drier sites, which could
affect the Sparta, Surprise Springs, East Eagle/Main Eagle, and Carson/Pine communities, private lands,
homes or the National Forest
Existing Condition
Communities/Private lands
Four wildland urban interface (WUI) communities lie within and/or adjacent to the planning area. These
communities are composed of private lands with widely spaced dwellings in a forested setting.
A community wildfire protection plan has been prepared in compliance with the National Fire Plan, the
10-year Comprehensive Strategy, and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The Baker County CWPP
identified three of the communities, Surprise Springs, Sparta and East Eagle/Main Eagle area as “high
risk” and one of the communities, Carson/Pine WUI as “moderate risk” for loss or damage from wildfire.
The plan calls for fuel reduction activities as one of the actions necessary to lessen the wildfire risk on all
four WUI communities (Baker County Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2014).
Fire Environment
The fire environment includes available fuels (vegetation conditions), existing topography, and weather.
These elements together define fire behavior. Of these, only fuels can be altered by management actions.
Many of the components of fuels work together to influence fire behavior including: vertical and
horizontal distribution and continuity, moisture and chemical content, compaction, size and shape of
fuels, and fuel loading. These components of the fire environment can be modified to reduce potential fire
behavior.
87
Primary Vegetation Conditions:
Northern aspects and higher elevations of the analysis area consist of mixed conifer types. Ridge tops and
southern aspects transition into ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and dry Grand fir types. Areas that have not
had harvest activity or recent wildfires are overstocked.
Due to fire exclusion, shade tolerant species such as grand fir and Douglas-fir have expanded into areas
that were dominated by ponderosa pine or ponderosa pine/western larch mixtures. Regeneration and
growth of these species, over time, has created dense multiple canopy layered stands. Due to the lack of
disturbance the shade intolerant ponderosa pine, western larch, and aspen have become susceptible to
future disturbance from insects, disease (especially dwarf mistletoe), and wildfire.
Topography:
Topography influences on fire behavior include slope, aspect, wind speed, and wind direction. Slopes in
this analysis area are quite steep, in some areas in excess of 50%. Slope increases fire behavior by
preheating fuels upslope of the fire and enabling spotting from rolling and aerial fire brands. Flame length
and rate of spread increase with increasing slope. All aspects are represented in this analysis area. South
and Southwest aspects typically experience the more intense fire behavior due to the duration of sun
exposure. Fires in the Sparta project area frequently experience a moderate down-slope push late in the
afternoon or early evening hours with the diurnal wind switch.
Weather:
Summers are typically hot and dry with day time temperatures in the 80’s to lower 90’s Fahrenheit with
relative humidity’s in the teens (with poor overnight recovery). Lightning caused fires primarily occur in
the months of July and August. These storms produce lightning and strong winds, often with little or no
precipitation. Of particular concern to this project area are the strong gusty winds, often associated with a
frontal passage, especially dry cold fronts.
Fuel Type Description
Fire suppression and past management practices over the last 100 years has resulted in forest communities
that are densely overstocked, with more surface, ladder, and canopy fuel available to burn. The ponderosa
pine and mixed conifer stands within the project area are densely stocked with small diameter trees and
have large accumulations of surface fuels. Under these vegetation and fuels conditions, fire can easily
reach the crowns of overstory trees and prevent the use of direct fire suppression tactics, resulting in non-
typical high severity stand replacing fires.
Fuel Characteristic Classification System A May 12, 2011 kick-off meeting was held at Baker City, Oregon to begin developing and mapping Fuel
Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) fuelbeds for the Predictive Service Area E4 zone of
northeastern Oregon that includes the Umatilla, Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman national forests, as well
as adjacent BLM forest lands. Fuelbeds were completed in July, 2012 for the Wallowa-Whitman
including the Sparta area in collaboration with the Fire and Environmental Research and Applications
(FERA) team of the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory for use in the FCCS program (Ottmar et
al. 2007: Riccardi et al. 2007)
The Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) calculates and classifies fuelbed characteristics and
their potential fire behavior. Users may access fuelbeds from a fuelbed library or create their own custom
fuelbeds. FCCS fuelbeds represent fuels throughout much of North America and were compiled from
published literature, fuels photo series, other fuels data sets and expert opinion.
88
FCCS reports input and calculated fuel characteristics for each existing fuelbed component, from canopy
fuels to ground fuels. FCCS also calculates the relative fire hazard of each fuelbed, including surface fire
behavior, crown fire, and available fuel potentials, scaled on an index from 0 to 9. These FCCS fire
potentials facilitate communication of fire hazard among users and provide an index of the intrinsic
capacity of each fuelbed for surface fire behavior, crown fire and available consumption of fuels under
dry benchmark environmental conditions (no slope, 4 mph midflame wind speed, and dry fuel moistures).
The FCCS predicts surface fire behavior, including reaction intensity (BTU ft-1 min-1), flame length (ft),
and rate of spread (ft min-1) based on benchmark and user-specified environmental conditions. By
comparing predicted flame length and rate of spread, FCCS provides a crosswalk to one of the original 13
Fire Behavior Prediction System fuel models and one of the 40 standard fuel models.
Fire Regime
A natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across a landscape in the
absence of modern human mechanical intervention but including the influence of aboriginal burning
(Agee 1993; Brown 1995). Coarse-scale definitions for natural fire regimes were developed by Hardy and
others (2001), Schmidt and others (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and
Bunnell (2001). The five natural fire regimes are classified based on the average number of years between
fires (fire frequency or Mean Fire Interval [MFI]) combined with the severity of the fire (the amount of
vegetation replacement) and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation (Table 1).
Fire Regime Condition Classes
Fire regime condition classes measure the degree of departure from reference conditions, possibly
resulting in changes to key ecosystem components, such as vegetation characteristics (species
composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire
frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect and disease mortality,
grazing, and drought. Possible causes of this departure include (but are not limited to) fire suppression,
timber harvesting, livestock grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, and
introduced insects and disease (Schmidt and others 2002).
The higher the condition class number the higher the relative risk of fire, insect, or disease caused losses
to natural resources and other key ecosystem components. A higher condition class rating or percent from
departure shows a higher risk of loss of key ecosystem components landscape wide (Table 2).
Potential Vegetation Group (PVG) / Biophysical Setting (BpS)
Biophysical settings (BpS) are the primary environmental settings used in determining a landscape’s
natural fire regime(s) and fire regime condition class (FRCC). The term “biophysical setting” replaces
“potential vegetation groups” (PVG) in FRCC nomenclature. Biophysical settings were developed from
biophysical environment information developed by the project Silviculturist.
In FRCC, a visual dynamics model is used to characterize the pattern of transitional states in each BpS, in
response to growth and maturation over time and changes resulting from disturbance. For any one stand,
only one state can occur at any one time. Across a large BpS that contains many stands, all states may be
represented at one time. This type of dynamics model has been developed for each BpS.
Sparta Fire Regime Condition Class
Mixed conifer, Ponderosa pine and Ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir species dominate the forested stands.
When condition class is viewed from a landscape level, individual stands exist in varying stages of
development within each potential vegetation group in which it belongs. The fire regime vegetative type
89
and structure of the predominant forested stands found within the analysis area are composed of 91
percent Dry Upland Forest PVG’s or BpS which can be described by the Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-
Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest (DMMCF-0910450). Less than 9% of the forested stands within
the analysis area are moist upland forest PVG’s which occur as small scattered inclusions in the project
area. These inclusions also fall below the 20% recommendation for modeling within the FRCC model.
Fire behavior in these areas will be primarily influenced by the dry upland forest PVG stands surrounding
them; therefore, fire behavior effects for these stands are expected to closely mirror the effects on dry
upland forest stands.
The following is an overview of the description of DMMCF characteristics which were used for fire
behavior modeling in the Sparta project area.
Vegetation Description
Ponderosa pine overstory is typical in fire maintained stands. Older stands tend to be large widely spaced
ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir. Early seral forests are often open stands of mostly ponderosa pine. Lack of
wildfire causes fill in of understory conifers, mainly ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and grand fir. Western
larch is locally important.
Disturbance Description
Typical disturbance regimes under natural conditions include frequent, low intensity under-burns that
maintain open stands of fire resistant trees. Much more infrequent mixed severity and stand replacement
wildfire occurred and tended to generate mosaics of older, larger trees and younger regeneration. Endemic
bark beetles produced patch mortality. Rarer epidemic bark beetle outbreaks caused larger-scale overstory
mortality and released understory trees. Low intensity fire occurred over 67% of the landscape with rarer
replacement fire at 15% and mixed severity 18%. Average historical fire size was estimated at 1,000
acres. Fire frequency was 22 years with a reference fire severity of 25%.
Adjacency or Identification Concerns
This BpS of the Dry Upland Forest (PVG) occurs below more mesic mixed conifer forest types, and often
occurs above ponderosa pine forests. It includes the following plant associations: Douglas-fir/elk sedge,
Douglas-fir/pinegrass, Douglas-fir/snowberry, Douglas-fir/ninebark and grand fir plant associations with
similar associated species. It does not include Grand fir/queens cup beadlily, Grand fir/big huckleberry,
and similar moist types.
Seral Stages
The following table describes the seral stages within the project area.
Table 33. Sparta project area Seral Stages.
Seral Stage Type
Historic Percent of landscape
Description
Class A – Early Seral Stands (SI)
10% Open stands of ponderosa pine and other tree seedlings mixed with grass and shrubs. Early seral dominant species include, ceonothus, scouler willow, bromus, some sedges and grasses
Class B – Mid Seral Closed Stands (SE)
5% Closed stands of 5-20in DBH early seral tree species. Forests in this type rarely if ever exceed 80% canopy closer.
Class C – Mid Seral Open Stands (UR) 30%
Open stands of 5-20in DBH early seral species tree species. Dominant understory plants include elk sedge, pine grass, common snowberry, heartleaf arnica and lupines. This class has a low probability of stand replacement fire due to discontinuous fuel in these open stands.
Class D – Late 45% Open stands of 20+ inch DBH early seral species. Dominant
90
Seral Stage Type
Historic Percent of landscape
Description
Seral Open Stands (OFSS)
understory plants include elk sedge, pine grass, common snowberry, heartleaf arnica and lupines.
Class E – Late Seral Closed Stands (OFMS)
10%
Closed stands of 20+ inch DBH early seral species. Forests in this PVG rarely exceed 80% canopy cover. This class has a relatively high probability of replacement fires due to dense understory.
SI- Stand Initiation, SE- Stem Exclusion, UR – Understory Reinitiation, OFSS- Old Forest Single Stratum, OFMS- Old Forest Multi-stratum
Throughout the project area there are a number of instances where moist stands are surrounded by dry site
vegetation. These stands represent the dry end of the classification for cool/warm moist vegetation as
they occur on this landscape. This mosaic of cool moist/warm moist vegetation, surrounded by dry
vegetation, poses a challenge when modeling fire regime departure. These stands fit within the drier end
of a mixed fire regime spectrum. The adjacency and location on slope of many of the moist stands
proposed for treatment are such that fire frequency would have been expected to be similar if not identical
to that found on adjacent dry plant associations. As a result frequent, low intensity fire and the vegetative
component associated would have been the historical norm within these stands. This disturbance,
currently lacking, would have shaped the development of these stands.
The landscape is currently at the high end of Condition Class 2 and a moderate alteration to the historic
disturbance regimes are clearly evident, such as one or more missed fire return intervals which may
predispose the stand or ecosystem to disturbance events well outside the historic range of variability. Fire
regime and vegetative condition departure is moderately high on the landscape. These stands are typical
of dry site vegetation that historically developed under the influence of low intensity, high frequency
disturbance from wildfire. Mid Seral Closed stand structure is well above historic levels and Late Seral
Open is well below historic levels for most species found on drier sites (Table 34).
Figure 11. Existing FRCC Departure
Figure 11 above illustrates the current landscape departure from reference conditions for DMMCF for
vegetation (54% departure), fire return interval (64% departure), and the combined FRCC departure for
the landscape (55% departure). The departure for the landscape is at the high end of condition class 2
54
64
55
Existing FRCC Departure Dry Upland Forest
Veg Stratum
Fire Stratum
Stratum
91
which is defined as departure between 34-65% which ties back to the fact that fire regimes in the Sparta
project area have been moderately altered from their historic range. The risk of losing key ecosystem
components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more
interval returns (increased or decreased). This results in moderate changes to one or more of the
following:
Fire size
Fire intensity and severity, and
Resulting landscape patterns
Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage have been moderately altered
from historical conditions.
Many of these stands contain remnant numbers of large diameter ponderosa pine and western larch. The
past 100 years of fire suppression have greatly altered these stands, which were historically open stands
with large ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch. Past management has also resulted in an
uncharacteristic distribution of large, fire intolerant overstory trees that support future propagation of high
levels of fast growing, understory vegetation that will develop into ladder fuels, perpetuating the fuels
issue that currently exists. The heavy fuel loads and high density of small trees could result in a fire that
would easily reach into the crowns of the old trees and result in a high mortality of that component of the
stands.
Table 34. PVG Seral Stage Distribution comparing Historic Reference to Existing Conditions in Sparta Project Area.
PVG Early Seral (SI)
Mid Seral Closed (SE)
Mid Seral Open (UR)
Late Seral Open (OFSS)
Late Seral Closed (OFMS)
Historic Existing Historic Existing Historic Existing Historic Existing Historic Existing
Dry Upland Forest
10% 5% 5% 61% 30% 24% 45% 4% 10% 5%
Fire History
Fire Occurrence: The Fire Occurrence rate equals the number of fires per year per 1,000 acres. The rate
is used to compare average fire occurrence per year on a relative basis.
The Sparta analysis area had 33 documented ignitions from 1986 through 2016. The Sparta analysis area
has a fire occurrence rate similar to that of the WWF.
Of the 33 fires that occurred within the analysis area 73% were caused by lightning, and 27% were human
caused, primarily unattended camp/warming fires (Table 3). With aggressive initial attack efforts 75
percent of all fire starts are kept small (< .25 acre). Table 36 details the number of fire starts by size class.
Road density has not been found to impact fire occurrence on the Wallowa-Whitman NF, where the
majority of fires are started by lightning. In general, increased road access improves fire suppression
response and as a result lowers overall fire risk on the Wallowa-Whitman.
Table 25. Fires by Cause within Sparta Project Area in Years 1986-2016
Statistical Cause
Code Total Number
of Fires Percent of
Fires
Lightning 1 24 73
Equipment 2 0 0
Camp Fire 3 8 24
Warming Fire 4 0 0
Debris Burning 5 0 0
Railroad 6 0 0
92
Statistical Cause
Code Total Number
of Fires Percent of
Fires
Arson 7 1 3
Children 8 0 0
Other 9 0 0
Total 33 100
Table 36. Fires by Size within Sparta Project Area during Years 1986-2016
Size Class
Total Fires Percent of
Fires
A Spot - .25 acres 25 76
B .26 - 9.9 acres 7 21
C 10 – 99.9 1 3
D 100 – 299.9 0 1
E 300 - 999 0 0
F 100 - 4,999 0 0
G 5000 + 0 0
Total 33 100
Three WUIs are associated with the analysis area; Surprise Springs, Sparta, and Carson/Pine Valley.
Surprise Springs and Sparta both have slightly higher fire occurrence rates than the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest. Small acreages of the Carson/Pine Valley WUI are within the analysis area (Table 37).
The Carson/Pine Valley WUI’s Fire Occurrence Rate (.04) was slightly lower than the WWF.
Table 37. Summary of Wildland Urban Interface Acreage within Sparta Project Area
WUI Name Acres
Sparta 8,529
Surprise Springs 2,214
Carson/Pine Valley 1,113
Fuel Accumulation
Fire behavior fuel models and fuelbeds are used as input to the Rothermel (1972) fire spread model,
which is used in a variety of fire behavior modeling systems. The Fuelbeds used in this analysis are from
the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) created by the Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences
Laboratory (Ottmar et al. 2007: Riccardi et al. 2007). Fuelbeds represent the past, current, and potential
future conditions of major forest types, management activities, and natural disturbances occurring within
the region. The fuelbeds (designated 1501_NO through 1710_NO, for Northeastern Oregon are arranged
in management and successional pathways initiated by a stand replacing event.
Fuelbeds used to identify existing conditions are as described in Table 38 below.
Table 38. Sparta Project Area Fuelbed Descriptions. (Pre-treatment)
Fuel Bed Number
Structure Description
1505_NO Stand Initiation 15-25 years old stand with no treatment Dry upland Forest (DUF)
1527_NO Understory Re-initiation
80-150 year old Dry upland forest with past thinning or select harvest and no follow up treatments. Grand fir/ Douglas-fir dominate understory DUF.
1526_NO Stem Exclusion Warm dry ponderosa pine Douglas-fir and grand fir forests. Stands are 80-150 years old and have had repeated select tree harvests DUF.
1532_NO Old Forest
Multi-Stratum (OFMS)
Warm, dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir forest. Established over 150 years ago following wildfire. Stands have a history of thinning and select tree harvests but little active management in the last 70 years. Douglas-fir and grand fir dominate all tree layers. DUF
1529_NO Old Forest
Single Stratum Warm, dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir forest. Established over 150 years ago following wildfire. Stands have had recent select tree
93
Fuel Bed Number
Structure Description
(OFSS) harvest followed by prescribed burning to reduce woody fuels and have medium density canopy and woody fuels. Western larch may be present in overstory. DUF
Smoke Management
The Sparta project area is located near the following communities/areas: Richland, Halfway, Sparta,
Surprise Springs, Cornucopia, and the Eagle Cap Wilderness (Class I Airshed). Smoke impacts to the
Eagle Cap Wilderness are restricted between May 15 and October 1. La Grande in the Grande Ronde
Valley, approximately 52 miles northwest of the project area and Baker City in the Baker Valley,
approximately 34 miles to the west of the project area are two communities with a history of air quality
concerns. The prevailing wind during fire season is out of the southwest.
Air quality monitoring sites are located in three areas, La Grande, Cove, and Baker City. All three sites
maintain equipment that is used for estimating both PM10 and PM2.5 levels for health purposes. Visual
quality was monitored from the Pt. Prominence fire lookout until 1998 where ODEQ maintained a camera
visibility monitoring site (Boutcher, 1994). Currently, visibility is monitored from an automated
IMPROVE (Integrated Monitoring for Protected Visual Environments) sites located within Starkey
Experimental Forest and near Oxbow, Oregon. This is a joint project with EPA, UC Davis, US Park
Service, and US Forest Service. A second visibility site is monitored in Hells Canyon.
Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the EPA establish standards for certain pollutants in order to
protect human health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been
established. Management activities that result in emissions are managed to meet established standards.
Particulate matter is the primary pollutant of concern in smoke. Particulate matter is a term used to
describe dispersed airborne solid or liquid particles, which will remain in the atmospheric suspension
from a few seconds to several months. Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) or
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) describes particles small enough to enter the human respiratory
system. Oregon DEQ standards for PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Table 39 (OAR 629-048, 2008).
Table 39. Oregon DEQ Particulate Matter Standards
Pollutant Averaging Period Primary NAAQS
PM10 Annual arithmetic mean n/a
24-hour 150 µg/m3
PM2.5 Annual arithmetic mean 15 µg/m3
24-hour 35 µg/m3
NAAQS - National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Environmental Consequences
Assumptions
Direct impacts were calculated within the Sparta project area and smoke manage impacts were analyzed
to include adjacent projects outside of the project area as smoke impacts are not limited to just the Sparta
area. The areas potentially impacted by smoke would be the communities of Halfway, Richland, La
Grande, and Baker.
Effects of the action alternatives are based on full implementation of the design criteria and mitigation
measures in the Alternatives Description section of the EA.
94
In order to meet State of Oregon Air Quality guidelines and regulations as well as address regional and
local air quality concerns, smoke management forecasts provided by the Oregon Department of Forestry
will be used for all prescribed burning activities. With the exception of weather conditions, these
forecasts and the desired air quality standards they are designed to achieve can be the largest limiting
factor influencing the amount and type of prescribed burning achievable on the planning area.
To reduce the potential for impacts to nesting land birds, prescribed burning activities projected to occur
on or after May 20, and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out, will be reviewed by a district or forest
wildlife biologist. The biologist will then provide recommendations concerning prescribed burning after
May 20 and/or past the onset of vegetation leaf-out. This measure may limit the amount of burning that
can be accomplished during a given season, particularly during years with higher than average spring
precipitation.
Methodology
This analysis addresses the effects of implementing the proposed alternatives for the Sparta project area in
relation to the issue fire behavior on National Forest Lands. Modified fire behavior was analyzed in terms
of fire behavior potential and the ecological risk associated with the presence or absence of fire.
Key Indicators used to compare the alternatives are:
Fuel Loading and associated Fire Behavior Potential –
Crown Fire Potential – Measure in percent of seral stage succeptable to crown fire with
desired condition less than 25% based on reference conditions for landscape.
Flame Length – measured in feet with flame lengths less than 4 feet desired to allow
direct attack and reduce overstory mortality.
Surface fuel loadings – Measured in tons/ acre for material less than 3 inches in diameter
with less than 10 tons per acre being desired condition to facilitate low to moderate
intensity fire.
Fire Regime Condition Class Departure –
Fire Regime Condition Class of the landscape - Measured in percent departure from
reference conditions and a reference fire return interval of 22 years. Desired condition
would be a departure of less than 33% from reference conditions where fire regimes are
within or near historical ranges, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low.
Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage are intact and
functioning within the historical range.
For the purpose of this analysis, mechanical treatments include commercial harvest, post-harvest
noncommercial thinning, non-commercial thinning with no prior harvest, and grapple and hand piling.
These are all methods of mechanically treating areas that are overstocked, have a ladder fuel component,
and/or have heavy concentrations of standing dead and down fuels. Prescribed fire would follow all
mechanical pre-treatments in all of the action alternatives except for overstory removal treatments in
plantations. Prescribed fire would also be used as a standalone treatment in identified burn blocks.
Fuel Loading & Fire Behavior Potential
Fire behavior modeling was used to predict the changes in fuel loading and fire behavior in the project
area for the vegetation conditions that would exist for each alternative. The modeling results show how
Alternatives 2 and 3 would change both surface and crown fire behavior within the project area.
Creating fire resilient forests with fuels treatments implies a three part approach; reduce surface fuels
through prescribed burning, reduce ladder fuels through small diameter thinning and burning, and reduce
95
crown density in both the understory and overstory (Agee 2002 and Skinner 1996). The recent
Cornet/Windy fire (2015) on the Whitman Ranger District post-fuels treatment effectiveness monitoring
supports science on a local landscape. The fire had beneficial fire effects on 6,577 acres out of a total area
burned of 22,000 acres. Fuels treatments occurred on over 8,000 acres of those acres in the last 15 years
with 95% of those acres showing a reduction in fire intensity and severity when compared to the adjacent
untreated stands. Acres having all three factors completed had the most favorable outcomes. (Fire
Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring database)
The following scientific principles can be used in reducing fire behavior potential in large fires (Table
40):
1. Reduce surface fuel loads
2. Increase crown base heights
3. Reduce canopy density
4. Retain large fire tolerant trees which create shade and moderate wind speed
Crown characteristics that lead to crown fire are described by Finney (1996):
“A surface fire may make the transition to some form of crown fire depending on the surface
intensity and crown characteristics (Van Wagner1977 and 1993). The crown characteristics that
are used to compute crown fire activity are;
Crown base height
Crown height
Crown bulk density
Lower crown base height (including ladder fuels) facilitates ignition of the crown fuels by the surface fire
and then, transition to some form of crown fire. Crown bulk density is used to determine the threshold
values for active crown fire, which spreads much faster than a surface fire. Crown height is used as the
upper level of the crown space for determining crown fuel loading and the starting height of lofting
embers”.
Table 40. Reduction of Fire Behavior Potential
Principle Effect Advantage Concerns
Reduce surface fuel Reduces potential flame length
Control easier, less torching
Surface disturbance less with fire than other techniques
Increase canopy base height
Requires longer flame length to begin torching
Less torching Opens understory, may allow surface winds to increase
Decrease crown density Makes tree-to-tree crown fire less probable
Reduces crown fire potential
Surface wind may increase, surface fuel may be drier
Retain larger trees Thicker bark and taller crowns
Increases survivability of trees
Removing smaller trees is economically less profitable
Source: Agee 2002
Fire behavior fuel models and fuelbeds are used as input to the Rothermel (1972) fire spread model,
which is used in a variety of fire behavior modeling systems. The Fuelbeds used in this analysis from the
Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) are described in Table 38 under existing conditions.
Post-treatment fuelbeds within treatment units are best characterized by the fuelbeds described in Table
41.
Table 41. Sparta Project Area Post-treatment Fuelbed Descriptions.
Pre-Treat Fuelbed Number
Post-Treat Fuelbed Number
Description
1505_NO 1513_NO 25-40 year old warm, dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir have had recent precommercial thinning followed by prescribed fir, piling and
96
Pre-Treat Fuelbed Number
Post-Treat Fuelbed Number
Description
burning.
1527_NO 1525_NO Warm dry ponderosa pine Douglas-fir and grand fir forests. Stands are 80-150 years old and have had repeated select tree harvests followed by prescribed fire to reduce woody fuels.
1526_NO 1525_NO Warm dry ponderosa pine Douglas-fir and grand fir forests. Stands are 80-150 years old and have had repeated select tree harvests followed by prescribed fire to reduce woody fuels.
1532_NO 1529_NO
Warm, dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir forest. Established over 150 years ago following wildfire. Stands have a history of thinning and select tree harvests but little active management in the last 70 years . Douglas-fir and grand fir dominate all tree layers. DUF
1529_NO 1529_NO
Warm, dry Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and grand fir forest. Established over 150 years ago following wildfire. Stands have had recent select tree harvest followed by prescribed burning to reduce woody fuels and have medium density canopy and woody fuels. Western larch may be present in overstory. DUF
FCCS also uses a 3 digit code to show fire potentials representing surface fire potential or flame lengths,
crown fire potential, and available fuel potential or fuel loadings. Each of the numbers in the 3 digit code
range from 1-9 with the high the number showing the high potential. For example:
FCCS number 479 would represent the following potential fire behavior.
4- Flame lengths of 4-5 feet in height
7- Crown fire potential of 70-79% or a high potential to initiate and maintain a crown fire
9- Surface Fuel loading above 90 tons/acre (extremely heavy loading)
The fire potential for this rating would be flame lengths in excess of hand crew suppression
capabilities, highly likely to have stand replacement fire, and due to surface fuel loading be
highly detrimental to soils and resistant to control.
A number of factors including crown and canopy bulk density, crown base heights, torching indices,
crowning indices, crown fire potential, spotting potential, and flame lengths were analyzed in determining
differences between alternatives. Crown fire potential and flame length were selected as the best
measurements. Many of the other factors listed above are functions of crown fire potential. Fire
managers are interested in flame lengths, crowning indices and torching indices because it affects how
and where to fight a wildfire.
Fire Regime Departure
Modifications in vegetation resulting from treatment actions were evaluated and summarized following
the protocols for determination of Fire Regime Condition Class (used in existing condition sections).
Using inputs on the Fire Regime Condition Class Worksheet (located in the Sparta Analysis File) factors
such as departure of fire return interval, fire intensity, stand structure, and stand composition were
developed for each potential vegetation group and then combined for a total landscape analysis.
Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis
Direct and indirect effects will be those generally occurring with 1- 20 years of implementation of an
action alternative. Cumulative effects would be those actions that include past, present, and proposed in
the reasonably foreseeable future following implementation. Past management activities have been
accounted for as part of the existing condition. All present and reasonably foreseeable future activities are
described in Appendix D of the environmental assessment. Those activities that overlap in time and space
97
which would create a measurable cumulative effect when combined with the activities proposed in Sparta
action alternatives are discussed under cumulative effects below. Addition prescribed fire planned
adjacent projects outside of the project area in adjacent WUI areas are discussed in the air quality section.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect fire behavior:
Danger tree removal
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
Temporary Road Construction
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
Bridge Abutment Reconstruction
Culvert Replacement
Road ROW Acquisition
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Fire/Fuels
Alternative 1 – No Action
Fuel Loading & Fire Behavior Potential
No action would result in no reduction in surface or aerial fuel loadings and as a result the potential for
adverse effects from wildland fire would remain and may increase. Within the analysis area, multi-
layered stand structures, tree densities, and live vegetation continue to grow, and dead wood continues to
accumulate, creating conditions that allow fire to move vertically from the ground level to the forest
crown. Overstocked stand conditions would continue to increase the susceptibility of the stands to insects
and disease (see Vegetation Effects Section) resulting in increased surface and crown fuel loadings and
associated fire behavior potential. These conditions continue to limit firefighting opportunities, pose
undesirable risk to private property, firefighter and public safety, and continue the risk of damaging
impacts to natural resources.
The direct effect of Alternative 1 is a continuation of heavy surface and canopy fuel loadings. Flame
lengths exceeding four feet could be expected; continuing the risk of a crown fire initiation, active fire
spread (including onto private property and homes), and decreased opportunities to fight fire direct with
hand tools. Crown base heights would remain low, canopy bulk densities would remain high. The
potential for crown fire would remain for both single and individual tree torching (passive) and tree crown
to crown spread (active). In some instances fire suppression efforts would require backing off to areas of
lighter fuels and natural breaks or using heavy equipment. Not having the opportunity to direct attack a
fire combined with the limited access in the project area increases the potential for a large,
uncharacteristic wildfire, the potential for resource damage from heavy equipment, and risk to firefighter
and public safety.
The direct effects of not treating acres with crown fire potential also increases the risk of mineral soil
exposure during wildfire, increasing potential damage to soil, vegetation, and water quality. The
continued risk of high intensity fire poses an increased risk to deterioration of the viewsheds along the
Eagle Creek, and the areas surrounding the communities of Sparta, Surprise Springs, Carson/Pine Valley,
and East Eagle/Main Eagle.
98
Fire Regime Condition Class Departure
The analysis area is this project area currently has approximately 16,553 acres in fire regimes one, which
are identified as having a moderate to high FRCC departure of 61% (Figure 11).
Without treatment, FRCC departure would continue to increase. The likelihood of large scale
disturbances (fire, insect epidemics, etc.) would increase over time, compounded by anticipated changes
in climate in the area. Fire exclusion would continue to extend the fire return interval, increase fuel
loadings, change vegetation profiles, and increase the gap between historical conditions and current
conditions. True fir establishment would continue in the absence of low intensity fire. These vegetative
conditions would continue to place old forest structure, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas at risk to severe
wildfire impacts.
Reliance upon natural disturbance to return the area to historic conditions could be expected to take years
if not decades. Lacking treatment, the size and intensity of future natural disturbance is expected to be
unacceptable on both federal and private land.
Air Quality
The Sparta project area is located approximately 5 miles north and northwest of Halfway and Richland,
OR and approximately 1 mile south of the Eagle Cap Wilderness, a high visual quality area. Potential
impacts from smoke generated from a wildfire will continue to increase as fuel loadings increase over
time.
The direct effects of a wildfire burning under the existing conditions has the potential to produce smoke
levels that exceed visual and health standards within Halfway and Richland as well as the dispersed
communities of Sparta, Surprise Springs, Carson/Pine Valley, and East Eagle/Main Eagle. Local research
found PM10 smoke production was twice as high for wildfires as for prescribed fire. This is because
wildfires generally occur during drought periods in which there are low fuel moistures. Research in the
Grande Ronde River Basin found the following levels of PM10 smoke emissions (Huff, Ottmar, et al
(1995):
Wildfire: 0.318 tons or 635 pounds per acre
Prescribed burning: 0.167 tons or 334 pounds per acre
Nearby areas that may be impacted by wildfire smoke includes:
Communities of Halfway , Richland, Sparta, Surprise Springs, Carson/Pine Valley, and East
Eagle/Main Eagle
Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (Class I Airshed)
Wild and Scenic
Without treatment, fuel loading (live and dead) and associated fire potential is expected to increase over
time. Initial fire suppression response will not change although the resistance to control of summer
wildfires is expected to increase and potentially result in larger, more intense burns, effecting both visual
and water quality Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORV, Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Creek
Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, 1993).
The continued and increasing potential for larger, intense fires may result in an increased use of heavy
equipment (and associated ground disturbance) and aviation support, primarily outside riparian areas, in
order to achieve suppression objectives.
99
Alternatives 2 and 3
Vegetation treatments in the action alternatives target canopy, ladder and surface fuels with silvicultural
operations and surface fuels with prescribed burning (Table 42).
Table 42. Sparta Vegetative Treatments
Alternative Elements Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Total Harvest/Noncommercial Treatment Acres 0 5,775 5,291
Harvest Treatment Acres (total) 0 4,413 3,781
Noncommercial Treatments 0 1,362 1,510
Total Acres Treated by Prescription Type (Noncommercial)
PCT 0 1,362 1,510
Underburn 0 1,331 993
Grapple Pile 0 625 710
Hand Pile 0 38 70
Post-Harvest Treatment Activities
Post-Harvest Treatment Activities (Acres)
Precommercial Thinning 0 3,997 3,401
Underburn 0 4,196 3,550
Grapple Pile 0 1,668 1,533
Hand Pile 0 81 52
Prescribed Fire (Acres) Total Burn Block Area 0 4,793 4,543
Canopy and ladder fuels are reduced by forest thinning operations that target crown classes, stand basal
area and canopy bulk density. Treatments would also maximize managing towards large trees that are
resistant to insects, disease, and fire
Surface fuels would be reduced by prescribed fire and/or a combination of mechanical treatments and
burning that remove and reduce fuel (e.g. grapple pile and burn). Reducing surface and crown fuels
would reduce crown fire potential and potential flame length.
Crown and canopy base heights would be increased through the thinning of the understory. Prescribed
burning will also increase crown base heights by removing live limb wood in the lower portions of the
crowns.
Fuel Loading & Fire Behavior Potential
The action alternatives propose a combination of vegetation and fuel treatments that research has shown
will be effective at reducing fire potential. Several authors and/or papers have supported vegetation
treatment in conjunction with fuels reduction as tools to reduce fire behavior. The principle goal of fuels
reduction treatments is to reduce fireline intensities, reduce the potential for crown fires, and improve the
ability of forest stands to survive a wildfire (Agee 2002). Stand structure and wildfire behavior are
clearly linked (Biswell 1960, Cooper1960, Dodge 1972, McClean 1993, Rothermel 1991, van Wagner
1977), so fuels reduction treatments are a logical approach to reducing extreme fire behavior.
In forest stands that have not experienced fire or thinning for several decades, thinning combined with
(often multiple) prescribed-fire or other surface fuels treatments are necessary to effectively reduce
potential fire behavior and crown fire hazard (PNW-GTR-628). Prescribed burning alone, particularly in
forested stands where past disturbance cycles have been missed, tends to be difficult to implement and
variable in effectiveness. Under the best of conditions prescribed burning will be variable in terms of
intensities, consumption, and area coverage due to natural variability of vegetation, topography, and
weather. This is particularly true on the cool moist sites within the analysis area which, while on the drier
100
end of that environment, are expected to burn in a patchy manner under spring or fall burning conditions,
even with other silvicultural treatment.
The most appropriate fuel treatment strategy is often thinning (removing ladder fuels and decreasing tree
crown density) followed by prescribed fire, piling and burning of fuels, or other mechanical treatments
that reduce surface fuel amounts. This approach reduces canopy, ladder and surface fuels, thereby
reducing both the intensity of potential wildfires (Graham, McCaffery and Jain. 2004. RMRS-GTR-120).
Silvicultural treatments that target reduce canopy closure have the potential to reduce the development of
all types of crown fires (Cruz et al. 2002, Rothermel 1991, Scott and Reinhart 2001, van Wagner 1977) if
surface fuels are concurrently treated. Canopy and ladder fuels will be reduced by forest thinning
operations that target crown classes, stand basal area and canopy bulk density. Treatments would also
maximize managing towards large trees that are resistant to insects, disease, and fire.
Thinning and prescribed fire is expected to modify the understory microclimate. Expected results include
increased solar radiation, increased surface temperatures, decreased fine fuel moistures, and reduced
sheltering from wind. An increase in fine fuels, primarily grass and forbs is also anticipated. Combined,
these changes are expected to result in a change in fire behavior. Fire will shift from burning in heavier
fuels, including ladder fuels, under a more sheltered condition and continuous canopy, with potential for
crown fire, to fire burning in light fuels in a more exposed or unsheltered situation, where the
predominant fire spread mechanism will be surface fire .
Fires in light fuels are expected to exhibit high intensity where fuel, weather, and topographical
conditions align. These high intensities are short lived as fire in light fuels spread relatively rapidly and
burnout quickly, pose less resistance to control efforts, and are reactive to changes in fine dead fuel
moistures. Reduced ladder fuels and open canopies reduce potential for crown fire initiation and spread.
Fire in light fuels are less “severe” than those in heavy fuels as measured by consumption of surface fuels,
soil heating, etc. In general, shifting a fire’s behavior from a crown to surface fire produces less severe
effects and fewer impacts on resource values (Fitzgerald 2003).
Modification of understory conditions toward a higher proportion of light fuels with reduced surface fuel
loading reduces the difficulty in application of prescribed fire, extending the time available when burning
objectives can be met (prescription window), and reducing the need to burn when the relative risk of
ignition is otherwise high (mid-season). Treatment and maintenance of thinned stands will be required to
maintaining surface fuel conditions and manage development of ladder fuels over time so as to limit
future crown fire risk.
The action alternatives have a similar impact on the acres undergoing treatment, the difference being in
the acreage treated under each alternative.
Acres treated by prescribed fire only are expected to experience higher burn intensities and associated
mortality under wildfire conditions as compared to those acres treated with a more comprehensive
combination of vegetation and fuel reduction treatments. Application of two to three prescribed fire
treatments on stand-alone burn units will reduce this difference.
Debris accumulations and ladder fuels within the project area would be reduced to approximate historical
levels, resulting in summer wildfires that burn primarily on the ground (low intensity).
The desired fuels conditions (live and dead) would support primarily surface fire during typical summer
conditions. Average fire intensity would be low to moderate, resulting in consumption of surface fuels,
mortality of small diameter vegetation of all species and favoring survival of early seral, fire resistant
species of larger diameter (ponderosa pine, western larch, Douglas-fir). The project area would be in a
condition that it could be maintained in the appropriate ecological condition with prescribed fire.
101
All treatments are expected to result in fuel loading modification in all stand types. Treatments that
address surface, ladder, and canopy fuels will be the most effective at moving expected fires out of the
crowns, especially where significant surface, ladder, and canopy fuels exist together. Burn only
treatments that address primarily surface and to some degree ladder fuels will be effective in reducing
surface fire intensity, particularly where ladder and crown fuels are not a concern, but less effective in
reducing crown fire potential under conditions where surface intensity is sufficient to move fire into
crown fuels (summer season extreme weather) and crown fuels are continuous. Reducing crown fire
potential to a surface fire would reduce the potential for long range spotting to occur.
Table 43. Fire Behavior Potential as a Percent of the Landscape by PVG
Fire Behavior Factors
Dry Upland Forest Moist Upland Forest Total 17,951 ac shown as %
of landscape
Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Mod-High Crown Fire potential
66% 36% 38% 99% 92% 97% 69% 41% 43%
Fuel loadings greater than 30 ton/ac
95% 61% 65% 99% 94% 97% 95% 65% 68%
Flame lengths in excess of 4ft
95% 62% 65% 99% 95% 95% 95% 65% 65%
Table 44 displays the expected fire behavior potential by key indicator of the post-treatment fuelbeds
described in Table 41. FCCS was used to make fire behavior predictions. Fire behavior prediction were
based on dry fuel conditions in material 0-3 inches in diameter, 4 mile/hour wind speed, and 30% slope
Stand exam data backed up by field reconnaissance was used to determine stand characteristics used in
the fire behavior modeling. Table 45 describes the desired conditions for each of these fire behavior key
indicators.
Table 44. FCCS Fire Potential by Post-treatment Fuelbeds for DUF by Seral Stage.
FCCS Fire Potentials
Seral Stage
Acres by
Seral Stage
Flame Lengths (feet)
Crown Fire Potential (percent succeptible to
crown fire)
Fuel Loading (tons/acre)
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
SI 868 6’ 2’ 2’ 20% 40% 40% 30 20 20
UR 9,490 4’ 2’ 2’ 50% 10% 10% 40 20 20
SE 4,026 5’ 2’ 2’ 30% 10% 10% 70 20 20
OFMS 2,912 4’ 2’ 2’ 70% 10% 10% 80 20 20
OFSS 875 2’ 2’ 2’ 10% 10% 10% 20 20 20
*Alternatives propose no treatments in these seral stages
Table 45. Desired FCCS Fire Potential Values for DUF.
Desired Levels
Flame Lengths (feet)
Crown Fire Potential (percent susceptible to
crown fire)
Fuel Loading (tons/acre)
<4 <25% <10
Stocking level treatment effectiveness would last for 20 to 30 years (ladder and crown fuels) while
surface fuel treatments are expected to remain effective for about 10 years. Maintenance burning would
be used to maintain both future stocking levels, control regeneration, and surface fuel accumulation by
maintaining fuel loading in the range of 7-15 tons per acre or less in material 3 inches in diameter and less
(Table 43).
102
Flame lengths would be reduced to 1-4 feet on treated acres (Table 44) decreasing potential flame lengths
across an additional 30% of the project area (Table 43). Most fire behavior models show less than 10%
overstory mortality with flame lengths less than 4 feet. Hand crews can use direct fire suppression tactics
when flame lengths do not exceed four feet. Engines and dozers (where roads and terrain allow) can
directly fight fire with 4-8 foot flame lengths. Having the opportunity to utilize direct suppression tactics
decreases the potential fire size, the risk to public and firefighter safety, and private property (including
homes).
Thinning treatments would be designed to leave the largest/healthiest trees on site to provide shading of
surface fuels and reduced surface wind speeds. Smaller diameter tree densities would be reduced to
minimize the potential for crown fire initiation. This partially shaded gap between the surface and crown
fuels would be increased through pruning with prescribed fire, minimizing the potential for crown fire
(Table 44).
This kind of treatment is known as “thinning from below” or “low thinning” and mimics mortality caused
by surface fire (Graham et al 1999).
Figure 12. Forest Vegetation Simulator – Low Thinning
Long range spotting potential decreases as crown fire potential and flame lengths decrease, potential
flame lengths are reduced, and firefighting opportunities to direct attack a fire within the corridor are
increased.
Fire Regime Condition Class Departure
Fire Regime Condition Class Departure is a measure, on a scale of 0 to 100, of the condition of both the
vegetation and mean fire interval relative to historic averages. Treatment activities would reduce the
departure of Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) on the existing landscape from 55% (high end of
condition class 2) to between 42-45%.This change, when combined with future maintenance activities,
primarily underburning, is expected to strengthen the capability of the stands within the landscape to
withstand disturbance events such as wildfire (through reduced intensity), and insect and disease
outbreaks. Repeated application of surface fire as a maintenance process is expected to continue the
reduction of Fire Regime Condition Class departure moving the landscape toward a condition class 1.
All alternatives used a 25 year analysis of past fire activities, mainly prescribed fire. Implementation of
proposed prescribed fire was modeled over the next 10 years and resulted in a 35 year window to model
103
the fire return interval for each alternative. Alternative 2 provides improvement in departure at 42%,
followed by Alternative 3 at 45%. Due to lack of planned fire on the landscape over 10 years Alternative
1 continues to further depart from desired conditions (Table 3).
Table 46. FRCC Departure and Condition Class (CC)
Landscape
FRCC Departure and Fire Regime Condition Class
Existing Condition
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Percent Landscape FRCC Departure
55% 55% 42% 45%
Post-Treatment Condition Class FRCC departure range for CC2
2
(34-66%)
2
(34-66%)
2
(34-66%)
2
(34-66%)
The area is currently moderately departed from reference conditions (34-66%) and the proposed fuel
reduction treatments would result in the area being less departed. Because the entire area is not being
treated and it lacks a lot of the old forest single structure stands it would remain a condition class 2 post-
treatment, albeit closer to reference condition and at less risk to loss of key ecosystem functions in the
event of a wildfire. Alternative 2 treats the most acres and is a slightly more effective alternative relative
to reduction of FRCC departure (Table 46). Alternative 2 reduces vegetation departure and fire stratum
departure closest to desire condition, as stands continue to grow and maintenance burning occurs over
time. Desired conditions would be to have the FRCC landscape departure less than 33% to place fire
regimes within or near historical ranges, and lower the risk of losing key ecosystem components.
Vegetation conditions in terms of species composition and structural stage are intact and functioning
within the historical range. (Table 47).
Table 47. FRCC Percent Departure for Vegetation, Fire, and Landscape by Alternative
FRCC Departure
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Vegetation 54 50 47
Fire 64 35 43
Landscape 55 44 45
Alternatives 3 is slightly less effective in reducing FRCC departure, primarily due to reduced acres treated
and fewer acres of post-treatment prescribed burning. (Table 47).
Both action treatment alternatives reduce the mid-seral closed or under story re-initiation stand
component from existing levels. Converting the mid-seral component from a closed to open status, in
conjunction with maintenance burning, will over time facilitate the development of late seral open
structure. Treatment of dry upland forest stands with continued application of fire will move that
proportion of the landscape toward a more historical level of mid seral closed structure (Table 48).
Table 48. Percent Seral Structure Changes in the Sparta Project Area for Mid-Seral and Late Seral Structures for Dry PVGs
Seral Structure Historic Reference
Existing Condition
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Mid-Seral Open (SE) 30% 22% 22% 45% 44%
Mid-Seral Closed (UR) 5% 55% 55% 33% 34%
Late Seral Open (OFSS) 45% 4% 4% 6% 4%
Alternative 2 would reduce Late Seral Closed stand structure on the landscape and result in a small
increase in Late Seral Open structure, the conversion of mid seral closed to mid-seral open would
facilitate long term development of this under represented seral stage. Perhaps more importantly,
treatments modify stand structure such that prescribed fire can be used as a maintenance tool in the future
104
to continue the shift toward the level of Late Seral Open structure desired on the landscape and reduce
crown fire potential within these stands as ladder fuels are reduced and heavy existing fuel loads are
reduced.
Air Quality
Several management techniques will be implemented to limit air quality impacts. The use of prescribed
fire in this area would create a short-term smoke impact. This would be transient and may last for more
than 72 hours per occurrence. Prescribed burns would be planned so that factors such as wind direction
and air mass stability would help limit the effects of smoke (e.g. smell, eye irritation) on local residents,
campers, or the general public. In the evenings, the residual smoke would tend to follow the local wind
patterns, and flow down slope in Eagle, Summit, or possibly the Pine Creek drainages, towards Richland
and Halfway. Experience from several burns in the area has shown that the effects of this smoke can be
minimized by controlling length and time of ignition and burning under favorable mixing conditions for
smoke dispersion. Local residents would be contacted and appropriate safety signs and other methods
would be used to warn motorists.
Whole tree yarding (WTY) fuels treatments would be used for most harvest units, reducing the amount of
residual surface fuel that would otherwise be burned.
Activity and natural fuels burns would be implemented during the spring and fall resulting in the
consumption of surface fuels while limiting damage to overstory vegetation. Burns vary in size and
would be designed where possible to allow for modification in burn acreage based upon emission
limitations. Where burns are a first entry event, smoldering of larger material, particularly stumps and
down logs, can be expected to last for several days. Where previous burning has occurred, maintenance
or re-entry burns will produce much less smoldering and overall have reduced emission, both in terms of
amount and duration.
Landing, grapple, and hand pile burning would most likely occur late fall through mid-winter. Burn areas
can be tailored to meet favorable emission conditions by limiting and varying the number and location of
piles burned at any particular time. Piles consume with a minimum of smoldering as they burn with a
much higher intensity than seen with underburning, due to typical fuel moistures found with piled
material and the vertical nature of the piled fuels.
Table 49. Quantity of fuels to be burned by acre
Alternative Harvest Activity
Fuels Acres
Non-harvest Activity
Fuels Acres
Forested Natural
Fuels Acres
Piled Acres (landing/grapple/ha
nd) Total Acres
Alternative 2 4,196 1,362 4,793 2,412 12,763
Alternative 3 3,550 993 4,543 2,293 11,379
Table 50. Quantity of emissions to be released (in tons)
Tons pm2.5 (pm10)
Activity Fuels Burn .152 pm2.5
(.157 pm10)
Natural Fuels Burn .070 pm2.5 (.076 pm10)
Landing Pile Burn (.25 ac)
.279 pm2.5 (.321 pm10)
Grapple Pile Burn
.037 pm2.5 (.043 pm10)
Hand Pile Burn
.037 pm2.5 (.043 pm10)
Total
Alternative 2 638
(658) 95
(104) 117
(135) 85
(99) 4
(5) 940
(1001)
Alternative 3 540
(557) 388
(421) 100
(116) 83
(96) 4
(5) 1115
(1195)
District average emissions from historical burns (2004-2006) were used for calculations
105
Air pollutants are measured in microns with pm2.5 being particulate matter 2.5 microns in size and pm10
being particulate matter 10 microns in size. Oregon smoke management and DEQ use pm2.5 to rate air
quality for those at risk from respiratory illnesses. Pm 10 is used to measure visibility and is the part of
smoke you can physically see. Prescribed burning is monitored to limit impacts primarily by pm 2.5. In
comparison to a wildfire prescribed burning generates on average twice the emissions per acre.
All burning will be conducted in compliance with Oregon DEQ requirement and applicable agreements.
Burns will be registered, planned, accomplishment reported, and monitoring conducted as specified in the
Oregon Smoke Management Plan (OAR 629-048, 2008). Burn plans will address smoke management
concerns and requirements. During implementation, certified burn bosses will follow smoke management
direction (currently provided by Oregon Department of Forestry smoke forecasters) in their planning and
application of fire.
Wild and Scenic River
Overall, fuels treatment activities fall within established standards for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic
River, see the Wild and Scenic River section for details. The applicable Standards and Guidelines from
the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Plan (Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Creek Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan, II-8) are described under the Compliance section below in this report.
Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects
Vegetation and fuels treatments outlined in the three action alternatives all address, to differing degrees,
the objective of “Move the landscape toward a condition of reduced risk of high severity and extent of
disturbance, taking into account changes in climate.”
Fire Regime/Condition Class departure is reduced from 55% to 42-45% across the landscape. The two
action alternatives would result in a reduction in intensity and severity of future summer wildfires.
Through reduction of accumulated fuels and modification of stand structure toward a more open, fire
resilient spacing and species composition, treatments would increase management options for fire
managers when determining how deal with future wildfires. Reduced fire potential may increase
opportunities to expand beneficial aspects of wildfires originating within the Eagle Cap Wilderness due to
a reduced risk of adverse fire impacts and resistance to control for fire outside of the wilderness. Options
to allow low intensity fires to spread to existing or created barriers rather than containing at minimum
acreage, particularly where fires have escaped initial suppression efforts, may allow for suppression
strategies that increase firefighter safety and have potential to reduce both immediate and long term
suppression costs.
Alternative 2 when compared to the no action and Alternative 3 is the most effective in reducing overall
crown fire potential and moving landscape to within historic stand structure.
Cumulative Effects on Fire and Fuels Resources
Alternative 1 – No Action
Values at risk including improvements, wildlife habitat, private lands, and visual concerns within and
adjacent to the analysis area will continue to drive protection from disturbance events, primarily wildfire.
Without treatment, fuel loading and associated fire risk, as well as fire regime departure will continue to
increase, ultimately resulting in vegetative conditions that will support increasingly intense burning
conditions. Climatological changes over time may compound these conditions if the predicted changes
towards warmer, drier conditions come to pass. Resistance to control, suppression costs, and exposure or
risk to personnel managing wildfires can be expected to increase. Similarly, managing natural ignitions
for beneficial objectives will become more difficult as fire intensity increases.
106
Alternatives 2 and 3
Air Quality
Air resources are somewhat unique in that, the past impacts to air quality are not usually evident. Smoke
emissions during the spring and fall months primarily result from Federal prescribed fire activities (BLM
and FS) in northeast Oregon and western Idaho. Federal land managers currently coordinate to manage
the cumulative effects of prescribed burning across northeast Oregon. Private landowners treating forest
fuels where under the protection of Oregon Department of Forestry are required to follow the advice of
the Departments smoke management forecaster when burning.
Other emission concerns include summer wildfires, agricultural burning, and home heating in local
communities. Both wildfires and agricultural burning typically occur mid to late summer. Home heating
is generally limited to the winter months. In all three instances, the additional emissions produced are
low and are not expected to impact air quality at the time prescribed fire activities are planned.
Under any alternative that calls for burning, there is a potential for future restrictions to meet air quality
standards.
Fuel treatments including Prescribed Fire
Past and ongoing Forest Service projects as well as adjacent ownerships and in holdings of private
property can influence management options for fuel treatments and prescribed fire. This applies to larger
landscapes to be treated or wildland/urban interface areas that go untreated. Numerous recent fuel
treatment activities have been planned and implemented or are pending implementation near the Sparta
Project Area (Table 51).
Table 51. Recent and Planned Rx Burning Activities Surrounding Planning Area
Treatments Project Areas Names Acres Year Completed
Rx Underburn Goose 3,500 2007-2016
Rx Pile Burning Barnard, Sanger, East
Eagle, Goose 1,384 2008-2010
Rx Underburning Barnard, Goose 10,500 Planned, 2017-2020
Community assistance plans that identify additional wildland/urban interface and opportunities for fuels
treatments in urban interface areas adjacent to national forests would enhance the Forest Service’s ability
to treat areas adjacent to urban interface and in protecting high risk, high value areas. The ability to treat
acres across agency boundaries and on private ownership contributes to long-term forest health,
mitigation of large fires, reduction of suppression costs and greater firefighter and public safety. The
amount treated annually is difficult to predict due to a number of factors, but is predicted to increase.
Management of Wildfire
Other ownerships adjacent to or surrounded by lands administered by the Forest Service affect
opportunities to use fire, and therefore to emulate historical wildland fire effects, on large landscapes. In
general, private landowners use timber harvest rather than wildland fire to manage their vegetation.
Wildland fire may be used to treat activity fuels, but treatments are often limited in extent and effect. The
proximity or inclusion of private lands can be a limiting factor in the use of wildland fire. These fires can
burn large areas for long time periods depending on the vegetation, fuels, weather, and other factors. The
recent Eagle Fire in 2015 burned adjacent to the analysis area burning for 3 months and covering more
than 13,000 acres, of which 500 acres of private timberland was burned.
107
Wildland Urban Interface
Wildland urban interface areas would continue to change during the life of the forest plan. As community
assistance plans are completed, additional WUI area can and will be added beyond what is currently
identified. The trend indicates that people will continue to move to western states and build houses
adjacent to NFS lands. This will have an effect on wildland fire and fuels projects with input by the public
in support or not of those projects. It will also affect the use of wildland fire by limiting wildland fire in
some areas because of social and political concerns.
Wildland fire FRCC
The emphasis on treatments of FRCC areas out of historical range (condition class 2 and 3) would
continue. In general, lands off of NFS lands are dominated by condition class 2 and 3.
Climate Change and Fire
The combined effects of droughts and insects may lead to a pulse of tree mortality that increases the
potential for intense fires. There is a short-term and a long-term facet to the increase in potential fire
intensity. In the short-term, warmer, drier conditions will limit the capacity of the ecosystem to maintain
the quantity of vegetation currently growing on site. As this stress continues, vegetative capacity to resist
insect, disease, and other disturbance mechanisms is reduced and the potential for mortality increases.
Increased mortality provides additional available fuel for wildfire, thus increasing fire potential. Once the
dead foliage drops, this danger may be considerably reduced for a few years. However, as the trees decay
over the next decade or so following the pulse of mortality, they fall and can help create and accumulation
of large, heavy fuels. These large fuels contribute to a longer-term potential for intense fires since they
may take many years to decompose, especially in the dry environments of the West.
Even in the absence of increased mortality from either drought or insects, a warming climate would likely
alter fire regimes in ways that would make it more difficult to manage forests influenced by many
decades of fire suppression and other activities. Climate change influences fire regimes in complex ways
due to differentials in responses to variation in temperature and precipitation regimes. Both tree-ring
records and modeling indicate that the probability of having fires is primarily driven by temperature,
whereas the extent and intensity of fires is driven more strongly by precipitation patterns. Warmer
temperatures lead to an earlier onset and later end for the drying period, thus increasing the probability of
a fire during the longer fire season. Precipitation influences the growth of vegetation (fuel). The amount
of precipitation during the wet season will influence the amount of fuel produced.
All action alternatives manage the forest ecosystem so that it is better able to accommodate climate
change and to respond adaptively as environmental changes accrue. The action alternatives encourage
gradual adaption to change to a warmer and drier environment by favoring disease and fire resistant trees,
reducing stand density, and lowering fuel loadings.
Other Activities
Livestock grazing would continue to reduce fuel loading in fine herbaceous fuels and can limit fire spread
rates. Fuelwood cutting would continue to remove large diameter fuels but this would have an
insignificant effect on fuel loadings in the 0-3 inch diameter class which is the fuels in which fire spreads.
Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
All proposed fuel treatments are consistent with Forest Plan standards as well as all applicable state laws
and regulations. See the air quality section relative to State of Oregon requirements for smoke
management.
108
Wild and Scenic River
Overall, fuels treatment activities fall within established standards for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic
River, see the Wild and Scenic River section for details. Alternatives 2 and 3 maintain and enhance the
ORVs for the Eagle Creek WSR corridor. Short term visual impacts from prescribed fire are permitted
and vegetation management treatments improve scenic ORVs by reducing the potential for large scale,
high intensity fire. They would also not impact large woody debris levels within the river corridor.
Wildlife – Old Growth and Landscape Connectivity
Introduction
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies five
wildlife species, or groups of species, as MIS, or Management Indicator Species (U.S. Forest Service,
1990). These species are identified because of their special habitat needs that may be influenced
significantly by planned management activities, and as a result their populations can be used to indicate
the health of a specific type of habitat. MIS species welfare can be used as an indicator of other species
dependent upon similar habitat conditions.
Table 52. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Management Indicator Species
Management Indicator Species Habitat Presence Within Analysis Area
Rocky mountain elk Cover and forage Yes
American marten Old growth and mature forest Yes
Northern goshawk Old growth and mature forest Yes
Pileated woodpecker Old growth and mature forest Yes
Primary cavity excavators* Snags and logs Yes * Northern flicker; black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, three-toed, and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers; black-capped, and mountain chickadees; and pygmy, red-breasted, and white-breasted nuthatches
This section will discuss the old growth and mature forest species identified in Table 52 above. Rocky
mountain elk and primary cavity excavators will be discussed later in this document under Big Game and
Snag and Log Habitat.
The American marten, northern goshawk, and pileated woodpecker are MIS of old growth habitat (U.S.
Forest Service 1990). Old-growth habitat is categorized and analyzed in 2 categories according to the
LRMP: 1) late old-growth structure; and 2) MA15 – Old-Growth Preservation. MA15 is a land allocation
under the LRMP (U.S. Forest Service 1990) intended to provide quality habitat for wildlife species
associated with old growth characteristics. Old growth is a structural classification used to implement
direction in the Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Screens; U.S. Forest Service 1995) and refers to multi-strata
stands with large trees (Old Forest Multi-Stratum- OFMS) and single-stratum stands with large trees (Old
Forest Single Strata- OFSS). Although the two terms have different administrative implications, both are
intended to provide habitat for old growth associated wildlife species. Old growth habitat and old growth
management indicator species will be discussed separately below to provide an overview of old growth
habitat in general within the project area and at the landscape scale along with the effects of the Sparta
project on each of the species dependent on this habitat.
Impacts to old growth and old growth dependent MIS species within the Sparta project area were
determined by analyzing effects to their habitat at several spatial scales starting with the watershed then
framing that within the context of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and the Blue Mountains
Ecological Province. These scales take into account the species’ relationship with the landscape as well as
being practical for management purposes. MIS population viability assessments have been conducted for
American marten, pileated woodpecker, and northern goshawk at the Blue Mountains and WWNF. These
assessments are incorporated by reference within the existing condition and effects analysis for each
109
species. For more in-depth information on the methodology behind these assessments, please refer to the
full-length assessments in the project record and the associated peer-reviewed literature scales (Penninger
and Keown 2011a, Penninger and Keown 2011b, Penninger and Keown 2011c).
A. Old Growth Habitat
Introduction
Old growth habitat and old growth management indicator species will be discussed separately below to
provide an overview of old growth habitat in general within the project area and at the landscape scale
along with the effects of the East Face project on each of the species dependent on this habitat.
The R-6 Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 contains standards and guidelines (S&Gs) that
address the historic range of variability (HRV). Because the distribution, quality, and quantity of habitat
largely determine the potential for a wildlife species to exist at viable levels, HRV becomes an important
habitat indicator for resident species. By managing habitat within the historic range of variability it is
assumed that adequate habitat will exist for associated wildlife species since they existed at viable levels
under those conditions previously. The larger the gap between current and historical conditions, the less
likely that adequate habitat is being provided to sustain those associated species.
Declines in single stratum large trees structure (late-seral ponderosa pine) has been well documented
(Wisdom et al. 2000, Squires et al. 2006), while mid-seral shade-tolerant forests seem to be at nearly
twice their historical levels. These changes benefit some species but negatively affect others. The winter
wren, Swainson’s thrushes, pileated woodpeckers and American marten favor dense, multi-storied forests.
These species are rarely associated with open ponderosa pine and open mixed-conifer types, which
historically were widespread in many dry landscapes. Other wildlife species, however, such as the white-
headed woodpecker and flammulated owl are associated with open, old-growth ponderosa pine
(Sallabanks et al. 2001) and their populations have possibly declined as result of the loss of this forest
type (Csuti et al. 1997, Wisdom et al. 2000).
Thinning reduces competition-induced- mortality in a stand, and can likely enhance habitat for species
associated with late seral conditions, particularly if critical structural components, such as dead wood, are
provided and if stands are managed to provide vertical and horizontal heterogeneity. Effects of thinning
on a given species of wildlife may vary across a range of temporal and spatial scales. For example, large
tree crowns may ultimately improve habitat for some small mammals and some species of birds to nest
and forage, but increased spacing between crowns may temporarily decrease habitat suitability and inhibit
dispersal. Hayes et al. (1997) states that knowledge of many species is inadequate to predict responses at
multiple time frames, but it is important to consider short- and long-term as well as stand- and landscape-
level perspectives when evaluating the implications of thinning.
Regional Forester Amendment #2 of June 12, 1995 established interim riparian, ecosystem, and wildlife
standards for timber sales (these standards are referred to as the “Eastside Screens”). The Eastside Screens
require that a range of variation approach be used when comparing historical reference and current
conditions, incorporating the best available science. The range of variation approach assumes that native
species have evolved with the historical disturbance regimes of an area and so a forest will continue to
sustain populations of those species if current conditions fall within the historic range of variation (Powell
2010). The following range of variation analysis uses methods described in Range of Variation
Recommendations for Dry, Moist and Cold Forests (Powell 2010), which is now considered the best
available science. Five forest structural stages are identified within these three potential vegetation
groups; Stand Initiation (SI), Stem Exclusion (SE), Understory Retention (UR) and Old Forest Single
Stratum (OFSS) and Old Forest Multi Strata (OFMS).
110
Existing Conditions
MA-15 Old Growth Preservation-
There are 487 acres of MA15 allocated land in the project area boundary. Suitable old growth habitat
generally contains large diameter live trees, large snags and down wood; old forest multi story (OFMS)
provides old growth habitat along with understory re-initiation (UR), though UR typically lacks the
density of large structure.
Late Old-Growth Structure
Both OFMS (multi-storied LOS) and OFSS (single-storied LOS) are present in the Sparta project area.
Existing OFMS and OFSS within the project area total 2,601 and 658 acres, respectively. However, for
several potential vegetation groups (PVGs), the HRV analysis identifies departure from HRV. All PVGs
show that the amount of multi-storied LOS is above the range estimated to have existed historically. In
contrast, single-storied LOS stands are currently deficient within dry, cold and moist PVGs (Table 53).
Table 53. Comparison of HRV to Existing by PVG in the Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek and Little Eagle subwatersheds
PVG Existing Acres % of PVG Historical Range %
Old Forest Multi Stratum (OFMS)
moist upland 1,152 26% 15-20%
dry upland 2,912 16% 5-15%
cold upland 612 73% 10-25%
Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS)
moist upland 146 3% 10-20%
dry upland 875 5% 40-60%
cold upland 31 4% 5-20%
Connectivity of LOS Habitat
Connectivity between MA15 “allocated old growth” and LOS stands was assessed utilizing field
reconnaissance, aerial photographs and GIS mapping. The level of connectivity between MA15 and LOS
stands varies across the project area. Areas of non-forested vegetation in combination with past timber
harvest have created gaps of varying size in the central and southeastern portions of the project area.
Several LOS stands are currently isolated by their adjacency to stands lacking a substantial forest cover
component. There are connections to large areas of roadless and wilderness to the north of the project
area. The LOS found in the southern portion of the project area is connected to the north, but not to the
south where a natural gradation from forested to non-forested vegetation types occurs.
Refugia
The concept of “refugia” has been incorporated into project planning. Refugia is described by Camp et al.
(1997) as forested patches that have missed one or more disturbances that shaped the surrounding
vegetation on the landscape. In the Sparta project area these typically occur on north and northeastern
aspects which have higher moisture retention than other aspects. Higher moister levels generally lead to
denser vegetation and higher fuel moisture. Higher fuel moisture influences fire behavior by causing a
fire to burn in more of a mosaic pattern or to spare forested patches altogether.
111
The connective corridor network for Sparta was delineated to not only connect LOS and MA15 areas, but
to also link to many of the refugia stands.
Camp et al. (1997) further indicated that late-successional refugia rarely formed extensively connected
corridors within their study area (Wenatchee Mountains). In addition, highly connected late-successional
habitats may allow endemic insect and disease levels to reach epidemic proportions as well as increase the
potential for high-intensity wildfire within refugia.
In order to balance the function of connective corridors with the risk of epidemic insect and disease
events, silvicultural treatments were specifically designed within connective corridor stands to reduce tree
stocking while retaining additional canopy closure and structural complexity. Differences between
silvicultural prescriptions designed to retain the function of connective corridors are discussed in more
detail in the direct and indirect effects section below. The Alternative description section of the EA
contains the proposed commercial timber harvest units that occur within connective corridors for
comparison between alternatives.
The connectivity network was established based generally on stand boundaries and connects, to the extent
possible, all LOS and MA15 stands within and outside the project area according to direction in the
Forest Plan Amendment #2.
The Pine Eagle Consensus Group proposed a management strategy to the Wallowa-Whitman NF in 1989
intended to incorporate “… biological diversity into management of the forest landscape”. This group
proposed the designation of management areas in the Land and Resource Management Plan that would
identify old growth core areas, transition habitat, and connection habitat. This would result in a network
of old growth core reserves, transition areas managed on long timber rotations, and corridors that connect
this series of core and transition areas together. The Pine Eagle Consensus Group also provided a map of
what this network would look like for the area that is now the Sparta analysis area. The Consensus
Group’s map was compared to the LOS, MA15 and connective corridor network designed for the Sparta
analysis area to assess similarities and differences between the two approaches.
A series of old growth reserves (Management Area 15) was established in the 1990 Land and Resource
Management Plan. Essentially in 1993 the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 did what the
Consensus Group had proposed four years earlier. This Amendment (referred to as the Eastside Screens)
directed all Oregon and Washington National Forests east of the Cascade Range to use a historical range
of variability (HRV) approach for managing forests. This effectively protected old growth habitat in
amounts reflective of pre-European settlement times, and provided for connectivity corridors between
management areas 15 and isolated old growth patches identified through the HRV process. Many of the
silvicultural treatments pursued today are designed to accelerate the development of mature and old
growth forest characteristics while improving stand resilience and resistance to insects and diseases. This
approach is consistent with the Consensus Group’s idea of managing “transition” areas on longer timber
rotations. The result is a network of connected mature and old growth habitat that is remarkably similar
to the Consensus Group’s recommendations.
Effects
Analysis Methods
Two different scales of analysis are used in this document to analyze the effects of the treatment activities
on wildlife, and include the following:
Sparta Project Area perimeter at 17,951 acres on National Forest System lands.
The cumulative effects area encompassing the Sparta Project varies by species and is described
within sections dedicated to individual species analyses.
112
The project area boundary occurs within the Eagle Creek watershed.
The existing condition is described for each species, group of species, or habitat. Direct, indirect and
cumulative effects of alternatives are identified and discussed. Incomplete or unavailable information,
scientific uncertainty, and risk are disclosed where applicable.
Analysis Tools and Surveys
Species presence/absence determinations were based on habitat presence, past wildlife surveys, recorded
wildlife sightings, the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center wildlife sightings database (2008),
scientific literature, and status/trend and source habitat trend documented for the Interior Columbia Basin
(Wisdom et al. 2000).
Vegetation analysis and estimates of stand conditions were completed using silviculture analysis tables,
results described within the Sparta Forest Vegetation Management Report, aerial photo interpretation,
vegetation database, and/or ground reconnaissance.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities associated with the Sparta project are of such limited and constrained nature that
they would have no effect on Old Growth resources.
Roadside hazard tree removal
Closed roads reopened for administrative access
Road decommissioning
Temporary road construction & Road reconstruction
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
Culvert Replacement
Mechanical Control Lines for Burning
These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in the effects to Old Growth section.
Direct/Indirect Effects on Old Growth
Introduction
Although the Sparta project involves several types of activities that could alter the quality and function of
connective corridors, this effects analysis focuses on the commercial silvicultural treatments.
Commercial timber harvest is the tool used to accomplish at least part of the silvicultural objectives.
Timber harvest is the primary activity that would reduce canopy closure and decrease structural
complexity within treated stands. Other activities such as prescribed fire, non-commercial thinning, and
mechanical fuels reduction can affect the quality and function of connective corridors, but to a much
lesser degree than timber harvests. Also, the structural components effected by these less impacting
activities can be replaced (grow back, recover) quickly relative to timber harvest. For example, non-
commercial thinning, mechanical fuels reduction, and prescribed fire generally target the reduction of
smaller diameter materials from forest duff to woody materials under 10” in diameter. An exception is
prescribed fire which can consume all sizes of woody material, live and dead. Fire is an inexact tool, so
there is the possibility that some larger woody structures will be consumed, and new ones created as trees
are killed. However, prescriptions for fire are designed to retain the larger diameter woody materials, and
consume smaller diameter materials.
Treatment prescriptions in any units within LOS connective corridors would retain snags, large down
wood, and multiple canopy layers (if appropriate for the site). Basal area would also be maintained within
113
the upper half of the management zone, which would approximate canopy closures in the upper 1/3 site
potential. Stocking levels would be managed at the upper management zone for basal area except where
tree quality and crown conditions are such that this level of stocking is unattainable, in these areas, 20%
of the stand would be retained in untreated clumps. Trees with as little as 20% live crown would be
retained if needed to maintain basal area levels. All snags greater than or equal to 12 inches dbh would be
retained. Down logs would be retained at 200 lineal feet per acre, minimum lengths of logs 20 feet or
largest available and minimum of 12 inch small end diameter logs or largest available. Silvicultural
prescriptions in connective corridor units would reduce competition between residual trees, increase tree
growth rates, and increase trees’ ability to defend against insects and diseases, while retaining levels of
canopy closure and structural complexity to facilitate movement of wildlife between old-growth habitat
patches.
Alternative 1
Under this alternative, the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire or disease/insect outbreaks would continue to
increase naturally over time because there would be no changes to stand stocking levels or fuel loads from
active management. Existing MA15 and old growth would be at risk if uncharacteristic wildfire and/or
disease and insect outbreaks occurred. Old forest single story structure would continue to be deficient
across all potential vegetation groups.
This alternative would have no direct effect on connectivity between LOS habitat patches. The current
level of connectedness would persist, and would improve in quality in the absence of large scale
disturbances. In the absence of silvicultural treatments that reduce tree stocking, the connective corridors
will continue to increase in canopy closure and structural complexity. This condition in cold and moist
upland forests can enhance connectivity for species like American marten. Conversely, dry upland
forests, which make up the majority of the project area are inherently less structurally complex than cold
and moist upland forests. In the absence of silvicultural treatments to reduce tree stocking, these stands
would continue to allow the establishment of shade tolerant grand fir, increased canopy closure, and
increased stress to competition for resources. In the long-term (30+ years) these drier stands would be
subjected to increased risks from wildfire, insects and diseases that will kill trees in numbers and
distribution that could negatively affect connectivity between patches of single strata LOS habitat.
To forego prescribed burning, non-commercial thinning, and mechanical fuels reduction would perpetuate
higher tree densities, higher fuels loading, ladder fuels, and tree species compositions that are not
sustainable for the biophysical setting. These indirect effects may contribute to uncharacteristic insect,
disease, and wildfire events. The effects of wide scale tree mortality from these disturbances would have
a much greater negative effect to connectivity than the prescribed treatments under Alternatives 2 and 3.
These negative effects could render the LOS and connective corridors unsuitable for the wildlife species
that depend on them as habitat.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Alternative 2 and 3 propose to increase the availability of OFSS structure stages by treating primarily dry
OFMS through a combination of commercial and non-commercial treatments to remove small diameter
understories and reduce canopy cover where appropriate, emphasizing ponderosa pine restoration.
Alternative 2 would increase available OFSS and generate the largest benefit for species dependent upon
open forest with large trees by increasing available OFSS by about 55% (526 acres) and set up future
stands to transition into OFSS condition by increasing single-story non-LOS acres (Table 54).
Alternative 3 would not directly increase OFSS but would help remove the risk of stand replacing fires
through non-commercial treatments. Those OFMS stands not selected for treatment under Alternative 3
would retain Douglas-fir and grand fir in stands for which ponderosa pine restoration is the emphasis,
thereby perpetuating the condition of encroachment by mixed conifer species (Table 55). Neither
114
alternative would move total acres of moist or dry OFMS stands out of the Historic Range of Variation.
Further discussion of effects of old growth treatment can be found under the Neotropical Migrant
discussion.
Table 54. Silvicultural Effects on OFSS within Moist and Dry Forest Types within the Sparta Project Area.
Single-Storied Large Tree Structure
Existing Dry PVG
OFSS
Existing Moist PVG OFSS
Post-Treatment Dry
PVG OFSS
Post-Treatment Moist PVG
OFSS
Change in OFSS LOS acres
Alternative 2 622 36 1125 59 +526
Alternative 3 622 36 622 36 0
Table 55. Silvicultural Effects on Mesic Mixed Conifer OFMS Stands within the Sparta Project Area
Multi-Storied Large Tree Structure
Existing Dry OFMS
(acres)
Existing Moist OFMS
Post-Treatment Dry OFMS
Post-Treatment
Moist OFMS
Change in Dry OFMS acres
(%)
Change in Moist OFMS
acres (%)
Alternative 2 2,391 210 1,888 187 -503 (21%) -23 (11%)
Alternative 3 2,391 210 2,391 210 -0 (0%) -0 (0%)
Alternative 2 would reduce the quality of connectivity corridors on 1,844 acres by reducing the canopy
closure and structural complexity. Table 56 compares the acres that are proposed for silvicultural
treatments by alternative. Silvicultural prescriptions in connective corridor units would reduce
competition between residual trees, increase tree growth rates, and increase trees’ ability to defend against
insects and diseases, while retaining levels of canopy closure and structural complexity to facilitate
movement of wildlife between old-growth habitat patches.
Alternative 2 would apply prescribed fire to approximately 286 acres within connective corridors, but
outside of commercial timber harvest units. The large majority of these acres are within the dry upland
forest types where periodic fire historically performed a maintenance function that shaped the structure,
tree species composition, and wildlife value of these stands. Some snags and logs may be consumed by
prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire killed trees. The burning, non-
commercial thinning, and mechanical fuels reduction in connective corridors will not have a measurable
negative effect on the quality or function of the corridors.
Alternative 3 would reduce the quality of connectivity corridors on 1,694 acres. Table 56 provides a
comparison of acres treated within connective corridors by alternative. Silvicultural prescriptions in
connective corridor units would reduce competition between residual trees, increase tree growth rates, and
increase trees’ ability to defend against insects and diseases, while retaining levels of canopy closure and
structural complexity to facilitate movement of wildlife between old-growth habitat patches.
The silvicultural prescriptions in connective corridor units would reduce competition between residual
trees, increase tree growth rates, and increase trees’ ability to defend against insects and diseases, while
retaining levels of canopy closure and structural complexity to facilitate movement of wildlife between
LOS habitat patches.
Alternatives 3 would apply prescribed fire to approximately 286 acres within connective corridors, but
outside of commercial timber harvest units. The large majority of these acres are within the dry upland
forest types where periodic fire historically performed a maintenance function that shaped the structure,
tree species composition, and wildlife value of these stands. Some snags and logs may be consumed by
prescribed fire, while new snags and logs are recruited from fire killed trees. The burning, non-
commercial thinning, and mechanical fuels reduction in connective corridors will not have a measurable
negative effect on the quality or function of the corridors.
115
Cumulative Effects on Old Growth Habitat
The existing condition of the Sparta project area is a reflection of past management activities which will
be taken into consideration along with the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the
assessment of cumulative effects. Refer to Appendix D for a complete listing of present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects.
Alternative 1
The no action alternative will not contribute to the cumulative effects of past, present and foreseeable
future activities. Any effects of forgoing silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning would occur later
in time, and are addressed as indirect effects above.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Cumulative effects for old growth are specific for the structure stage and are not tied to old growth
species habitat needs. Effects are analyzed at the same scale as the HRV analysis, within the Eagle-Creek
Paddy Creek and Little Eagle subwatersheds. There are no projects on Forest Service land within these
subwatersheds proposed within the foreseeable future. Private land exists within these subwatersheds and
there is potential for landowners to alter structure stage in the foreseeable future. Private land commercial
harvest activities are expected to continue to maximize commercial output and mitigate wildfire danger.
These treatments are not expected to maintain old growth conditions and old growth habitat is expected to
decrease on private land. Cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 2 or 3 would be positive in
relation to increasing OFSS structure stage within the subwatersheds.
The reduction in connective habitat quality that results from silvicultural treatments would be greater
under Alternative 2 than for Alternative 3 in both acres affected and degree of effects on specific acres. It
is unknown whether the level of treatments in Alternative 2 would compromise connectivity to a level that
leads to isolation or fragmentation of wildlife habitat. The reduction in connective habitat quality that
results from silvicultural treatments would be relatively short lived as tree canopies respond to the
reduced competition, and seedlings establish in response to increased sunlight reaching the forest floor.
The quality of connective habitat in treatment units would likely recover to pre-treatment conditions
within fifteen years. In the interim, the riparian habitat conservation area network, MA15 areas, wild and
scenic river corridor (Eagle Creek), and the remaining forest matrix would combine to facilitate varying
degrees of connectivity between distant LOS habitat patches.
Alternative 2 would reduce the quality of connective corridors on 150 more acres than Alternative 3.
This approach of addressing connectivity habitat is consistent with direction in the Regional Forester’s
Forest Plan Amendment #2 to retain canopy closure in the upper 1/3 of site potential, and other criteria
that define connective corridors.
The incremental effects of prescribed burning, non-commercial thinning, and mechanical fuels reduction,
would not compromise the quality or function of connective corridors.
Table 56. Connectivity Corridor Summary.
Connectivity Elements Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Acres of Silvicultural treatments in connective corridors
0 1,844 1,694
Connectivity Prescription N/A Retain basal area at UMZ Retain basal area at UMZ
116
B. Old Growth Management Indicator Species
The following describes the existing conditions and effects of the Sparta project on three old growth
management indicator species:
Section I – American Marten
Section II – Northern Goshawk
Section III – Pileated Woodpecker
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities associated with the Sparta project are of such limited and constrained nature that
they would have no effect on old growth management indicator species.
Roadside hazard tree removal
Treatments within RHCAs
Closed roads reopened for administrative access
Road decommissioning
Temporary road construction & Road reconstruction
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
Culvert Replacement
Mechanical Control Lines for Burning
These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in the effects to old growth management
indicator species sections below.
I. American Marten (Martes americana)
Existing Conditions
Life history, risk factors, conservation status and population trend, as well as habitat condition and species
viability are described in detail in the American Marten (Martes americana) Management Indicator
Species Assessment, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011a).
At the regional scale (Blue Mountains), Wales (2011a) found that source habitat amounts that occurred
historically in the Blue Mountains totaled 277,715 acres. Source habitats within the Blue Mountains
currently total 257,942 acres; or 93% of historical levels. On the WWNF, 144,347 acres of source habitat
are estimated to have occurred historically. Currently the WWNF contains 129,943 acres of source
habitat (90% of historical) (Penninger and Keown 2011a).
Like most coarse scale vegetation data sets, the one used in the viability assessment is imperfect.
However, it indicates landscape patterns that reasonable estimate habitat conditions for marten at larger
scales.
Conditions within Eagle Creek Watershed
The Sparta project area is located within the Eagle Creek watershed, included within cluster W3 (Wales
2011a). The analysis determined that cluster W3 historically contained 13 watersheds (76%) with greater
than or equal to 40% source habitat. Under the current condition, W3 contains the same number of
watersheds (13) with 40% or greater source habitat, indicating that landscape capability within this cluster
is similar to that provided historically. Analysis of conditions within the Eagle Creek watershed as
modeled by Wales shows that source habitat totals 30% of potential habitat acres. The historical median
for source habitat as a percentage of potential is 16 percent, indicating a high level of habitat quality and
117
quantity and placing the Eagle Creek watershed among the 6 watersheds with the greatest amounts of
source habitats in the Blue Mountains (Penninger and Keown 2011a).
Analysis for Sparta and Eagle Creek Watershed
Habitat parameters described by Penninger and Keown (2011a) and Wales (2011a) were applied to
existing vegetation data to identify marten source habitats within the Sparta project area and Eagle Creek
watershed. Furthermore, field review of selected stands modeled as source habitat was conducted in
September 2011, resulting in changes in habitat classification of habitats modeled within the project area.
Based on the field review, it appears that stands capable of supporting marten exist primarily above 4,700
feet elevation and those below 5,000 feet in the Sparta project area are restricted to moist stands on
northerly aspects due to the dry nature of stands facing other aspects at these elevations. Because the
Sparta project area is predominately south-facing, presence and development of larger core habitat areas
for marten is more likely to occur above 5,000 feet where stands of more neutral aspects are more moist.
Review of existing conditions shows that suitable marten habitat on WWNF lands in the Sparta project
area is relatively sparse, with source habitats totaling only 151 acres.
Using parameters identified by Penninger and Keown (2011a), approximately 12,011 acres of source
habitat and 4,735 acres of secondary habitat modeled and adjusted after field review in the Sparta project
area, is estimated to occur on WWNF lands within the Eagle Creek watershed (5th-level HUC). The
majority of source and secondary habitat (98%) within the Eagle Creek watershed occurs north of the
Sparta project area. The Sparta project area represents the very southern periphery of marten habitat in
the Eagle Creek watershed. Marten have been observed along the northern edge of the project area,
specifically in the area of Martin Bridge (ODFW, personal communication). It is assumed that marten can
use portions of the Sparta project area for movement but due to the limited amount of source habitat,
denning is unlikely.
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects on American Marten
Alternative 1
There will be no direct or indirect adverse effects to American marten from the Alternative 1 because no
timber harvest, fuels treatments, or transportation activities will occur. Existing marten source and
secondary habitat would remain unchanged.
Alternatives 2 and 3
In general, silvicultural treatments have the potential to affect marten habitat suitability by reducing stand
canopy closures and understory tree densities. Silviculture treatments proposed under Alternative 2
would treat about 19 acres (12% of existing) of source habitat found within the project area (Table 57).
Stands within the Sparta project area show uncharacteristically high levels of dwarf mistletoe and
silviculture treatments propose to remove infected trees to some degree. Trees 21” dbh and larger will be
retained on the landscape, but will be treated in a way to encourage snag creation and reduce mistletoe
infection of the stand. Dwarf mistletoe, more specifically the brooms produced by dwarf mistletoe
infection, has been identified as a structural component of marten habitat. In northeastern Oregon, Bull
and Heater (2000) reported that 19% of tree platforms used by marten for resting were formed by
mistletoe. In addition, mistletoe brooms provide resting structure for potential prey species including red
squirrels and flying squirrels. Removal of mistletoe-infected trees would degrade habitat suitability by
reducing available resting structure for marten and potential prey species that use these structures.
However, snag creation can provide resting and denning habitat for marten as well as increase future
118
down logs. The structural complexity of treated stands will be more simplified, thus providing lower
quality habitat. Alternative 3 has no proposed silvicultural treatments within marten source habitat.
Application of fuel treatments outside of stands proposed for timber harvest has the potential to reduce
understory and down wood densities, but is unlikely to substantially reduce stand canopy closures. Katie
Moriarty (2014) compared marten movement within open, simple stands treated with fuels treatments and
untreated complex stands. She found that martens selected home ranges with a disproportionate amount
of complex stands and avoided openings. This implies that on a landscape level, only the percentage of
openings affected the placement of marten home ranges; however, simple stands were marginally avoided
compared to complex stands. Marten movement within simple stands vs. complex stands suggests that
marten use simple stands for travel and for intermittent foraging but not for denning. Therefore,
prescribed fire-only treatments are expected to degrade, but not remove, marten habitat. Prescribed fire is
proposed in 19 acres of source habitat under all alternatives.
Table 57. Proposed Silvicultural Treatments in Modeled Marten Habitats
Habitat Type (Existing acres) on WWNF lands
Treatment Type by Alternative, Acres (Percent of Corresponding Habitat Type), Sparta Project Area
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Silv. Rx Fuel Only Silv. Rx Fuel Only
Source Habitat (151 acres)
19 acres (12%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
19 acres (12%)
Marten Habitat at the Watershed Level
Marten habitat contained within the Sparta project area occurs at the very southern periphery of marten
habitat within the watershed and it is not expected that marten would use the area for anything other than
foraging. Treatments under Alternative 2 and 3 would degrade about 0.1% of source habitat available in
the watershed.
Post-treatment availability of source habitats would continue to exceed the threshold of 40% of the
historical amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all action alternatives, thereby continuing to
contribute to species viability at the watershed scale. In addition, post-treatment amounts of source
habitat as a percentage of potential habitat would remain at 32%, well above the historic median of 16%
described by Penninger and Keown (2011a).
Marten Habitat at the WWNF Scale
Estimated habitat impacts at the project area and watershed scales (described above) are based on source
habitat parameters modeled according to Penninger and Keown (i.e. 50% canopy closure and 15 inch
DBH criteria). Existing marten source habitat on the WWNF as modeled by Wales (2011a) totals 129,943
acres. As a result of proposed activities under the Sparta project, source habitats would be degraded on 19
acres under Alternatives 2 and 3. Because source and secondary habitats at the Forest level were modeled
according to more conservative thresholds described by Wales (i.e. 60% canopy closure and 20 inch DBH
criteria), it is reasonable to assume that the source habitat impacts would actually be less than the estimate
based on the 50% canopy closure and 15” DBH criteria. Therefore, source habitat impacts at the Forest
level would equate to less than 0.003% under Alternatives 2 and 3.
Cluster analysis used to describe existing distribution of source habitats across the WWNF indicates that
these habitats are well distributed across the Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011a). Post-treatment levels
of source habitat under all Sparta action alternatives are expected to result in no change in the number of
watersheds in Cluster W3 containing >40% source habitat that contribute to marten habitat distribution.
119
Landscape Permeability
Treatments proposed under each action alternative may decrease existing habitat permeability due to
reduced canopy closure, decreased structural complexity, and increased disturbance on specified and
temporary roads. Impacts from temporary roads are expected to be short-term (up to 10 years), with
impacts scattered in time and space as treatments are implemented. Permeability reductions would be
localized in the southern portion of the Eagle Creek watershed, within the northern portion of the Sparta
project area. Areas of higher permeability, located north of the project area, would remain unaltered by
project activities.
Cumulative Effects on American Marten
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to the
species. Effects of past activities including road construction, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and timber
management on WWNF lands have been incorporated into the existing conditions for amounts and
locations of marten habitats in the analysis areas and into the viability analysis.
Appendix D of the EA was reviewed for actions that might affect marten habitat within the Eagle Creek
watershed. Cumulative impacts of ongoing and foreseeable actions are projected out to 20 years from the
present. Ongoing and future livestock grazing is expected to have no effect on marten habitat because
cattle tend to avoid areas with high amounts of down wood. On Forest Service lands within and outside
the project area, firewood cutting will continue to reduce available snags and logs, but the effect is limited
to areas adjacent to open roads. Timber harvest on private inholdings is expected to continue at some
level, with anticipated reductions of trees larger than 10 inches DBH, but generally marten habitat does
not occur on private inholdings in the Sparta project area.
Wales et al. (2011) estimated that approximately 144,300 acres of source habitat existed on the WWNF
historically. At the time of the analysis, approximately 129,900 acres (90% of estimated historical
conditions) of source habitat occurred on the WWNF. Since the viability assessment was run 14
Vegetation/Fuels Restoration projects have been analyzed across the Wallowa-Whitman. Some have been
implemented and some are still undergoing the NEPA process, but are anticipated being implemented in
the foreseeable future. These combined projects, including the Sparta Vegetation Management project,
anticipate commercially impacting 2,427 acres of marten source habitat and non-commercially impacting
4,472 acres of marten source habitat. Taking these 6,899 acres of impacted source habitat into account,
this results in approximately 123,001 acres (85% of estimated historical conditions) of source habitat
existing on the WWNF. Cumulatively, vegetation management activities on the Wallowa-Whitman are
not expected to change the viability outcome found by Wales et al. and marten source habitat will remain
well distributed and highly abundant with some gaps where suitable environments are absent or only
present in low abundance (viability outcome B).
Conclusion
Because this project impacts less than 0.003% of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct,
indirect and cumulative effects would result in a small negative effect to marten habitat. The decrease in
habitat quality due to the Sparta Vegetation Management Project will be insignificant at the scale of the
WWNF. The Sparta project may reduce habitat permeability at a localized scale, but impacts at the
WWNF scale would be immeasurable. Post-treatment availability of source habitats would continue to
exceed the threshold of 40% of the historical amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all action
alternatives, thereby continuing to contribute to habitat distribution and species viability on the WWNF.
120
II. Northern Goshawk
The goshawk is an MIS associated with dense-canopied mixed conifer and lodgepole pine forest types.
Potential goshawk nesting habitat is defined as multi-story large tree (OFMS) mixed conifer stands with
high canopy closure (60-90%), a north or northeast aspect, slopes <30%, a sparse understory, and near
water (Marshall 1992). Moore and Henny (1983) reported that a portion of nesting goshawks (15%)
utilized mistletoe brooms as nesting substrate in northeastern Oregon. McGrath el al. (2003) described
that goshawks in study areas within the eastern Cascades and Blue Mountains, Oregon and Washington,
also utilized stem-exclusion and understory-reinitiation forest structural stages with high basal areas,
northerly aspects, and at lower slope positions.
Goshawks defend territories of several hundred acres that usually contain 2-4 alternate nests, which are
often used for more than 1 year and sometimes intermittently for decades (Reynolds et al. 1992, Marshall
1992). Typical nest distribution in eastern Oregon is about 3.2 mi between active nests or about 1 nest per
6,800 acres (Reynolds and Wight 1978, Csuti et al. 2001). Goshawks forage for birds and mammals in
open understories below the forest canopy and along small forest openings (Marshall 1992, Bull and
Hohman 1994). Goshawk prey is equally divided between mammals and birds, and quail, owls, small
hawks, ducks, thrushes, squirrels, and shrews are among their prey (Marshall 1992, Csuti et al. 2001).
Life history, risk factors, conservation status and population trend, as well as habitat condition and species
viability are described in detail in the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Management Indicator
Species Assessment, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011c).
Existing Conditions
Analysis of Source Habitat on the WWNF
Wales et al. (2011c) analyzed source habitat of numerous wildlife species of interest in the Blue
Mountains and WWNF in support of the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision.
Source habitats are defined by Wales et al. as those stands that provide for a stable or increasing
population and for all the life history needs of the goshawk including nesting, roosting, foraging, resting,
travel, and dispersal. Vegetation parameters used to identify source habitat include Dry Ponderosa Pine,
Dry Douglas-fir, Dry Grand Fir, Cool Moist, and Cool Dry PVGs where average tree size is equal to or
greater than 15 inches DBH. In addition, source habitats within Dry Ponderosa Pine, Dry Douglas-fir,
Dry Grand Fir PVGs contain canopy closures equal to or greater than 40%, whereas canopy closure in
Cool Moist and Cold Dry PVGs is equal to or exceeds 60 percent. Potential habitat is defined as stands
within dry Douglas-fir, dry grand fir, cool moist and cold dry potential vegetation groups that have the
capability to provide source habitat but that currently do not provide the tree size, canopy cover, or
structural conditions. Given time and lack of human intervention or disturbance these areas may provide
source habitat.
Wales et al. (2011c) estimated that approximately 466,679 acres of source habitat existing on the WWNF
historically. Currently, approximately 440,696 acres (94% of estimated historical conditions) of source
habitat occurs on the WWNF.
Goshawk Viability on the WWNF
A species viability assessment was conducted for the goshawk in the Blue Mountain region of northeast
Oregon and Washington, as well as for the WWNF following Regional guidance (Wales et al. 2011). The
viability outcome model was utilized to assess species viability. The model provides a large-scale index
of the capability of the environment to support population abundance and distribution. The viability
outcome model used the BBN models previously described to calculate viability outcome scores. The
121
viability outcome scores were derived from the WI scores, weighted watershed index (WWI) scores and
the habitat distribution index. It is assumed that that species with high viability outcome scores would
have a high probability of having populations that are self-sustaining and well distributed throughout their
historic ranges.
The current viability outcome index for the WWNF is primarily an “A” for which there is a 57%
probability that goshawk habitats are broadly distributed and of high abundance. Results showed a lesser
probability (27%) that habitats are broadly distributed and of high abundance, but with gaps (Outcome
“B”). The outcome scores indicate that suitable environments of the goshawk are broadly distributed and
of high abundance and that the goshawk is likely well distributed throughout the WWNF. In conclusion,
the viability assessment indicates that source habitat of the goshawk is still available in adequate amounts,
distribution, and quality to maintain goshawk viability in the Blue Mountains and on the WWNF.
(Penninger and Keown 2011c).
Source Habitat at the Watershed Scale
The watershed index (WI) scores incorporate the habitat departure, percentage of source habitat that is
late-successional, and habitat effectiveness calculations previously discussed. The WI provides a measure
of change in the amount of source habitat from historical conditions (departure) and the influences of
habitat quality (amount of late-successional forest) and habitat effectiveness (influence of roads and
trails). The calculation provided an index for each watershed with the values ranging from 0-3 (low: >0-
1, moderate: >1-<2, high: >=2). Historically, it was estimated that the watershed index was
approximately 2.94 for all the watersheds in the Blue Mountains and on the WWNF that were capable of
providing goshawk habitat. The results are that nearly all (86%) of the watersheds on the WWNF had WI
scores that were high. High WI values are indicative of low departure from the historical median amount
of source habitat and relatively high amounts of source habitat that are also late successional. While there
are generally high WI values, habitat effectiveness is still lower than historical habitat effectiveness due to
the presence of roads and trails. WI for the Eagle Creek watershed is ranked “High”.
The WWI provides a relative measure of the potential capability of each watershed to contribute to the
viability of the goshawk. It was calculated from the WI by weighting it by the amount of source habitat
that was currently available in each watershed. It is a measure of the current capability of an area to
provide for the sustainability of a species compared to what the capability was historically. Watersheds
with a WWI greater than 60 provide the greatest contribution to viability. WWI ranked “High” for the
Eagle Creek watershed.
The habitat distribution index is an assessment of how the watersheds with a relatively high amount of
source habitat are connected and distributed across the planning area. It is calculated by the interaction of
two variables; 1) the percentage of the total number of watersheds that met a threshold amount of source
habitat, and 2) the number of “clusters”, or groups of watersheds, with at least one watershed that met the
threshold amount of source habitat. The threshold of >40% of the historical amount or source habitat in a
watershed was used to indicate watersheds with a relatively high amount of source habitat that would
contribute to species viability. Watersheds that contain > 40% of the estimated historical median amount
of source habitat are believed to provide for habitat distribution and connectivity, and better contribute to
species viability across the forest. To assess how watersheds that exceeded 40% threshold were
distributed across the forest the WWNF was divided into four areas. Each area contained a “cluster” of
watersheds. Sub-basins (4th HUC) and forest ownership patterns were used to identify the watershed
clusters.
Considering the 40% threshold, it’s estimated that historically thirty-five of the forty-nine watersheds
(71%) analyzed on the WWNF exceeded the 40% threshold. In these watersheds more than 40% of the
potential habitat met the vegetative conditions of source habitat. Not all watersheds have the potential to
122
provide source habitat for goshawk. Currently, thirty-two (91% of historical conditions; 65% of the
watersheds on the WWNF) of the thirty-five watersheds that historically met this threshold, currently
meet the threshold. Likely due to fire suppression, two watersheds on the WWNF currently provide more
than 40% source habitat that did not historically provide habitat, bringing the total number of watersheds
on the WWNF providing source habitat to 34 (69% of the watersheds on the WWNF). The analysis by
cluster indicates that habitat is still well distributed across the WWNF and provides opportunity for
habitat connectivity. Each cluster has a relatively high number of watersheds that meet or exceed 40% of
the historical median amount of source habitat. The Eagle Creek watershed currently contains >40% of
historical median source habitat and was included in cluster W3, within which 88% of watersheds
currently have ≥40% of historical median of source habitat.
Surveys within the Sparta Project Area
Surveys to determine presence of goshawks were conducted within portions of the Sparta project area
during the summer of 2011 and the summer of 2016. Responses were detected at two historical sites. No
nests were located so future surveys will be concentrated in those areas before treatment. Per the Eastside
Screens, if a nest is found, a no treatment 30 acre nest core buffer and a 400 acres PFA buffer will be
implemented.
Habitat Condition within the Sparta Project Area
Habitat characteristics and methodology selected for this analysis are described in the Northern Goshawk
(Accipiter gentilis) Management Indicator Species Assessment, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
(Penninger and Keown 2011c).
Goshawk habitats modeled by Penninger and Keown (2011c) and Wales (2011c) include source and
potential habitats. Source habitats are defined as those stands that provide for a stable or increasing
population and for all the life history needs of the goshawk including nesting, roosting, foraging, resting,
travel, and dispersal. Vegetation parameters used to identify source habitat include Dry Ponderosa Pine,
Dry Douglas-fir, Dry Grand Fir, Cool Moist, and Cool Dry PVGs where average tree size is equal to or
greater than 15 inches DBH. In addition, source habitats within Dry Ponderosa Pine, Dry Douglas-fir,
Dry Grand Fir PVGs contain canopy closures equal to or greater than 40%, whereas canopy closure in
Cool Moist and Cold Dry PVGs is equal to or exceeds 60 percent. Potential habitat is defined as stands
within Dry Ponderosa Pine, Douglas-fir, Dry Grand Fir, Cool Moist and Cold Dry PVGs that have the
capability to provide source habitat but that currently do not provide the tree size, canopy cover, or
structural conditions. Given time and lack of human intervention or disturbance these areas may provide
source habitat.
Table 58. Existing Goshawk Source and Potential Habitats.
Habitat Type Sparta Project Area Eagle Creek 5th HUC
Source 1,891 acres 27,058 acres
Potential 5,789 acres 40,323 acres
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects on Goshawks
Alternative 1 - No Action
There will be no direct adverse effects to old-growth associated MIS from the No Action Alternative
because no timber harvest, fuels treatments, or transportation activities will occur. Existing source habitat
would remain unchanged. However, the no-action alternative maintains possible unsustainable conditions
123
in late-seral stage montane forests where there have been large transitions from shade-intolerant to shade-
tolerant tree species, described as a management issue for Group 6 habitats by Wisdom et al. (2000).
Alternatives 2 and 3
Sparta Project Area
Both timber harvest and prescribed fire treatments within and outside timber harvest units would occur in
northern goshawk source habitat under all action alternatives. Intermediate harvest treatments are
expected to increase average stand diameter due to removal of trees primarily in smaller size classes, but
across all size classes for Alternatives 2 and 3. Due to the possibility of snag removal during harvest and
potential consumption of down logs during post-treatment underburning and in prescribed fire-only units,
treatments that retain sufficient canopy closures are still expected to degrade, but not remove, source
habitat. Although some habitat elements may be reduced where habitat is degraded, sustainability of
habitats is expected to increase as stand density reductions lower the risk of disturbance such as stand-
replacement fire, especially in Dry Forest types. Table 6 shows acres and percent of source habitat
proposed for treatment under each alternative.
Treatments proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 would impact the greatest amount of goshawk source
habitat. Harvest activities would occur within 395 acres of source habitat in Alternative 2 and 105 acres
in Alternative 3. These harvest activities may alter 6-21% of goshawk source habitat within the Sparta
project area for approximately 20 years until canopy closure recovers and snags and logs begin to be
recruited. Although the treated acres may no longer meet the definition of source habitat, they would still
be available for goshawk foraging, roosting, and travel between other habitat patches. Fuel management
activities (pre-commercial thinning, hand piling and prescribed fire would occur within 125 acres of
source habitat in Alternative 2, and 127 acres in Alternative 3. Fuel management will reduce structural
complexity in the understory in 7% of goshawk source habitat in the project area, but it will still meet the
requirements for source habitat.
Table 59. Summary of Proposed Treatments in Goshawk Source Habitat
Habitat Elements
Alternatives
Alternative 1 (Existing)
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Harvest Fuels Rx only Harvest Fuels Rx only
Acres of Treatment in Habitat
1,891
395
125
105
127
% of source habitat in project area
100% 21% 7% 6% 7%
Broom structures created by dwarf mistletoe have been identified as potential nesting substrate for
goshawks. Moore and Henney (1983) reported that approximately 15% of goshawk nests studied in
northeastern Oregon were located on mistletoe-created platforms. All action alternatives propose some
level of mistletoe reduction in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine (see American marten discussion, above)
by killing heavily infected trees. Where treatments are proposed within currently suitable goshawk
nesting habitat, the proposed action would degrade habitat suitability by reducing available nesting
platform structure, though the trees would still be available on the landscape in the form of snags. This
effect would be most pronounced for Alternatives 2. Retention of mistletoe-infected trees 21 inches DBH
or greater under both action alternatives would allow some treatment units to retain mistletoe platforms in
the largest trees most likely to support goshawk nesting. However, most goshawk nests usually occur
within close proximity to water so the majority of potential nesting structures will be retained under all
alternatives because RHCAs will retain all existing mistletoe brooms.
124
Aspen restoration on scattered sites would remove conifers on a total of 14 acres under Alternative 2 and
13 acres under Alternative 3, a portion of which may occur in suitable goshawk habitat. Activities that
increase overall human presence and project-related noise levels, including system road reconstruction as
well as timber harvest, may temporarily displace goshawks locally in the short-term (i.e. during
implementation), but are not expected to impact distribution within the project area in the long-term.
In addition to impacts to available habitats, each action alternative poses potential for direct impact to
nesting individuals. Both timber harvest and prescribed fire could cause individual harm or mortality if
operations destroy a nest tree occupied by young of the year. If goshawk nesting is discovered prior to, or
during implementation, a no-activity nest area of at least 30 acres will be designated for active nests.
Because goshawks were detected at several locations during 2011 and 2016 surveys, and because the
existing nest site was not confirmed with 100% certainty, additional goshawk surveys in these locations
would occur prior to implementation of proposed silvicultural and prescribed fire treatments.
Goshawk Habitat at the Watershed Level
Watershed indices reported by Wales (2011c) and further assessed by Penninger and Keown (2011c) for
the existing condition showed that the Eagle Creek watershed currently contains a high amount of source
habitat. Treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of source habitat available in
the watershed by approximately 1.5 percent (Table 60). Source habitat would be reduced by 0.4% under
Alternative 3. Post-treatment availability of source habitats would continue to exceed the threshold of
40% of the historical amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all action alternatives, thereby
continuing to contribute to species viability at the watershed scale.
Table 60. Goshawk Source Habitats by Alternative, Eagle Creek Watershed.
Existing and Post-Treatment Habitat Acreage Amounts by Alternative (% of Existing)
Habitat Type Existing
Condition
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Source 27,058 26,663
(98.5%)
26,953
(99.6%)
Goshawk Habitat at the WWNF Scale
Existing goshawk source habitat on the WWNF as modeled by Wales et al. 2011 totals 440,696 acres. As
a result of projected habitat loss under the Sparta project, source habitats at the Forest-level would decline
by less than 1 percent under all action alternatives.
Cluster analysis used to describe existing distribution of source habitats across the WWNF indicates that
these habitats are well distributed across the Forest. Post-treatment levels of source habitat under all
Sparta action alternatives result in no change in the number of watersheds in Cluster W3 containing >40%
source habitat that contribute to goshawk habitat distribution.
Cumulative Effects on Goshawks
Cumulative effects for goshawk are analyzed for the Eagle Creek watershed. Past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to the species. Effects of past activities
including road construction, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and timber management on WWNF lands
have been incorporated into the existing conditions for amounts and locations of marten habitats in the
analysis areas. Although some commercial treatments may occur within goshawk suitable habitat, the
scale of potential impacts is not substantial in comparison to source habitats currently estimated to exceed
27,000 acres.
125
Appendix D of the EA was reviewed for actions that might affect goshawk habitat within the Eagle Creek
watershed. Ongoing and future livestock grazing is expected to have a minimal effect on suitable
habitats. Additional grazing may occur in treated stands within the project area, but is not expected to
alter suitable characteristics. On Forest Service lands within and outside the project area, firewood
cutting will continue to reduce available snags and logs, but the effect is limited to areas adjacent to open
roads. Access within the watershed and across the WWNF may change pending the outcome of the
Forest Travel Management Plan. Timber harvest on private inholdings is expected to continue at some
level, with anticipated reductions of trees larger than 10 inches DBH. Lands to the south of the project
area will continue to consist of open grassland habitats in private ownership.
Wales et al. (2011) estimated that approximately 466,679 acres of source habitat existed on the WWNF
historically. At the time of the analysis, approximately 440,696 acres (94% of estimated historical
conditions) of source habitat occurred on the WWNF. Since the viability assessment was run 14
Vegetation/Fuels Restoration projects have been analyzed across the Wallowa-Whitman. Some have been
implemented and some are still undergoing the NEPA process but are anticipated being implemented in
the foreseeable future. These combined projects, including the Sparta Vegetation Management project,
anticipate commercially impacting 6,523 acres of goshawk source habitat and non-commercially
impacting 18,877 acres of goshawk source habitat. Taking these 25,400 acres of impacted source habitat
into account there is approximately 415,296 acres (89% of estimated historical conditions) of source
habitat existing on the WWNF. Cumulatively, vegetation management activities on the Wallowa-
Whitman are not expected to change the viability outcome found by Wales et al. and goshawk source
habitat will remain well distributed and highly abundant (viability outcome A).
Conclusion
Because this project impacts less than 1% of source habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect
and cumulative effects will result in a small negative effect to goshawk habitat. The loss of habitat will be
insignificant at the scale of the WWNF. Post-treatment availability of source habitats would continue to
exceed the threshold of 40% of the historical amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all action
alternatives, thereby continuing to contribute to habitat distribution and species viability on the WWNF.
III. Pileated Woodpecker
The pileated woodpecker is an MIS which prefers dense, multi-story old growth habitats with high snag
densities. It will use both coniferous and deciduous trees, but tends to be most common in old-growth
ponderosa pine-mixed conifer forests in eastern Oregon (Csuti et al. 2001). Large snags are used for
nesting, roosting, and foraging; logs are used for foraging. Nesting occurs in live and dead trees that are at
least 2-3 ft in diameter. Carpenter ants, which are found in decaying wood, are its main food item, but it
also eats the larvae of wood-boring beetles, termites, berries, and acorns. More vegetable matter is
consumed during the winter.
Life history, risk factors, conservation status and population trend, as well as habitat condition and species
viability are described in detail in the Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocupus pileated) Management Indicator
Species Assessment, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011b).
Broadscale Habitat Analysis
Habitat trends of the pileated woodpecker were assessed at the Interior Columbia Basin, Blue Mountains
ecological reporting unit (ERU), and WWNF scales using information provided by Source Habitats for
Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000) and the species
viability assessment conducted by Wales et al. (2011) in support of the Blue Mountains Forest Plan
revision.
126
Wisdom et al (2000) define source habitat as those characteristics of macro-vegetation (vegetation that
can be measured accurately using 100 hectare [247 acres] pixels) that contribute to stationary or positive
population growth for a species in a specified area and time and to long-term population persistence.
Source habitats contribute to source environments, which represent the composite of all environmental
conditions that result in stationary or positive population growth for a species in a specified area and time.
Source habitats are distinguished from habitats simply associated with species occurrence; species
occurrence by itself does little to indicate the capability of the environment to support long-term
persistence of populations. In comparing existing amounts of source habitat to historical amounts,
Wisdom et al. (2000) reported that, with the exception of the western larch cover type, all cover types in
the Blue Mountains ERU that constitute pileated woodpecker source habitat have strongly increased.
This is in contrast to the Basin (private and public lands in the interior Columbia Basin) which has
experienced a decrease in the percentage of area providing source habitat. Western larch represents
approximately 10 percent of the total live tree volume in the Blue Mountains, with a gradient of more to
less abundance from north to south. Although Wisdom et al. (2000) documents a strong decrease in
source habitat in the western larch cover type, this apparent decrease is not likely significant in regard to
the abundance and distribution of source habitat for pileated woodpeckers in the Blue Mountains. Stands
dominated by western larch are not rare, but they represent a minor proportion of the forested landscapes
in the Blue Mountains (Penninger and Keown 2011c).
Wales et al. (2011) analyzed source habitat of numerous wildlife species of interest in the Blue Mountains
and WWNF in support of the Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision. The analysis was conducted at the
stand-scale, a much finer scale than the source habitat analysis conducted by Wisdom et al. (2000).
Forested stands modeled as pileated woodpecker source habitat consist of Dry Douglas-fir, Dry grand fir,
Cool Moist, and Cold Dry PVGs where average tree size is equal to or greater than 20 inches DBH. In
addition, source habitats within dry Douglas-fir and dry grand fir PVGs contain canopy closures equal to
or greater than 40%, whereas canopy closure in cool moist and cold dry PVGs is equal to or exceeds 60%.
Source habitats provide for a stable or increasing population and for all the life history needs of the
pileated woodpecker including nesting, roosting, foraging, resting, and travel. Areas modeled as potential
habitat consist of stands within dry Douglas-fir, dry grand fir, cool moist and cold dry potential vegetation
groups that have the capability to provide source habitat but that currently does not provide the tree size,
canopy cover, or structural conditions. Given time and lack of human intervention or disturbance these
areas may provide source habitat.
Historically (considering the HRV), it is estimated that at any one point in time there were approximately
359,608 acres on the WWNF that provided source habitat. Currently, there are approximately 206,374
acres (57% of historical conditions) that meet the source habitat definition. Forty of the forty-nine
watersheds (82%) analyzed for the pileated woodpecker on the WWNF have less source habitat than the
estimated historical condition. The source habitat analysis determined that the abundance of closed-
canopied forest with >20” DBH trees in the dry Douglas-fir, dry grand fir, cool moist, and cold dry forest
types on the WWNF has declined from historical conditions. This is similar to the Basin-wide findings
from the source habitat analysis conducted by Wisdom et al. (2000) but in contrast to the findings in the
Blue Mountains ERU where the abundance of source habitat was strongly increasing.
Snag size and density analysis conducted as part of the focal species assessment indicate that overall,
densities of snags > 19.6” DBH were in the low and moderate categories on the WWNF, meaning that the
majority of source habitat has fewer than 2.4 snags per acre. Historically, it is believed that the majority
of source habitat for the pileated woodpecker was in the high density class and had between 2.4 and 7.3
snags per acre (Penninger and Keown 2011c). Road densities were variable but primarily in the low or
moderate category. Open roads are believed to be a risk to snags due to firewood cutting and hazard tree
felling activities. Snag densities are frequently lower adjacent to open roads than areas away from roads.
Historically, the road density class was zero.
127
Viability at the Forest Scale
A species viability assessment was conducted for the pileated woodpecker in the Blue Mountain region of
northeast Oregon and Washington, as well as for the WWNF following Regional guidance (2010). A
viability outcome model was utilized to assess species viability. The model provides a large-scale index
of the capability of the environment to support population abundance and distribution. The viability
outcome model used the BBN models previously described to calculate viability outcome scores. The
viability outcome scores were derived from the watershed index (WI) scores, weighted watershed index
(WWI) scores and the habitat distribution index. It is assumed that that species with high viability
outcome scores would have a high probability of having populations that are self-sustaining and well
distributed throughout their historic ranges. Results show a 66% probability that suitable environments
are distributed frequently as patches and/or exist at low abundance (outcome “C”). For comparison,
historically, it was 70% probable that habitat was broadly distributed and of high abundance. However,
the viability assessment indicates the WWNF still provides for viability of the pileated woodpecker. In
addition, the species is distributed across the WWNF and there are adequate amounts, quality, and
distribution of habitat to provide for pileated woodpecker population viability (Penninger and Keown
2011b).
Conditions at the Watershed Scale
The watershed index (WI) scores incorporate the habitat departure, snag density, and road density
calculations previously discussed. The WI provides a measure of change in the amount of source habitat
from historical conditions (departure) and the influences of habitat quality (snag abundance) and risk
factors (road density). The variables were weighted based on peer review of what was believed to have
the strongest relationship and influence on the pileated woodpecker. Habitat departure was most heavily
weighted, followed by snag density, and then road density. The calculation provided an index for each
watershed with the values ranging from 0-3 (low: >0-1, moderate: >1-<2, high: >=2). For the WWNF,
39% of watersheds ranked Low, 29% ranked Moderate, and 33% ranked High. The Eagle Creek
watershed, which encompasses the Sparta project area, ranked high in both watershed index and weighted
watershed index scores.
As part of a cluster analysis, historical and current source habitat amounts were assessed for watersheds
on the WWNF. A threshold of>40% of the historical amount or source habitat in a watershed was used to
indicate watersheds with a relatively high amount of source habitat that would contribute to species
viability. Watersheds that contain > 40% of the estimated historical median amount of source habitat are
believed to provide for habitat distribution and connectivity, and better contribute to species viability
across the forest. The Eagle Creek watershed currently exceeds the 40% threshold and is part of a cluster
where 87% of watersheds currently exceed the same threshold. Results indicate favorable pileated
woodpecker source habitat conditions at the watershed and cluster scales as well as distribution of
habitats.
Current Condition within the Sparta Project Area
Surveys to determine presence of pileated woodpeckers were conducted within portions of the Sparta
project area during the summer of 2011. The species was detected in 4 locations.
Analysis of habitats modeled by Penninger and Keown (2011b) shows approximately 1,441 acres of
source habitat within the Sparta project area and about 18,569 acres of source habitat within the Eagle
Creek watershed. Distribution of source habitats is patchy throughout the project area, with notable
concentrations located north of Sparta in the Eagle Creek watershed
128
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects to Pileated Woodpeckers
Alternative 1
There would be no direct adverse effects to pileated woodpeckers from alternative 1 because no timber
harvest, fuels treatments, or transportation activities will occur. Existing source habitat for pileated
woodpeckers would remain unchanged. The no-action alternative maintains potentially unsustainable
conditions in warm, dry LOS forests where there have been large transitions from shade-intolerant to
shade-tolerant species. In the near-term, these denser forests with greater structural complexity may be
highly attractive to pileateds. However, large uncharacteristic wildfires could eventually render pileated
habitat unsuitable.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Both timber harvest and prescribed fire treatments within and outside timber harvest units would occur in
pileated woodpecker source habitat under all action alternatives. Thinning harvest treatments are expected
to increase average stand diameter due to removal of trees primarily in smaller size classes, but across all
size classes for Alternatives 2 and 3. Treatments that retain canopy closures that meet the definition of
source habitat would remain as source habitat. However, due to the possibility of minor snag reductions
for logging safety and potential consumption of down logs and snags during post-treatment burning and
in prescribed fire units, treatments that retain sufficient canopy closures are still expected to degrade, but
still function as source habitat. Although some habitat elements may be reduced where habitat is
degraded, sustainability of habitats is expected to increase as stand density reductions lower the risk of
disturbance such as stand-replacement fire, especially in warm, dry forest types. Table 61 shows acres
and percent of source habitat proposed for treatment under each alternative.
Table 61. Summary of Proposed Treatments in Pileated Source Habitat.
Source Habitat
Acres Affected
Alt 1 (Existing)
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Harvest Rx Fire Harvest Rx Fire
Acres 1,441 295 76 83 76
% of source habitat in project area
100 20 5 6 5
Treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would impact the largest amount of pileated source habitat.
Harvest activities would occur within 295 acres of source habitat in Alternative 2 and 83 acres in
Alternative 3. These harvest activities may alter 6-20% of pileated source habitat within the Sparta project
area for approximately 20 years until canopy closure recovers and snags and logs begin to be recruited.
Prescribed fire and fuels activities would occur within 76 acres of source habitat in both Alternative 2 and
3. Prescribed fire will reduce structural complexity in the understory in 5% of pileated source habitat in
the project area but it will still meet the requirements for source habitat.
Retention of all snags except for safety concerns minimizes the potential for direct impacts to nesting
pileated woodpeckers. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 a portion of trees over 21” dbh in stands heavily
infested with mistletoes will be girdled. These trees will remain on the landscape and provide additional
roosting, foraging and nesting opportunities for pileateds. In the long-term, accelerated tree growth due to
lower stocking densities is expected to develop large trees, and consequently large snags, at a faster rate
than untreated areas. While long-term availability of total snag numbers may decrease, available snags
will on average be larger in treatment units compared to untreated areas.
129
Aspen restoration on scattered sites would remove conifers on a total of 14 acres under Alternative 2 and
13 acres under Alternative 3, a portion of which may occur in suitable pileated woodpecker habitat.
Activities that increase overall human presence and project-related noise levels, including system road
reconstruction as well as timber harvest, may temporarily displace pileated woodpeckers locally in the
short-term (i.e. during implementation), but are not expected to impact distribution or productivity within
the project area in the long-term.
Pileated Woodpecker Habitat at the Watershed Level
Watershed indices reported by Wales et al. (2011) and further assessed by Penninger and Keown (2011c)
for the existing condition showed that the Eagle Creek watershed contains a high amount of source habitat
and a lesser amount of secondary habitat. Treatments proposed under Alternative 2 and 3 would reduce
the amount of source habitat available in the watershed by 1.6 and 0.5 percent, respectively (Table 62).
Post-treatment availability of source habitats would continue to exceed threshold of 40% of the historical
amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all action alternatives, thereby continuing to contribute to
species viability at the watershed scale.
Table 62. Existing and Post-treatment Source Habitat Amounts, Eagle Creek Watershed.
Habitat Type
Existing and Post-Treatment Habitat Acreage Amounts by
Alternative (% of Existing), Eagle Creek Watershed
Existing Condition Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Source 18,569 18,274
(98.4%)
18,486
(99.5%)
Pileated Woodpecker Habitat at the WWNF Scale
Existing pileated woodpecker source habitat on the WWNF as modeled by Wales (2011b) totals 129,943
acres. As a result of projected habitat loss under the Sparta project, source habitats would decline by an
estimated 295 acres under Alternative 2 and about 83 acres under Alternative 3. This results in a
reduction in source habitat of 0.3% at the Forest level under Alternative 2 and a reduction of 0.1% under
alternative 3 within the WWNF.
Cluster analysis used to describe existing distribution of source habitats across the WWNF indicates that
these habitats are well distributed across the Forest (Penninger and Keown 2011b). Post-treatment levels
of source habitat under all Sparta action alternatives result in no change in the number of watersheds in
Cluster W3 containing >40% source habitat that contribute to pileated woodpecker habitat distribution.
Cumulative Effects on Pileated Woodpeckers
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions were analyzed for cumulative impacts to the
species. Effects of past activities including road construction, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and timber
management on WWNF lands have been incorporated into the existing conditions for amounts and
locations of source habitats in the analysis area.
Appendix D of the EA was reviewed for actions that might affect pileated habitat within the Eagle Creek
watershed. Cumulative impacts of ongoing and foreseeable actions within the next 5 years from the
present which overlap in time and space with the Sparta project and create a potentially measureable
effect were considered. Ongoing and future livestock grazing is expected to have no effect on suitable
habitats. Additional grazing may occur in treated stands within the project area, but is not expected to
alter source habitats. On Forest Service lands within and outside the project area, firewood cutting will
continue to reduce available snags and logs, but the effect is primarily limited to areas adjacent to open
roads. Access within the watershed and across the WWNF will change when the Forest Travel
130
Management Plan is implemented. Limiting public motor vehicle use to designated roads, trails and areas
has the potential to reduce the miles of open roads where firewood gathering can reduce snags and logs.
Timber harvest on private inholdings is expected to continue at some level, with anticipated reductions of
trees larger than 10 inches DBH. Lands to the south of the project area will continue to consist of open
grassland habitats in private ownership.
Wales et al. (2011) estimated that approximately 359,608 acres of source habitat existed on the WWNF
historically. At the time of the analysis, approximately 206,374 acres (57% of estimated historical
conditions) of source habitat occurred on the WWNF. Since the viability assessment was run 14
Vegetation/Fuels Restoration projects have been analyzed across the Wallowa-Whitman. Some have been
implemented and some are still undergoing the NEPA process, but are anticipated being implemented in
the foreseeable future. These combined projects, including the Sparta Vegetation Management project,
anticipate commercially impacting 3,020 acres of pileated source habitat and non-commercially impacting
9,857 acres of pileated source habitat. Taking these 12,877 acres of impacted source habitat into account,
this results in approximately 193,497 acres (54% of estimated historical conditions) of source habitat
existing on the WWNF. Cumulatively, vegetation management activities on the Wallowa-Whitman are not
expected to change the viability outcome found by Wales et al. and pileated source habitat will remain
distributed frequently as patches and in low abundance (Viability outcome C).
Conclusion
Because this project impacts less than 0.5% of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct,
indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative effect to pileated habitat. The reduction of
habitat would be immeasurable at the WWNF scale. Post-treatment availability of source habitats would
continue to exceed the threshold of 40% of the historical amount in the Eagle Creek watershed under all
action alternatives, thereby continuing to contribute to habitat distribution and species viability on the
WWNF.
Social and Economics
Introduction
This report is divided into two parts, an economic impact analysis that includes an assessment of the
financial and economic efficiency of the project and a social impact analysis that includes environmental
justice. The effect of the alternatives on the social and economic conditions of people are discussed in
terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects including short-term and long-term effects. Its purpose is
to provide specific background information to help the Deciding Official in making a decision on which
alternative to select.
The economic impact analysis is used to identify potential impacts to economic conditions such as
employment and income. The efficiency analysis describes economic uses and values and identifies
potential benefits and costs of alternative proposals for resource management.
The social impact analysis is used to identify potential changes in people’s social and cultural conditions
that directly or indirectly result from Forest Service actions. The objective of the environmental justice
analysis is to identify potential disproportionate impacts to minority populations, low-income populations
and American Indian tribes.
131
Existing Condition
Affected Geographic Area
The communities most affected by the Sparta Project are the cities of Richland and Halfway, Oregon and
the associated Eagle Valley and Pine Valley population. This easternmost portion or “Panhandle” of
Baker County is mostly public land administered by the BLM and Forest Service. There are no Indian
reservations within the area or established traditional use areas. Oregon State Highway 86 bisects the two
valleys. The closest city is Baker City, population 9,828, which is about one hour highway travel time
away.
Communities, Lifestyle, Population, and Employment
These two small rural towns are primarily dependent on agriculture and tourism. There are no large
private manufacturing businesses located in the two communities though some individuals who live in the
Panhandle area commute to jobs in Baker City or around Northeast Oregon. Other Panhandle residents
are employed by large manufacturers or have small wood processing businesses. Lumber and wood
manufacturing businesses from the larger Northeastern Oregon geographical area usually buy timber sales
such as those that would be created by the Sparta project.
There are about 16,134 residents in Baker County (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010) with an estimated
2,500 of those people in the Panhandle area. The population of the area is more than 95% white of which
3% is Hispanic. American Indians are about 1% of the population with other ethnic minorities making up
the remainder. The median age in Baker County and in the City of Halfway is 48 and 50.4 years,
respectively, while the City of Richland has the oldest median age in the state of Oregon, 65.6 years.
Poverty rates provide some indication of the percentage of the population with low incomes. Baker
County has an average poverty rate of 18.3 percent (U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts, 2015), and the
surrounding counties have 13.9 percent (Wallowa County), and 18.8 percent (Union County). The
Oregon statewide average rate of persons living below poverty is 16.7 percent and the Washington
statewide average is 13.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010). In Halfway 43.8% and in Richland
20.2% of the population live below the poverty level. The median yearly income in the Panhandle area is
about $24,780 compared to the Baker County median income of $40,576 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-
2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates). Only 1.6% of the workers in Halfway and 13.5%
in Richland are employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining industry compared to
9.8% in Baker County as a whole.
Effects
Introduction
The effects of the three alternatives on economic conditions such as employment and income were
analyzed by comparing the anticipated changes in employment in the Panhandle area and Baker County.
The effects of the alternatives on social and cultural conditions were analyzed by identifying any changes
to human health and any environmental impacts to minorities. The changes could be direct such as jobs
in the timber industry or traditional uses of the forest by the public; or they could be indirect effects such
as secondary service jobs or declining air quality from smoke. Any cumulative effects were identified
using trends in economic conditions and present and future activities that affect environmental conditions
in conjunction with the proposed activity.
132
Direct and Indirect Effects on Socio-Economics
A. Economic Impact Analysis - Economic Efficiency
Chapters 2 and 3 of the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) discuss the
variety of ways in which the public values diverse forest ecosystems. Employment and receipts generated
by National Forest uses and products are important to local economies. For example grazing cattle,
hunting big game, snowmobiling, picking mushrooms, or cutting firewood all have value and produce
revenue and jobs as a result of or in support of these activities. It is very difficult to measure changes in
employment, or the value of recreational pursuits such as hunting; especially at the scale of this project.
Forest Service Handbook 2409.18 provides direction to analyze financial efficiency and, if needed,
economic efficiency to identify the most efficient alternative that achieves the desired objectives of the
project. Consideration of the proposal that maximizes net public benefits is an important element of the
decision-making process.
An economic efficiency analysis of Alternatives 2 and 3 was completed that focused on identifiable and
quantifiable benefits and costs for each alternative in terms of the present net value (benefits minus costs)
to assess which alternative comes nearest to maximizing net public benefits as defined in 36 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 219.3. An analysis of the No Action was not done since this alternative did not
have identifiable and quantifiable ecosystem benefits and costs. Ecosystem functions provide a broad set
of ecosystem services such as clean water or native forest stands that are valuable to both human and
nonhuman components of the ecosystem. These ecosystem values may be assessed in economic and non-
monetary terms. Economic valuation provides a partial measure of the full range of ecosystem values in
commensurate terms for assessing economic tradeoffs. Non-monetary values are necessarily assessed in
terms relevant to other disciplines such as ecology or ethics. Changes in ecosystem services must be
measurable and quantifiable in like terms, preferably monetary measures, in order to assess a relevant
change in economic value.
This analysis is based on identifiable and quantifiable economic benefits and costs and is more typically a
financial comparison between revenues and costs. The objective of the economic efficiency analysis is to
show a relative measure of difference between alternatives based on direct costs and values used. All
dollar values have been discounted in terms of the present net value (2016 dollars). Discounting is a
process whereby the dollar values of costs and benefits that occur at different time periods are adjusted to
a common time period so that they can be compared. The real (exclusive of inflation) discount rate of
four percent was used in the analysis over the planning period.
Table 63. Estimated Cost of the Alternatives
Cost Item No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Timber Sale Preparation $0 $263,238 $220,860
Transportation Planning $0 $65,810 $55,215
Timber Sale Admin $0 $87,746 $73,620
Post-Harvest Non-commercial thinning $0 $803,850 $736,650
Prescribed Fire Post Harvest Acres $0 $469,795 $414,460
Hand Pile/Grapple Pile $0 $500,250 $492,700
Total $0 $2,190,689 $1,993,505
Table 64. Economic Analysis Summary by Alternative
Project Type Entry Discounted
Costs Discounted Revenues
Present Net Value
(PNV)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
(B/C)
Predicted High Bid
Notes
Alternative 2
Timber Sales Current 33.09 Sale appears
133
Project Type Entry Discounted
Costs Discounted Revenues
Present Net Value
(PNV)
Benefit-Cost Ratio
(B/C)
Predicted High Bid
Notes
viable
Timber Sale & Related Projects
$1,043,443 $1,217,052 173,609 1.17 Project is above
cost
Alternative 3
Timber Sales Current 33.78
Sale appears viable
Timber Sale & Related Projects
$926,594 $1,042,145 115,551 1.12 Project is above
cost
Present net value (PNV) is defined as the present (discounted) net value of project benefits minus the
present (discounted) net value of project costs. The PNVs displayed by alternative will include the timber
sale and related projects. The related projects include non-commercial thinning and prescribed fire within
timber harvest units. A benefit-cost ratio is the ratio of present net benefits to present net costs. Present
net value is a more appropriate measure for comparison between alternatives when land and productive
activities are limiting such as in an environmental analysis of alternatives. A benefit-cost ratio
comparison is more appropriate when investment capital is limited, for example when considering budget
allocation among a number of different activities. The only economic change that can currently be
measured at the Sparta Vegetation Management Project scale is commercial timber harvest.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1 proposes no treatments at this time. Fires would continue to be suppressed if possible.
Ongoing activities such as camping, hunting, using snowmobiles, grazing livestock, road maintenance,
use of the Brooks Ditch for irrigation, and gathering forest products such as firewood, berries, and
mushrooms would continue.
No logging of commercial timber or non-commercial treatments would occur. The employment and
income associated with these activities would not materialize. This would directly affect employment by
continuing the current low incomes in the area. The present net value and cost benefit ratio are not
meaningful since no new income is generated with the No Action. The current human uses such as
hunting, camping and other recreational activities that generate employment or have value would continue
at the current level or decline slightly depending on the availability of opportunities. Removal of
miscellaneous forest products as well as grazing and other consumptive uses would continue at the
current level. No long-term or short-term changes in the availability of forest products are anticipated
resulting in no effect on traditional uses. Winter recreation, especially snowmobiling, would remain static
or increase slightly as users reached the capacity of the trails and parking areas.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 incorporates vegetation treatments including cutting trees for commercial harvest and non-
commercial management, prescribed fire, and connected activities such as rock source development, road
reconstruction, and road maintenance. These proposed activities are described in detail in the Sparta EA.
Alternative 2 would produce an estimated 22.8 million board feet (MMBF) of saw timber and biomass
material.
The socio-economic effects of commercial timber harvest, non-commercial treatments, road
reconstruction and maintenance will be beneficial to the local economy but would be less than 1% of the
local economic output, in Baker County (see Table 65, Total Timber Harvest and Non-commercial
Treatment Jobs by Alternative). Alternative 2 would be the most beneficial to the local economy since it
generates the most revenue and would create the most jobs. The present net value of the timber sale and
134
related projects for Alternative 2 is $173,609, with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.17. The discounted revenue
associated with the timber sale is $1,217,052. Estimated revenue for this sale is based on the current
market conditions. It is difficult to calculate the monetary benefit of non-commercial treatments;
therefore no value has been applied to the benefits of reduction in fire risk and suppression costs, and
improvements to the road systems. The qualitative benefits of the non-commercial treatments will be
discussed in their respective resource sections.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 has fewer acres of vegetation treatments including the cutting trees for commercial harvest
than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 also treats slightly less acreage than Alternative 2 through the use of
prescribed fire. Alternative 3 would produce an estimated 18.9 MMBF of saw timber and non-saw
material. These proposed activities are described in detail in the Sparta EA.
The socio-economic effects of commercial timber harvest, non-commercial treatments, road
reconstruction and maintenance will be beneficial to the local economy but would be less than those
generated by Alternative 2 due to the fact that less commercial treatment would be done (see Table 65,
Total Timber Harvest and Non-commercial Treatment Jobs by Alternative). The present net value of the
timber sale and related projects is $115,551, with a cost benefit ratio of 1.12. The discounted revenue
associated with the timber sale is $1,042,145. Estimated revenue for this sale is based on the current
market conditions.
B. Social Impact Analysis – Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) on Environmental Justice directs federal agencies to consider
whether proposed alternatives may have disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects on
minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes. The order directs federal agencies to
focus attention on the human health and environment effects to ethnic minorities (American Indians,
Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian and Pacific Islander Americans), disabled people, and low-
income groups.
Alternative 1 – No Action
There are no minority groups or Native American tribes living within the area, therefore No Action would
not directly or indirectly affect these groups. The health of low-income residents in the surrounding area
could be affected by smoke from a large wildfire that could occur as a result of No Action. Many of these
low-income residents are older persons who could be adversely affected by smoke. All income groups
would be affected but the Panhandle area has a larger proportion than other urban areas in Baker County
or other parts of Oregon. See the Sparta Fuels report for a discussion of the risk of a large fire occurring.
No other environmental impacts to low income residents have been identified that would result from the
No Action alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3
There are no minority groups or Indian tribes living within the area, therefore Alternatives 2 and 3 would
not directly or indirectly affect these groups. The health of low-income residents and others in the
surrounding area should not be affected by smoke from prescribed fire because prescribed burning is
managed to comply with state air quality standards (Sparta EA Fuels mitigations). The environmental
impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 identified in the Sparta EA are localized to the Sparta analysis area;
therefore, low income residents living in the Panhandle area would not be directly or indirectly affected.
135
Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects
The current employment and income in the Baker County area known as the Panhandle is low. As
described under the existing conditions, Baker County has an average poverty rate of 18.3% (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates). In the City of Halfway 43.8% and
in the City of Richland 20.2% of the population live below the poverty level. The median yearly income
in the Panhandle area is about $24,780 compared to the Baker County median income of $40,576 (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates). Alternative 1 (No Action)
would not change this current condition. There are no minority groups or Indian tribes living within the
area, therefore No Action would not directly or indirectly affect these groups. No other environmental
impacts to low income residents have been identified that would result from the No Action alternative.
The socio-economic effects of commercial timber harvest and non-commercial treatments proposed under
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be beneficial to the local economy but would be less than 1% of the local
economic output, in Baker County. The present net value of the timber sale and related projects for
Alternative 2 is $173,609, with a cost benefit ratio of 1.17. Commercial timber harvest would generate
approximately $1,217,052 with a predicted high bid of $33.09/CCF. The present net value of the timber
sale and related projects for Alternative 3 is $115,551, with a cost benefit ratio of 1.12. Commercial
timber harvest would generate approximately $1,042,145 with a predicted high bid of 33.78/CCF.
Estimated revenues for this sale are based on the current market conditions. The harvest of timber,
burning, road reconstruction, and other proposed projects would provide local employment (see Table
65). Table 63 displays the costs of the alternatives and Table 64 displays the values.
Table 65. Total Timber Harvest and Non-commercial Thinning Jobs by Alternative
Work Activity No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Timber Harvest 0 21 17
Non-commercial Thinning
0 21 19
TOTAL 0 42 36 1 Note: Each job represents one year of full time employment. Estimate of timber harvest jobs derived from Region 6 Log Cost 15.0 (02/04/2015). Estimate of Non-commercial treatment jobs based on past contract production on Whitman Ranger District. Jobs would occur over a 5-10 year period starting in 2018.
There are no minority groups or Indian tribes living within the area, therefore none of the action
alternatives would directly or indirectly affect these groups. The health of low-income residents and
others in the surrounding area should not be affected by smoke from prescribed fire from any of the action
alternatives because prescribed burning is managed to comply with state air quality standards (Sparta
mitigation measures).
Cumulative Effects on Socio-Economics
Alternative 1
The no action alternative would not contribute to the economies of the counties surrounding this project
area; therefore, it has the potential to further impact the current struggles of the timber industry in
northeast Oregon.
The cumulative effects of smoke from other planned and unplanned fires could exacerbate the effects of
the No Action Alternative on the health of low-income residents of the area.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The cumulative effect of Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar, they would all provide the counties surrounding
the project area with receipts which otherwise would be dollars out of the taxpayers pocket. They would
136
provide jobs as described under the direct and indirect effects above. The income generated by this
project contributes to family wage earners and local industries which in turn support other local
businesses, hospitals, and services contributing to the overall economic vitality of the Counties. More of
this happens under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 3. In addition, the alternatives and the effects
would be similar when considering utilization of material at manufacturing facilities. The products
produced from this project under all of the action alternatives would not support the local businesses and
mills alone; however, when added to the wood products being removed from other private, adjacent State,
and corporate lands, as well as other national forest timber sales, it contributes to the overall viability and
sustainability of local mills and businesses. The acres treated would provide seasonal work/benefits over
a period of 8-10 years.
There would be no cumulative effects on the health of low-income residents of the area as a result of
smoke from the proposed prescribed fires in combination with other burning since air quality is managed
across a large area. The other environmental impacts of the action alternatives are identified in the Sparta
Vegetation Management Project EA and are localized to the Sparta analysis area; therefore low income
residents living in the Panhandle area would not be directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affected.
Wilderness, IRAs, and Undeveloped Areas
Introduction
During public involvement for the Sparta Vegetation Management Project, a commenter identified a
“large unroaded area” within the project area of almost 3,000 acres in size.
From the mid-1970s through 2001 the Forest Service maintained a roadless area inventory of
undeveloped lands that we used and updated for RARE, RARE II, and in support of Land and Resource
Management Planning completed in 1990. During that time, these lands were called “roadless areas” or
“inventoried roadless areas” (IRA). With completion of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) in
2001, these lands ceased being an “inventory”, and IRAs became a designation with fixed boundaries and
prohibitions set by that rule and Forest Service regulation (36 CFR 294).
The 2006 handbook for wilderness evaluation (FSH 1909.12 Chapter 70) is reflected in the 2008 Forest
Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220). In the regulations, potential effects to “inventoried roadless
areas” and “potential wilderness areas” are factors in determining what the appropriate NEPA document
would be for a project.
The 2012 planning rule for land management planning for the National Forest System was published in
the Federal Register on April 9, 2012, and it became effective 30 days following the publication date on
May 9, 2012. The Forest Service released proposed planning directives for public review and comment on
February, 2013. Over 16,000 comments representing diverse communities and interests from across the
country shaped the final planning directives. The final planning directives were released and became
effective January 30, 2015. The planning rule is very clear that application of the criteria for inventory of
areas that may be suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation system (FSH 1909.12,
Chapter 70) is at the land management planning (Forest Plan) level only. The Blue Mountain Forest Plan
Revision DEIS 2014 (BMFPR) completed an inventory identifying a set of PWAs across the Blue
Mountains. The PWAs identified in the BMFPR DEIS will be considered in this analysis.
The term “other undeveloped lands” is presented and used in this document to provide a consideration for
the unroaded areas identified during public scoping efforts.
137
Existing Condition
Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas
The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (PNW or Region 6) covers approximately 27.2
million acres within the states of Oregon and Washington. These acres represent approximately 27% of
the total acreage of both states combined. These 27.2 million acres are managed based on the land
allocations designated within the respective National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans.
However, the management of designated Wilderness areas and the management of Inventoried Roadless
Areas are overriding and common among all Forests within the Pacific Northwest Region and across the
nation. In Region 6, there are approximately 4 million acres of Inventoried Roadless Areas (15% of the
total National Forest System Lands) and approximately 5 million acres of Wilderness (18%).
There are no inventoried roadless areas or wilderness areas within or adjacent to the Sparta project area
(Figure 13).
Potential Wilderness Areas
The BMFPR completed an extensive analysis of lands that could be considered potential wilderness areas
(PWAs). There are no PWAs lands within or adjacent to the project area.
Other Undeveloped Lands
Oregon Wild provided a map during scoping and urged that only non-commercial treatments occur within
the nearly 3,000 acre area they identified located primarily within the scenic portion of the Eagle Creek
Wild and Scenic corridor. No commercial treatments are proposed within this area under either action
alternative. Non-commercial treatments (precommercial thinning and prescribed burning) would occur
within most of the identified area.
This undeveloped area is allocated in the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan to:
MA1 – Timber Production Emphasis MA3 – Big Game Winter Range
MA7 – Wild and Scenic River Corridor
MA15-7 – Allocated Old Growth in Wild & Scenic Corridor
Most of the area is allocated to management areas (MA) 3 and 7 with small inclusions of old growth and
MA1.
Vegetation – Of the forested landscape approximately 92% of the project area is dry potential vegetation
group with the remaining 8% small scattered inclusions of moist potential vegetation groups.
Approximately 60% of the identified area is non-forested/grassland habitat. There are no threatened and
endangered plant species located within this area.
Fisheries and Water – Eagle Creek, a class I stream runs through the center of this area. Eagle Creek, a
perennial fishbearing stream, is designated as designated critical habitat for bull trout; however, recent
stream surveys confirm that no bull trout are within the identified undeveloped area.
Soils - Soils within this identified area are primarily Landtype associations 216, 268, and 368 with
smaller inclusions of 116, 216, and 317. A brief description of these soil types are as follows:
LTA 268 - consists of metavolcanic, metasedimentary, and serpentine parent material with steep
canyon slopes of 60 to 90% slope which supports dry forests. This soil has mixed and thin
volcanic ash, cool soil temperatures, somewhat dry to dry soil moisture, and a depth to bedrock of
138
less than one to three feet. Active geomorphic processes occurring for this LTA are fluvial, mass
wasting, and colluvial erosion.
LTA 368 - consist of metavolcanic, metasedimentary, and serpentine parent material with steep
canyon slopes of 60 to 90% slope which supports dry non forests. This soil has cool soil
temperature, dry soil moisture, and a depth to bedrock of less than one to two feet. Active
geomorphic processes occurring for this LTA are fluvial, mass wasting, and colluvial erosion.
Threatened & Endangered Wildlife - There are no threatened or endangered wildlife species within this
undeveloped area. Fourteen species listed as sensitive either have potential habitat within the project area
or have been documented to occur in the project area. Proposed project activities would either have a
beneficial impact on these species or may impact individuals or their habitat but would not cause a trend
toward listing of the species.
Figure 13. Sparta Wilderness, IRA, Undeveloped Lands Analysis Area
Opportunities for Solitude – The
identified area is a very steep incised
canyon within the scenic section of the
designated wild and scenic river Eagle
Creek in the bottom. Most of the area is
very inaccessible except in the river
bottom or along the ridgetops. Views into
the river bottoms are limited in most
places because of trees. Most of the
ridgetops are roaded and there are many
older road beds into the southern portion
of the area identified leaving most of the
area within 1,000 to 2,500 feet from a
road. The Martin’s Bridge trail, a
designated non-motorized trail, is located
along the river through the center of the
identified area. Opportunities for solitude
are very limited within the identified area
due to steep slopes, river recreation, trail
use, and proximity to roads.
Apparent Naturalness – With the
exception of the Eagle Forks campground
area, the Martins Bridge trailhead, and the
areas where older roadbeds are located
within the identified area, the remainder
of the area has high levels of apparent
naturalness. While the vegetation is not
particularly unique or unusual, Eagle
Creek is a fast moving crystal clear river
with a graveled bottom with a very high
level of apparent naturalness.
139
Effects
Scale of Analysis
The scale of this analysis includes all Federal acres contained within the Sparta Vegetation Management
project area (17,951 acres) (Figure 13).
The measures used to compare between alternatives for lands with wilderness characteristics are:
Intrinsic biophysical values (soils, water, fisheries, plants, wildlife)
Intrinsic social values (recreation, apparent naturalness, remoteness, scenic quality, cultural
resources)
Other locally identified unique characteristics
No Direct/Indirect or Cumulative Effects
Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas
There are no Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas within the project area and no project activities
are proposed in the Wilderness or IRAs. The proposed project would have no direct, indirect or
cumulative effects on designated Wilderness areas or IRAs; therefore there will be no further discussion
on designated wilderness or inventoried roadless areas in this report.
Potential Wilderness Areas
As described above, all of the BMFPR PWAs are outside of the project area. Therefore, the proposed
project will have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on any BMFPR PWAs and there will be no
further discussion on these areas in this report.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Undeveloped Lands
Other Undeveloped Lands
Alternative 1
The entire undeveloped area would remain as described in the existing condition section above under this
alternative. There would be no direct or indirect effects on this area other than it would not receive the
prescribed burning proposed under the action alternatives.
Table 66 describes proposed treatment units within the identified undeveloped area. Both action
alternatives treat units 615, 633-634, and 636-637; a portion of each is located within the undeveloped
area.
Table 66. Summary of Treatment Units within Undeveloped Area
Unit Total Acres
Acres w/in Undeveloped Area
Treatment Type
Notes Alternatives Treated In
615 1,101 1,050 RXF Approximately half of the unit within the identified area is non-forested grassland. The unit is characterized by steep slopes with very limited ridgetop acres in the center of the unit.
2, 3
633 156 100 RXF Approximately 1/3 of this burn unit is located outside of the identified area. Unit is steep and runs down to Eagle Creek. The unit is bounded by a road on the southern edge and ranges from 700 to 1300 feet away from the road in the bottom near Eagle Creek.
2, 3
140
Unit Total Acres
Acres w/in Undeveloped Area
Treatment Type
Notes Alternatives Treated In
634 211 151 RXF Approximately 1/3 of this burn unit is located outside of the identified area. Unit is steep and runs down to Eagle Creek. The unit is bounded by a road on the southern edge and is approximately 1300 feet away from the road at the widest point near Eagle Creek.
2, 3
636 165 160 RXF This unit is a series of steep ridges bounded by a road on the south side and Eagle Creek on the other side. The unit is approximately 1,000 to 1,300 feet from the road on the portion near Eagle Creek.
2, 3
637 86 80 RXF This unit is very steep bounded by a road on the southwest side and Eagle Creek on the other side.
2, 3
Vegetation
As described under the Fire/Fuels and Fire Behavior effects, prescribed burning within the identified
unroaded area would improve the health, vigor and sustainability of forested stands and grasslands by not
only randomly providing some thinning of overstocked stands, reducing their susceptibility to insects and
diseases, and reducing the potential for loss in the event of a wildfire. Prescribed burning also enhances
grassland habitat and improves available forage. Due to requirements restricting direct ignition in
riparian buffers incorporated into project design no sensitive plant species would be impacted within this
undeveloped area.
Fisheries and Water
None of the alternatives propose harvest treatments within the riparian area of Eagle Creek. Prescribed
fire would be allowed to back into riparian areas. These treatments would most likely occur during the
spring or fall of the year and would produce a mosaic of low intensity burned and unburned areas. The
prescribed burning would not likely negatively impact this area. Overall, fuels treatment activities fall
within established standards for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River, see the Wild and Scenic River
section for details. The following are applicable Standards and Guidelines from the Eagle Creek Wild
and Scenic River Plan (Environmental Assessment for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River
Management Plan, II-8).
Soils
The soils effects analysis shows that underburning has the potential to produce severe burning in 0-4% of
the areas burned; however, it would not result in any detrimental soil conditions because severe burn areas
would be under 100 square feet (based on prescribed burn monitoring). Prescribed fire usually results in a
mosaic of low, moderate and high fire severity that is classified mostly as low severity burn class which is
what historically would have occurred within dry potential vegetation groups.
Threatened & Endangered Wildlife
The treatments proposed in this undeveloped area are prescribed burning and not expected to impact
sensitive wildlife species due to their location and implementation of project design criteria such as
backing fires in riparian buffers.
141
Opportunities for Solitude
As described under the existing condition discussion above, opportunities for solitude are very limited
within the identified area due to steep slopes, river recreation, trail use, and proximity to roads.
Prescribed burning within the identified area would not affect opportunities for solitude.
Apparent Naturalness
As described under Vegetation above, fire was a very frequent occurrence within the vegetation groups
(dry upland forest and grasslands) in the identified undeveloped area. Historically these vegetation
groups experienced a low severity fire return interval of 0-35 years; therefore, because fire is a natural
occurrence the activities proposed within this area would not affect its apparent naturalness.
Cumulative Effects on Undeveloped Lands
Alternative 1
Under this alternative no actions would be authorized; therefore, it would not add anything to the effects
of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Based on the definition provided by the CEQ
regulations, there would be no cumulative effects for this alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The impacts to apparent naturalness in this area creating a substantially noticeable human imprint are the
existing activities (trailheads and hiking trails). Because the prescribed burning proposed in this area
would not impact the opportunities for solitude or the apparent naturalness, there would be no cumulative
effects from the activities proposed in the Sparta project.
Forest Plan Consistency
Activities proposed in the Sparta project area are consistent with the intent of the land allocation decisions
made in the Forest Plan including wilderness and inventoried roadless areas.
Wildlife – Rocky Mountain Elk
Introduction
Elk are the most popular big game species in northeastern Oregon and are an indicator of the quality and
diversity of general forested habitat, the interspersion of cover and forage areas, and the security habitat
provided by cover and low levels of human activity.
Existing Conditions
Elk exploit a variety of habitat types in all successional stages and use patterns change both daily and
seasonally. Calving habitat is usually gentle terrain with plenty of succulent vegetation less than 1,000 ft
from water. Optimal calving habitat has an abundance of low shrubs or small trees under an overstory
with a canopy closure ≥50% (Thomas 1979). Where calving occurs also depends on the pattern of snow
recession in late spring. Some years may find areas under snow that will function as calving habitat the
following year. For this reason, it is impractical to spatially identify calving habitat. Elk are primarily
grazing animals, preferring a diet of grasses and forbs, but in winter they turn to browsing the tips off
twigs from willow, alder, aspen or other woody vegetation (Csuti et al. 2001). Early summer diets in the
Blue Mountains include big huckleberry and snowberry, whereas elderberry, ninebark, and ocean spray
become more important in late summer (Korfhage et al. 1980). Quaking aspen can provide summer cover
142
250 200 200260
170
329 288 245 300 342407
319
510 454
652
0
500
1000
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
ELK
NU
MB
ERS
YEAR
ODFW ELK POP. NUMBERS
KEATING UNIT 2002-2016
and is an important browse plant in winter. Curl-leaf mountain mahogany is also an important winter
browse species in some parts of the Blue Mountains.
Disturbance due to roads is a major factor influencing elk distribution across the landscape as evidenced
by the results from a variety of studies conducted in northeastern Oregon (Rowland et al. 2005). Effects
from roads combined with reductions in forest cover have implications to elk herd health, recreational
opportunities, and the ability of the ODFW to meet management objectives for elk populations. Effects to
elk from motorized use of roads, trails, and cross country travel can be divided into two broad categories:
1) avoidance response that results in changes to distribution of elk on the landscape; and 2) increased
vulnerability to harvest and harassment to elk. Skovlin (in North American Elk: Ecology and
Management 2002) cautions to not confuse these two concepts. Elk’s avoidance of roads is a matter of
habitat effectiveness, “whereas elk vulnerability represents a population-level response based on the fate
of elk during the hunting season”. Vegetative cover, topographic relief, and motorized access are the
primary habitat components that contribute to elk vulnerability or to elk security.
Designated elk habitat within the Sparta project area consists primarily of winter range (5, 377 acres) with
an additional 622 acres in designated MA-1W (Timber/Winter Range). Reconnaissance of the area during
the mid-late summer of 2008/2009 showed low levels of elk presence within the Sparta project area. This
low level of elk presence was again observed during field reconnaissance in the late summer of 2011
(Penninger 2011, personal observations). Because winter range is identified south and east of Sparta,
portions of the project area are utilized by elk for migration and areas within the project area serve as
seasonal transition habitats. Based on annual elk census numbers from 2002 – 2016 in the Keating
Wildlife Management Unit, the overall trend in total elk observed during the period is increasing (Figure
14). Elk numbers within the Keating Unit reached 163% of the Management Objective (400) in 2016.
The increasing trend in Keating’s elk population is noteworthy considering the concern over calf ratios
and population trends in some other WMUs in the Blue Mountains. The MO of 400 is a relatively low
objective given the amount of winter and summer range, and lack of damage to private lands caused by
elk in this area. The population estimate of 652 represents the elk that survived through winter that were
surveyed within the Keating WMU. This does not necessarily represent the elk population that resides in
the WMU during other parts of the year. Some years the elk that primarily inhabit the Keating WMU will
winter on an adjacent WMU, which means they will not be reflected in the Keating survey for that year.
These shifts in where elk spend the winter and limited sightability in forested habitats contribute to
inconsistencies in survey results. Therefore, the trends reflected in elk population estimates may be more
meaningful than the actual estimates
for a given year.
Figure 14. ODFW Elk Population Estimates, Keating Unit (ODFW 2016)
Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)
Thomas, et al. (1988), developed the
Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)
model for estimating elk habitat
effectiveness on the landscape.
Overall habitat effectiveness (HEI)
incorporates three variables or
indices; cover quality (HEc), size and
spacing of cover and forage (HEs), and open road density (HEr). A fourth value for forage quality,
calculated by the model (HEf ) is omitted (upon advice from the model’s developer) from the calculation
because current, reliable forage data is not available (Wisdom 2008, pers. com.). The Forest Plan
143
establishes minimum standards for the overall index (HEI). In addition, the Forest Plan establishes
minimum standards for retention of total cover and open road density.
HEI was evaluated using the WWNF existing vegetation (EVEG) database habitat parameters including
canopy closure, which defines categories of forage and cover type (i.e. Forage, Marginal Cover, and
Satisfactory Cover). Canopy closure was also estimated through aerial photo interpretation to validate
some of the older EVEG data for the existing condition and proposed treatment units. To maintain
consistency, this analysis used the EVEG dataset to represent existing forage and cover types because it
contained values for all stands at all scales of analysis. To determine post-treatment forage and cover
types, post-harvest canopy closures were estimated from projected residual basal area, trees per acre,
quadratic mean tree diameter, and aerial photo interpretation. These changes were then applied to the
existing EVEG data to represent post-treatment habitat.
Table 67 displays the HEI model outputs for subwatersheds that occur within the Sparta project area.
Existing values for cover spacing are generally moderate-high within each subwatershed and open road
values low-moderate. Thomas (1979) suggested an optimal cover/forage ratio of 40:60. Existing
cover:forage ratios show that conditions in all subwatersheds and the project area as a whole are within
+/- 25% of the suggested optimum level. It is important to note that a simple cover:forage ratio provides
very little information on the condition of elk habitat since it contains no information on the arrangement
and size of cover and forage patches, nor does it consider the effects of motorized access to the
effectiveness of cover and forage patches. Existing percent cover exceeds 30% in all subwatersheds and
the project area as a whole. Overall, HEI values in these areas are at or above thresholds described in the
LRMP.
HEI values for the Sparta project area currently exceed marginal thresholds, with the exception of the
roads value (Table 67). Existing HEI for the Sparta project area subwatersheds (all management areas
combined) is 0.57, largely due to a high open road density and a general lack of satisfactory cover.
Table 67. Subwatershed and Project Area HEI Using Road Density for All Alternatives.
Alternative Hec Hes HEr HEI Cover/ Forage Ratio
%CTotal Cover
%Satisfactory Cover
%Marginal Cover
Eagle-Paddy Subwatershed
Existing 0.53 0.61 0.44 0.53 66/34 66% 4.5% 61.8%
Little Eagle Subwatershed
Existing 0.57 0.64 0.52 0.58 59/41 59% 7.9% 51.0%
Sparta – All Management Areas Combined
Existing 0.64 0.66 0.40 0.59 63/37 63% 17% 46%
Distance Banding of Roads
The HEI model developed by Thomas et al. (1988) relies on open road density as an indicator of relative
effects from roads on elk habitat. More recent research in northeastern Oregon found that road density is
a poor indicator of habitat effectiveness (Rowland et al. 2000). By contrast, the study described a strong
linear increase in elk use as distance from roads increased. Therefore, a method using a distance-banding
approach, as described by Rowland et al. (2005), is utilized here as an alternate indicator of road effects
on elk habitat in the Sparta project area. Habitat within 0.59 miles of open roads is considered poor
security habitat, habitat between 0.6-1.1 miles of open roads is considered medium security habitat, while
habitat 1.2 miles away from open roads is considered high security habitat and corresponds to the distance
at which elk response to open roads diminishes markedly (Roawland et al. 2000). The Sparta project area
144
contains no high security habitat and minimal medium security habitat (1.3%). The majority of the project
area is considered poor security habitat (98.7%). Table 17 shows habitat effectiveness values for roads
using distance banding (HEr-DB). Results indicate lower HEr values when using distance banding as
compared to using road densities. These lower HEr values would equate to lower overall HEI values,
which is likely a more accurate portrayal of HEI than when calculated using road densities.
Table 68. HE Values for the Roads Variable using Distance Banding.
Analysis Area HEr-DB
Project Area 0.33
Little Eagle Subwatershed 0.45
Eagle-Paddy Subwatershed 0.28
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects on Rocky Mtn Elk
Alternative 1
There would be no direct or indirect adverse effects to elk cover and forage from Alternative 1 because no
timber harvest, fuels treatments, or transportation activities would occur. The current condition consists
of an abundance of marginal cover, low to moderate amounts of forage, and little satisfactory cover.
However, given the dry biophysical groups present in the majority of the project area, many of these
stands are not capable of providing satisfactory cover. The no action alternative would maintain current
conditions for elk habitat in the short-term (0-20 years). How elk habitat changes in the mid to long-term
(beyond 20 years) would depend largely on the occurrence and scale of disturbances such as wildfire, and
insect or disease epidemics, and changes in travel management and hunting. These events cannot be
predicted with a reasonable level of certainty, but the risks associated with forgoing management actions
can be described.
In the absence of restoring ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir on drier sites, and reducing grand fir through
mechanical thinning, fuels reductions, and prescribed fire, cover would increase and forage would mature
and lose palatability. Trees that are stressed from competition with adjacent trees would be more
susceptible to insects and diseases. This could lead to decreases in cover as trees die and canopy closure
decreases. Heavily stocked conifer stands would also decrease in canopy closure as self-pruning occurs,
and tree crowns become more shallow and narrow from competition for space. In the absence of fire
(prescribed or wildfire), forest fuels will build to a point that puts fire-resistant trees at risk. Large scale
fire of uncharacteristic intensity would degrade elk habitat through a loss of cover, and through a
reduction in edge habitat between cover and forage areas.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Both action alternatives would affect elk habitat. Due to minor amounts of treatment proposed within the
Goose Creek and Lower Eagle subwatersheds, HEI values, cover:forage ratio, and available satisfactory
cover are nearly identical for all alternatives (including alternative 1) within these subwatersheds. Within
the Eagle-Paddy and Little Eagle subwatersheds, treatments reduce available satisfactory cover, but retain
or slightly improve HEI values by improving the forage to cover arrangement (size and spacing HE
variable). All action alternatives meet or exceed LRMP standards for percent cover and HEI. The amount
of satisfactory cover converted to marginal cover or forage, and marginal cover converted to forage is
displayed in Table 69.
145
Table 69. Summary of cover conversions by action alternatives (acres).
Cover Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Satisfactory converted to marginal cover
1,022 1,236
Satisfactory cover converted to forage
546 164
Marginal cover converted to forage
4,418 1,341
Forest stand tree density reductions from commercial and non-commercial forest treatments (thinning)
ranging from 5,291 (Alternative 3) to 5,775 (Alternative 2) acres, with additional prescribed fire-only
treatment ranging from 1,331 (Alternative 2) to 1,400 (Alternative 3) acres under the action alternatives
would increase available elk forage. The HEI model uses ranges of canopy closure (CC) to identify
forage (0-39% CC), marginal cover (40-69% CC), and satisfactory cover (≥70 CC).
Treatments in Sparta occur on a majority of acres currently classified as elk marginal cover. Post-
treatment tree densities are expected to be variable, consisting of denser patches interspersed with more
open areas, but generally commercial thinning will convert marginal cover to forage. The amounts of
forage, marginal and satisfactory cover remaining under each alternative does not reflect the finer scale
mixture forage, hiding cover and small marginal cover patches that result from many intermediate
commercial thinning prescriptions. As mentioned earlier in this analysis, the HEI calculations lacked a
forage quality variable that would allow a better assessment of range conditions for elk. Cook et al.
(1996) identify forage quality on late summer and fall ranges as an important factor in juvenile elk
growth, and stress the importance of evaluating forage quality for assessment of habitat quality of these
seasonal ranges. Elk forage analysis tools and data to input into such tools do not currently exist that are
sensitive enough to identify differences between project alternatives.
Table 70. HEI by Alternative Using Road Density.
Alternative HEc HEs HEr HEI Cover/ Forage Ratio
%Total Cover
%Satisfactory Cover
%Marginal Cover
Sparta
Existing 0.64 0.66 0.40 0.59 63/37 63% 17% 46%
Alternative 2 0.63 0.77 0.43 0.62 49/51 49% 12% 37%
Alternative 3 0.62 0.75 0.44 0.62 51/49 51% 13% 39%
Distance to Cover Size and Spacing of Forage and Cover Patches
All action alternatives would convert a portion of available cover to forage. None of the alternatives
involve regeneration treatments, but Table 69 summarizes the amounts of cover that would be converted
to forage. The Forest LRMP standards and guidelines state that:
Vegetation manipulation that converts a site from satisfactory or marginal cover to a forage
condition should:
For MA3. Have at least 80% of the treated area within 600 ft of a patch of satisfactory
cover at least 40 acres in size.
Although cover would be converted to forage (see Table 69) in all management areas, a high degree of
interspersion of forage and cover stands would remain to meet the direction for cover in MA3.
Roads
146
Open road densities (miles/square mile) within the various management areas in Eagle-Paddy and Little
Eagle subwatersheds within the project area exceed Forest Plan direction (Table 71); however, open road
densities guidelines are achieved on winter ranges (MA1W and MA3) during critical use periods for deer
and elk by a combination of snow and implementation of the Eagle Creek Cooperative Closure Area
(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/maps/travel_management_areas/pinekeating.pdf).
Table 71. Summary of Current Road Densities, Sparta Project Area.
Subwatershed Management Area
Total Acres Square Miles Open Road Miles
Open Road Density
Little Eagle Creek
1 3,148 4.92 16.62 3.38
3 1,396 2.18 3.98 1.82
Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek
1 5,962 9.32 26.81 2.88
1W 622 0.97 2.5 2.57
3 3,867 6.04 14.87 2.46 Miles shown are calculated from GIS. In areas where the square miles are less than 0.1 mi/mi2, the road density has been rounded to zero. Subwatersheds where there are no road miles or relevant management areas (MAs with no FP open road density requirements) are not shown for clarity.
Alternatives 2 and 3 involve 2.9 and 0.34 miles of temporary roads, respectively. These roads would
increase the chance for disturbance to big game during project implementation. This would be a short
duration effect since temporary roads will be decommissioned following the project. Decommissioning
would entail a range of treatments that will return the area to a vegetated condition and in most cases
make use by motorized vehicles impossible. Alternative 2 would add 2.56 miles of road to the landscape
(roads 7010175 and 7015075).
The reduction of cover from logging and prescribed burning could exacerbate the negative effects from
open roads as sight distance from roads increases. Sight distance increases as a result of logging as
shrubs and small trees are crushed by equipment, and trees are removed reducing hiding cover.
Prescribed burning also contributes to increases sight distance by killing and consuming shrubs and
smaller trees that contribute to hiding cover. The reduced hiding cover and increased sight distance
results in decreased habitat effectiveness for the newly created forage.
Both alternatives would reduce open roads on the landscape and move densities toward Forest Plan
guidelines. (Table 72). Alternative 3 would result in lower road densities than Alternative 2.
Table 72. Post-Sale Open Road Densities (ORD) by Alternative
Subwatershed Management Area
Total Acres
Alternative 1 ORD (mi/mi2)
Alternative 2 ORD (mi/mi2)
Alternative 3 ORD (mi/mi2)
Little Eagle Creek
1 3,148 3.38 3.09 2.97
3 1,396 1.82 1.82 1.82
Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek
1 5,962 2.88 2.56 2.39
1W 622 2.57 2.10 2.10
3 3,867 2.46 2.29 2.21
A distance band analysis of the effects of the alternatives shows that there would be no change to the
availability of medium and high security habitat. There would be no increase or reduction of existing
medium security habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase the amount of habitat within 0.59-0.89
miles of an open road, though this habitat is still considered low security.
Distance Buffer(miles) Existing Condition Alternative 2 Alternative 3
0.29 mi (low security) 14,358 14,075 14,014 0.59 (low security) 3,364 3,648 (+284) acres 3,709 (+345 acres) 0.89 (medium security) 227 227 227 1.19 (medium security) 0 0 0 1.49 (high security) 0 0 0 1.8 (high security) 0 0 0
147
In accordance with the Travel Opportunity Guide (1991) and Forest Order 442-01, the following area with
restricted travel overlaps the Sparta project area:
Eagle Creek: Area is closed to all motorized vehicles from December 1 through April 15 except routes
designated open. Boundaries of the area are approximately Eagle Creek and roads 7735, 7737, 7735450,
and 7739. Open roads include 7735, 7739, 7737, 7737150 to milepost 0.2, and 77. The purpose is to
reduce wildlife disturbance, protect fragile soils, calving and fawning, and prevent harassment of big
game while on their winter range. This closure enhances security habitat on elk winter range (MA1W and
3) in the Little Eagle Creek and Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek subwatersheds during the time of year when
forage is limited and fat reserves are the lowest. Elk that are repeatedly disturbed or harassed during
winter can use up limited fat reserves and die of starvation or abort calves. Another outcome of repeated
disturbance is for the elk to relocate onto adjacent private lands where they may create damage to fences,
hay stacks, and winter pastures.
Snowmobile routes restrict non-over snow vehicles during the time snow is groomed. Closure is posted
on the ground to provide public safety, conflict of use, and motorized snow play opportunities. Roads
restricted include 70, 7015, [7015150, 7015075], 7020, 77, 7720, 7735, [7739, 7739125, 7700150].
Brackets indicate connecting segments to make one through route. These routes would need to be
considered for written approval to permitting winter haul.
Cumulative Effects on Rocky Mtn Elk
Alternative 1
The no action alternative will not have incremental, cumulative effects to other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future actions in this area. Any effects from alternative one would be indirect,
which are described above.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The cumulative effects area considered for elk consists of the Eagle Creek watershed because it
encompasses 500 km2. The annual home range of an adult elk can be as much as 163 km and so the Eagle
Creek watershed is roughly three times the size required to support one elk herd. Effects of past activities
including road construction, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and timber management on WWNF lands
have been incorporated into the existing condition. Review of the FACTS database for the WWNF
indicate that both commercial and non-commercial treatments are expected to reduce stand densities and
available cover while increasing available forage.
Current condition of elk habitats is largely a function of past activities. Historically, the area was
unroaded, and forest stands were less dense and provided larger amounts of forage. The amount of closed
roads, however, reveals that motorized access under the current condition is less than that which existed
in recent decades.
Appendix D of the EA was reviewed for actions that might affect elk habitat within the central portion of
the Eagle Creek watershed. Cattle grazing will continue within the project area. The majority of range
acres in the project area are grazed from June 1 – October 30. Resource partitioning between elk and
cattle in northeastern Oregon was studied by Stewart et al. (2002). Elk utilized steeper slopes and higher
elevations than cattle when cattle were present, possibly indicating competitive displacement of elk by
cattle. Diet overlap between cattle and elk has been described, and is most prominent when forage
resources are limited (Stewart et al. 2002). However, most of the rangeland on NFS lands contained
within the analysis area is in satisfactory condition, fair to good, and in mid to late seral stage due to lack
of disturbance from fire (see Range/ Livestock Grazing Report).
148
Implementation of the Forest Travel Management Plan in combination with the road closures and
decommissioning in the action alternatives in this project would increase security habitat reducing levels
of human intrusion. Existing total open road density within the Eagle-Paddy and Little Eagle
subwatersheds is 2.6 miles/square mile. Under the Travel Management Plan motor vehicle use would be
restricted to designated roads and trails only and cross-country motor vehicle travel restricted which
would create additional security areas improving elk distribution and bull escapement during hunting
seasons. HEI values for all alternatives would also be expected to increase as a result of decreased road
densities.
Summary of Effects
All action alternatives are consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines pertaining to elk. Treatments
proposed under all action alternatives are expected to maintain or slightly improve elk habitat
effectiveness, as indicated by HEI values. Existing road densities currently exceed thresholds identified
in the LRMP, and both action alternatives reduce road densities moving them toward open road density
standards. Existing cooperative travel management areas are expected to continue to benefit elk at least
until the TMP is in place and will overlap the TMP for an undetermined period of time.
Although all action alternatives at least meet minimum LRMP standards for elk, local knowledge of elk
habitat conditions, elk distribution, and trends in the population are combined in the following ranking of
alternatives relative to elk habitat. Alternative 3 would retain the most desirable combination of
satisfactory cover, marginal cover, forage areas, and security areas for elk.
Water Quality and Fisheries
Introduction
This report analyzes the effects on fisheries and watershed resources for the Sparta Vegetation
Management Project Area (herein referred to as Sparta). The description of watershed/fisheries resources,
along with the analysis of the expected and potential effects for each alternative were assessed using field
surveys, water quality databases, supporting literature, and professional judgment.
Several management directives/recommendations apply to this project. The Management directives from
the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 1990, the Interim Strategies for
Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and
Portions of California (PACFISH 1995); the Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds
in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada Inland Native Fish
Strategy (INFISH); and the LRMP Biological Opinion (1998) will be followed. In addition, the
PACFISH and INFISH amendments add further interim management direction in the form of Riparian
Management Objectives (RMOs), Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), and standards and
guidelines.
The watershed resources section analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to:
A. Watershed, Fish, and Aquatic Habitat
B. Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS)
A. Watershed, Fish, and Aquatic Habitat
Existing Condition
The analysis area for watershed processes encompasses two subwatersheds, Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek
and Little Eagle Creek subwatersheds, in the project area.
149
There are a total of 20.7 miles of fish-bearing (INFISH Category 1) streams in the analysis area (Table
73). There are no Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed fish species, including bull trout, currently
occupying habitat in the project area or analysis area, however Eagle Creek is designated critical habitat
for bull trout. Eagle Creek is protected under the ESA; 8.5 miles of Eagle Creek are within the project
area. Eagle Creek is in the Mid-Columbia Recovery Unit Implementation Plan, Powder River Basin
(USFWS 2015). Eagle Creek is considered a historically occupied core area (USFWS 2010). According to
the recovery plan there is foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat present in Eagle Creek and it
may be considered as a site for reintroducing bull trout (USFWS 2002, 2015). Past fish stocking in the
Eagle Creek watershed has been extensive (USDA 1997). The introduction of non-native brook trout
(Salvelinus fontinalis) has impacted native bull trout populations by hybridization (USDA 1998; USFWS
2002). Land management activities have altered stream flows and riparian vegetation, which have
negatively affected bull trout (USFWS 2002). Dams, irrigation diversions, and road crossings have further
impacted and isolated bull trout populations.
In 2014, 20 sites within the Eagle Creek watershed were sampled using eDNA extraction and analysis
(Archuleta 2015). This analysis used species specific primers to detect bull trout and brook trout in Eagle
Creek. The analysis of the Eagle Creek water samples occurred at a genetics laboratory at Washington
State University in Pullman, Washington using quantitative PCR protocols for each species following the
methods of Goldberg et al. (2013). No bull trout were detected at the 20 sites sampled in the Eagle Creek
Watershed, including Eagle Creek. Brook trout were detected in Eagle Creek and West Eagle Creek.
Wild rainbow trout/redband trout occupy 20.7 miles of fish bearing streams in the project area.
Additionally, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife annually stocks 8 inch hatchery raised
rainbows in the upper reaches of West Fork Eagle Creek and main Eagle Creek tributaries (ODFW 2016).
In 2016, 4,000 adult rainbows were put in Eagle Creek in the first week in July (ODFW 2016).
In addition to fish bearing stream habitat, there are 22.1 miles of Category 2 streams, and 42 miles of
Category 4 streams in the project area. Category 1 and 2 streams in the analysis area are displayed in
Table 73.
Table 73. Category 1 and 2 streams and miles in Sparta Project Area
Major Stream Stream
Category Miles Major Stream
Stream Category
Miles
Basin Creek 2 1.4 Paddy Creek 1 1.7
Dempsey Creek 2 1.4 Puzzle Creek 2 1.1
Eagle Creek 1 8.5 Shanghai Creek 2 .3
Holcomb Creek 2 2.51 Spring Creek 1 1.0
Little Eagle Creek 1/2 4.4/.2 South Fork Spring Creek 1/2 .64/.3
Long Creek 1 .45 Snow Fork Creek 1/2 .6/.9
Packsaddle Creek 1 .85 Unnamed 1/2 2.6/14.3
Total 1 20.7
2 22.1
The majority of streams (83%) in the analysis area are higher gradient streams with gradients above 2%.
Stream reaches with gradients < 2% are normally considered to be response reaches (e.g. Rosgen C
channels) whereas stream reaches with gradients >2% are considered to be transport reaches.
In general, perennial streams in the analysis area typically have well developed riparian areas and
floodplains. Conifers are the dominant vegetation outside of RHCAs. The average height of site potential
trees adjacent to both perennial and intermittent streams is 80 to 100 feet (personal communication Joe
150
Sciarrino 2011). Conifers typically provide shade and woody debris inputs to the channel and riparian
area. Riparian obligate vegetation such as willows, sedges, and alders provide bank stability, shade, and
nutrient inputs for streams. Intermittent drainages have less well-developed riparian vegetation, often not
supporting riparian obligate vegetation due to the lack of year-round flow. Ephemeral draws often have
no riparian vegetation associated with them because water is only present following large rainfall or
spring-snow melt events.
Critical aquatic habitat elements as defined by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 1990 Land and
Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”; including the 1995 INFISH amendment) and the 1995/98
Biological Opinions (BOs) for the Forest Plan include: 1) pool frequency, 2) water temperature, 3) large
woody debris, 4) bank stability, 5) width to depth ratio, and 6) fine sediment levels. These habitat
elements are important indicators of aquatic habitat function and health.
Stream surveys have been completed on all fish-bearing streams in the project area. The most recent
stream survey data for fish-bearing streams data are summarized in Table 74. Stream survey data is dated
for Paddy Creek and Snow Fork Creek, predating the 1996/97 New Year’s flood event. Eagle Creek and
Little Eagle Creek have had recent stream surveys. Stream conditions for perennial and intermittent
streams in the project area were surveyed by walking drainages located in proposed treatment areas.
Observations of Category 4 streams indicate that these streams in general do not have adequate quantities
of large woody debris (LWD) to support long-term channel stability and sediment retention.
In general, fish habitat in the analysis area does not meet INFISH Riparian Management Objectives
(RMO) for pool habitat and width-to-depth ratio (Table 74). LWD levels generally meet the RMO. In
general, pool habitat increases as LWD increases (Dollof and Warren, 2003). However, there does not
appear to be a relationship between LWD and pool habitat in steeper streams (Montgomery et al., 1995)
or in streams with low stream power (Jackson and Sturm, 2002). As noted earlier, the majority of streams
in the analysis area are high gradient streams, including fish-bearing streams which have been surveyed
(Table 74), which may reduce the pool forming function of LWD.
A pool habitat analysis was completed in the Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis (1997). Relationships
between pool frequency, large woody debris, stream width, and stream gradient were analyzed to
determine if these stream characteristics were correlated. Small woody debris (6 – 12” diameter, 20 – 35
ft long) and wetted stream width were found to be significant predictors of pool frequency. Pool
frequency was not related to LWD and total LWD (i.e. sum of small and large size class LWD). (Note:
INFISH LWD size class is >20” diameter and >35 ft long) While a causative factor for low pool
frequencies was not identified in the watershed analysis, pool habit has likely been reduced by past
management activities.
Table 74. Habitat Summary data for Category 1 streams in the Sparta Project area
Stream Name Year of Stream Survey
Distance Surveyed
(Miles)
Ave Wetted Width
Pools/Mile1 Pieces
LWD/Mile
% Particles <5.7 mm
W/D Ratio
Streambank Stability
Median Gradient2
Eagle Creek 2016 4.8 43.6 4.2 21.2 8.1 50.6 82.8% 1.6%
Eagle Creek 1991 8.1 30.3 5.5 34.4 N/D 21.0 >80%1 1.5%
Conundrum Creek
1993 3.3 4.4 5.0 9.4 N/D 7.3 >80%1 15.6%
Little Eagle Creek
2009 6.0 15.2 49.3 10.3 18.9 14.3 91.1% 5.5%
Little Eagle Creek
1991 7.8 10.7 24.6 38.7 N/D 12.2 >80%1 6.3%
151
Paddy Creek 1991 1.7 8.8 21.0 21.0 N/D 16.8 >80%1 5.7%
Spring Creek 1993 1.8 8.5 12.2 47.0 N/D 5.1 >80%1 9.0%
Snow Fork Creek
1993 0.7 4.6 12.5 24.2 N/D 8.5 >80%1 8.2%
RMO/Indicator See Note 3 ≥20 <20% ≤10 ≥80 N/A
Shading indicates where a habitat element is meeting Forest Plan RMOs. N/D = No data.
1) Based on 2009 field observations
2) Based on stream segment surveys
3) RMO based on stream wetted width: < 10 ft, > 96 pools/mile, 10 to 20 ft, 56 to 96 pools/mile, 25 to 50 ft, 26 to 47 pools/mile
Fine sediment data for streams in the project area are limited. Stream survey data for Little Eagle Creek
indicates that fine sediment levels are moderate. Observations by Dave Salo (WWNF Forest Hydrologist
(retired)) indicate that that in general fine sediment levels in streams in the project area are at moderate
levels (< 20%), with higher levels in low gradient reaches in the project area. The Eagle Creek Watershed
Analysis (1997) identified high fine sediment levels in Ethel Creek and Snow Fork Creek.
Half of streams surveyed in the analysis area do not meet the INFISH RMO for width-to-depth ratio (<10,
Table 74). However, the INFISH RMO was developed prior to advances in our understandings of the
relationship between width-to-depth ratios and natural channel forms (Rosgen 1996). Normal ranges for
width-to-depth ratios (bankfull width) for Rosgen B and C channels are 12 to 20 and 13.5 to 28.7,
respectively (Rosgen, 1996). All surveyed streams in the analysis area, except Eagle Creek, are within the
normal range for width-to-depth ratios for their respective Rosgen channel types. Eagle Creek has a mix
of Rosgen C and B channel types which may partially explain the higher than normal width-to-depth
ratio. The width-to-depth ratio for the 2016 Eagle Creek survey is much higher than the normal range;
50.6 compared to 20 for Rosgen B channels and 28.7 for Rosgen C channels. The June 2010 flood event
took out some of the road template on Forest Road 77 and likely scoured out the banks and widened the
bankfull channel in places which may have increased the width-to-depth ratio.
Observations made during the stream evaluations and stream survey data within the project area indicated
that stream stability was generally high and met the 80% stability standard (Table 74). Many of the
streams are located in inner gorges, and have rocky well-vegetated banks; typical of Rosgen B-type
channels.
Water Yield and Streamflow
The climate of the project area has four distinct seasons and is characterized by dry warm summers, and
cold winters with a consistent snowpack forming each year. Annual precipitation amounts vary from near
25 inches at lower elevations to over 40 inches at higher elevations. Most of the annual precipitation falls
as snow. Streamflow discharges in project subwatersheds are characteristic of a snowmelt hydrograph,
with late spring and fall rains contributing to the annual average flows. Peak flows usually occur in May
and June and subside to baseflows by late July. Minimum discharges occur in late August and September.
The Brooks Ditch is a major irrigation ditch running through project area that is fed by a network of
smaller streams and Little Eagle Creek.
A cursory baseflow analysis was performed to determine a unit-area discharge during late summer,
comparing tributaries west of Eagle Creek with those east of the mainstem (D. Salo, 2011). Flow
measurements were made at select culverts, and correlated with drainage area. Puzzle Creek requires the
most amount of acres to produce one gallon-per-minute (GPM) flow. It appears that the headwaters of
Little Eagle Creek have a much higher unit-area discharge during low-flow periods than streams on the
west side of the project area (Figure 15). However, the Brooks Ditch captures most of this flow during the
152
irrigation season and delivers it to farm and ranchland in the Eagle Valley. As a result, flows in lower
Little Eagle Creek are reduced by about 75% during late summer, based on 2011 summer field estimates.
The nearest continuous stream gage is located on the mainstem Eagle Creek near Newbridge, about 6
miles downstream of Sparta. Data is available at the Idaho Power website
(https://www.idahopower.com/OurEnvironment/WaterInformation/StreamFlow/default.cfm). This data is
only an approximation of Eagle Creek flows during the irrigation season as diversions exist between the
Forest Boundary and the gauging station.
Figure 15. Baseflow discharge per unit area for select tributaries. (Source: D. Salo, field measurements 2011)
Erosion and Sedimentation
Past timber harvest and associated roads have increased sediment delivery from logged watersheds during
and after past projects in the project area. Excessive sediment can negatively affect beneficial uses of
water including fish habitat, municipal water use, irrigation water and other uses.
INFISH Standards and Guidelines for existing roads within RHCAs include minimizing sediment
delivery to streams from the road surface; closing and stabilizing, or obliterating and stabilizing roads not
needed for future management activities; improving stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood;
and providing and maintaining fish passage at all road crossings of existing and potential fish-bearing
streams.
Channel Stability/Function
Channel stability helps define the level of function of stream systems. Inherent channel stability is
characterized by recognizing channel classification. This means that inherent stability can vary by stream
type. Streams in the project area are mainly Rosgen A and B type channels. These streams are
characterized by entrenched to moderately entrenched (limited floodplain access), low-moderate
width/depth ratios, low-moderate sinuosity, and stream slopes less than 10%. Substrates generally consist
of cobbles and gravels, with minor amounts of boulders and fines. Stream stability in these stream types
34.2 48.6
412.5
0.4 3.7 11.3 3.2 2.2 4.90
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
TorchlightGulch(West)
EmpireGulch(West)
Puzzle(West)
Twin Bridge(East)
Conundrum(East)
Ethel (East) Unnamedtrib toSpring(East)
Little Eagleabove ditch
(East)
Long Creek(East)
Baseflow Analysis
Acres per GPM
153
depend on bank and bed rock content, with some stability a function of streamside vegetation and LWD.
In a natural state, these stream types tend to show good to excellent stability.
Stream stability is generally good throughout the project area (>80%), with some exceptions on Eagle
Creek where the valley bottom width exceeds about 200 feet. These reaches often function as bedload
deposition zones, causing increased lateral migration and braiding of the channels. While some of this
instability is influenced by human activities, it appears that some natural instability is inherent with the
system. For example, stream stability for the reach immediately above the Main Eagle trailhead exhibits
braiding and lateral migration. This reach is not influenced by management actions. The interaction of the
stream and Forest Road 77 has caused problems in terms of maintaining the road. During the flood event
of June, 2010, partial loss of the road template occurred in four different places. The volume of material
lost from the road template from these sites is in the thousands of yards, based on reconnaissance level
estimates.
Water Quality and Beneficial Use
Congress has designated the State of Oregon as having responsibility to implement the Clean Water Act
(CWA). The Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards be developed to protect beneficial uses
and a list be developed of water quality impaired streams (303(d) list). When water quality standards are
not met the CWA further requires development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the pollutants
(calculated pollutant amounts or surrogate criteria that a water body can receive and still meet Oregon
water quality standards). Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) are developed by the US Forest
Service after the TMDL process is complete to identify measures to improve water quality. Water quality
standards are on ODEQ’s website and are updated throughout the year.
Impaired Waterbodies – 303(d) Category 5 Streams
In the planning area River Mile (RM) 0 to 21.1 of Eagle Creek was the only category 5 303(d) listed
stream. Samples indicated there were exceedances for the amount of E. coli in Eagle Creek. E. coli
generally arises from fecal contamination by warm-blooded animals and nonpoint bacterial pollution,
such as E.coli, has been found to be related to livestock grazing on public lands (Stephenson and Rychert
1982). Eagle Creek is at RM 12 when it flows off from US Forest Service land and there are abundant
agricultural lands between the sample site and the USFS boundary that could contribute to the elevated E.
coli level.
Since this is a category 5 listing, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been initiated (initial scoping
and data collection phase). Once the TMDL is approved, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
covering US Forest Service lands within the Powder Basin will be completed by USFS staff and will
follow standards and guidelines (S&G) as listed in the LRMP (amended by INFISH) and Best
Management Practices (BMPs) as defined in the Implementation Plan for CWA Section 208 (Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500, as amended (1987), to ensure water quality standards are met.
Habitat conditions are expected to be improved through implementation of BMPs. PACFISH/INFISH
Biological Opinions provide management direction in the form of interim Riparian Habitat Conservation
Areas (RHCAs) and associated standards and guidelines.
Stream Temperature
To meet the Clean Water Act, the beneficial uses of waters must be identified and management activities
planned so they will not interfere with or be injurious to the beneficial uses of adjacent and downstream
waters. The relevant beneficial uses of the Powder/Burnt Basin and its tributaries as determined by
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality are: 1) Public and private domestic water supply; 2)
industrial water supply; 3) irrigation; 4) livestock watering; 5) fish and aquatic life; 6) wildlife and
154
hunting; 7) fishing; 8) boating; 9) water contact recreation; 10) aesthetic quality (ODEQ, 2003).
Beneficial uses within the project area include livestock watering, irrigation, and resident fish and aquatic
life. There are no streams listed on the 2010 ODEQ 303 (d) list as water quality limited for temperature
in the project area.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) water quality standards are applied to protect
the most sensitive beneficial uses in a waterbody. Redband trout are considered the beneficial use most
sensitive to stream temperatures. The biologically-based criterion requires that the seven-day moving
average of the daily maximum temperature shall not exceed 68°F (20.0° C).
Limited water temperature monitoring has occurred in the Eagle Creek system, including the analysis area
(Table 75, Figure 16). Within the analysis area there are four water temperature monitoring sites with
three of them on main Eagle Creek and one on Little Eagle Creek. (Table 75). Table 75 also includes other
site within the Eagle Creek Watershed, both upstream and downstream of the project area. In general, the
water temperature standard for redband trout is being met in the analysis area. Water temperature data
indicates that the redband trout standard (<68.0 °F) is being met in Eagle Creek in the analysis area (Table
75). The water temperature standard was exceeded three out of six years that water temperatures were
monitored in Little Eagle Creek in the analysis area. Eagle Creek site 14F.2 which is at the most
downstream end of the project area exceeded the standard one out of five years of monitoring (Table 75).
Water temperatures in Eagle Creek appear to be naturally warm based on temperature data from Eagle
Creek site 14K.8 is located near the wilderness boundary and upstream of the project area. High water
temperatures in Little Eagle Creek are likely related to water withdrawals for irrigation purposes (See
Water Yield and Streamflow; and Cumulative Effects Sections). The water temperature standard for bull
trout spawning and rearing is <53.6°F. The sites where this temperature criterion applies are upstream of
the project boundary; none of them meet the standard (Table 75).
Table 75. Maximum 7-day Mean Maximum Stream Temperatures for Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek Compared to ODEQ Standards.
Stream Site Name Elevat-ion (ft)
1998
(F)
1999
(F)
2001
(F)
2002
(F)
2005
(F)
2011 (°F)
2012 (°F)
ODEQ Standar
d (F)
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14D.1 2810 N/D 58.8 N/D 59.6 N/D N/D 60.4 <68.0
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14F.2 2940 N/D 62.3 68.3 65.0 66.2 N/D 64.7 <68.0
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14F.3 3380 N/D N/D 66.0 62.9 64.5 N/D 63.0 <68.0
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14G.4 3660 N/D 60.3 N/D 61.5 N/D N/D N/D <68.0
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14I.5 3790 N/D 61.7 67.6 63.9 65.5 N/D N/D <53.6
Eagle Creek
Eagle.14K.8 5040 N/D N/D 63.3 59.7 61.3 N/D N/D <53.6
Little Eagle Creek
Little Eagle.14E
2980 71.3 66.4 70.7 68.9 N/D 64.6 67.6 <68.0
East Fork Eagle Creek
E Fk Eagle.14H.1
3760 N/D 58.0 N/D 59.6 N/D N/D N/D <53.6
East Fork Eagle Creek
East Fork Eagle.14H.2
4610 59.1 55.3 54.5 55.5 N/D N/D N/D <53.6
West Eagle West 5120 N/D 57.0 60.7 58.4 59.7 N/D N/D <53.6
155
Stream Site Name Elevat-ion (ft)
1998
(F)
1999
(F)
2001
(F)
2002
(F)
2005
(F)
2011 (°F)
2012 (°F)
ODEQ Standar
d (F)
Creek Eagle.14J.2
N/D = No data. (Note: All shaded sites are located in the analysis area. Eagle Creek Sites Eagle.14I.5, Eagle.14K.8, E Fk Eagle.14H.1, East Fork Eagle.14H.2 and West Eagle.14J.2 are located upstream of the analysis area. Site Eagle.14D.1 is located downstream of the project area. Sites Eagle.14K.8 and East Fork Eagle.14H.2 are located near the wilderness boundary.)
As noted in the Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis (1997), East Eagle Creek has a cooling effect on Eagle
Creek below their confluence. The Eagle Creek – E.F. Eagle Creek confluence is located between Sites
Eagle.14G.4 and Eagle.14I.5 (Table 75) and just above the analysis area (Figure 16). This cooling effect
extends down to Site Eagle.14F.3 located about 1 mile above the confluence with Paddy Creek (Figure
16).
Little Eagle Creek is a warm water source based on the difference between sites Little Eagle.13E.1 and
Eagle.14F.2 (Table 75). However, the influence of this warmer water on the water temperature of Eagle
Creek is low based on the
differences water
temperatures between sites
Eagle.14F.2 and
Eagle.14D.1. This is likely
due to the reduced flows in
Little Eagle Creek as a result
of irrigation withdrawals
(See Cumulative Effects
Section).
Other streams where
significant water
withdrawals occur during
the low water period are: 1)
Ethel Creek, 2) Conundrum
Creek, and 3) Twin Bridges
Creek. These streams are all
tributaries to Little Eagle
Creek (Figure 16). Water
withdrawals are a
contributing factor for high
water temperatures during
the summer low-water
period (Beschta, 1997).
Figure 16. Locations of Water Temperature Monitoring Sites in and Adjacent to the Sparta Project Area
Effects Analysis
Assumptions
The analysis area for
watershed processes
156
encompasses two subwatersheds, Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek and Little Eagle Creek, in the project area.
Because effects to aquatic habitat are unlikely to stop at the downstream boundary of the project area, the
aquatics effects analysis area (“analysis area”) includes all streams in the project area and Eagle Creek
from the project area boundary downstream to the Forest Boundary (about 1 mile downstream from the
project area). Measurable effects to aquatic habitat from proposed activities are unlikely to extend
downstream of this point.
Direct effects to fisheries and water resources are primarily related to sediment input from project actions
which occur at the same time and place as these resources. Indirect effects are primarily related to
sediment and stream temperature impacts which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance. Cumulative effects are from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that
overlap in time and space with the effects of the Sparta project.
Time frames for the direct/indirect effects discussion for watershed processes and aquatic habitat are: 1)
short-term, 0 - 5 years; 2) mid-term, 5 - 10 years; and 3) long-term, >10 years.
Sediment Delivery Rates: The definition of accelerated sediment delivery for the Sparta Project includes
any increase over and above the natural sediment rates of the watershed.
It is difficult to equate soil erosion directly to sedimentation rates. Obstructions in the path (i.e. downed
wood, grass/forb cover) between the sediment source and the stream reduce the risk of indirect sediment
delivery to the stream. Therefore, adequate filter strips (in terms of size, ground cover and downed
material) are necessary to slow or prevent sediment movement downslope of disturbed areas. The use of
the riparian buffers described above has long been recognized as a mitigation measure to reduce sediment
transport to streams. The structural complexity of roots and herbaceous vegetation, in addition to the
absorption capability of the duff layer, limits excess sedimentation to the aquatic system. Surface runoff
slows down when it comes in contact with herbaceous shrubs, mature trees and the duff layer on the
forest floor and sediment is deposited within the riparian buffer before it reaches the watercourse (Decker
2003).
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities associated with the Sparta Project have been analyzed and are of such limited
context and constrained nature that they would have little to no measurable effect on watershed and
fisheries resources. These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in this effects analysis.
Connective Corridors
Snag Retention and Snag Creation
Road ROW Acquisition
No ground disturbance would occur within RHCAs from these activities and there would be no potential
effects to water quality or fisheries resources.
Direct and Indirect Effects to Watershed Processes, Fish, and Aquatic Habitat
Water Yield and Streamflow
Methodology and Measurement Indicators
The Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) methodology (King, 1989) provided an initial screening for any
predicted changes in the streamflow regime as a result of proposed activities. If ECA thresholds are met
or exceeded, further analysis and/or monitoring will help determine the degree of change and potential
157
issues with stream function and stability. In general, an ECA >15% indicates risk that water yield may
increase above background levels.
Alternative 1- No Action
Alternative 1 does not implement any vegetation management, prescribed burns, temporary road
construction, road maintenance including culvert installation and removal, road decommissioning or
aspen enhancement activities. All current management activities would continue in the project area.
Activities include livestock grazing, diversion of water out of Little Eagle, Spring, and Ethel Creeks into
Summit Creek via the Brooks Ditch for irrigation purposes, recreation, woodcutting, road maintenance,
and wildfire suppression. While some repair of Forest Road (FR) 77 occurred in 2012, other road
improvements including drainage and stabilization are not planned. Since current activities would
continue, no changes in water yield or streamflows would occur in the short-term.
Without treatment of fuels and overstocked stands, the risk for fire, even uncharacteristic severe fire is
subject to increase over time (See Fuels section). Whether uncharacteristic high-severity fire could
translate into a change in soil-water function at a scale sufficient enough to affect the streamflow regime
would require the entire sequence of events to occur: 1) A fire that covers a large enough portion of
watershed to produce potential effects. 2) Burn severity of moderate to high on 50% or more within the
burn perimeter. 3) A storm event or rapid snowmelt of sufficient intensity that occurs within 3 years of the
fire. Recent wildfires in the western United States often result in up to 50-60% of the burned area in
moderate to high burn severity (Lentile et al., 2007). For these reasons, it becomes difficult to
quantitatively predict risks to watersheds by not treating fuels and overstocked stands. Other potential
future effects like changes in stream temperature or LWD recruitment are better correlated to
deterministic post-fire situations, but remain subject to spatial and magnitude variations in fire behavior.
A large wildfire event could affect streamflow regimes with possible higher peak flows, higher base flows
(due to reduced transpiration), and greater annual volume amounts. In the absence of large wildfires,
stream discharges are expected to follow current flow regimes.
In summary, streamflow regime indicators would likely remain in the current range. In the event of a
wildfire with sufficient scope and intensity to produce watershed effects, all indicators would experience
some degree of effects. Predicting those effects to any degree of certainty becomes problematic due to all
the variables involved.
Alternatives 2 and 3
There would be no direct effects to streamflow or water yield by implementing Alternative 2 or 3. No
water would be diverted, removed or otherwise decreased or increased in stream channels in the project
area.
The ECA analysis represents a coarse-scale approach for screening potential indirect effects to streamflow
regime from timber harvest and roads (USDA, 1974). The Matrix of Diagnostics, Pathways and
Indicators used in Biological Opinions and Evaluations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) use a
recommended value of >15% ECA to indicate potential cumulative changes in peak flow, which could
affect channel stability. Table 76 displays existing and projected ECA values in the project watersheds.
An acre of thinning treatment is equivalent to a fraction of an acre of clearcut harvest. Alternative 3
would result in less overall ECA in the project area compared to Alternative 2, but both alternatives
remain well under the threshold of >15%. The result of considering all past and proposed treatment acres
within each subwatershed retains ECA values below the 15% threshold of concern for both alternatives.
No change in the streamflow regime is expected as changes in ECA are nominal, and total ECAs for
Eagle Creek subwatershed and Little Eagle Creek subwatershed are below 15 percent.
158
Table 76. Current Equivalent Clearcut Area (ECA) and Predicted ECAs for the Sparta Project.
Subwatershed Existing ECA
(%)
Alternative 2
ECA (%)
Alternative 3
ECA (%)
Little Eagle SWS 5 9 9
Paddy-Eagle SWS 5 11 10
Both action alternatives have similar indirect effects with immeasurable variances between them for
streamflows. The variances between action alternatives cannot be determined in terms of measureable
effects between any of the indices. In other words, differences in actions like treatment acres of timber
harvest or prescribed fire will not result in measureable differences in streamflow regime. Analyzing
differences in streamflow effects for the different action alternatives on a project of this scale is
inconclusive.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion and sedimentation are geomorphic processes that shape the physical appearance of the landscape
and strongly influence aquatic ecosystems. The range of natural variability for sediment delivery to
streams and wetlands within the planning area is considered to be very large because erosional processes
are influenced by infrequent natural disturbance events such as floods and wildfire. Sedimentation rates
to streams are typically inconsequential on a year to year basis but can spike several orders of magnitude
during large storm events. Land management has the potential to accelerate erosion rates and the volume
of sediment entering streams and wetlands.
Timber harvest activities including harvest, yarding, and haul can potentially increase the delivery of
sediment to streams. Harvest attributable erosion and sediment to streams has been shown to increase the
closer the ground disturbance is to the channel (Rashin et al. 2006). One of the important variables
influencing the effects of project activities on hydrology and sediment is proximity of activities to stream
channels (Rashin et al., 2006). A research study on buffers found that of 212 erosion features within 10
meters (approximately 30 feet) of a stream, 67 percent of the features delivered sediment to the stream. Of
193 erosion features greater than 30 feet from a stream, 95 percent did not deliver sediment to the stream.
The primary potential source of sediment from harvesting is derived from ground disturbing activities,
primarily summer dry season tractor harvest systems, and to a much less degree winter logging.
Rashin et al. (2006) demonstrated the effectiveness of best management practices for controlling sediment
related water quality impacts from timber harvest activities. Rashin et al. found that stream buffers were
most effective where timber falling and yarding activities were kept at least 10 meters (approximately 33
feet) from streams and outside of steep inner gorges. This 10 meter buffer for ground disturbing activities
was found to prevent sediment delivery to streams from about 95% of harvest related erosion features. Of
193 erosion features located 10 meters from the stream channel, 95% did not deliver sediment. Rashin et
al. found that virtually all chronic sediment delivery was associated with skid and shovel trails that
crossed streams. There would be no stream crossings with equipment of any perennial fishbearing streams
within the Sparta project area in either alternative.
Lakel et al (2010) studied four streamside buffer widths or streamside management zones (SMZs) for the
effectiveness of sediment retention after forest harvest and site preparation. The study was conducted in
the Piedmont physiographic region of Virginia. Piedmont soils are highly susceptible to erosion. All
SMZs had intact litter layers and were similarly effective for trapping sediment. Side slopes within the
study watersheds averaged 25% and ranged from 10% to 65%. The four SMZs studied were:
7.6 meters (24.9 feet) with no thinning in the SMZ,
15.2 meters (49.9 feet) with no thinning in the SMZ,
159
15.2 meters (49.9 feet) with thinning within the SMZ with 30% to 50% basal area removed,
30.4 meters (99.7 feet) with no thinning in the SMZ.
Treatments included clearcut harvest; dozer created firelines between harvest, and SMZs, and prescribed
fire. Results indicate that 97% of eroded materials were trapped within the harvest area or the SMZ before
reaching the stream, and that pre-harvest and post-harvest sediment data was not significantly different
for the four SMZ treatments. Three of the study watersheds had sediment bypass the SMZ regardless of
SMZ width and the apparent causes were failed water control structures associated with road segments or
firelines on steep, fragile soils that concentrated flow creating scouring and minor channel formation. In
contrast, there would be no dozer created fire lines within the Sparta project area during harvest activities.
No active lighting would take place within RHCAs, with the exception of pile burning in RHCAs that
contain skid trails where trees are limbed in the unit and slash is walked over by equipment to help protect
soil disturbance. Upland prescribed fire units will be ignited as determined in prescribed fire burn plans,
down to the outer RHCAs. Within RHCAs fire will be allowed to continue to burn and spread, usually as
a backing fire, without further influence from ignition sources. Fire backing into RHCAs would be low
intensity fire. Under circumstances where unmanipulated fire activity threatens to exceed a maximum
burn prescription parameters and/or control of the burn is threatened, hand ignition would continue into
the RHCA as necessary. Instances of hand ignition within RHCA buffers is expected to be rare and
typically only occur with unexpected changes in wind direction. For Alternative 2, the outer edges of 560
acres of RHCA could be effected by low intensity prescribed fire treatments. The outer edges of 184 acres
of Category 1 RHCAs, 174.5 acres of Category 2 RHCAs, and 201 acres of Category 4 RHCAs could
receive understory burning from prescribed fire. In Alternative 3, there are 536 acres of prescribed fire
treatments that could affect the outer edges of RHCAs including 173 in Category 1 RHCAs, 172 in
Category 2 RHCAs and 191 in Category 4 RHCAs.
Post-harvest fuels reduction would occur on 32.6 acres of RHCAs where slash and limbs are hand piled
and burned. No hand piling and burning would occur within 50 feet of Category 1, 2, or 4 stream
channels.
Roads can also be a substantial source of sediment as well as a mechanism for delivering sediment to the
stream systems. Forest roads affect surface runoff patterns, erosion, and sedimentation that may affect
aquatic organisms (Trombulak and Frisell, 2000). Roads can also serve as a link between sediment
sources areas and stream channels through sediment delivery (Wemple et al., 1996).
Forest road impacts on sediment yield often correlates with road density within RHCAs and the number
of stream crossings (Furniss et al., 1991). Additionally, the connectivity between roads and streams can be
affected by soil conditions, slope steepness, and road standards. The distance that sediment travels from
road sources is a function of volume, obstructions, hillslope gradient, and source area (Megahan and
Ketcheson, 1996). Roads can directly affect channel morphology by accelerating erosion and sediment
delivery and by increasing the magnitude of peak flow (Furniss et al., 1991).
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 does not implement any vegetation management, prescribed burns, temporary road
construction, road maintenance, or aspen enhancement activities. All current management activities
would continue in the project area. Activities include livestock grazing, diversion of water out of Little
Eagle, Spring, and Ethel Creeks into Summit Creek via the Brooks Ditch for irrigation purposes,
recreation, woodcutting, road maintenance, and wildfire suppression. Some repair of FR 77 that was
damaged in the 2010 flood have occurred, but other improvements including drainage improvement are
not planned.
160
The amount of sediment entering the streams under the Alternative 1 is expected to remain the same
unless there is 1) an increase in grazing use and grazing pressure tributary stream banks in the project
area, 2) road failures, 3) landslides, 4) increase in mining activity and/or 5) a wildfire. Inputs of sediment
from livestock use in the analysis area are minimal because steep hillslopes, conifers, and narrow valley
widths along tributary streams limit access to the stream banks in most places.
Sediment inputs as a result of a wildfire will vary depending on the severity of the burn and its areal
extent. Site factors contributing to post-fire soil erosion include burn severity (changes in soil-water
function), loss of ground cover, slope and magnitude/duration of precipitation events. Post-fire sediment
delivery to streams can increase due to high erosion rates and less ability to capture sediment on
hillslopes. The recovery of sediment inputs to pre-fire levels is anticipated at about three years after a
low-severity wildfire and 7 to 14 years after a moderate or high-severity wildfire respectively (Robichaud
et al. 2000).
The risk for uncharacteristic, high intensity fire is higher under Alternative 1. This represents an increased
risk of sediment delivery if a fire and subsequent storm event scenario occurred. Without treatment of
fuels and overstocked stands, the risk for fire, even uncharacteristic high-severity fire is subject to
increase over time (See Fuels section). Whether uncharacteristic sever fire could translate into a change in
soil-water function at a scale sufficient enough to affect flow and sediment regimes would require the
entire sequence of events to occur: 1) A fire that covers a large enough portion of watershed to produce
potential effects. 2) Burn severity of moderate to high on 50% or more within the burn perimeter. 3) A
storm event or rapid snowmelt of sufficient intensity that occurs within 3 years of the fire. Recent
wildfires in the western US often result in up to 50-60% of the burned area in moderate to high burn
severity (Lentile et. al., 2007). For these reasons, it becomes difficult to quantitatively predict sediment
risk to watersheds by not treating fuels and overstocked stands.
Roads will continue to serve as a conduit for and source of fine sediment to the streams under this no-
action alternative. The amount varies depending on road location, design, and maintenance. No increase
in the road-related sediment to the stream is anticipated unless there is a road or culvert failure during a
storm event, or the deterioration of a road due to lack of maintenance erodes and contributes sediment.
Sediment inputs from the tributary streams are expected to be minimal because there are no ongoing
activities that will remove vegetation along riparian buffer zones or stream banks.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Timber Harvest Activities
The only activity that could have direct effects to water quality as a result of proposed timber harvest
activities in Alternative 2 and 3 is crossing a Category 4 stream channel with a forwarder at the bottom of
unit 43 to move wood to 7000040 road. Direct and indirect effects could occur if there is water in this
intermittent channel when machinery crosses it that would increase sediment and turbidity delivery to this
channel and channels downstream. To mitigate direct effects, this stream would be crossed at a naturally
hardened site and logs or slash would be put down across the channel to minimize bank disturbance.
Additional mitigation measures would require logging to take place when soil conditions are dry or
frozen, which would potentially mean the intermittent channel would be dry or frozen. All other effects to
water quality are indirect in nature, occurring later in time or farther removed in distance from stream
channels. There are no direct effects to fish and aquatic habitat resulting from timber harvest activities in
Alternative 2 or 3, all effects would be indirect in nature. Sediment from ground disturbance in
commercial harvest units in the project area could reach stream channels in a run off event, effecting
water quality, fish, and fish habitat.
161
Under Alternative 2, timber harvest activities using mechanical equipment would occur over about 4,413
acres (including aspen restoration acres). In Alternative 3, 3,781 acres would be harvested using
mechanical equipment. Default INFISH RHCA widths (see mitigations/project design criteria section of
the EA) would be utilized as no activity buffers to protect aquatic and riparian habitats in the project area
from receiving measureable increases in fine sediment, except in 17 units where a sliver of the outer
portion of RHCA exists upslope of a road in Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs in Alternative 2 only. No
commercial harvest would occur in RHCAs in Alternative 3. Commercial harvest units will be logged
using a combination of ground-based logging equipment including tractors and forwarders and cable
logging systems.
In Alternative 2, mechanical activities to support commercial thinning would occur within the outer edges
of RHCAs in 17 units, where the outer portion of the RHCA is upslope of an existing road prism. These
RHCAs were included in the proposed action for two reasons: 1) to meet the silvicultural prescription for
the stand and 2) to facilitate movement of processed logs to existing landings and minimize impacts of
skidding or additional road building within the portions of the units located upslope of the associated
RHCAs. Utilizing existing landings upslope of an existing road will decrease the distance and amount of
passes needed by a forwarder or skidder within the unit. Additionally, avoiding these outer edges of
RHCAs could require temporary roads in order to access the upslope portion of units in some cases.
There is a total of 32.6 acres of RHCA that will be affected by harvest and log forwarding in Alternative
2. Log forwarders would traverse these portions of the RHCA to move harvested and processed trees from
the RHCA and the rest of the unit upslope of the RHCA down to decks along the road for haul. Log
forwarding is the required ground based logging system for all ground based units with RHCA treatments
(INFISH 1995). However, feller bunchers may be utilized where trees that will be harvested can be
reached by a feller buncher from the road prism. Tractor skidders maybe be used on approximately 4
acres of the RHCA were the same logging system would be used throughout the rest of the unit. Within
these 4 acres, trees may be skidded out of the RHCA using whole tree skidding to landings outside of the
RHCA within the unit.
In both alternatives, a forwarder would cross a Category 4 stream on the south part of unit 43 to access
the road on the north boundary of unit 44. This area is not identified as RHCA harvest/skidding. The
stream would be crossed at a naturally hardened site. Brush or logs would be placed on the crossing to
protect streambanks.
Use of a forwarder harvest system would minimize potential impacts because rather than whole tree
yarding, trees would be limbed and forwarder would walk over slash. In addition, forwarder tracks
distribute weight and have less impact on soil compaction and associated surface run off impact than
tractors. Alternative 3 would have fewer potential impacts to RHCAs than Alternative 2 because no
RHCA harvest would occur; however, designated skid trails through RHCAs would still occur to move
trees from these units to roads for haul. To limit amount of disturbance and increase of fine sediment from
harvest and harvest related activities, landings and skid trails located in RHCAs would follow the specific
design criteria described in the Alternative Description section of this EA.
Approximately 32.6 acres of commercial thinning would occur in RHCAs under Alternative 2. This
represents approximately 1% of the total acreage of RHCAs (3,026 acres) in the project area.
An estimated 5 acres of RHCA would be impacted by landings located in RHCAs. Only existing landings
would be used in RHCAs with the restriction that landings located adjacent to stream channels will not be
used. Generally, landings in RHCAs will be at least 100 feet from stream channels. Forwarders will be
used instead of other ground-based yarding equipment to transport logs to landings located in RHCAs.
Use of forwarders will reduce disturbed soil conditions at landings located in RHCAs and on associated
skid trails.
162
When INFISH was developed in 1995, the widths of RHCAs were thought to be sufficient to maintain or
restore water quality and aquatic habitat (large woody debris (LWD), pools, fine sediment) (INFISH,
1995). Reviews by Rhodes et al (1994), Rhodes (1995), Moyle et al. (1996), and Quigley et al. (1997)
questioned the effectiveness of the PACFISH/INFISH RHCA width for Category 4 streams for preventing
the transport of non-channelized sediment to Category 4 stream channels and ultimately Category 1
streams. The main criticism of RHCA widths for Category 4 stream channels is that additional buffer
width is needed on steeper slopes to protect against fine sediment reaching stream channels. Rhodes et al.
(1994) and Rhodes (1995) suggest that to provide “completely natural levels” of fine sediment reaching
streams a buffer width of 450 feet (slope distance) is required. Erman et al. (1996) suggests adding
additional buffer width (slope distance) as slope and soil erodibility increase.
In response to these reviews, the proposed decision for the Interior Columbia Basin FEIS provided a
relationship developed for highly erodible soils and slope as a default for determining widths of Category
4 RHCAs needed to achieve a low risk of sediment reaching stream channels (ICBEMP, 2000).
Compared to the “low risk” default widths recommended by ICBEMP, the width of INFISH Category 4
RHCAs likely represents a moderate risk of fine sediment reaching Category 4 stream channels in the
project area in Alternatives 2 and 3.
In addition to the importance of vegetated buffer widths for filtering fine sediment prior to reaching
Category 4 streams, levels of LWD in Category 4 stream channels can also play an important role in
trapping and storing fine sediment. As noted in the Aquatic Habitat section, LWD levels in Category 4
streams are at low levels. However, WEPP predicts that there is little risk of fine sediment reaching
stream channels adjacent to harvest units with the highest potential erosion in the project area.
Harvesting in Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs in Alternative 2 has the potential to remove trees that would
provide future LWD to stream channels on 32.6 acres. However, these RHCA harvest areas are located
above roads and therefore any trees that were to fall across the road towards the stream channels would be
cut and removed from the road prism. Given that the majority of trees to be thinned in these areas are
likely smaller than a site potential tree (100 feet tall) and the average road prism for a 7-digit Forest
Service Road is 14 feet wide, a small reduction in future LWD levels in Category 1, 2, and 4 streams is
anticipated to occur in Alternative 2 where proposed thinning occurs in Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs.
All effects to water quality and fish habitat from timber harvest activities in Alternatives 2 and 3 are
indirect in nature. INFISH standards and guidelines for timber harvest activities and RHCAs were
developed to limit impacts to aquatic habitat from timber harvest activities. Additional design features
have been incorporated into the proposed action to limit soil disturbance from proposed activities in
RHCAs. There is a low likelihood that increases in fine sediment resulting from the proposed timber
harvest activities will result in measureable increases in fine sediment in fish bearing streams in the
analysis area.
Transportation System Improvements
Road Reconstruction
Maintenance of roads would be required to open closed roads in Alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of
maintenance activities such as brushing, blading and shaping of the road surface, cross drain culvert
cleaning, and limited ditch cleaning would not occur instream but would occur on the road prism or
immediately adjacent to the road prism and would not result in direct effects to water quality, fish or fish
habitat. These road maintenance activities are a potential indirect effect. Culvert installation would be
required on certain roads proposed to be opened in some alternatives; this would have direct effects on
water quality due to the instream work associated with installation.
Road maintenance is necessary to keep roads in good condition, minimize erosion, and identify and
correct problems promptly (Furniss et al. 1991). Maintenance keeps roads in a condition suitable for
163
travel and prevents severe erosion from failure of the drainage system (Luce and Black 2001). Road
reconstruction activities on system roads would occur on 26.6 miles in Alternative 2 and 25.7 miles in
Alternative 3 to bring roads up to standard for log truck haul. These activities would occur on
Maintenance Level 1, 2, and 3 roads (both open and closed roads). Road maintenance improvements
would be prioritized at stream crossings and along road segments paralleling streams. In Alternative 2 and
3, 10.8 miles of open and closed road in Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs would be reconstructed. In both
Alternatives one additional mile of reconstruction within Category 4 RHCA would occur on the 7010175
and 7010150 roads for watershed improvement purposes. These road miles would not be used for the
Sparta Project; reconstruction would occur as a post-sale road improvement activity. These roads are
within a Category 4 RHCA and the roads currently have erosion problems causing sedimentation delivery
into Category 4 channels. Reconstruction would involve elevating the road surface, and improving
drainage to prevent erosion and sedimentation caused from run off.
Blading consists of pulling material from the sides of the road inwards to redevelop the road crown. All
material would remain on the road surface. Luce and Black (2001) observed that blading of only the
traveled roadway on an aggregate surfaced road with well vegetated ditches yielded no increase in
sediment production from a complete road segment, while blading of the ditch, cutslope, and traveled
roadway substantially increased sediment yield from road segments. Results from a study conducted by
Luce and Black (2001) suggest that blading the ditch has a greater effect than traffic on sediment yield,
and that ditch grading can increase sediment yields on a level comparable to or greater than wet weather
hauling. Cleaning ditches and removing the cutslope vegetation caused a dramatic increase in sediment
production. Sediment yields from older roads with undisturbed ditchlines are much smaller than sediment
yields from newer roads or roads with disturbed ditchlines. Disturbance of the road surface alone through
grading showed less effect. No cutslope grading or removal of vegetation from cutslopes is proposed for
closed roads that would be opened for administrative purposes. No widespread ditch cleaning is proposed
for closed roads. Some small scale, local, and scattered ditch cleaning may be needed. The majority of
vegetated ditchlines would remain to trap sediment before reaching streams.
Brushing out of the road prism would not cause ground disturbance. Vegetation is trimmed back
approximately six feet either side of the traveled roadway. Removal of some vegetation (brushing) may
be needed where the closed roads cross through RHCAs. Vegetation would only be removed where it has
grown over or into the road prism making travel difficult. No streamside vegetation would be removed.
Only that vegetation within the road prism would be removed and would have no effect on stream
temperature. Intermittent non-fishbearing streams within the project area are typically dry by the middle
of June and do not contribute to summer stream temperatures and are therefore not an issue for maximum
stream temperatures.
Spot rocking will prevent rutting, erosion and puddling of the road surface. Swift (1984) investigated the
influence of graveled, ungraveled, and grassed road surfaces on soil erosion. The study concluded that
the graveled road surface with vegetated sideslopes have the lowest soil loss compared to ungraveled and
grass road surfaces.
Road segments with existing erosion issues were modeled using WEPP in to estimate the relative
sediment delivery rates prior to reconstruction and after treatment. Selections of roads were made based
on proximity to perennial streams, the need to implement applicable BMPs and routine maintenance
required to meet operational maintenance levels. The analysis does not represent a sediment delivery
budget for the project area but merely attempts to look at representative critical roads planned for
improved maintenance to display potential sediment reduction.
The most common issue found during road inspections in the Sparta project area was a lack of defined
drainage either through poor design and/or lack of maintenance. Many critical road segments have a
164
neutral profile, meaning they are neither outsloped or insloped. The result is water often tracks down the
road surface for extended distances, creating more energy for scour and transport of road material.
WEPP was used to model soil erosion from roads that were identified as the greatest contributors of fine
sediment to streams (Table 77). Two scenarios were modeled: 1) Existing condition and 2) with BMPs
applied and high traffic level to represent log truck traffic. Where roads presently deliver appreciable
amounts of sediment, maintenance using BMPs could effectively reduce sediment delivery from road
surfaces. The long-term projections of sediment delivery accounts for lower levels of traffic (no log haul)
are displayed in Table 77.
Table 77. Estimated Sediment Delivery from Roads in the Sparta Project Area using WEPP.
Road / Stream
Alternative 1 Existing
Condition
Alternative 2 (BMPs w/ Haul)
Long-term Percent
Reduction Avg tons/year over 10 years
FR 7015 Spurs / Torchlight Gulch 3.24 0.90 97%
FR77 / Paddy Creek 2.02 3.39 89%
FR 7735 / Little Eagle 11.45 1.60 93%
While the magnitude of changes in sediment delivery between the two scenarios may not be absolute due
to model limitations in capturing actual site characteristics (± 50%), the direction and magnitude of
change is very important to note. Small short-term increases are predicted for Paddy Creek and Little
Eagle Creek during log haul. Better surface runoff control will be achieved through placement of
additional drain dips among other maintenance items, resulting in a long term reduction in sediment
delivery.
While modeling was done only on Alternative 2, results for Alternative 3 would be similar except for
slight decreases in short-term sediment production due to less haul under this alternative. Long-term
benefits would be greater under Alternative 3 as the post-sale road management plan for this alternative
would further reduce open road densities within the project area to reflect the minimum sustainable road
system identified under the 2015 WWNF Travel Analysis Report.
Road reconstruction activities would likely result in an increase in erosion rates in the short-term from
road prisms as sediment is eroded from disturbed areas. Improved drainage is expected to reduce
sediment delivery to stream channels and reduced erosion of the road surface by directing water off of the
road surface.
Use of BMPs would minimize sediment yield. Culverts would be sized to prevent the degradation of
streambanks and maintain integrity of the stream channel and stream processes. Culvert installation and
removal would occur during the instream work window specified in Oregon Department of Fish and
Game Guidelines for Timing of In-Water Work (2008). In the long-term, road maintenance activities
would reduce adverse effects to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system.
Opening Closed Roads
Fine sediment levels in streams have been shown to increase as the density of roads in a watershed
increase (Cederholm and Reid, 1987). No new system roads would be constructed in either alternative;
however, 47 miles of currently closed roads would be reopened to access logging units in Alternative 2
and 42.6 miles of closed roads would be reopened in Alternative 3. Alternative 2 and 3 propose to open
closed roads that cross streams and are within RHCA buffers. Approximately 5 miles of currently closed
roads that would be opened for hauling activities are located within Category 1, 2, and 4 RHCAs.
Approximately 1 mile of road that will be opened and used for hauling is within 300 feet of Category 1
fishbearing streams. Closed roads that are opened for timber sale activities will be closed following
165
completion of timber sale activities with the exception of roads 7010175 and 7015075, which would stay
open in Alternative 2. Together this is 4.1 miles of road. No portion of the 7010175 is within RHCAs,
however 0.3 miles of the 7015075 is within Category 2 and 4 RHCA buffers. Opening of closed roads for
timber sale activities would occur in a phased manner with only a portion being open at any one time. It is
estimated that less than 10 miles would be open at one time. The actions associated with opening and
reconstructing closed roads as well as traffic on closed roads associated with mobilizing equipment and
log haul could have indirect effects on water quality and fish habitat at stream crossings as well as where
roads are adjacent to channels, depending on the proximity and riparian vegetation buffers between the
road and stream channel. Because both alternatives have the same number of miles within RHCAs that
will be opened, there is not an expected difference in indirect effects in Alternative 2 or 3. Because open
road density would be slightly higher for the project in Alternative 2 than 3, there may be greater levels of
overall erosion and fine sediment contribution in the subwatersheds contributed by roads in Alternative 2.
However, the effects on water quality and fish and fish habitat would likely be immeasurable.
Closing Open Roads
Approximately 8.98 miles of open roads would be used for the project and closed after project completion
in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would close an additional 3.29 miles of road for a total of 12.28 miles of
open road to close. These closures include 1.5 miles within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs. Closing these roads
to vehicular traffic eliminates incidental sediment delivery to stream channels caused from erosion on
forest roads and sediment input where stream channels cross roads or where roads are adjacent to
channels in draw bottom areas. The roads are still on the landscape and can have sediment input from
maintenance issues such as undersized or plugged culverts, disturbance of run off patterns, lack of ditches
and cross drains which cause road prism erosion. Alternative 3 would have more overall indirect benefit
to water quality and watershed function by closing 3.29 miles of road than Alternative 2. Both
Alternatives have an overall indirect benefit to watershed processes by eliminating incidental sediment
delivery from erosion of road surfaces to stream channels at crossings or where roads are in draw bottom
areas adjacent to channels. In addition, where culverts are removed due to lack of function (plugged,
undersized, for example) when roads are closed and where ditches are fixed as part of project related road
maintenance/reconstruction, erosion and sediment issues from roads are expected to be in improved
condition post project.
Temporary Roads
To access logging units without existing access roads Alternative 2 would require 2.56 miles of temporary
roads. Of those, approximately 0.34 miles of existing non-system roadbeds would be used. In Alternative
3, only 0.34 miles of temporary roads on existing road beds would be used. No new construction of
temporary roads are proposed in Alternative 3. No temporary roads would be constructed in RHCAs.
The temporary roads would be obliterated/decommissioned following completion of haul activities. The
WEPP model predicts that eroded material will not exit the buffers between the closest adjacent stream
channels and the temporary roads. Because erosion and sediment delivery is not expected to impact
riparian habitat or stream channels, no direct or indirect effects to water quality or fish and fish habitat are
expected in Alternative 2 or 3.
Bridge Work
In Alternatives 2 and 3 one bridge would be replaced or reconstructed on Little Eagle Creek on FR 7735
in the project area for haul activities. This is a Category 1 stream with redband trout. The in-water work
window for Eagle Creek and tributaries is July 1 – October 31 (Powder River System).
Bridges on roads 7020 and 7735450 were constructed with cantilever approaches across Eagle Creek and
Little Eagle creeks, respectively. The fill under the cantilever ends has been lost due to flood and high
166
water occurrences over the past several years. In both Alternatives this fill would be replaced under the
cantilevers and behind the piers of the bridges to stabilize the approaches to these bridges.
Increases in fine sediment and turbidity would result from the bridge work proposed on Eagle Creek and
Little Eagle Creek. Eagle Creek and Little Eagle Creek provides habitat for redband trout in the vicinity
of the proposed worksite.
Replacing the abutments on the Little Eagle Bridge to eliminate the channel restriction would result in
short-term measurable increases of fine sediment in the vicinity of the bridge site. Based on similar large
culvert replacement projects that have occurred since 2006, the increase in fine sediment would likely
extend downstream no more than 1/8 mile and last until the following spring runoff (Alan Miller,
Fisheries Biologist, Wallowa Valley RD). Replacing the abutments would eliminate the channel
restriction and resulting chronic streambank erosion thus resulting in a long-term reduction in fine
sediment.
The effects of sediment to aquatic habitat during bridge replacement would be reduced using sediment
control measures during the construction phase, and timing the construction phase to coincide with the in-
water work window for Eagle Creek and tributaries (July 1 – October 31). Aquatic habitat downstream of
the bridge replacement site on Little Eagle Creek would be impacted due to a measureable increase in fine
sediment to 0.125 mile of aquatic habitat. The majority of impacts would occur along the channel
margin, and last until the following spring runoff.
Following replacement of the abutments, periodic spikes in sediment input are expected during the first
winter season in response to precipitation events that may mobilize sediments from disturbed areas.
Sedimentation may also occur throughout the site during the recovery period until fill slopes stabilize (2
to 3 years following installation). These spikes would likely not result in measurable increases in fine
sediment in aquatic habitat below the bridge site.
Culvert Replacements and Removals
In Alternative 2 and 3 culverts would be installed temporarily to reopen previously closed roads that cross
streams in the project area for haul activities: one culvert on Category 2, perennial non-fishbearing
streams and four culverts on Category 4 intermittent streams, including one permanent replacement on
open road 7020 (Table 78). Culverts will be sized appropriately to accommodate 100 year flood event
flows. Culverts will be removed after timber sale activities are completed, except on open road 7020. In
addition, two undersized culverts on closed road 7010130, not used for the project, would be removed to
improve watershed conditions.
Table 78. Culvert Replacements and Removals on Category 2 and 4 Streams in the Sparta Project Area
Stream Category Road Number Comments
2 Torchlight Gulch 7015080 Failed culvert replace with temporary culvert
4 7020 Replace one culvert, permanent, open road
4 7015150 Install 2 temporary culverts Class IV (and torchlight gulch)
4 Holcomb Creek 7735205 No existing culvert, install temporary culvert
2 Dempsey Creek 7010125 No culvert exists, open crossing
4 7010130 Two culverts on Category 4 streams would be removed post project for watershed improvement
Effects would be the same in Alternative 2 and 3; increases in fine sediment and turbidity would likely
result from installation and removal of 4 temporary culverts, replacement of one permanent culvert, and
removal of two culverts on a closed road not used for project activities. Effects to water quality from
installing, replacing, and removing the 6 culverts on Category 4 crossings would be indirect in nature.
167
Stream crossing work associated with culvert removal and installation would be done when these
intermittent channels are dry. Increased sediment is expected during the first flow/run off event in these
channels where disturbed soils would erode.
The culvert replacement on Torchlight Gulch, Category 2 perennial stream, could have direct effects on
water quality, which could indirectly affect redband trout and aquatic habitat, where the upper extent is
210 feet downstream, since it is assumed that there will be flow in the channel when in water work
occurs. All effects on water quality, fish, and fish habitat from culvert replacement work would be short
term. Foltz (2008) studied sediment concentrations and turbidity changes during culvert removals. The
study found that 95% of the culvert related sediment occurred in the first 23 hours after culvert removal in
streams where flows were low. Where flow locations were higher, 40-95% of the culvert related sediment
occurred in the first two hours. Culvert installation and removal in the Sparta project would be similar to
the low flow sites, since work would be required to happen during low flows and sediment concentrations
and turbidity would be expected to return to preconstruction levels within 48 hours after replacement.
Jakober (2002) found that after culvert replacement on the Bitterroot National Forest, sediment
concentrations decreased to near pre-project levels within 24 hours.
The crossings of Category 2 Dempsey Creek is an open crossing on the road with no existing culvert. The
channel through the road prism was completely dry on a site visit October 13, 2016, even after a week of
precipitation. If the channel is dry during hauling activities, there are no expected direct effects to water
quality or downstream fish and fish habitat. However, if there is water in the channel and heavy traffic
from hauling, there would be direct and indirect effects to water quality from increased turbidity and
sediment at the crossing and downstream. The road prism has already greatly affected the flow regime of
the channel at the road crossing, the channel is spread out and braided, and it is therefore difficult to
determine how the stream channel at this open crossing would be affected by traffic. This crossing is over
1 mile from the confluence of Eagle Creek, the closest Category 1 fish bearing stream, so it is not likely
that increased sediment flowing downstream from this site would affect fish and fish habitat.
During installation of the temporary culverts the effects of sediment to aquatic habitat would be reduced
using sediment control measures during the construction phase, and timing the construction phase to
coincide with the in-water work window for Eagle Creek and tributaries (July 1 – October 31). Long
term effects would be mitigated by appropriately sizing the culverts and maintaining them so that they
don’t get plugged with debris and create erosion problems. Following installation of the temporary
culverts, periodic spikes in sediment input are expected during the first winter season in response to
precipitation events that may mobilize sediments from disturbed areas. Sedimentation may also occur
throughout the site recovery period until fill slopes stabilize (2 to 3 years following installation). An
additional spike of sediment input will occur when the temporary culverts are removed. Measureable
increases in fine sediment following culvert replacement projects on the Eagle Cap and the Wallowa
Valley Ranger Districts rarely extend downstream more than 1/8 mile (0.125 miles), with the majority of
impacts occurring along the channel margin, and last until the following spring runoff (Alan Miller,
Fisheries Biologist, Wallowa Valley RD).
Watershed Improvement
Two culverts that cross Category 4 streams would be removed on closed road 7010130 as part of the post
sale road plan (Table 9). One of these culverts is undersized and plugged. Sediment backed up behind this
culvert and a wet marshy area has developed. The other crossing is undersized, which appears to cause
erosion at the inlet and outlet at certain flows. In addition one mile of road will be reconstructed to
address erosion and sediment delivery currently occurring. Approximately 0.8 miles of road 7010150 and
0.2 miles of the 7010175 would be reconstructed to improve drainage and prevent sediment delivery to
Category 4 streams.
168
Road Decommissioning
A total of 6.94 miles of road decommissioning is planned under Alternatives 2 and 3. About 3 miles, are
within RHCAs Category 1, 2 and 4 RHCAs. One of the planned road segments for decommission was
modeled using WEPP. This road segment likely represents the highest sediment delivery of any road
planned for decommission. The present sediment delivery is 7.9 tons/year. After project
decommissioning, the sediment yield drops to 0.4 tons/year. This represents a 95% reduction.
Prescribed Fire Activities
Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuels levels would occur across about 4,793 acres in the project area.
Additionally, post-harvest burning would occur in logging units where there are slash piles from limbing
trees within the unit rather than whole tree yarding to a landing. Burning these slash piles will reduce
ground fuels (4,196 acres).
The use of prescribed fire would not increase sediment delivery rates to stream channels over and above
the natural sediment rates of the subwatershed. Prescribed fire will not be ignited in INFISH RHCAs;
however, fire will be allowed to back into RHCAs from adjacent areas. The use of backing fires in
RHCAs will reduce fire intensities while reducing fuel loading. Because fire intensity is expected to be
low in riparian areas, there is expected to be little effect on riparian conditions. Reduced fire intensities in
RHCAs will 1) reduce the potential for mortality of trees that provide shade, 2) reduce the amount of
downed woody material consumed, and 3) reduce the amount of burned area in the RHCAs thus reducing
the amount of ground cover loss.
Agee et al. (2002) found that understory vegetation in riparian zones tended to be moister later in the
season than in drier upland forests. In low elevation, interior forests such as those with ponderosa pine,
Douglas fir and grand fir, higher understory foliar moisture in riparian zones should dampen surface fire
behavior compared to upland forests late in the dry season. High foliar moisture in understory plants will
be associated with lower surface fireline activities as fires approach the riparian zone, even when fire
return intervals have been shown to be similar between riparian and upland sites (Olson, 2000).
Prescribed fire units include about 865 acres in RHCAs in the project area (Table 79). This represents
about 16% of the total acreage of RHCAs in the project area. The following design criteria will be used
to reduce impacts to aquatic habitat:
Use low intensity prescribed fire to reduce fuels loads and reduce the risk of wildfire spread
through RHCAs. Limit prescribed fire intensity and spread by using backing fire and not actively
lighting in RHCAs.
Avoid handpiling within 50 feet of Category 1, 2, and 4 stream channels
Avoid machine piling within RHCAs (except at approved landings in RHCAs)
Table 79. Acres of Prescribe Fire in RHCAs for Alternative 2 and 3
Alternatives Category 1 RHCAs (acres)
Category 2 RHCAs (acres)
Category 4 RHCAs (acres)
Alternative 2 184 174.5 201
Alternative 3 172.7 172.2 191
Burn prescriptions have been designed to minimize any fire within RHCAs, allowing buffers to capture
any sediment generated from upslope areas. WEPP analysis of sediment delivery from expected
prescribed fire activities showed zero sediment (average for 10-year return period) where 300 foot buffers
exist on perennial streams and slightly more (0.004 tons/acre) for 150 foot buffers.
169
The burn prescription would target consumption of woody material 3 inches and smaller with nearly all
material in this size class consumed. Therefore, fire severity would not be high enough to consume
significant quantities of downed wood that play a role in trapping fine sediment on hill slopes, in
intermittent stream channels, and on floodplains. Some ground cover would be consumed but would be
quickly replaced as litter fall occurs in the first year following burning and herbaceous plants recover in
the second year following burning. A measurable increase in fine sediment in stream channels as a result
of burning activities is unlikely due to the combination of a predicted patchy, low severity burn in RHCAs
and typical recovery of ground cover within two years of prescribed burning.
Prescribed fire is not expected to be a source of erosion or sediment delivery in either Alternative.
Stream Temperature
Alternative 1
No change to current water temperatures expected through the mid-term because current management
activities within the analysis area would continue. A majority of the timbered stands within the project
area are represented by a fuel model that predicts an increased risk of wildfire with moderate to high
severities in the long-term. A wildfire in the area could elevate water temperatures for up to 10 years,
depending on the wildfire severity (Dunham et al., 2007). Elevated water temperatures for an extended
period of time as a result of wildfire would reduce the survival of redband trout until sufficient regrowth
of streamside vegetation occurs.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Timber Harvest Activities
Sunlight is the primary energy source that heats streams (Brown and Krygier, 1970). Shading (vegetative
and topographic) moderates stream temperatures by reducing the amount of solar radiation from reaching
streams. Buffer strips (unharvested or minimally harvested areas) adjacent to streams have been shown to
be effective in reducing or preventing increases in stream temperatures from adjacent timber harvest
activities. Recommended widths for buffer strips for shading vary from 50 to 250 feet (Pollock and
Kennard, 1998). Moore et al. (2005) concluded that based on the available studies, a one-tree-height
buffer that preserves shading on each side of a stream should be reasonably effective in reducing
harvesting impacts on both riparian microclimate and stream temperature.
The majority of timber harvest activities in Alternatives 2 areas outside of RHCAs, and there are no
timber harvest activities proposed in Alternative 3 in RHCAs. A limited amount of commercial thinning
activities, approximately 32.6 acres, would occur in the outer edges of RHCAs in Alternative 2 where
treatment stands overlap with RHCAs (Table 80). In general, thinning would not occur within 200 feet of
Category 1 stream channels (twice the height of a site potential tree), 100 feet of Category 2 stream
channels (height of a site potential tree), and 50 feet of Category 4 stream channels. Restricting thinning
activities to the outer edges of RHCAs would prevent adverse impacts to existing stream shading along
perennial streams in the aquatic effects analysis area. Therefore, measurable increases in stream
temperatures are not likely to result from proposed thinning activities.
Table 80. Acres and percent of RHCA treated with commercial thinning
Alternative Acres of thinning treatment within RHCAs Percent of RHCAs within project area treated
2 32.6 1%
3 0 0%
170
Groundwater temperatures can also influence stream temperatures. Where groundwater is close to the
surface, removal of the forest canopy may increase groundwater temperatures. Brosofske et al. (1997)
showed a strong relationship between upland soil temperatures and stream temperatures for both
preharvest and postharvest (clearcutting) conditions in their study area in western Washington. Soil
temperatures following clearcutting can be up to 6°C warmer (Bhatti et al., 2000) and up to 1°C warmer
in partial cuts (Brooks and Kyler-Snowman, 2008). Since timber harvest activities proposed under
Alternative 2 are primarily commercial thinning it is unlikely that an increase in soil temperature will
occur. Thus, it is unlikely that an increase in stream temperatures will occur as a result of thinning in
areas outside of RHCAs.
Transportation System Improvements
Danger Tree Removal
Danger trees would be removed from haul road corridors for public and forest worker safety. Dangers
trees in RHCAs would be felled and left on site in accordance with INFISH S&G TM-1. Felling of
danger trees in RHCAs adjacent to perennial streams is not expected to result in a significant decrease in
streamside shading.
Prescribed Fire Activities
Effects on the water temperature to aquatic habitat elements from Alternative 3 are similar as those
described for Alternative 2 because the proposed activities are similar. Proposed burning activities would
result in a low severity fire in RHCAs adjacent to perennial streams in the project area. This would be
accomplished by burning when fuel moisture levels are high, not actively lighting fires in RHCAs, and
allowing fires to back into RHCAs from adjacent upslope areas. These techniques result in low intensity
fires that burn in a patchy distribution of burned and unburned areas in RHCAs. Trees removed by
prescribed fire in RHCAs will primarily be understory trees (≤ 8” dbh). Understory trees of this size
typically do not provide significant levels of stream shading.
Riparian shrubs are not expected to be impacted as a result of the proposed burning because they are
present in the moister riparian areas. Where the above ground portions of riparian shrubs are impacted by
fire, they will likely sprout back relatively quickly because the low severity fire would not be hot enough
to destroy root crowns.
The proposed burning in RHCAs adjacent to intermittent streams poses little risk of increasing stream
temperatures because these streams are normally dry during the summer and fall months. Based on these
factors, the Sparta Project is unlikely to result in a measurable increase in water temperature and a
degradation of water quality in streams in the aquatic effects analysis area.
For post-harvest prescribed burning, Alternative 2 would have hand piling burn piles post commercial
thinning activities within the outer edges of RHCAs adjacent to Category 1, 2 and 4 streams in 32.6 acres
and Alternative 3 would not since there is no commercial harvest thinning in RHCAs in Alternative 3.
No direct or indirect effects to stream temperature from prescribed burning are expected since only a
minimal amount of understory RHCA would burn where prescribed fire backs into an RHCA or where
hand piles are burned in Alternative 2 post commercial treatment RHCA areas since site potential tree
height buffers will be maintained.
Channel Stability and Function
Management actions can influence channel stability. When assessing stability and function of stream
channels, a comprehensive assessment is necessary to determine cause and effect relationships when
stability appears compromised. Changes in stability from natural levels can result from changes in water
171
supply and/or sediment supply (Lang, 1955). Changes can also result from disturbances or influences at
the channel level. Channel stability changes may result from livestock management, timber harvest,
placer mining, road construction, and other disturbances within the stream corridor. For example, roads
located within the stream migration zone may interfere with established patterns of sinuosity, causing a
cascade of effects that ultimately result in decreased stability. When multiple management actions occur
within a watershed, it becomes more difficult to assign cause and effect relationships with respect to
channel stability. A decrease in channel stability usually results in loss of habitat values for aquatic life.
These changes can be quantified through stream attributes including width/depth ratios, pool frequency
and pool volumes.
Effects from timber harvest activity typically relate to increased water and/or sediment yields. The ECA
procedure represents a coarse-scale analysis to determine if sufficient cover removal at the watershed
scale has occurred through harvest or fire to alter the flow regime (see Water Quantity section). If
sediment yields have substantially increased due to harvest, fire and road systems, channel stability can
decrease as the stream system receives more sediment than it can effectively transport.
Measurement Indices: The Forest Plan RMO for channel stability is >80%. The analysis of alternatives
will determine any changes in channel stability from the existing condition. The final determination will
conclude whether channel stability will remain static, increase or decrease from existing condition.
Any effects of the alternatives is based on best professional judgment, considering the existing condition,
changes in water and sediment regimes, and changes to the stream channel or riparian area. Direct effects
occur at the time and place of the action. For channel stability, direct effects consider any actions within
the channel system, such as construction of a stream crossing or road fill intruding into the channel.
Indirect effects occur later in time or removed from the activity area. Indirect effects from timber harvest,
fire and roads result from increased water and/or sediment yields within the Eagle-Paddy and Little Eagle
subwatersheds. A threshold of 15% ECA is used to determine whether increases in water yield might
occur. Changes in fine sediment yield are associated with surface erosion occurring with timber harvest,
prescribed burning, and roads. Changes in bedload sediment delivery are typically associated with severe
gullying or mass failures, or decreased stream stability which results from increased water yields.
Cumulative effects consider all the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within a
watershed and assimilate them into an assessment of channel stability/function.
Alternative 1
There would no change in current management activities therefore current conditions would be
maintained through the mid-term. An increase in the likelihood of an uncharacteristic wildfire event(s) is
predicted for the project area in the long-term (see Fuels section). A wildfire event that occurs with
sufficient scope and intensity to alter flow and sediment regimes could decrease channel stability. For
example, a wildfire that removes 50% of the cover in Little Eagle Creek watershed could increase peak
flows and deliver more sediment to Little Eagle Creek. The result would likely decrease channel stability,
especially in lower gradient (<4%) reaches. An increase in width/depth ratios, and decrease in pool
frequency and pool volumes would likely occur concurrently. The probability of this occurrence is
difficult to predict, as many factors come into play.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Both action alternatives have similar levels of direct effects, namely culvert installations and removal and
bridge replacement. The culvert actions occur on small perennial and intermittent streams. Alternative 2
and 3 have 5 installations/removal actions, and one bridge replacement. The length of channel directly
affected is approximately the length of culvert, about 20 feet for each crossing. The effect from temporary
culverts will last as long as the road is used for haul, likely less than 1 year.
172
Proposed harvest activities under both action alternatives result in a total ECA of less than 15% (see
Streamflow section). Because this is under the threshold considered for detecting a change in flow
regimes, no change in stream stability from streamflow increases is expected. While short-term increases
of fine sediment may occur from increased traffic due to logging on some road segments, the long-term
fine sediment delivery will decrease due to road improvements and decommissioning of roads within
RHCAs. The effect of fine sediment on stream stability is limited, especially on relatively high gradient
streams within the project area. While limited deposition may occur on low-gradient reaches, most fine
sediment gets transported downstream to Brownlee Reservoir. Fine sediment has a bigger effect on
habitat quality by filling in interstitial spaces of stream substrate. Channel stability is much more sensitive
to changes in bedload sediment. No change in bedload delivery is expected from any of the actions under
all action alternatives because no gullying or increase in mass failures is expected.
Channel stability is generally good (>80%) for most streams within the project area. Exceptions include
reaches of Eagle Creek where valley bottom widths exceed about 200 feet. These reaches tend to allow
excessive bedload deposition which in turns results in channel braiding and lateral migration. Reaches w/
channel braiding and lateral migration often exhibit stability less than 80%. These reaches may interact
with Forest Road 77 in places, causing substantial loss of road fill and surface. Delivery of road material
to the stream system acts to exacerbate channel braiding and lateral migration.
The action alternatives are not predicted to affect stream channel stability. This is due to no appreciable
changes to any factors which affect channel stability. These factors include: streamflow regime, sediment
regime, and any management changes within the stream corridor (especially road location). Relocation of
roads outside the stream corridor, especially on Eagle Creek, would be necessary to achieve a measurable
change in stream channel stability/function.
Summary of effects to water quality, fish and aquatic habitat from Action Alternatives
Overall, Alternative 3 represents a reduction in erosion rates compared to Alternative 2 and a lower risk of
fine sediment into streams in the analysis area. However, since WEPP predicts that there is little risk of
fine sediment reaching stream channels adjacent to harvest units with the highest potential erosion in the
project area under Alternative 2, it is unlikely that that there will be a measureable difference in fine
sediment levels between the two action alternatives.
Another factor that contributes to the lack of measurable differences in fines sediment levels between the
two action alternatives is that only a portion of eroded soil would travel to stream channels (Walling,
1999). The difference between soil erosion and the amount of sediment that reaches streams is called the
sediment delivery ratio (Mutua and Klik, 2006). Each watershed has a unique sediment delivery ratio
based on watershed characteristics that influence its buffering capacity, however, it is generally inversely
proportional to watershed size, i.e. the larger the watershed the lower the sediment delivery ratio (Walling,
1988).
There is also a time lag factor that influences sediment delivery ratios that make it unlikely that
measureable differences in fine sediment levels between the alternatives will be detectable: 1) as soil is
eroded a portion of it can become trapped in sediment sinks prior to reaching stream channels, 2) a
portion of sediment that reaches stream channels can be trapped by channel features such as LWD, and 3)
portions of trapped sediment in both uplands and stream channels can be remobilized at a later date.
These factors can result in sediment delivery ratios that can be a fraction of the amount of soil that is
eroded in a watershed and can create lag time between initial erosion and deposition in streams that make
it difficult to effectively measure changes in fine sediment in streams in the analysis area based on the
relative sameness of the two action alternatives.
Measurable increases in fine sediment are predicted as a result of the replacement of a bridge and
installation and removal of temporary and permanent culverts. These increases are predicted to be short-
173
term. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 5 culverts on Category 4 streams and 1 culvert on a Category 2 stream
would be replaced. Measurable increases in fine sediment could last for up to 48 hours and then would be
expected to return to background levels.
There would be no direct ignition of prescribed fire within RHCAs in Alternative 2 or 3, except where small piles of limbs and slash would be burned where forwarders are used.
Commercial harvest units would have default INFISH RHCA buffer widths implemented as no activity stream buffers, with the exception of 32.6 acres, where commercial harvest skidding would occur in Alternative 2 and skidding would occur in Alternative 3. Site potential tree height would be implemented to prevent direct and indirect effects to water quality and stream temperature throughout the project area.
Alterative 2 and 3 propose crossing a Category 4 stream with equipment between units 43 and 44,
which could have direct effects on water quality and indirect effects to fish and aquatic habitat.
Alternative 2 and 3 would have direct effects to water quality and indirect effects to fish and
aquatic habitat by replacing 5 culverts on Category 2 and 4 streams.
Both alternatives propose use of open and closed roads that require reconstruction within RHCAs,
this would likely have short term (increased erosion sediment) and long term (decreased erosion
sediment) indirect effects to water quality, fish and aquatic resources.
Alternative 2 would close 9 miles of open road post project, including 1.5 miles of road within
Category 2 and 4 RHCAs, decreasing open road density and potential erosion/sedimentation
contribution from open road use.
Both alternatives would decommission 6.94 miles of road, some of these miles are in RHCAs,
this will have an overall beneficial effect on water quality, improving watershed drainage.
Alternative 2 proposes to keep 4 miles of currently open roads which had an objective
maintenance level of ML1 (close) and leave them open post project (changing their objective
maintenance level to ML2). Approximate 0.3 miles are within Category 2 and 4 RHCAs on the
7015075 road.
Both Alternatives propose bridge replacement at Little Eagle Creek 7735. This is a Class I stream
and removing and installing a bridge would have direct effects on water quality. If two pieces of
equipment are used and no stream crossings with heavy equipment are necessary to install bridge,
effects could be indirect in nature. Direct effect on water quality would have indirect effect on
fish that occupy habitat in the vicinity of construction activities.
Cumulative Effects to Watershed Processes, Fish, and Aquatic Habitat
Assumptions and Methodology
The cumulative effects analysis area for aquatic resources is the same as the analysis areas used for the
direct and indirect effects analysis to watershed process and aquatic habitat. Potential cumulative effects
are analyzed by considering the proposed activities in the context of present and reasonably foreseeable
future actions. Reasonably foreseeable future actions are defined as within the next 5 years. Refer to
Appendix D of the Sparta Project EA for a list of projects and activities occurring in the analysis area that
were considered for cumulative effects to water quality, fish, and aquatic habitat. Only activities that
overlap in time and space and would pose a measureable effect when combined with the activities
proposed in the Sparta project risk of cumulative effects are discussed.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would maintain current management activities therefore no additional cumulative effects to
aquatic habitat would occur over within the reasonably foreseeable future, five years.
174
Alternatives 2 and 3
Sediment produced from the Sparta Project would combine with sediment produced from other activities
most notably from grazing and road management activities. There would be a short-term increase in
sediment production associated with project implementation moderated by effective BMP practices and
mitigation measures. A long-term decrease in sediment is expected as a result of road reconstruction and
maintenance and fire risk reduction, decreasing cumulative effects.
No measureable change in channel stability/function is expected under any action alternative. This is
because present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not predicted to appreciably resolve the
negative human-caused influences on channel stability. The biggest contribution to stream instability
within the cumulative effects analysis areas is the placement of roads within the stream migration
corridor. These roads inhibit streams to exhibit the pattern and profile that would naturally occur in
certain reaches of Eagle, and possibly Paddy and Little Eagle Creeks. There is no plan to remove and/or
relocate these roads.
Livestock grazing and road maintenance activities in the project area are rated as a moderate risk for
negative cumulative effects with the activities proposed under the action alternatives for the Sparta
Project on aquatic species and their habitat. This risk rating is based on the likelihood that immeasurable
increases in fine sediment are likely to occur from the two activities that would be additive to potential
immeasurable increases in fine sediment resulting from proposed activities for the Sparta Project.
Measureable increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat in the vicinity of the bridge
replacement/reconstruction site on Little Eagle Creek, abutment reconstruction on Little Eagle Creek and
Main Eagle Creeks, and installation/removal of temporary culverts on Category 2 and 4 streams (total of
five sites under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3) would likely occur under the action alternatives of the
Sparta Project. However, the predicted increases are likely to be limited in both area (extend less than
0.125 miles downstream of each site) and duration (dissipating during runoff the following spring). Thus
it is unlikely that ongoing grazing or road maintenance activities would result in an additional
measureable cumulative increase in fine sediment levels in the vicinity of the bridges and culvert sites.
Therefore there is a moderate risk of negative cumulative effects associated with these activities.
Road Work
Road improvements and road decommissioning proposed under the Sparta project would likely result in
an overall decrease in erosion rates in the project area and a decrease in fine sediment levels in streams in
the analysis area where roads are contributing sediment. These activities would result in an incremental
improvement of impaired watershed processes and aquatic habitat conditions in the project area that have
resulted from pre-INFISH timber sale activities. Therefore, activities proposed under the action
alternatives for the Sparta Project are rated as having a moderate risk of positive cumulative effects on
watershed processes, and aquatic species and their habitat.
Regularly scheduled road maintenance occurs every one to seven years depending on the condition of the
road, the assigned maintenance level, and the maintenance priority. Other scheduled maintenance
activities occur as specific needs are identified. Maintenance levels for roads are determined by the road
management objectives, the intended use, operational requirements, and budget levels. Maintenance
activities occur primarily from late April to late November depending on the actual condition of the road
and moisture level.
Road maintenance is an ongoing activity. Main gravel roads (such as FR 77, FR 7745) usually receive
surface maintenance once a year. On about a 5-year schedule, all other roads get inspected for deferred
maintenance. Problems identified during inspections are taken care of within the year.
175
The short-term effects from road maintenance activities are minimized by following INFISH standards
and guidelines, and road maintenance BMPs. In the long-term, road maintenance activities reduce adverse
effects to aquatic habitat by reducing overall erosion rates from the road system. A short-term increase in
erosion rates and an immeasurable increase in fine sediment are predicted to occur as a result of the action
alternatives for the Sparta Project. Therefore, ongoing road maintenance activities are rated as having a
moderate risk of negative cumulative effects with the activities proposed under the action alternatives for
the Sparta Project on watershed processes, and aquatic species and their habitat.
Grazing Allotments
The analysis area for aquatic resources for the Sparta Project includes portions of three grazing
allotments; all of which are active. Currently the majority of riparian areas in the project area are open to
grazing. The majority of streams in the analysis area are Rosgen B channels that are resilient to impacts
from livestock grazing. B channels are characterized by stable streambanks and are relatively insensitive
to disturbance (Rosgen, 1996). Low gradient stream reaches (Rosgen C channels) are very sensitive to
disturbance including grazing. About 17% of the stream miles in the analysis area are low gradient
streams (see Table 74).
Impacts to riparian and stream habitat from grazing were identified in the Eagle Creek Watershed
Analysis (1997). The assessment identified grazing as the likely source of high fine sediment levels in
Ethel Creek and Snow Fork Creek. Grazing was identified as a cause for unstable streambanks in the
analysis area. Areas where impacts were the greatest were characterized by low gradient stream reaches
adjacent to roads (Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis, 1997).
Implementation monitoring indicates that Forest Plan utilization standards are being met most years on
the active allotments (personal communication Kelby Witherspoon, Whitman RD). There are areas where
grazing impacts to streams have been identified in the analysis area and legacy effects from past grazing
activities still evident; however, based on monitoring results, the current management strategy has
generally been successful in allowing for the near natural rate of recovery of riparian/aquatic habitat
components as required by INFISH GM-1. Therefore, ongoing grazing activities are rated as having a
moderate risk for negative cumulative effects with the activities proposed under the action alternatives for
the Sparta Project on watershed processes, and aquatic species and their habitat.
Global Climate Change
Global climate change has the potential to have impacts to aquatic habitat through increases in water
temperature and changes in streamflows. The ability to maintain existing high quality habitats and to
restore degraded habitat will be influenced by climate change over the next several decades with
projected higher average air temperatures, more winter precipitation falling as rain versus snow, and
diminishing wither snow packs resulting in earlier snowmelt. High levels of watershed resiliency is
critical for offsetting potential impacts of climate change. Predicted effects of climate change in the Blue
Mountain include:
Less snowpack and more precipitation as rain in the wet season. This is expected to increase the
probability of rain-on-snow events, reduce summer baseflows, and increase the frequency of
large flood events (Halofsky and Peterson, 2016).
Warmer hotter summers. This is expected to increase competition for water resources in the
uplands during the summer, increase frequency of wildfire, and alter potential vegetation
groups across the forest by 2080 (Halofsky and Peterson, 2016).
Although options for forest managers to minimize the harm to aquatic resources from climate change are
limited, there are several management actions that can help protect salmon and trout:
176
Minimize anthropogenic increases in water temperature by maintaining well-shaded riparian
areas.
Maintain a forest stand structure that retains snow, reduces the “rain on snow” effect associated
with forest openings, and promotes fog drip.
Disconnect road drainage from the stream network to soften discharge peaks during heavy
rainstorms.
Ensure that fish have access to seasonal habitats, e.g., off-channel wintering areas or summer
thermal refugia.
Protect springs and large groundwater seeps from development and water removal, as these
subterranean water sources will become increasingly important when surface flows are altered
by climate change (Bisson, 2008).
Potential Impacts to Aquatic Habitat in the Analysis Area from Global Climate Change
Based on the above information, long-term changes to aquatic habitat in the analysis may occur as a result
of global climate. These changes may include:
Increases in water temperatures in response to increases in air temperature,
Changes in runoff patterns in response to an increase in the amount of winter precipitation that
falls as rain:
Decreases in summer streamflows in response to a reduction in snowpack.
Reduced duration of spring runoff but higher peak flows due to an increase the amount of winter
precipitation that falls as rain
Activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 are unlikely to have measureable cumulative
effects with global climate change because:
o The proposed thinning activities are unlikely to result in a change in runoff patterns
because a significant decrease in forested cover would not occur.
o Potential increases in water temperature as a result of proposed burning are unlikely to
occur in the analysis area and if increases do occur they are unlikely to be measureable.
An insignificant reduction in stream shading may result from prescribed burning in Alternatives 2 and 3
and commercial thinning activities in Alternative 2 for the Sparta Project. However, the reduction in shade
is not likely to result in a measureable increase in stream temperatures in the analysis area since
commercial harvest in RHCAs is outside of one site potential tree height. Therefore, climate change is
rated as having a low risk of negative cumulative effects with the activities proposed under the action
alternatives for the Sparta Project on watershed processes, and aquatic species and their habitat.
B. Aquatic Management Indicator Species Analysis
Introduction
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identifies two fish species
as Management Indicator Species (MIS). These include the redband /rainbow trout and steelhead (USDA
1990). These species were selected as they were considered to be good indicators of the maintenance and
quality of instream habitats. These habitats were identified as high quality water and fishery habitat.
The NFMA regulations require that “fish and wildlife habitat be managed to maintain viable populations
of existing …species in the planning area.” To ensure that these viable populations are maintained, the
177
Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service has identified management requirements for a number
species within the region. These Management Indicator Species are emphasized either because of their
status under ESA or because their populations can be used as an indicator of the health of a specific type
of habitat (USDA 1990).
Riparian ecosystems occur at the margins of standing and flowing water, including intermittent stream
channels, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands. The aquatic MIS were selected to indicate healthy stream and
riparian ecosystems across the landscape. Attributes of a healthy aquatic ecosystem includes: cold and
clean water; clean channel substrates; stable streambanks; healthy streamside vegetation; complex
channel habitat created by large wood, cobbles, boulders, streamside vegetation, and undercut banks;
deep pools; and waterways free of barriers. Healthy riparian areas maintain adequate temperature
regulation, nutrient cycles, natural erosion rates, and provide for instream wood recruitment.
Existing Condition
The fish bearing streams or portions of fish bearing streams in the project area that have MIS species
include:
Eagle Creek
Little Eagle Creek
Paddy Creek
Spring Creek
South Fork Spring Creek
Snow Fork Creek
Redband trout have been documented in the analysis area. Redband trout are widely distributed across
the WWNF occupying streams in both anadromous and non-anadromous stream systems. Redband trout
are the resident form of Oncorhynchus mykiss. Redband trout in the project area likely shared a common
gene pool with Snake River steelhead prior to the construction of the Hells Canyon Dam Complex (Hells
Canyon, Oxbow, and Brownlee dams). Redband trout are widely distributed in the project area and
occupy all Category 1 streams.
Abundance surveys for redband trout have not occurred in the Eagle Creek system. The analysis area
provides about 6.5% of the total habitat for redband trout on the WWNF (Table 81).
Table 81. MIS distribution in the analysis area in relation to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest range
Aquatic/Riparian MIS Forest
Distribution (mi)*
MIS in Analysis Area (mi)
Proportion of MIS habitat in Project Area out of total on
Forest
Rainbow Trout/ Redband Trout 320 20.7 6.5%
*Miles calculated for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Effects of Implementation
Fish habitat in the analysis area generally does not meet INFISH RMOs for pool habitat and width-to-
depth ratio in the analysis area (Table 74). However, the INFISH RMO for width-to-depth was developed
prior to advances in our understandings of the relationship between width-to-depth ratios and natural
channel forms (Rosgen 1996). Normal ranges for width-to-depth ratios (bankfull width) for Rosgen B
and C channels are 12 to 20 and 13.5 to 28.7, respectively (Rosgen, 1996). All surveyed streams in the
analysis area, except Eagle Creek, are within the normal range for width-to-depth ratios for their
respective Rosgen channel types (Table 74). Eagle Creek has a mix of Rosgen C and B channel types
which may partially explain the higher than normal width-to-depth ratio. The width-to-depth ratio for the
2016 Eagle Creek survey is much higher than the normal range; 50.6 compared to 20 for Rosgen B
178
channels and 28.7 for Rosgen C channels. The June 2010 flood event took out some of the road template
on Forest Road 77 and likely scoured out the banks and widened the channel in places which may have
increased the width-to-depth ratio.
Pool habitat is lacking in the project area. LWD levels generally meet the RMO. In general, pool habitat
increases as LWD increases (Dollof and Warren, 2003). However, there does not appear to be a
relationship between LWD and pool habitat in steeper streams (Montgomery et al. 1995) or in streams
with low stream power (Jackson and Sturm, 2002). As noted earlier the majority of streams in the
analysis area are high gradient streams, including the fish-bearing which have been surveyed (Table 74),
and may reduce the pool forming function of LWD in the analysis area.
Based on observations made during the 2009 and 2016 stream evaluations, streams in the project area
indicated that stream stability was generally high and met the 80% stability standard (Table 74). Many of
the streams are located in inner gorges, and have rocky well-vegetated banks; typical of Rosgen B-type
channels.
The Sparta project avoids adverse impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats by designing the project to be
consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for aquatic habitat. Under Alternatives 2 and 3,
increases in fine sediment in aquatic habitat would likely occur as a result of bridge
replacement/reconstruction activities (3 sites), installation/removal of temporary culverts (4 sites) and
replacement of a permanent culvert on a road that will remain open. In addition road reconstruction
within RHCAs, especially over stream crossings could contribute sediment into channels that would have
a short term effect on water quality and fish habitat by increasing sediment input into channels. The
predicted increases, however, are likely to be short term and to not extend beyond 0.125 miles
downstream of in water work.
Additional impacts to redband trout may occur as a result of short-term immeasurable increases in fine
sediment and water temperature as a result of activities proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 of the Sparta
Project.
A decrease in erosion from road surfaces would occur as a result of the proposed road. This decrease in
erosion rates would likely result in a mid to long-term decrease in fine sediment in Eagle Creek, Little
Eagle Creek, Torchlight Gulch, and Paddy Creek in the analysis area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also
improve vegetative conditions and maintain the natural fire regime in the long-term in the project area.
Both of these long-term outcomes have beneficial impacts to redband trout and their habitat in the
analysis area. Closing 9 miles of road in Alternative 2 and 12.27 miles in Alternative 3, including 1.5
miles in Category 2 and 4 RHCAs, would additionally reduce erosion from road surfaces in the project
area.
The level of effects anticipated to result from the Sparta Project would maintain or have minor long term
improvement on habitat conditions for redband trout in the project area. Anthropogenic fine sediment
delivery in the project area will be decreased when road maintenance activities are complete. In the long-
term, there would be a reduction in artificially induced sediment entering the stream systems, benefiting
aquatic MIS and their habitat. The project is not expected to contribute to a negative trend in viability on
the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest for redband trout.
Findings - Water Quality Compliance Statement, Floodplains and Wetlands Executive Orders
The Sparta Project is consistent with the WWNF Forest Plan including the 1995 INFISH amendment. In
addition to meeting standards and guidelines for water quality, the proposed activities are consistent with
all Forest Plan Watershed, and INFISH standards and guidelines (see analysis in the Watershed and
Aquatics report in the project analysis file).
179
The Sparta Project is consistent with the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. No
impacts to shading or future LWD levels would occur as a result of the proposed thinning adjacent to
Category 1 and 2 streams because a site potential tree is between 80 and 100 feet in height. There is no
potential risk for increases in fine sediment within the corridor because no ground disturbing activities
would occur in RHCAs (skidding and landings) within the corridor.
Measurable increases in fine sediment are predicted as a result of the replacement of a bridge on fish
bearing Little Eagle Creek and installation and removal of temporary culverts on non-fish bearing
streams. These increases are predicted to be short-term. Aquatic habitat downstream of the bridge
replacement site on Little Eagle Creek will be impacted due to an increase in fine sediment delivered up
to 0.125 miles to downstream aquatic habitat. Under Alternative 2, 3 culverts four culverts on Category 4
streams and 1 culvert on a Category 2 stream will be replaced and could directly impact water quality (if
water is flowing in streams when culver removal and installation occurs), which could indirectly effect
downstream fish and aquatic habitat. Increases in turbidity and fine sediment are expected to return to
preconstruction levels within 48 hours.
Clean Water Act
Eagle Creek is listed on the 2010 ODEQ 303(d) list for elevated levels of E. coli in the project area. A
TMDL has been initiated for the Power Basin and upon completion the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest will create a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for all US Forest Service lands within the
basin. Eagle Creek flows downstream through many miles of private, agricultural land before reaching the
LASAR (Laboratory Analytical Storage and Retrieval) station, downstream of the town of Richland,
Oregon. Consistency will be met through implementation of BMPs, considered as a performance standard
for control of non-point source water pollution. Active grazing and recreational residences within the
boundary of the project area could be a source of this bacteria but a 2016 stream survey on Eagle Creek
did not indicate that grazing was an issue (i.e. unstable banks). Recreational residences lie within the
project boundary but the private property is excluded from the project and was not stream surveyed.
Because the project includes actions to reduce long-term sediment delivery from roads, it meets
compliance required by CWA and the State of Oregon. This project complies with the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest Plan as amended by INFISH, by not impeding attainment or progress of objectives for
habitat conditions within RHCAs and supporting all other applicable LRMP standards and guidelines
listed in the Regulatory Framework.
Floodplains and Wetlands
The proposed action alternatives would have no impact on floodplains or wetlands as described in
Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. Floodplains and wetlands will be protected by applicable INFISH
RHCA buffers.
Recreational Fisheries
The Sparta Project will not result in reductions in quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and
distribution of recreational fisheries as directed under Executive Order 12962, Recreational Fisheries.
Irreversible/Irretrievable Effects
Irreversible effects are not expected. Reduced population viability for redband trout is not expected.
INFISH established explicit goals and objectives for inland native fish habitat condition and function. By
following INFISH standards and guidelines as well as design criteria specific for this project, it is
believed that irretrievable commitment of this resource can be avoided. The goal of INFISH is to achieve
a high level of habitat diversity and complexity through a combination of habitat features.
180
Other Wildlife
Analysis Methods
Two different scales of analysis are used in this document to analyze the effects of the treatment activities
on wildlife, and include the following:
Sparta Project Area perimeter at 17,951 acres on National Forest System lands.
The cumulative effects area encompassing the Sparta Project varies by species and is described
within sections dedicated to individual species analyses.
The project area boundary occurs within the Eagle Creek watershed.
The existing condition is described for each species, group of species, or habitat. Direct, indirect and
cumulative effects of alternatives are identified and discussed. Incomplete or unavailable information,
scientific uncertainty, and risk are disclosed where applicable.
A. Snag and Log Habitat: Primary Cavity Excavators (PCEs)
The Forest Plan identifies 15 primary cavity excavators as management indicator species (MIS) for the
availability and quality of dead and defective wood habitat: northern flicker; black-backed, downy, hairy,
Lewis’, three-toed, and white-headed woodpeckers; red-naped and Williamson’s sapsuckers; black-
capped, chestnut-backed, and mountain chickadees; and pygmy, red-breasted, and white-breasted
nuthatches. Pileated woodpecker is also a primary cavity excavator, but due to its reliance on larger
snags and trees, it is addressed separately as an old forest MIS.
The abundance of cavity-using species is directly related to the presence or absence of suitable cavity
trees. Habitat suitability for cavity-users is influenced by the size (diameter and height), abundance,
density, distribution, species, and decay characteristics of the snags. In addition, the structural condition
of surrounding vegetation determines foraging opportunities (Rose et al. 2001). Not every stage of the
snag’s demise is utilized by the same species, but rather a whole array of species use the snag at various
stages or conditions. Uses of snags include nesting, roosting, foraging, perching, courtship, drumming,
and hibernating.
Existing Conditions
Distribution, habitat descriptions, threats and risk factors for each of the primary cavity excavators are
described in detail in the Wildlife Specialist report in the Sparta Analysis File.
Conservation Status of PCE Species
Conservation status is assessed at the global, regional, and state level by several sources. Table 82
summarizes conservation status at various levels. Species of highest concern consist of the white-headed
and Lewis’ woodpeckers; both of which are classified as “Sensitive” in USFS Region 6 and by the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers are also listed as
Oregon State Sensitive, but show a lower degree of concern, ranked “Vulnerable”.
Table 82. Conservation Status of Cavity-nesting MIS.
Species USFS
Sensitive
NatureServe Ranks1 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern2 ODFW3 Global OR
Black-backed woodpecker G5 S3 Vulnerable
Northern three-toed woodpecker
G5 S3
Vulnerable
Downy woodpecker G5 S4
181
Species USFS
Sensitive
NatureServe Ranks1 USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern2 ODFW3 Global OR
Hairy woodpecker G5 S4
Northern flicker G5 S5
Lewis’s woodpecker Yes G4 S2 S3 BCR 9, BCR 10 Critical
White-headed woodpecker Yes G4 S2 S3 BCR 9, BCR 10 Critical
Red-naped sapsucker G5 S4
Williamson’s sapsucker G5 S4B S3N BCR 9, BCR 10
Pygmy nuthatch G5 S4
Red-breasted nuthatch G5 S5
White-breasted nuthatch G5 S4
Black-capped chickadee G5 S5
Chestnut-backed chickadee
G5 S5
Mountain chickadee G5 S4 1 NatureServe Ranks: (NatureServe 2010)
G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure
G4 or S4 – Apparently secure
G3 or S3 – Vulnerable
G2 or S2 – Imperiled 2 Species of Concern in any BCR (Bird Conservation Region) Listed (USFWS 2008) 3 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Species (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf)
Population Trend
Population trend data is obtained for PCE species mainly from two sources. Breeding bird survey data
collected long-term along established survey routes provides indices for species’ population trends at the
state level. A stable trend in Oregon is shown for 10 of the 15 PCE species, with long-term decreases
shown for two species (northern flicker and mountain chickadee). Trend information is inconclusive for
three-toed and white-headed woodpecker, likely due to low overall detection rates. It is not uncommon
for some species to be under-represented in multi-species survey techniques since some species are more
easily detected than others. Regional indices of species’ security are also assessed under the Partners in
Flight program. Scores for Bird Conservation Region 10, which includes the WWNF, are shown in Table
83. Scores above 13 indicate a species may be of regional concern, and these include the black-backed
woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, red-naped sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker and
Williamson’s sapsucker.
The combination of the state and regional indices shows stability and regional scores below the threshold
of concern for 6 of the 15 species. Increased concern, but stable state trend is shown for 4 species, while
decreasing trend and lower regional concern is shown for 2 species. Both white-headed woodpecker and
Lewis’ woodpecker show the highest regional concern without available trend information at the state
level. Three-toed woodpecker also contains no state trend information, but the regional score is below the
threshold of concern.
Table 83. Population Trend Data for Cavity-nesting MIS.
Species Breeding Bird Surveys1
Partners in Flight
Database2
OR Reliability BCR 10
Black-backed woodpecker stable yellow 14
Downy woodpecker stable yellow 10
Hairy woodpecker stable blue 10
Lewis’s woodpecker no trend red 18
Northern flicker decrease blue 13
Northern three-toed woodpecker No data 13
182
Species Breeding Bird Surveys1
Partners in Flight
Database2
OR Reliability BCR 10
Pygmy nuthatch stable yellow 14
Red-breasted nuthatch stable blue 11
Red-naped sapsucker stable yellow 17
White-breasted nuthatch stable blue 8
White-headed woodpecker no trend red 18
Williamson’s sapsucker stable blue 17
Black-backed chickadee stable blue 13
Chestnut-backed chickadee stable blue 11
Mountain chickadee decrease blue 12 1 Breeding Bird Survey – (Sauer et al. 2011) - watch reliability ratings (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/cred.html)
o Increase = significant (p<0.05) increase from 1966-2009 o Decrease = significant (p<0.05) decrease from 1966-2009 o Stable = yellow or blue reliability and no significant increase or decrease o No trend = red reliability and no significant increase or decrease Oregon - (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/atlasa99.pl?ORE&2&07)
2 Partners in Flight (PIF) Database (http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html) Regional Combined Scores can range from 5 to 25. Regional Combined Score > 13 may be a species of Regional Concern (Panjabi et al. 2005).
o Northern Rockies – BCR 10
Habitat Trend at the Regional Level
Wisdom et al. (2000) analyzed the current amount of available habitat in relation to historical availability
for a range of species, producing a trend index by Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU). In the Blue
Mountains, trend indices were reported for 8 of the 15 PCEs (Table 84). Decreasing or Strongly
Decreasing trend is indicated for 6 of the 8 species. Strongest decreases are shown for species associated
with mature ponderosa pine habitats with large snags (white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch) as
well as single-story old forest, multi-storied Douglas-fir and western larch, and riparian cottonwood
woodlands (Lewis’ woodpecker). Factors contributing to these declines include transition to shade-
tolerant tree species, past timber harvest, and increased roading that allowed snag removal for firewood
(Wisdom et al. 2000). Black-backed woodpecker habitats, consisting of a range of green and burned
forest condition, have also decreased at the regional level due to past timber harvest, firewood removal,
and fire suppression, The highest regional increase is shown for three-toed woodpecker, which is
associated with late seral subalpine and montane conifer.
Table 84. Long-term Regional Trend of PCE Habitats (Wisdom et al. 2000).
Species Group ERU Relative Change & Trend Category
Blue Mountains
Black-backed woodpecker 9 -30.96 - Decreasing
Lewis’s woodpecker 2 -72.17 - Strongly decreasing
Northern three-toed woodpecker
11 100+ - Strongly increasing
Pygmy nuthatch 1 -79.78 - Strongly decreasing
White-breasted nuthatch 1 -27.57 - Decreasing
White-headed woodpecker 1 -79.26 - Strongly decreasing
Chestnut-backed chickadee 6 -3.08 - No change
Williamson’s sapsucker 6 -37.96 - Decreasing
R6 Decayed Wood Advisor (DecAID)
The use of DecAID is a culmination of the most recent science and data available. As stated by Rose et al.
(2001), DecAID is based on a thorough review of the literature, available research and inventory data, and
183
expert judgment. Tolerance intervals are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that
are within some specified range of values. In the case of the USFS Region 6 decayed wood advisor
(DecAID) (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012) , for example, they tell us what percent of pileated woodpeckers
in a population use snags, up to or above certain diameters. Thus, an 80% tolerance level indicates 80%
of the individuals in the population have a value for the parameter of interest (i.e. snag density) between 0
and the value for the 80% tolerance level. Or conversely, 20% of the individuals in the population have a
value for the parameter of interest greater than the 80% level. The tolerance interval is the range between
2 tolerance levels. For example, the value for 80% is the level and the range of 0 to 80% is the interval.
DecAID displays three tolerance levels (30%, 50% and 80%) for density and DBH class of snags in
various vegetation condition groups, used by wildlife species. Ranges of snag densities by DBH class are
provided as a synthesis of data from various studies. In the Sparta project area, vegetation condition
groups consist of Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir and Eastside Mixed Conifer habitats and include both Large
Tree and Small/Medium tree habitat types. The ranges of snag densities by DBH class for each
vegetation group and habitat types are shown in Table 85. Wildlife snag use levels shown in Table 86
exclude those estimated for white-headed woodpecker because the data are from a declining population
(Mellen-McLean et al. 2012).
Table 85. Snag and Down Log Parameters and Tolerance Levels (source: DecAID).
Habitat Type/ Structure
Tolerance Levels
Snag Densities Used by Wildlife by Diameter Class
Ponderosa Pine/ Douglas-fir (Large)
80% 10-50 > 10” 2.8-18 > 20”
50% 4.7-30 > 10”
1-8 > 20”
30% 1.1-15 > 10” 0-3.5 > 20”
Ponderosa Pine/ Douglas-fir
(Small/Medium)
80% 10-49 > 10” 2.8-18 > 20”
50% 4.7-30 > 10” 1.6-8.4 > 20”
30% 1.2-15 > 10” 0-3.5 > 20”
Mixed Conifer (Large)
80% 12.1-50 > 10”
4-18 > 20”
50% 5.6-56 >10” 1.4-17 >20”
30% 1.1-15 >10” 0-3.7 > 20”
Mixed Conifer (Small/Medium)
80% 12.1-50 > 10” 4.0-18 > 20”
50% 5.6-56 > 10” 1.4-17 > 20”
30% 1.1-15 > 10” 0-3.7 > 20”
To utilize DecAID data, snag numbers across the fire area needed to be modeled. The DecAID analysis
area delineated to follow the Eagle Creek watershed boundary and be large enough to represent the
variation in snag habitat and distribution from which the vegetation inventory data were collected, thus
allowing a direct comparison between the analysis area and the vegetation inventory distribution
histograms.
Figures 17 through 20 display the existing condition of snag densities by size class (>10” dbh and >20”
dbh) for the ponderosa pine/Douglas fir (PPDF) habitat type and Eastside Mixed Conifer (EMC) habitat
type within the Eagle analysis area. There are a total of 29,333 acres of PPDF and 20,986 acres of EMC
within the analysis area.
184
Figure 17. Comparison of current densities of snags >10” dbh and reference (historical) conditions within the PPDF habitat type in the analysis area
Figure 18. Comparison of current densities of snags >20” dbh and reference (historical) conditions within the PPDF habitat type in the analysis area
185
Figure 19. Comparison of current densities of snags >10” dbh and reference (historical) conditions within the EMC habitat type in the analysis area
Figure 20. Comparison of current densities of snags >20” dbh and reference (historical) conditions within the EMC habitat type in the analysis area
186
In 2015, the Eagle Fire burned approximately 8,796 acres of National Forest System managed lands to the
north of the Sparta project area within the Eagle Creek watershed. The majority (95%) of the affected area
burned at low or moderate severity. Of those acres that burned, 3,650 acres were in the ponderosa
pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) habitat type and 3,444 acres were within the Eastside Mixed Conifer (EMC)
habitat type.
Analysis using a historic range of variability specific to the analysis area and weighted by the amount of
each habitat type suggest that the Eagle fire has created high-density snag habitat that is above the natural
range of variation for PPDF habitat in the analysis area. Currently 21% of the PPDF habitat in the
analysis area has a high density of snags (snag density of >8 snags/acre that are 10” dbh or greater)
compared to 12% historically (Figure 17). Within the EMC habitat type, 41% of the area currently has
snag densities in excess of 12 snags/acre, compared to 34% historically (Figure 19). The Eagle fire caused
a dramatic, short-term increase in snag numbers. Snag habitat occurring within the fire area is serving as
intermittent habitat for most cavity excavators (Saab et al. 2004). The process of tree mortality and snag
recruitment are balanced by the processes of snag decay and fall (Everett et al. 1999). Dahms (1949)
found that 10 years post-fire, 50% of fire killed ponderosa pine snags remained standing but this declined
to 22% standing after 22 years. It is estimated that about 75% of all snags may fall within 20 years (Keen
1929, Dahms 1949, Parks et al. 1999, and Everett et al. 1999). The effect of the Eagle fire is an immediate
increase in snag habitat followed by a reduction in available habitat and a decrease in local populations as
snags fall.
Snag Habitat within the Sparta Project Area
Snag density surveys were conducted within 23 stands distributed across the Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek
and Little Eagle Creek subwatersheds during the summer of 2010. Sample results indicated an overall
density of 4.73 snags per acre for snags 8 inches or greater in diameter and at least 10 feet in height.
Density of snags greater than 21 inches averaged 1.32 per acre (Table 86). A summary of snags sampled
by tree species and diameter class is provided in Table 86.
Table 86 indicates that grand fir snags occur in higher densities than other species in the areas sampled for
snags. This is because grand fir trees are susceptible to a greater variety of insects and pathogens than
other conifer species found in the Blue Mountains. Grand fir that have established on drier sites (more
suited for ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) are especially susceptible to insects and diseases. The value of
grand fir snags to wildlife is largely dependent on the tree’s condition when it dies. A grand fir with
heartrot is highly valuable as roosting and denning substrate for many species of birds and mammals.
Grand firs that die from defoliating insects and do not have heartrot, are of little utility for nesting, but
may provide perching and foraging substrate for cavity excavators (Bull et. al. 1997).
Table 86. Summary of sampled snags by tree species and diameter class.
Tree Species
Diameter Classes in DBH
8-12 12-15 15-21 >21 Total
Grand Fir 0.32 0.89 0.16 0.66 2.03
Larch 0.02 0.05 0.20 0.07 0.34
Ponderosa Pine 0.21 0.23 0.57 0.46 1.47
Douglas-fir 0.60 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.89
Total (per ac.) 1.15 1.24 1.02 1.32 4.73
In comparison to snag density levels shown in Table 86, existing average snag densities in the sampled
stands within Sparta fall primarily into the 30% tolerance level. Snag densities for survey plots within the
Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek and Little Eagle subwatersheds varied widely within and among stands
sampled, indicating an uneven distribution on the landscape. For example, snag densities among
187
surveyed stands ranged from a low of 0.8 per acre to a high of 9.5 per acre. For snags 21 inches or greater
DBH, densities among stands ranged from zero to 3.7 per acre. While overall densities of existing snags
are low, there are areas of higher snag density where densities of smaller snags reach the 50% tolerance
interval, and those of the largest snags approach or reach the 80% tolerance level. This distribution is
consistent with uneven landscape distribution patterns of snags described by DecAID for “natural
conditions” (i.e. unharvested plots).
While DecAID provides data on wildlife use of snags, it does not measure the biological potential of
wildlife populations. There is no direct relationship between tolerances, snag densities and snag sizes
used in DecAID and snag densities and sizes that measure potential population levels (Mellen-McLean et
al 2009). Therefore, DecAID wildlife tolerance levels are only one component used to evaluate the
effects of this project on dead wood habitats and associated species.
The Wallowa-Whitman LRMP direction originally provided to maintain snags and green tree
replacements based on numbers provided in Thomas (1979). These included maintaining at least 40%
minimum potential population (MPP) level for snags within upland conifer stands, and at least 60% MPP
for snags within riparian settings. Several more recent studies have shown these snag densities are too
low to meet the needs of many primary and secondary cavity users. These inadequate standards
contributed to the reduced number of large snags we see today. Since then, Forest Plan amendments have
updated snag standards and guidelines to provide for 100% potential population levels. Bull et al. (1997)
found 2.25 snags/acre were insufficient and that 4 snags/acre (2.8 snags between 10-20 in DBH and 1.2
snags >20 in DBH) is more appropriate as a minimum density required by primary and secondary cavity
users for roosting, nesting, and foraging needs. Harrod et al. (1998) determined a range of historic snag
densities for dry eastside forests between 5.9-14.1 snags/acre (5-12 are 10-20 inches DBH and 0.9 to 2.1
are >20 inches DBH). Korol et al. (2002) determined that HRV for large snags (20” DBH) for dry
eastside mixed conifer forest with a low intensity fire regime was 2.9-5.4 snags/acre. All snags within
harvest units would be retained unless they present a safety hazard.
Live green trees of adequate size must also be retained to provide replacements for snags and logs
through time. Generally green tree replacements (GTRs) need to be retained at a rate of 16-74 trees per
acre, depending on biophysical group, estimated rotation, pre-commercial and commercial thinning, and
average stand diameter (Schommer et al. 1993). Pre-activity levels of logs should also be left unless
levels exceed amounts specified in Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Table 87). Larger blowdowns with intact
tops and rootwads are preferred to shorter sections of tree boles.
Table 87. LRMP standards for down wood.
Stand type Pieces/acre1 Piece length Diameter small end Linear ft/acre
Ponderosa pine 3 – 6 >6' 12" 40'
Mixed conifer 15-20 >6' 12" 140'
Lodgepole pine 15-20 >8' 8" 260' 1The table converts to about 0.4, 1.7, and 3.3 tons/acre for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine, respectively.
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects on Primary Cavity Excavators
Alternative 1
The no action alternative retains existing snag densities by virtue of no timber harvest treatments, fuels
treatments, or transportation activities. The indirect effects associated with this alternative is that snag
recruitment mechanisms related to tree density and tree species composition will not be reduced through
188
thinning and burning. This may result in higher snag recruitment, but over the long-term the average
diameter of snags will be smaller than under the action alternatives. Additionally, the risks from
uncharacteristic wildfire or insect and disease events would be higher with Alternative 1 then with
Alternatives 2 and 3. Disturbances that result in high levels of tree mortality over large portions of the
landscape would benefit a few PCE species (black-backed and Lewis’ woodpecker) for a period of time.
However, a forested landscape with a steady and adequate supply of snag habitat over time likely
contributes to the viability of more species over a greater period of time.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Snag Availability
Both action alternatives have the potential to reduce snags within proposed treatment areas. However, the
number of snags cut down to address hazards within timber harvest units and along haul routes is
expected to be low. The rate of snag removal due to timber harvest safety concerns is estimated at less
than 1% (of existing at the stand scale) for timber sales on the district (Sciarrino pers. comm. 2010).
Snags cut down to address human safety would be retained on site as large woody material.
Treatments in the form of prescribed fire will likely consume a portion of existing snags, while also
creating new snags via fire damage to a small portion of existing green trees. The level and extent of
impact to the existing snag resource from prescribed fire is unknown. Harrod et al. (2009) described that
burning treatments increased the probability of snag fall, but that these losses were offset by tree mortality
caused by fire. Horton and Mannan (1988) reported a 50% reduction in snags greater than 20 inches due
to prescribed burning in Arizona. Stephens and Moghaddas (2005) reported no significant difference in
overall soft snag numbers when compared between controls, mechanically thinned, and mechanically
thinned and burned stands in the Sierra Nevada. Project design criteria have been included to increase
retention of larger snags and logs within units treated with prescribed fire (see Alternative Descriptions).
Reference stands in multiple structure stages in multiple vegetation groups were used to model snag
dynamics over time with and without treatments. Based on these models it can be determined that all
commercial treatments will reduce the density of snags on the landscape in the short and the long-term.
Treatments are designed to improve the health of the stand, reducing competition, insect and disease
mortality which in turn reduces snag recruitment. After 30 years a treated area has a range of 9-28
snags/acre as opposed to 16-76 snags/acre in an untreated area, and after 50 years a range of 7-35
snags/acre is found in treated areas compared to 20-70 snags/acre in untreated areas. These ranges in the
treated areas still meet the minimum thresholds for primary cavity excavators and still meet forest plan
standards for ecologically appropriate numbers. With treatment, snag size tends to be larger than without
treatment. The average dbh of snags in treatment areas after 30 years is 11.2 inches as opposed to 8.8
inches dbh. Fifty years after treatment the average dbh in treated stands is 12 inches dbh compared to an
average dbh of 10 inches in untreated stands. Treatments increase the growth rate of the remaining trees,
thus increasing the amount of large trees in the mid to long-term, which will be beneficial to PCE’s as
large snags are limiting on the landscape in all wildlife habitat types.
Alternative 2 would have the greatest potential for decreasing snag numbers through mitigating danger
trees, because it involves the most treatment acres and the most miles of haul routes. Alternative 3 would
have a lower potential for decreasing snags.
PCE Habitats, Sparta Project Area
Potential habitat impacts and benefits for Lewis’ woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker are analyzed
within the Sensitive Species section of this report. In summary, the action alternatives enhance and
increase suitable habitat structure within the project area in both the short and long-terms, with
189
Alternative 2 providing the largest increase for both Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers. For Lewis’
woodpecker, the action alternatives are likely to reduce the potential for burned area habitats in the long-
term, but would be offset by a relatively steady availability of suitable green stands. Stand density
reductions and enhancement of ponderosa pine habitats would increase available habitat for hairy
woodpecker, northern flicker, pygmy nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, and Williamson’s sapsucker. No
treatments are proposed in suitable three-toed woodpecker habitats that consist of subalpine fir stands.
Aspen restoration treatments on 14 acres under Alternative 2 and 13 acres under Alternative 3 are
expected to increase habitat available to aspen-associated PCEs which include: downy woodpecker; red-
naped sapsucker; Williamson’s sapsucker; black-capped chickadee; chestnut-backed chickadee; and
mountain chickadee.
Stand density reductions may negatively impact red-breasted nuthatch by reducing structural diversity.
Because the species is known to use both unmanaged and managed forest stands, the level of impact
within the project area is expected to be minor. This species is considered common and widespread on
the WWNF.
The commercial thinning and prescribed burning proposed in both action alternatives would reduce stress
among residual trees, allowing them less competition for space and resources, and allowing their defenses
against insects and diseases to function more effectively. Increased spacing between residual trees would
also decrease the chances of broken limbs and boles from striking neighboring trees, creating wounds
which are sites for heartrot fungi to take hold. Stress, competition between trees, reduced defense
effectiveness, and wounds in bark all represent snag recruitment mechanisms. These will be reduced, but
not eliminated in treated stands. It is important to note that all these snag recruitment mechanisms will
continue to function across the Sparta project area, but to a lesser degree on treated acres. It is impractical
to quantify the effects to snag recruitment from these changes. However, acres treated can be used as a
relative measure to compare effects of alternatives. Alternative 2 treats the most acres, so this alternative
would reduce snag recruitment over the largest area followed by Alternative 3.
The black-backed woodpecker is a unique species. Altman (2000) identified it as a focal species for old-
growth lodgepole pine, though it is also highly associated with post-fire environments. Wisdom et al.
(2000) describes source habitats for black-backed woodpeckers as a year round resident that occurs in
various forest types. Across its range it is most abundant in recently burned forests, but in Oregon, bark-
beetle killed forests are frequently occupied. Marshall et al. (2003) reports for the black-backed
woodpecker the “center of abundance” in Oregon is the “lodgepole pine forest east of the Cascade crest
between Bend and Klamath Falls.” Saab, Dudley and Thompson (2004) found black-backed woodpeckers
rapidly colonize stand replacement burns within 1-2 years post-fire but are rare within 5 years which may
be due to a decrease in prey of larval bark and wood boring beetles. In a study in Idaho Saab, Russell, and
Dudley (2007) found that black-backed woodpecker nest densities peaked at 5 years post-fire. Several
studies found that black-backed woodpeckers are found primarily in unlogged sites or clumps of high
density trees/snags for both nesting and foraging (Saab and Dudley 1998, Hejl and McFadzen 2000,
Haggard and Gaines 2001, Saab et al. 2002, and Cahall 2007). These stands may provide greater foraging
opportunities because this species feeds primarily on bark and wood boring beetles (Saab et al. 2002, and
Saab, Dudley and Thompson 2004). In addition, black-backed woodpeckers select for small diameter
snags (12.7” + 1.1”dbh) for nesting and nest in hard snags with little decay (Saab and Dudley 1998 and
Saab et al. 2002). They also select nest sites with the highest densities of snags >9”dbh (Saab and Dudley
1998).
No treatments are proposed within lodgepole pine forests and this project would not affect existing black-
backed woodpecker habitat. Proposed commercial and fuel treatments are designed to reduce the
likelihood of stand replacing fires in sensitive areas as well as allow firefighters to safely manage
naturally occurring wildfire. Treatments within the dry ponderosa pine forest and moist mixed conifer will
190
not affect future black-backed woodpecker habitat within lodgepole forests but may reduce the chance of
stand replacing fires within treated stands. The majority of black-backed woodpecker habitat is contained
in the northern part of the Eagle Creek watershed which recently experienced a stand replacing fire event,
contributing to the quality of habitat. This project would not affect the viability of black-backed
woodpeckers within the watershed.
Snag Creation
Overstory removal treatments (HOR) would retain a minimum of 16 over story trees per acre as green
tree replacements for future snag habitat. The need to create snags from some of these live trees will be
determined through monitoring immediately following implementation of the Sparta project. Snags may
be created from some of these overstory trees through topping with a chainsaw or through inoculation
with heartrot fungi. Inoculation would only be considered for individual trees that do not show signs of
already being infected with heartrot. Inoculation does not kill trees instantly, but rather slowly creates
soft heart wood and may weaken the tree and predispose it to other agents that will lead to death.
Inoculated trees often live for decades, but may start providing some functions of snags while parts of the
tree are still alive. Topping with a chainsaw creates a snag immediately, but the snag may be of limited
value to wildlife if heartrot or other defects did not exist prior to topping.
Trees greater than 21” dbh with heavy mistletoe would be girdled to create snag habitat and reduce the
potential for infecting susceptible understory seedlings and saplings.
Snags created from overstory trees in HOR units would begin to function as nesting and foraging
substrate for some primary cavity excavator species, and later by secondary cavity users. There are 217
acres of HOR stands in Alternative 2 and 181 acres in Alternative 3. Snags may be created at a rate of
approximately one snag per every two acres of HOR stands the respective alternative. This represents a
relatively small positive effect to primary and secondary cavity users, but effects would be neutral to
other wildlife species discussed in this report. Similar benefits would be realized by girdling the mistletoe
trees greater than 21 inches DBH. Slightly more of this is anticipated to occur under Alternative 2 than
Alternative 3.
Cumulative Effects on Primary Cavity Excavators
The cumulative effects area considered for PCEs consists of the Eagle Creek watershed. Effects of past
activities including road construction, fire suppression, prescribed fire, and timber management on
WWNF lands have been incorporated into the existing condition.
Alternative 1
The no action alternative will not contribute to cumulative effects except for those described under
indirect effects above.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Appendix D of the EA was reviewed for actions that might affect PCE habitat within the central portion
of the Eagle Creek watershed. Cumulative impacts of ongoing and foreseeable actions are projected out
to 20 years from the present. Ongoing and future livestock grazing is expected to have no effect on snag
and log habitats. Additional grazing may occur in treated stands within the project area, but is not
expected to alter snag and log characteristics. On Forest Service lands within and outside the project area,
firewood cutting would continue to reduce available snags and logs, but the effect is generally limited to
areas adjacent to open roads. Access within the watershed and across the WWNF may change pending
the outcome of the Forest Travel Management Plan. Timber harvest on private inholdings is expected to
191
continue at some level, with anticipated reductions of trees larger than 10 inches DBH. Lands to the
south of the project area will continue to consist of open grassland habitats in private ownership.
The Eagle Salvage took place in 2016 and reduced snag densities on 459 acres within the Eagle Creek
watershed. It left 95% of the area affected by the Eagle Fire un-harvested. Post-harvest snag densities
remain above the historical range of variability, which is assumed to provide sufficient habitat to maintain
populations of species that depend on snags because those species survived those levels of habitat in the
past to be present today (Landres et al. 1999).
The cumulative effects of creating snags for would be exceedingly minor. An increase in snag habitat
within the project area would provide a small amount of habitat for primary excavator species that prefer
snags in open settings. This is a relatively small number of species that are considered common and wide
spread. The creation of some snags would slightly offset the reduced natural snag recruitment in
commercial thinning units.
Summary of Effects
All proposed actions are consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines pertaining to primary cavity
excavators. Current availability of snags in the project area is estimated to exceed minimum LRMP
standards on average, but spatial arrangement of available snags is variable due to past activities. Timber
harvest and prescribed burning proposed under all action alternatives have the potential to decrease snag
availability, but that impact is expected to be minor within the project area and on the landscape as a
whole due to snag retention requirements described in Project Design Features. Stand density treatments
in conifer stands are expected to enhance habitats for Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker,
northern flicker, pygmy nuthatch, white-breasted nuthatch, and Williamson’s sapsucker green-tree
habitats.
Aspen restoration treatments would enhance habitats for downy woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker,
Williamson’s sapsucker, black-capped chickadee, chestnut-backed chickadee, and mountain chickadee.
Although treatments would improve habitats for these species within the project area, the effect to
habitats Forest-wide would be small considering that the project area encompasses only 1.1% of WWNF
acres. Proposed tree density reduction treatments would reduce risk to insect and wildfire disturbance
thereby reducing the potential for future pulses of habitat suitable for Lewis’, hairy, and black-backed
woodpeckers within the project area. However, reduction of potential habitat is small (2%) in relation to
overall availability Forest-wide and wildfire continues to play a role in habitat creation. Therefore, no
alternative considered for the Sparta Project would affect population trends or viability for primary cavity
excavator species at the Forest-level or regional scale.
B. Land Birds, including Neotropical Migratory Bird Species
Landbirds, including neotropical migratory birds (NTMB), were analyzed based on high priority habitats
identified in the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight, Northern Rocky Mountains Bird
Conservation Plan (Altman 2000). While the Forest has not conducted official NTMB surveys in the
project area, the Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas (Adamus et al. 2001) includes observational data for this
area.
Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “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.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000
USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in
2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the
January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for
integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.
192
In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of the MOU is to
strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the
Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local
governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a
diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed
when planning for land management activities.
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is proposing to manage lands on the Whitman Ranger District and
located predominately in the Eagle Creek 5th-field watershed. Proposed management is intended to
implement direction contained within the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990). Opportunities to promote conservation of migratory
birds and their habitats in the project area were considered during development and design of the Sparta
project (MOU Section C: items 1 and 11 and Section D: item 3).
Likely impacts to habitats and select migratory bird populations resulting from the project have been
assessed in detail within the project MIS report and impacts to select threatened, endangered, and
sensitive birds and their habitats have been analyzed in the project Biological Evaluation. These impacts
are summarized below.
Existing Condition
Neotropical migratory birds breed in temperate North America and spend the winter primarily south of
the United States-Mexico border. Of the 225 migratory birds that are known to occur in the western
hemisphere, about 102 are known to breed in Oregon. They include a large group of species, including
many raptors, cavity excavators, warblers and other songbirds, with diverse habitat needs spanning nearly
all plant community types and successional stages. Long-term population data on many of these birds
indicate downward population trends although not all species populations are declining (Altman 2000).
Habitat loss is considered the primary factor in decline of neotropical migratory birds.
In 2000, the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight published its Northern Rocky Mountains
Bird Conservation Plan (Altman 2000). The plan provides conservation recommendations for the various
species of landbirds that occupy the Oregon and Washington portions of the Interior Columbia Basin.
The plan identified the following priority habitats for landbird conservation: Dry Forest (primarily
ponderosa pine), Mesic Mixed Conifer (primarily late-successional), riparian woodland and shrubland,
and unique habitats including alpine and subalpine forests, shrub-steppe, montane meadow and aspen
habitats. For the Sparta Project, dry forest, mesic forest and aspen are applicable. Effects to riparian
woodland and shrubland are not displayed due to the lack of proposed treatment within these vegetation
types. Table 88 displays applicable habitats of conservation focus, associated focal species, vegetation
structure characteristics, and considerations described by Altman (2000).
Table 88. Habitat Relationships and Biological Objectives for Focal Landbird Species, Conifer Forest (Altman 2000).
Conservation Focus
Focal Species
Key Habitat Relationships
Vegetative Vegetation Structure Patch Size
Special Considerations
DRY FOREST
Large patches of old forest with large trees and snags
White- headed
Woodpecker
Ponderosa pine
>10 tpa > 21 in DBH with > 2 trees >31 in DBH; 10-40% canopy closure, > 1.4 snags/ac >8 in DBH with > 50% >25 in DBH
> 350 ac or > 700 ac
Patch size is smaller for old-growth forest
193
Conservation Focus
Focal Species
Key Habitat Relationships
Vegetative Vegetation Structure Patch Size
Special Considerations
Old Forest with grassy openings and dense thickets
Flammulated owl
Ponderosa pine,
Douglas-fir
>10 snags/100 ac >12 in DBH and >6 ft tall; > 8 tpa >21 in DBH
>350 ac
Thicket patches for roosting; grassy openings for foraging
Open understory with regenerating pines
Chipping sparrow
Ponderosa pine,
Douglas-fir, grand
fir
10-30% canopy closure, 20-60% shrub cover with >20% sapling cover, especially pines
Non-agricultural/ grazing landscape due to cowbird parasitism
Patches of burned old forest
Lewis’ woodpecker
Ponderosa pine
>2% of landscape as post-fire old forest; >50% of post-fire landscape as unsalvaged.
Soft snags for excavation; pesticide spraying may reduce insect prey base
MESIC MIXED CONIFER (LATE-SUCCESSIONAL) FOREST
Large snags Vaux's swift Grand fir,
Douglas-fir
Snags 27 in DBH and 82 ft. tall, in different stages of decay (including some hollow snags
Recruitment snags (live trees) with signs of defect; proximity to riparian areas
Overstory canopy closure
Townsend's warbler
Grand fir, Douglas-fir
Late successional forest dominated by grand fir (Blue Mountains) and Douglas-fir (Glaciated Mountains): >50% canopy closure
>100 ac
Structurally diverse; multi-layered
Varied thrush Grand fir,
Douglas-fir
Multiple tree layers with mixed species composition including >25% deciduous cover; high canopy closure
>75 ac Area sensitive; avoids edges: needs dense leaf litter for foraging
Dense shrub layer - understory or openings
MacGillivary's warbler
Douglas-fir
Dense shrub layer dominated by native species with >40% cover and/or >270 stems/ac; tree canopy closure <25%; herbaceous ground cover 25%
Cowbird host; extensive grazing detrimental
Edge and openings created by fire
Olive-sided flycatcher
Grand fir, ponderosa
pine
>2% of the landscape as post-fire forest; >40% of post-fire landscape as unsalvaged.
Patches of mix of live and dead; pesticide spraying may reduce insect prey availability
ASPEN
Large trees and snags with regeneration
Red-naped Sapsucker
Aspen
>10% cover of saplings in understory for replacement; >4 trees and >4 snags > 39 ft tall and 10 in DBH; mean canopy closure 30-70%
Livestock grazing can reduce understory density; species shows lower abundance in treated stands
Dry Forests
Altman (2000) identifies four habitat components of the dry forest types that are important to landbirds
are associated with open stand conditions. Large-scale declines in open stands, especially those with
large trees, have raised concern for such species as the white-headed woodpecker, flammulated owl,
white-breasted nuthatch, pygmy nuthatch, Williamson’s sapsucker, and Lewis’ woodpecker.
Stands within the Dry Forest category are described as coniferous forest composed exclusively of
ponderosa pine or dry stands codominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir or grand fir (Altman 2000).
A total of 875 acres of OFSS in dry forest currently exists within the Little Eagle and Eagle Creek-Paddy
194
Creek subwatersheds (Table 25), comprising only 5% of total dry forest acres. About 16% of dry forest
acres consist of old forest multi-storied stands.
Late-successional Mesic Mixed Conifer
Altman (2000) describes the Mesic Mixed Conifer category as consisting of late-successional forest
occurring mostly at higher elevations, wetter sites, northerly aspects, and where soils are mesic and well-
developed. This type is composed primarily of cool moist Douglas-fir/grand fir, cool dry Douglas-fir,
western larch, hemlock, and occasional ponderosa pine. This habitat does not include sites that were
historically ponderosa pine but have transitioned to mixed conifer due to fire suppression and
encroachment of other conifers.
OFMS in moist upland forest vegetation types totals 1,152 acres (Table 89). The PIF Conservation
Strategy (Altman 2000) identifies five habitat components of the moist forest types that are important to
landbirds; large snags, overstory canopy closure, structurally diverse; multi-layered, dense shrub layer in
openings or understory, and edges and openings created by fire. Large snags are present on the
landscape, as described in the Primary Cavity Excavator section of the EA. Dense overstories and
multiple canopied stands are currently abundant, due largely to the lack of fire disturbance. Burned
habitat is lacking within the project area, but exists to the north and east of the project area. Shrubs
appear to exist on aspects and soils that are capable of supporting them, similar to the shrub distribution
on other parts of the WWNF.
Species that utilized these special habitats include: Vaux’s swift, Townsends’s warbler, golden-crowned
kinglet, red-breasted nuthatch and MacGillivray’s warbler. Bird species associated with this forest type
have been adversely impacted primarily by the loss and reduction of late-seral conditions and structural
elements such as snags (Altman 2000).
Table 89. Existing Old Forest Structure in Little Eagle and Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek Subwatersheds.
PVG Existing Acres % of PVG Historical Range %
Old Forest Multi Stratum (OFMS)
moist upland 1,152 26% 15-20%
dry upland 2,912 16% 5-15%
cold upland 612 73% 10-25%
Old Forest Single Stratum (OFSS)
moist upland 146 3% 10-20%
dry upland 875 5% 40-60%
cold upland 31 4% 5-20%
Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects on NTMB
Alternative 1
Current conditions would persist under Alternative 1. Activities including timber harvest, prescribed fire,
and transportation activities would not occur. Stand conditions would remain denser than those estimated
to have existed historically in warm and dry forest types, with elevated risk of stand-replacement fire.
195
Alternatives 2 and 3
Timber harvest and prescribed burning treatments conducted during the primary nesting season present
the potential for direct impacts to neotropical migratory birds nesting in stands proposed for treatment.
Potential direct effects include individual mortality or displacement from nests during treatment. The
degree of impact varies by alternatives and is best correlated with the number of acres treated, with
Alternative 2 treating the most acres, followed by Alternative 3.
Table 90 shows a list of 13 landbird species known to occur within or adjacent to the project area. It
includes those identified by Altman (2000) as priority for Blue Mountains conifer and aspen, as well as
those identified as priority for conifer, riparian, and aspen habitats within the Central Rocky Mountains
physiographic area (Partners in Flight 2010). The breeding season for landbirds in the Blue Mountains
varies by species, but generally extends from mid-May to mid-August (Table 90), with the majority of
nesting completed by late July. For cavity nesting species (8 total), project design features that retain
snags except for safety reasons are currently incorporated into the project (See PDFs, Appendix A), and
mitigate the risk of direct impact to these species. Aspen restoration treatments on 14 acres would remove
competing conifers and provide overall benefit for aspen-associated species.
The summer operating season is likely to occur from July 1 – October 31, whereby impacts to birds
nesting during May and June would be avoided. In addition, timber harvest operations in any given year
would occur only within a portion of the analysis area. Potential impacts to nesting birds would be
localized within a given timber sale area within the years of operation. Additional project design criteria
that include avoidance of known raptor nest sites also apply.
Table 90. Landbird Breeding Periods and Habitats.
Species Predominate Incubation Start (Oregon)
Predominate Fledging Period (Oregon
Source Habitat
Blue Grouse (gn) Mid May Early August Marshall et al. 2003; Adamus et al. 2001 Conifer
Flammulated owl (cn) Early June Mid-August Bull and Anderson 1978 Conifer
Vaux's swift (cn) Mid-June Early September Bull and Collins 1993 in Marshall et al. 2003 Mesic conifer
Calliope hummingbird (tn) Mid-late May Late July Marshall et al. 2003; Adamus et al. 2001 Riparian
Olive-sided flycatcher (tn) Early-mid June Late July Adamus et al. 2001 Mesic conifer
Williamson's sapsucker (cn) Mid May Late July Adamus et al. 2001 Aspen
Red-naped sapsucker (cn) Early June Late July Adamus et al. 2001 Aspen
Lewis's woodpecker (cn) Early May Late July/ early August
Marshall et al. 2003; Adamus et al. 2001
Dry conifer/ riparian woodland
White-headed woodpecker (cn) Mid May Late July Adamus et al. 2001 Dry conifer
Black-backed woodpecker (cn) Late May Mid July Adamus et al. 2001 Conifer
Varied thrush (tn) Mid May Late July Adamus et al. 2001 Mesic conifer
Townsend's warbler (tn) Early June End of July/ begin. August Adamus et al. 2001 Mesic conifer
MacGillivray's warbler (gn, sn) Early June Late July
Marshall et al. 2003; Adamus et al. 2001 Mesic conifer
(cn) Cavity nester; (gn) Ground nester; (tn) Tree nester; (sn) Shrub nester
196
The spring prescribed burning season on the WWNF normally occurs from mid-April to the end of May.
Fall prescribed burning generally occurs from October 1 through early November. The prescribed fire
program has generally consisted of burning an estimated 50% of acres in the spring and 50% of acres
within the fall period (N. Livingston, pers. comm.). For spring burning, applications from April through
mid-May are unlikely to impact the majority of nesting birds of concern. However, prescribed burning
during and after the latter portion of May has the potential to directly impact nests and individuals,
primarily young of the year. Sallabanks (no date) described the onset of ground-nesting birds as
occurring after spring vegetation leaf-out and recommended completion of spring burning prior to leaf-
out. Therefore, design features have been incorporated into the project that require district or forest
wildlife biologist review of prescribed burning that extends past May 20, as well as passive lighting and
means of reducing potential for consumption of larger snags.
Alternative 2 would increase available OFSS and generate the largest benefit for species dependent upon
open forest with large trees by increasing available OFSS by about 55% (526 acres) and set up future
stands to transition into OFSS condition by increasing single-story non-LOS acres (Table 91). Alternative
3 would not increase available OFSS but would reduce the risk of stand replacing fires through non-
commercial treatments. Those OFMS stands not selected for treatment under Alternative 3 would retain
Douglas-fir and grand fir in stands for which ponderosa pine restoration is the emphasis, thereby
perpetuating the condition of encroachment by mixed conifer species.
Table 91. Silvicultural Effects on Single-Storied Large Tree Structure within Moist and Dry Forest Types within the Sparta Project Area.
Single-Storied Large Tree Structure
Existing Dry PVG
OFSS
Existing Moist PVG OFSS
Post-Treatment Dry
PVG OFSS
Post-Treatment Moist PVG
OFSS
Change in OFSS LOS acres
Alternative 2 622 36 1125 59 +526
Alternative 3 622 36 622 36 0
Table 92. Silvicultural Effects on Mesic Mixed Conifer Multi-Storied Large Tree Stands within the Sparta Project Area
Multi-Storied Large Tree Structure
Existing Dry OFMS
(acres)
Existing Moist OFMS
Post-Treatment Dry OFMS
Post-Treatment
Moist OFMS
Change in Dry OFMS
acres (%)
Change in Moist OFMS
acres (%)
Alternative 2 2,391 210 1,888 187 -503
(21%) -23 (11%)
Alternative 3 2,391 210 2,391 210 -0 (0%) -0 (0%)
Prescribed fire presents both negative impacts and benefits to dry forest focal conditions by potentially
creating and removing (consuming) snags, maintaining openings, and removing dense understory conifer
thickets and developing shrub layers. Application of passive lighting near snags during prescribed
burning would reduce the potential for consumption of snags. Down logs would be maintained at or
above levels prescribed in the Eastside Screens (see alternative description details). Project design
criteria that retain all cull grand fir are expected to retain habitat components for Vaux’s swift. None of
the treatments would remove patches of burned forest, but silviculture and prescribed fire reduce the
potential for burned habitat within the project area. Duration of effects due to density reduction is
expected to last 10-30 years.
Alternative 2 propose silvicultural treatments that would restore aspen on 14 acres and Alternative 3 on 13
acres, thereby providing localized benefits for associated species.
197
No subalpine conifer is located within the project area; therefore, neotropical migratory species that
utilize subalpine OFMS would not be affected.
Cumulative Effects on NTMB
The following discussion focuses on those past, ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future activities that
may contribute adverse effects to the landbirds or their habitat within the Eagle-Paddy and Little Eagle
subwatersheds (EA, Appendix D). Effects of past activities including road construction, fire suppression,
prescribed fire, and timber management on WWNF lands have been incorporated into the existing
condition.
Alternative 1
The no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects since no active management would
occur that would change habitat for migratory or resident birds.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Livestock grazing is expected to continue within the analysis area. Habitat improvements afforded by the
action alternatives for chipping sparrow may also increase access of areas to livestock and brown-headed
cowbirds. The potential for increase in nest parasitism is expected to be most pronounced in areas
adjacent to existing cattle operations and agriculture on private lands along the southern boundary of the
project area.
Timber harvest on adjacent private lands is expected to continue, with little availability of late and old
forest structure and large snags anticipated. Therefore, habitat on National Forest lands will be
increasingly important as habitat on private lands is reduced.
Summary of Effects
All actions alternatives have the potential to directly impact NTMBs via nest tree removal during the
nesting season. The level of impact is unknown, but potential is highest for Alternative 2 and slightly less
for Alternative 3. The no-action alternative averts direct impacts to NTMBs but maintains habitat
conditions that favor high-density forest stands that may not be sustainable in the long-term.
Implementation of project design criteria reduces potential for direct impact to nesting landbirds.
The Partners in Flight (PIF) Conservation Strategy applicable to the Blue Mountains (Altman 2000)
describes Dry Forest habitats as among the most reduced habitat types in the Interior Columbia Basin,
with available old forest, single-overstory ponderosa pine reduced by 96% in the Blue Mountains. Fire
suppression and extensive timber harvest has led to the shift from areas dominated by late-seral ponderosa
pine to mid-seral stands of Douglas-fir and grand/white fir. The PIF Conservation Strategy stresses the
importance of restoring open single-storied stands with large trees for conserving associated landbird
species.
The action alternatives increase dry focal forest habitats by restoring single-story structure, consistent
with recommendations from Altman (2000), thereby benefiting landbirds associated with this habitat type.
Alternative 2 would restore the largest amount of Dry Forest habitat with Alternative 3 restoring no acres
of dry forest habitat. Both alternatives would retain all trees greater than 21 inches DBH. However,
Alternative 3 would also retain Douglas-fir and grand fir in stands for which ponderosa pine restoration is
the emphasis, thereby perpetuating the condition of encroachment by mixed conifer species.
The PIF Conservation Strategy selected late-successional Mixed Mesic Conifer as a priority habitat due to
substantial losses of in the ecoregion as a result of past timber harvest, primarily regeneration harvest
prescriptions (Altman 2000). Desired condition is described as multi-layered old forest with a diversity of
198
structural elements, specifically large snags, overstory canopy closure, structurally diverse multi-layered
forest, dense shrub layer in openings or understory, and edges and openings created by wildfire.
All action alternatives would decrease available mesic mixed conifer late-successional habitat, with
alternative 2 removing about 23 acres (11%) and alternatives 3 and 4 removing about 3 acres (1 %).
Because mesic mixed conifer multi-storied large tree structure treatment units consists primarily of
scattered small patches averaging just over one acre in size, it is unlikely that proposed activities will
compromise overall function of existing habitats.
All action alternatives have the potential to increase nest parasitism by opening up forest stands and
increasing available forage for livestock. Overall, with implementation of project design features, the
project is consistent with managing for dry forest habitats as well as maintaining existing mixed mesic
late-successional habitat. Effects of stand treatments are expected to last 10-30 years.
C. Unique Habitats
A number of species in the Blue Mountains are associated with special, unique habitats that include caves,
cliffs, and talus. Due to the geology of the area, caves are generally lacking within the project area. Cliff
habitats are present to a limited extent, mostly as short duration rock faces associated with larger streams.
Most prominent cliff habitat is found outside the project area in the mountains to the north. Talus fields
are not known to occur, but may occur, within the project area.
Summary of Effects
In general, unique wildlife habitats will be protected by maintaining vegetative structure characteristic of
the edge inherent to these areas, including cliffs and talus.
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Species (PETS)
A. Botanical Resources
Existing Condition
For a complete description of the botanical PETS species within the project area refer to the Biological
Evaluation and Effects Analysis for PETS Plant Species report in the in the project analysis file.
Endangered and Threatened Species:
One listed plant species (Howell's spectacular thelypody) Thelypodium howellii ssp. spectabilis, a
threatened plant, is listed for Baker County. Howell’s spectacular thelypody is known to occur in
relatively moist, alkaline meadows in or adjacent to valley bottoms. Baker County populations occur on
private and county lands near North Powder, Haines and Baker City (USFWS 2002). The nearest
populations of Howell’s spectacular thelypody are approximately 28 miles west of the analysis area and
suitable habitat for the plant does not exist in the Sparta Vegetation Management Analysis area.
Because there is no Howell’s spectacular thelypody habitat or plants in the analysis area, this project
would have no effect to this federally threatened plant species.
Region 6 - Sensitive Plant Species:
The following sensitive plant species occurs at numerous locations within the Sparta project area, as
indicated below:
199
Site Name Number of
plants Number of
subpopulations
Holcomb Creek-CARCOR-1 (Carex Cordillerana)
540 10
Little Eagle- CARCOR-2 240 2
Holcomb Spring- CARCOR-3 20 1
Holcomb Spring- CARCOR-4 250 3
Little Eagle CARCOR-6 240 1
Lily White- CARCOR-7 600 1
Effects
The following table summarizes the potential effects calls on the 25 plant species identified in the pre-
field as documented on the forest and possibly occurring in the planning area, there will be no impact (NI)
to 21 currently listed Region – 6 Sensitive Plant species. Project activities may impact individuals or
habitat of but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the
population or species (MIIH) of the remaining 4 species (Carex cordillerana, Trifolium douglasii,
Platanthera obtusata, and Schistidium cinclidodonteum).
Table 93. Effects Call by Species for Sparta Project Area
Scientific Name Common Name Effect call for Sparta
Project Alternatives 2 and 3
Achnatherum wallowaensis Wallowa ricegrass NI
Botrychium ascendens Upward-lobed moonwort
NI
Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort
Botrychium crenulatum Crenulate moonwort
Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort
Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort
Botrychium lunaria Moonwort
Botrychium montanum Mountain grape-fern
Botrychium paradoxum Twin-spiked moonwart
Botrychium pedunculosum Stalked moonwort
Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosus
Green-band mariposa-lily NI
Carex cordillerana Cordilleran sedge MIIH
Carex retrorsa Retrorse sedge NI
Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady's-slipper NI
Eleocharis bolanderi Bolander's spikerush NI
Lycopodium complanatum Ground cedar NI
Pellaea bridgesii Bridges' cliff-brake NI
Phacelia minutissima Dwarf phacelia NI
Phlox multiflora Many-flowered phlox NI
Platanthera obtusata Small northern bog-orchid MIIH
Trifolium douglasii Douglas' clover MIIH
Schistidium cinclidodonteum Moss MIIH
Cheilanthes feei Fee’s lip fern NI Jungermannia polaris Arctic flapwort NI Tortula mucronifolia Mucronleaf torula moss NI
Carex cordillerana sites within treatment and burn units within the project area will result in not impact to
those species as they will be designated as areas to protect (ATP) under mitigations for project
implementation.
There are no known occurrences for any Threatened, Endangered or Proposed plant species. No plants or
habitat were located during surveys within the project analysis area. There will be no direct, indirect or
cumulative effect to any proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species from project implementation.
200
Consistency with Federal Regulations and the Wallowa–Whitman Forest Plan
This project complies with present Federal Regulations (ESA) pertaining to the management of
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive plant species. This project is also consistent with the Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
B. Wildlife
The following table summarizes the effects on PETS wildlife species in the Sparta project area. Specifics
for the analysis of these species can be found in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation in the Sparta Analysis
File.
Table 94. Proposed Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species known or suspected to occur on the Wallowa-Whitman NF.
STATUS1 Species WAW2,3 Sparta Project Area4
Addressed in this BE
Effects Determination5
AMPHIBIANS
Sensitive Rocky Mt tailed frog Ascaphus montanus
D Potential Habitat
X MIIH
Sensitive Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris
D Known Habitat
X MIIH
BIRDS
Sensitive Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
D No Habitat X MIIH
Sensitive Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
D Potential Habitat
X MIIH
Sensitive White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus
D Known Habitat X MIIH
MAMMALS
Threatened Canada lynx Felix lynx canadensis
D No Habitat X NE
Sensitive California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus
D Potential Habitat
X MIIH
Sensitive Gray wolf Canis lupus
D Potential Habitat
X NI
Sensitive Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes
D Potential Habitat
X MIIH
MOLLUSKS
Sensitive Columbia gorge Oregonian Cryptomastix hendersoni
S Potential Habitat
X NI
Sensitive Shiny tightfoil Pristiloma wascoense
S Potential Habitat
X MIIH
INSECTS
Sensitive Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni
D Potential Habitat
X MIIH
Sensitive Intermountain sulphur Colia Christina pseudochristina
D
Potential Habitat
X MIIH
Sensitive Western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis
D Known Habitat X MIIH
2WAW= Wallowa-Whitman NF
3D = documented occurrence, S= suspected occurrence
5Listed species: NE = No Effect, LAA = May Affect-Likely to Adversely Affect, NLAA = May Affect – Not
Likely to Adversely Affect, BE = Beneficial Effect Sensitive species: NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat but will not likely contribute to
a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
201
C. Aquatic Species
The following table summarizes the effects on PETS aquatic species in the Sparta project area. Specifics
for the analysis of these species can be found in the Aquatic Species Biological Evaluation in the Sparta
Analysis File.
Table 95. Occurrence of aquatic species with special management status in the Sparta project area and effects determinations
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Occurrence Effects
Determination
WWNF Sparta
Analysis Area Alt 1
Alts 2&3
SR Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss
ESA Threatened, WWNF MIS
Present Not Present NE NE
Critical Habitat – SR Steelhead
Designated Present Not Present NE NE
SR Spring Chinook Salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
ESA Threatened Present Not Present NE NE
Critical Habitat – SR Spring Chinook Salmon
Designated Present Not Present NE NE
SR Fall Chinook Salmon
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
ESA Threatened Present Not Present NE NE
Critical Habitat – SR Fall Chinook Salmon
Designated Present Not Present NE NE
CR Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus
ESA Threatened Present Not Present NE NE
Critical Habitat – CR Bull Trout
Designated Present Present NLAA NLAA
Inland Redband Trout (all stocks)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
R-6 Sensitive, WWNF MIS
Present Present MIIH MIIH
Westslope Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi
R-6 Sensitive Present Not Present NI NI
Western Ridge Mussel
Gonidea angulata R-6 Sensitive Present Habitat Present
MIIH MIIH
Shortface Lanx (Giant Columbia River limpet)
Fisherola nuttalli R-6 Sensitive Present Habitat Present
MIIH MIIH
Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus
R-6 Sensitive Present Not Present NE NE
Columbia Pebblesnail
Fluminicola fuscus (=columbianus)
R-6 Sensitive Present Habitat Present
MIIH MIIH
California floater Anodonta californiensis
R-6 Sensitive Suspected Habitat Present
NI MIIH
Effects Determinations: NI = No Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, NE = No Effect, NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect, LAA = Likely to adversely Affect
202
Soils
Introduction
The following describes existing soil conditions and expected soil conditions after project implementation
in the Sparta project area. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be evaluated for the soils
resources. Cumulative effects to soils from on-going activities outside the scope of this project such as
firewood gathering or livestock grazing in the project area may occur within project units, and impacts of
these on-going activities on project area soils are considered along with project impacts where they occur
together. The focus for this analysis is the condition of soils within project units.
Existing Condition
Project Area Soil Characteristics
In the Sparta project area, soils within the treatment units occur on 14 soil Landtype Associations (LTAs)
(Figure 21). LTAs were mapped during a Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) assessment
conducted on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF 2002). The LTAs are a product of the
interaction between soils, geology, landforms, vegetation and climate. For this project, soils and their
properties are described by LTAs. They are useful for describing soil characteristics and for helping to
guide management of soils during project implementation. Other resource surveys for evaluation of soil
conditions in the project area were completed by the project soil scientist during field seasons in 2008-
2010 with updates in 2016.
In much of the area residual soils were buried under, mixed, or have formed within a layer of volcanic ash
deposited from the eruption of Mount Mazama approximately 6000 years ago. Soils with a high amount
of ash in surface horizons are common in the project area, ranging from relatively thick to non-existent.
Ash-cap soils derived from volcanic eruptions are most often classified in the silt or sandy loam
categories. They are also characterized by low bulk density, high porosity, and high water holding
capacity. They tend to be non-cohesive and because of their relatively low strength, are highly
susceptible to compaction (Johnson, Page-Dumroese and Han 2007). Ash-cap soils can be susceptible to
disturbance during forest management, and strategies to predict compaction, displacement and erosion
hazards are essential for planning forest management operations (Curran, Green, and Maynard 2007).
Soil depth, combined with the depth of the unconsolidated material lying over bedrock in the project area
ranges from very shallow (about a foot) to over ten feet. The surface soil layer is the layer that supports
the root zone for fine and medium size roots.
Soils with an ash mantle commonly have a different surface texture than the material buried beneath the
ash. Typically, soil textures in the project area are silt loams with varying rock content. Subsurface layers
in the project area are generally rockier than surface layers. Source material for soils includes basalts and
other volcanic rocks, meta-sedimentary rocks, and glacial deposits.
Project Area LTA Descriptions
The majority of the treatment units are located within the following LTAs. This is a partial list of LTAs
that describes the dominant soil features within selected LTAS. The descriptions are listed here to provide
more background on dominant features of soils in LTAs in the project area. The soil information provided
is for the dominant soil series in each LTA. Soil erosion hazard ratings for each soil series are reflected in
LTAs.
203
Landtype 116
This LTA consists of andesitic and Columbia River basalts with gentle sloping hills and plateau surfaces
with less than 30% slope and supports moist forests with some dry forest and dry grass. This LTA covers
923 acres, or about 16% of the treatment units. The dominant soil series is a deep silt loam ash that
occurs on stable ridgetops and sideslopes of the plateaus and the backslopes of mountains.
Major Soil Series
Soil Depth
Surface (0 to 10”)
Surface Texture
K factor
Bulk Density
Drainage Class
Erosion Hazard Rating
Limberjim 40-60 Gravely Silt loam
.24 .65 - .85 Well Low
Figure 21. Sparta project Land Type Associations and outlines of project units
204
Landtype 216
This LTA consists of andesitic and Columbia River basalts with gentle sloping hills less than 30% slope
and supports dry forests with some portions of dry grass and dry shrubs. This LTA covers 1,001 acres
(approximately 17%) of treatment units. This soil is a moderately deep ash soil that occurs on the
backslopes of mountains.
Major Soil Series
Soil Depth
Surface (0 to 10”)
Surface Texture
K factor
Bulk Density
Drainage Class
Erosion Hazard Rating
Bennetcreek 20-40 Silt loam .24-.37 .75-.95 Well Low
Landtype 256
This LTA consists of metasediments on gentle sloping hills with less than 30% slope and supports dry
forests and dry forests with some portions of dry grass. This LTA covers 968 acres (approximately 17%)
of treatment units. The major soil series associated with this LTA are Kingbolt and Eastpine soil series.
These series are frigid (cold) and xeric (dry) soils. The Kingbolt series consists of moderately deep, well-
drained soils on ridges, benches and shoulders of mountains. Kingbolt soils are formed in ash overlying
colluvium and residuum from argillite or other metasedimentary, metavolcanic or rhyolitic
bedrock. Eastpine series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on ridges, shoulders, and
backslopes of mountains. Eastpine soils are form in colluvial and residual material derived from
metasedimatary rocks with an influence of volcanic ash.
Major Soil Series
Soil Depth
Surface (0 to 8”)
Surface Texture
K factor
Bulk Density
Drainage Class
Erosion Hazard Rating
Kingbolt
Eastpine 0-40
Ashy silt
loam .28-.55 0.65-1.0 Well Low-Mod
Landtype 266
This LTA consists of metasediments on gentle sloping hills with less than 30% slope and supports dry
forests and dry forests with some portions of dry grass. This LTA covers 2166 acres (approximately 38%)
of treatment units. The major soil series associated with this LTA was Kamela and Anatone and the table
below is a combination of the two dominantly Anatone combined with Kamela characteristics. This soil
is a moderately deep rocky loam with an ash influence that occurs on ridgetops and sideslopes of
mountains.
Major Soil Series
Soil Depth
Surface (0 to 8”)
Surface Texture
K factor
Bulk Density
Drainage Class
Erosion Hazard Rating
Kamela (Anatone)
30 Gravely
loam .10-.15 1.2-1.7 Well Mod
Soil Impact Surveys and Erosion Risk
Surveys of soil disturbance in 2008-2010 and 2016 conducted by the project soil scientist showed that soil
conditions from past vegetation management and other activities are in recovery from past and on-going
impacts. Units were selected from throughout the project area to obtain a representative sample of project
units proposed primarily for ground-based treatments based on the amount of treatment acres and soil
characteristics. Past management activities included timber harvest, fuelwood cutting for personal use,
205
livestock grazing, soil effects associated with noxious weed treatments, road use, recreation activities, and
past wildfire.
Most project units have a history of land use, and evidence of past timber harvest was common. Surface
erosion or recent slope instability was not evident in the project area outside of roads and trails, but many
existing roads showed signs of surface erosion and rilling. Residual soil disturbance such as old skid
trails and landings were observed in treatment units, but much of the soil disturbance from past activities
was recovering. Soil disturbance and detrimental soil conditions survey results are provided later in this
report.
Soil erosion ability is a function of detachability, infiltration rate, permeability of lower soil horizons,
uniformity of slope and slope percent, water concentration potential, distribution of annual precipitation,
rainfall intensities, soil temperatures, and the depth and density of effective ground cover following
disturbance. Soil erosion is a natural process that can be accelerated by land management activities.
Soils on steep slopes with poor vegetative cover are more susceptible to erosion than are soils on flatter
terrain. Vegetation, and the duff and litter protect the soil surface from raindrop impact, dissipates the
energy of overland flow, and binds soil particles together. From resource surveys done by the project soil
scientist existing established ground cover is over 60% in most areas within the project, helping to protect
against surface soil erosion.
Table 96 shows the sedimentation properties and response of soils in the project area. From TEUI
surveys it was found erosion risk varied by LTA, ranging from low to high for disturbed sites, and mostly
low to medium risk for undisturbed sites. The treatment area used for this discussion is for treatment
proposed in Alternative 2, which represents the largest area of proposed treatment. The majority of the
project area units (51%) are in the low sediment delivery efficiency range with 88% in the low-
low/medium sediment delivery efficiency range. Sediment erosion efficiency is the relative efficiency of
landforms to route eroded debris into first order stream channels and deliver sediment into mainstem
streams. The factors used to rate LTAs for sediment delivery efficiency are: surface runoff response,
slope gradient and shape, low order stream density, stream channel geomorphic type; position in the
watershed in terms of distance to a mainstem perennial channel; and potential for shallow rapid
landslides. Low risk areas for sediment delivery efficiency can absorb a great deal of surface water
before individual soil particles are detached.
Surface runoff normally is well dispersed and does not become concentrated in first order streams. These
LTAs limit surface water and sediment from being routed quickly to first order stream systems. As a
result, first order stream catchment basins do not have evidence of rilling and channels do not have a
history of scour or non-vegetated deposition. Normally these Landtype Associations do not have a
history of shallow rapid landslides being delivered into mainstem streams. In summary LTAs in the low
range for sediment delivery efficiency have a set of the following site features: low slope gradients
<25%, more than 80 percent vegetation cover; deep, moderately coarse textured subsoils; very little
exposed bedrock; low drainage density for first order streams; and the area is not normally exposed to
rain-on-snow events or high intensity rainstorms. Landtype Associations with moderate sediment
delivery efficiency represent 29% of treatment units. These have a set of the following site features:
slope gradients between 25 and 45 percent; vegetation cover is 30 to 80 percent; sub-soil depths that vary
from shallow to moderately deep; exposed bedrock is less than 25 percent of the area; moderate drainage
density of confined or entrenched first order stream systems with both source and transport stream types;
area exposed to infrequent rain-on-snow events or high intensity rainstorms.
About 30 acres or less than 0.7% of tractor or skyline system logging are in the high sediment erosion
efficiency areas. In contrast to low-ranked areas, these landscapes do not absorb a great deal of surface
water before individual soil particles detach. These Landtype Associations have a set of the following site
features: steep slope gradients (45%+); less than 30 percent vegetation cover; shallow subsoils; exposed
206
bedrock exceeds 25 percent of the area; high drainage density of confined or entrenched first order
streams; and the area is exposed to frequent rain-on-snow events or high intensity rainstorms. Surface
runoff in these areas is poorly regulated and concentrated flows are routed rapidly into first order
drainages, and they are extremely efficient in routing surface water and sediment into first order stream
systems. Slope shapes are less complex with few breaks in grade to offer slope storage of eroding debris.
First order catchment basins have evidence of past rilling and stream channels have evidence of scour or
non-vegetated deposition. Normally these Landtype Associations have had a relatively frequent history of
shallow rapid landslides or high incidence of colluvial material delivered directly into mainstem streams.
Units 4, 54, 66, 67, and 81 all have high sediment delivery potential and are either tractor and/or machine
pile units. Units 32, 48, 87, 91, 92, 96, 104, 115, 117, 118, 113, 140 and 152 all have high risk for soil
erosion when disturbed and are either tractor and/or machine pile units.
Table 96. Sedimentation Properties and Response.
LTA
Total Treatment Unit Acres
(Tractor, Skyline, RX Burn)
Sediment Delivery
Efficiency
Soil Erosion Risk
(Disturbed Sites)
Soil Erosion Risk
(Undisturbed Sites)
Landslide Risk- Deep-
Seated
Landslide Risk-
Shallow-Rapid
116 923 L L-M L L L
117 186 M H L L-M M
131 45 L L-M L L-M L
166 15 L L-M L L L
167 205 M H L L-M M
168 30 H H M M-H H
216 1001 L L-M L L L
217 13 M H L-M L L
256 968 L L-M L L L/L
266 2166 L-M M L-M L L
267 138 M H M L-M M
268 37 H H M-H M H
317 45 M M-H M L L
356 3 L M L-M L-M L
Mass Wasting in Project Area
Slopes over 40% are at higher risk for landslides, and have been evaluated for landslide risks during TEUI
surveys and by observations during site surveys. Generally the project area is a stable landscape and the
potential for new landslides to occur is relatively low. The soils in the project area have been evaluated
for deep seated landslide potential and for shallower, rapid slides on slopes over 40%, and the risk ratings
are mostly in the low to medium risk range (Table 96). Some terrain is “hummocky”, indicating old
healed deep-seated landslide deposits, but no recent mass failures such as slumps or debris flows were
found, even though much of the area has been previously harvested. Most sites are in the low to medium
risk range for shallow, rapid landslides such as debris flows. Old landslide landforms are noted within the
project area, especially on the east side of the project area. However, none appear active and none appear
to be caused by past land management. There is evidence of very slow soil creep in steeper inner gorge
areas, especially in the Little Eagle Creek drainage, but no evidence of recent larger scale mass soil
movements were observed. Triggers for movement would likely include above average
precipitation/snowpack and earthquakes. The most unstable areas in the analysis area are found on 67
unit acres in LTAs 168 and 268. These areas have a more “flashy” response to precipitation events that
can elevate the risk of debris flows.
207
Sparta Soil Productivity
Soil productivity of a site is defined as the ability of a site to produce vegetative biomass, as determined
by conditions (e.g. soil type and depth, rainfall and temperature) in that area. Productivity is the capacity
or suitability of a soil for establishment and growth of plant species, primarily through moisture and
nutrient availability. The long-term productivity of forest soils can be adversely affected by removal of
nutrients and alterations in soil structure such as compaction. Removal of nutrients can occur through the
removal of vegetation (i.e. trees, shrubs and grasses), erosion, and preparation of sites for treatment and
burning. Long term soil productivity of forested ecosystems relies on a continual flux of coarse woody
material. Important nutrients to the soil ecosystem, such as carbon, sulfur, phosphorus and nitrogen, are
supplied by decaying coarse woody material (CWM, Graham 1994). Timber harvest, slash disposal and
site preparation can reduce the amount of organic material in the forest floor to below what is needed to
ensure soil productivity (Harvey et al. 1987).
Soil nutrients are primarily replenished through the decomposition of organic matter such as litter, duff,
coarse woody debris, and root turnover (Benson, 1982). Organic matter (surface litter and duff) depth
was commonly observed to be 1-4 inches within the Sparta project area. Ground cover, generally
consisting of matted pine grasses, heartleaf arnica, woods strawberry, common snowberry (in warm/dry
habitats), big huckleberry, prince’s pine and twin flower (cool/dry habitats), and shade tolerant conifer
seedlings, is well established in the disturbed areas within the forested portions of the units. On the
droughty scab soils in forest openings, lichens, mosses, and to a lesser extent pine grass leaves and
crowns account for a high proportion of the surface litter. Biological soil crusts exist in some forest
openings. Amounts of coarse woody material (CWM over 12 inches in diameter at the small end and at
least 6 feet in length) are low across the units. Potential future down wood recruitment from standing
dead trees depends upon their location relative to firewood cutting access.
Soil Compaction and Displacement
In the Sparta project area soil compaction is a primary disturbance factor affecting soil productivity.
More information on the effects current management is having on project area soils is provided in the No-
Action alternative discussion in the Effects section of this report. Skid trails, landings and non-surfaced
roads, ATV trails, livestock trails and dispersed campsites all have led to increased soil compaction and
bulk density throughout the project area. Visual surveys by the project soil scientist in 2008-2010 and
2016 indicated vegetation re-growth and biological activity is breaking up some of the surface
compaction (0-4 inches) of soil on the historic skid trails and closed roads.
Soil displacement is the movement of soil from one place to another by mechanical forces and is typically
associated with roads, landings, and skid trails. Effects include reduced water holding capacity, loss of
ground cover, nutrients and soil microorganisms, and increased runoff due to an increased amount and
condition of bare ground exposed (Page-Dumroese et al 2006). Some displacement has occurred in most
surveyed units. This form of disturbance was evident where machinery had sharply turned or where
previous harvesting had occurred during periods of wet or moist soil conditions. Steeper slopes are more
vulnerable to soil displacement. During resource surveys, locations where surface soil displacement had
occurred in the past were often revegetated with a high percent of ground cover.
Table 97. Sparta Project LTAs and Treatment units for Alternative 2 showing acres and percentages of project area within each LTA (source-project GIS information).
Landtype Total Unit
Acres
Percent % of
Project Area
Treatment Units
116 923 16 93, 95-97,101,102,108,113,122,124-148
208
Landtype Total Unit
Acres
Percent % of
Project Area
Treatment Units
117 186 3 84-87,91,92,94-97,99,100-105,132,133,139-141,
131 45 <1 2-5
166 15 <1 128,151,152
167 205 4 5-7,20,21,21A,22-28,28A,29-32,47-49,55,81,152
168 30 <1 1,4
216 1,001 17 1,8,9,11-20,21A,22,36,75-86,88,89,89A,90-93,99,103-107,113,114,116,120,122-126,149,150,153
217 13 <1 87,88
256 968 17 52,53,57-67,73,74
266 2,166 38 11-14,27,31-45,45A,46-48,50-55,65-67,69,73,74
267 138 2 114-119
268 37 <1 54,55,66,67,69,73
317 45 <1 81,106-113
356 3 <1 61
Table 98 shows the hydrologic properties of soils in LTAs for the project area. Numerous intermittent
tributaries and ephemeral swales were found within the project area. A few channels have been logged,
used as skid trails, and grazed. Un-channelized swales or ephemeral draws exist throughout the project
area. Despite the past logging and skidding operations, the swales have good re-establishment of
vegetation and ground cover and in most cases are not showing signs of channel development.
Table 98. Hydrologic properties of soils in the Sparta Project area by LTA.
LTA Total Treatment
Unit Acres Surface Runoff
Channel Density
Stream Flow Duration
Stream Flow Amount
Aquifer Recharge
116 923 Low Low Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
117 186 Moderate Moderate Intermittent or
Perennial Low flow Low
131 45 Low Moderate Perennial High flow Moderate to High
166 15 Low Moderate Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
167 205 Moderate Moderate-High Intermittent or
Perennial Low flow Low
168 30 Moderate High Intermittent Low flow Low
216 1,001 Low Low Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
217 13 Moderate Low-Moderate Intermittent or
Perennial Low flow Low
256 968 Low Low Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
266 2,166 Low Moderate Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
267 138 Moderate Moderate-High Intermittent or
Perennial Low flow Low
268 37 Flashy High Intermittent Low flow Low
317 45 Moderate Low-Moderate Intermittent Low flow Low
356 3 Low Low Intermittent Occasional storm flow Low
Mean annual precipitation averages 20 to 40 inches per year, primarily in the form of snow with some
spring and fall rains and summer storms. Surface runoff ranges from low to moderate in the project area.
LTA 268 has flashy flows, with high flow peaks that diminish quickly. Channel density in units ranges
from low to moderate. Aquifer recharge through soils in the project area is considered low except in LTA
168. The major soil complexes represented within the analysis area exhibit moderate permeability rates
and in upland areas are mostly well drained.
209
Past and On-going Vegetation Management Projects
Several vegetation management projects have been completed in portions of the project area over the past
decades. Historically, the majority of the project units were conventionally logged (utilizing both rubber
tired and tracked skidders) and hand felled. Multiple entries over many decades for timber harvest and
other purposes have occurred, and residual soil disturbance is wide spread in extent. Much of the past
timber harvest in the Sparta area selected larger individual trees for removal. For older harvest methods,
skid trails often were not pre-designated and as a result were randomly distributed throughout the old
units. Main skid trails were spaced approximately 50 to 100 feet apart. Evidence of old compaction
(platey sub-surface soils) is currently being reduced by the established root systems of vegetation and
rodent burrows. During resource surveys, it was commonly observed that exposed mineral soil was low
along re-vegetated skid roads; and old skid trails typically had a high percent of ground cover. Re-
vegetation on old skid trails helps break up compaction through root penetration. Old landings from
previous harvest in many areas were re-vegetating, with some evidence of reduction in soil compaction.
However, in most cases, skid trails and landings represent the greatest amount of legacy compaction in
the project area.
Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSCs)
Currently, detrimental compaction and puddling exist primarily on landings and skid trails. Detrimental
compaction and puddling also exist at dispersed campsites and on major livestock/wildlife trails.
Compaction and puddling adversely affect infiltration rate, water holding capacity, soil microorganisms,
plant cover (including biological soil crusts), and plant roots. Annual cycles of activity by large grazing
animals, campers, and vehicle and equipment operators can re-compact roads, trails and campsites.
Detrimental displacement persists on all roads (top of cut to bottom of fill), landings, major skid trails,
borrow areas, old ditches, and at landslides. Detrimental displacement adversely affects all soil properties
and characteristics, including but not limited to topsoil thickness, soil depth, water holding capacity,
ground cover, woody debris, fertility, infiltration, permeability, and soil microorganisms.
Severe burning occurs under firepits at campsites, under/around partly decomposed logs and stumps that
burn during prescribed fire and wildfire, and under hand piles, grapple piles and slash piles that are
burned. No severe burning or detrimental burn effects were found in the analysis area. Light to moderate
intensity wildfire can reduce organic matter by consuming litter, duff and rotten logs, but can also cause
new inputs of organic matter through increases in litter fall. These conditions are not detrimental to soils.
Moderately high to high intensity wildfire would greatly reduce organic matter on the soil surface, which
would increase potential for detrimental erosion, but would provide large inputs of coarse wood over
several decades.
Surface erosion was primarily observed on road surfaces or fill slopes, primarily due to heavy rainfall or
snowmelt. Types of erosion included sheet, rill and gully erosion. Organic matter loss exists on roads,
trails (once used as roads), skid trails, landings, landslide scars, old wildfire areas, and pockets of low
ground cover shallow-soil rangelands in lower elevation areas in the southern part of the project area.
Table 99. Existing detrimental soil conditions in project area at representative ground-based harvest units.
Sparta
Ground-based acres
(except where noted)
Latest past harvest
year
Litter/duff (in)
Coarse Woody Debris
(per acre)
DSC's (%)
4 24 unknown 4
7 7 unknown 4
12 106 1979 5
13 10 1979 3
14 85 1979 3
210
Sparta
Ground-based acres
(except where noted)
Latest past harvest
year
Litter/duff (in)
Coarse Woody Debris
(per acre)
DSC's (%)
18 24 1979 3
32 119 (F) unknown 2/0 0 4
34 78 (F) 1993 1/0 0 4
35 46 (F) 1993 1/0 0 4
36 125 (F) 1979 4
38 122 1996 1/0 1 4
40 14 (F) 2001 4
41 139 (F) 1993 2
43 200 (F) 1993 2
45 90 2001 3
46 176 (F) 1993 2
48 34 unknown 2/0 0 4
50 31 1989 3
52 89 (GP/RXF) 2001 1/0 0 3
53 108 2001 1/0 0 3
61 6 (RXF) unknown 1/1 1 4
62 97 (RXF) unknown 1/1 1 4
73 252 (RXF) unknown 1/0 1 2
74 137 (RXF) unknown 1/0 1 2
81 144 1987 1/1 1 4
89 27 1993 5
90 13 (S) 1993 1/1 1 4
91 32 1993 5
107 15 1987 1/0 1 5
118 39 1993 4
119 8 (S) 1993 4
125 41 1987 3
129 55 1987 1/2 1 4
131 54 (F) 1987 1/2 1 4
134 43 (F) 1993 5
139 10 (S) 2001 6
152 8 2000 1/2 2 6 F = Forwarder yarding GP = Grapple Piling RXF = Prescribed burning S = Skyline yarding
Effects
Introduction
Direct effects happen at the time and place of the action. Soil compaction or displacement is a good
example. When a skidder travels over wet ground and compacts or displaces soil, a direct effect may
result. Indirect effects happen later in time or a different place, such as soil erosion resulting from a
management activity. Indirect effects happen when the soil surface is disrupted, but soil loss does not
occur until a storm event at some later time. Cumulative effects are the sum of incremental changes in
present, and reasonably foreseeable future direct/indirect effects on the soil resource that overlap both in
time and space with the Sparta project effects which create a measurable cumulative effect.
Effects on soils from a project may be positive or negative. Effects may include alteration of physical,
chemical, and/or biological characteristics or properties of soils. Standards and guidelines in the Forest
Plan (1990) are designed to protect soil function, soil productivity, and soil stability.
211
The most adverse effects of management activities on soils are detrimental compaction, puddling,
displacement, severe burning over larger areas, erosion, and mass wasting. Other concerns include
adverse changes in vegetation and organic matter on the soil surface, and adverse changes in water table
(USFS 1998). Soil compaction, puddling, displacement, severe burning, and impacts to ground cover
(vegetation and organic matter) are direct effects; soil erosion, mass wasting, and changes in water table
are indirect effects.
Methodology and Assumptions
Management activities can result in direct, indirect and cumulative effects on soil productivity and soil
stability. The focus for this analysis of effects is the condition of soils within project units. The bounds of
analysis for determining direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project’s activities on the soil
resource are the project units. This area was selected because direct and indirect effects to soils that
would occur where management is proposed to take place and are not expected to extend outside the
project unit boundaries. The temporal bounds for this analysis can be decades, however most detrimental
soil impacts from this project will begin recovery after project activities are complete.
The magnitude of the effects of an activity on soil productivity and soil stability depend on the extent and
patterns of change due to management activities. Minimizing productivity losses associated with any
action can be accomplished by managing the extent of detrimental soil conditions within activity areas
through treatment prescription and/or mitigation. Planned management activities must minimize new soil
damage and must provide for soil restoration measures when and where they are appropriate (Forest Plan
1990, Soils Standard & Guides).
The effects analyses in this report are based on full implementation of the mitigation measures and project
design criteria for the Sparta project. Best management practices (BMPs) are forest management
practices designed to prevent the degradation of forest lands and water quality during and after timber
harvest. Forestry BMPs have been shown to be effective at controlling sediment, erosion, and nutrients
from forest management activities (Lynch and Corbett 1990; Stuart and Edwards 2006).
Resource surveys were conducted in 2008-2010 and 2016 to determine detrimental soil disturbance
(DSCs) for soils in treatment units. The results of these surveys are shown in Table 99. For current
conditions, soil quality is being maintained in at least 80% of the area of each proposed activity unit as
required by Region and Forest Plan standards. The protocol for determining detrimental soil conditions
was based on field soil conditions (Howes, 2001).
Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSCs): Soil Effects Models
Soil DSCs were determined for Alternatives 2 and 3. To be compliant with the Forest Plan, project
implementation must minimize post-project DSCs so they do not cumulatively exceed 20% within an
activity area. Other impacts like vegetation removal may have a cumulative impact on soil cover or
coarse woody material needed as a long-term source of soil nutrients.
Soil quality conditions were assessed in proposed timber harvest units using the Interim Protocol for
Assessment and Management of Soil Quality Conditions (Howes, 2001). Detrimental soil conditions
were determined by the transect method (Howes, 2001). For these assessments, each project unit
represents an activity area. Units were selected from throughout the project area to obtain a
representative sub-sample of project units proposed for mostly ground-based treatments based on soil
characteristics, past harvest amounts, and the amount of unit acreage. Sampled units were thought to
represent typical conditions for project units. In areas with non-existent or low (0-5%) adverse soil
conditions, a level 1 survey estimate of detrimental soil conditions was made in selected units to the
nearest percent based on unit conditions.
212
The contribution to DSCs from roads within harvest units was calculated and added in to the DSC
calculation by converting road mileage to road acreage, consistent with DSC calculation protocols
(Howes 2001). Road mileage was determined for National Forest administered land in the analysis area
using GIS roads information. For DSC calculations, GIS road mileage for each proposed harvest unit and
prescribed fire unit was adjusted by excluding all roads that were adjacent to the units unless they were
shared between units. Road mileage was converted to road acreage. Road mileage data for units was
converted to acres using the formula, [(miles) times (acres/mile) = acres]. Soil resource surveys focused
on areas containing ground based harvest units from prior projects because effects of past harvest were
expected to be greater in these units. Also, projected effects of the Proposed Action on soils will be
higher for tractor, ground-based logging systems.
Predicted soil DSCs generated by action alternatives were developed using soil effects models developed
by soil scientists on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest to describe effects of various types of forest
management on soils. The effects models provide a reasonable estimate of direct and indirect effects of
project activities on soils, with the results expressed in increased DSCs generated by each treatment type.
These effects of forest management may be less or more pronounced in units located in different LTAs,
depending on sensitivity.
For this analysis, and the model application, it is assumed that the soil response to management impacts
will be similar across different LTAs. Topographic factors, local soil texture, rock content, and hillslope
stability and other factors all play a role in management response of soils, and influence the effectiveness
of soils effects models for predicting DSCs. The models use information from post-project monitoring of
different types of activities to estimate the amounts of DSCs generated by forest treatments (Bliss 2001,
2003, 2004). They have been used extensively in environmental analysis of soils for past forest projects.
Predicted DSCs are based on the effects model for each type of treatment proposed. DSCs were
calculated for each unit where soil resource surveys were done to determine the extent of post-project
detrimental soil conditions (Table 103).
Soil Effects Model Assumptions
Summary of Effects Models:
Ground-based Harvesting Effects Model: 10-20% ground disturbance, with 6-12% new
DSCs.
Skyline Yarding Effects Model: 10-25% ground disturbance, with 0-1% DSCs.
Temporary Road Construction Effects Model: 3.0 ac/mile DSCs.
Grapple Piling Effects Model: 5-8% ground disturbance, with 1-2% DSCs.
Grapple-Piled Slash Burn Effects Model: 1-2% DSCs.
Landing Slash Burn Effects Model: 0.5-1% DSCs.
Hand-Piled Slash Burn Effects Model: 0-1% DSCs.
Underburn Effects Model: 0-4% severe burn, but no DSCs.
Ground-based Harvesting Effects Model
Harvesting effects estimated by this model are primarily soil compaction and displacement, and minor
amounts of puddling. Local data (Bliss 2003a) indicate new ground-based yarding activities would
disturb about 10-20% of the ground surface, with about 5-10% DSCs per unit before implementation of
any mitigations. These results are based on past monitoring which shows that about 50% of skid trail
width has been observed to be detrimentally compacted and displaced. It is assumed that landings would
occupy about 1-2% of a unit. The effect of skid trails plus landings for tractor/yarder harvest systems
would generate 6-12% new DSCs. The range of possible effects is wide due to several variables
including type of harvest equipment used, operator skill, layout, current infrastructure, past harvest
effects, landform characteristics, and soil site conditions. New DSCs would be lower in units with DSCs
213
from previous entries because old skid trails and landings that are detrimentally disturbed from past
harvest can be re-used. Based on conditions in Sparta units, 10% DSCs are assumed to be generated by
ground-based logging, including skid trails and landings. In units with RHCAs, where
processor/forwarder harvest systems are proposed to be used to cross RHCAs, DSCs are estimated to be
4-6%. Processor forwarder effects are less because they use wider tires with less ground pressure, and
operate on slash, which helps reduce soil compaction and displacement.
Skyline Yarding Effects Model
The effects of skyline yarding are based on definitions of detrimental compaction and displacement in
Howes 2001. Yarding effects would be primarily soil displacement. Landings are typically spaced about
200 feet apart. Trees would be directionally-felled towards one or two skyline corridors. Logs would be
yarded with one end suspended and limbs attached. Limbs would be removed and piled on hillslopes
adjacent to landings. Each tree would produce 2-4 logs. Logs would be yarded with tops attached. The
largest logs would have few to no limbs. Local data (Bliss 2004c) indicates yarding would disturb 10-
25% of the ground surface, and leave 0-1% new DSCs in each unit. Whole-tree yarding and good ground
cover widely found in the project units consisting of elk sedge-pinegrass or shrubs help moderate the
effects to soils. Most soil displacement would be less than 2 inches deep.
Grapple Piling Effects Model
The effects of grapple piling are based on definitions of detrimental compaction and displacement in
Howes 2001. The equipment to be used for grapple piling of woody debris would be a low ground
pressure (5-6 psi) tracked excavator with a grapple on a 25 to 30-foot long boom from the center of the
vehicle. The tracks would consist of metal cleats. Normal use would track a maximum of about 8% of a
treatment unit. Where fuels are less dense, less of the unit would be tracked. Total ground disturbance
would be about 5-8%, with an estimate of 1-2% DSCs (Kreger 2004). Actual DSCs would be affected by
variables such as soil density, percent rock in/on the soil surface greater than 3 inch diameter, soil
moisture, ground cover (vegetation type and woody debris tonnage), type of equipment used, and operator
skill.
Grapple-Piled Slash Burn Effects Model
Burn effects are based on definitions in Debano et. al. 1998 and USFS 1998. Pile burn effects qualify as
detrimental soil conditions if they are severe burns and occupy an area of at least 100 square feet (USFS
1998). Local data from past projects in a similar area (Hanson 2005) indicates grapple piles would
occupy 1-2% of units (4 to 7 piles/acre up to 12 feet in diameter) and are typically more than 100 square
feet. The range of effects from grapple piling and burning these piles would be 1-2% DSCs.
Landing Slash Burn Effects Model
Landing slash burn effects are based on definitions in Debano et. al. 1998 and USFS 1998. Pile burn
effects qualify as detrimental soil conditions if they are severe burns and occupy an area of at least 100
square feet (USFS 1998). Local data (Bliss 2004c) indicates slash piles at skyline landings are typically
100-1000 square feet in size (11-36 feet in diameter). When burned, these piles would cause about 0.5-
1.0% DSCs. Slash piles in ground-based units can be larger, however DSCs from pile burning at landings
would be in the same range.
Hand-Piled Slash Burn Effects Model
Burn effects are based on definitions in DeBano et. al. 1998 and USFS 1998. Pile burn effects qualify as
detrimental soil conditions if they are severe burns and occupy an area of at least 100 square feet (USFS
1998). Local data (Bliss 2003a, Bliss 2004c, Hansen 2005) indicates that most of the area under hand-
piled burn piles would qualify as severe burn effects, and that burn piles typically occupy 1-4% of the
214
ground surface but are usually less than 100 sq. ft (11.3 feet in diameter). Therefore, pile burning would
cause only 0-1% DSCs.
Underburn Effects Model
Burn effects are based on definitions in DeBano et. al. 1998 and USFS 1998. Underburn effects qualify
as detrimental soil conditions if they are severe burns and occupy an area of at least 100 square feet
(USFS 1998). Local data (Bliss 2003a) indicates there would be 0-4% severe burn effects in prescribed
fire underburn areas, but no DSCs because severe burn areas would be under 100 square feet. Prescribed
fire usually results in a mosaic of low, moderate and high fire severity that is classified mostly as low
severity burn class. Severe burn effects typically occur adjacent to and under logs and in burned out
stump holes. Underburn effects may range from low-severity burn class to high-severity burn class, but
do not qualify as detrimental soil conditions. Low severity burn areas typically exhibit a relatively minor
risk of increased erosion. The risk increases substantially in moderate to high severity burn areas, which
usually occupy a very limited amount of ground in prescribed burns.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect soils
resources:
Danger tree removal
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
Right-of-way acquisition
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Soils Resources
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1 current management would continue. There would be no additional ground
disturbing activities or vegetation removal; therefore, there would be no potential for increasing
detrimental soil conditions above the existing levels.
Soils conditions in the project area reflect past impacts from vegetation management including timber
harvest, road use and maintenance, livestock grazing, fuelwood cutting, activities associated with noxious
weed treatments, recreation activities including camping, All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use, snowmobile use,
use of trails, and past wildfire. Direct and indirect effects to soils from these activities would persist
under this alternative. The following discussion describes the effects of current conditions with a focus
on past and on-going management activities that can affect soils.
Past Vegetation Management Projects
The effects of soil disturbance on soil productivity and the duration of adverse effects largely depend
upon the type and extent of disturbance. Disturbances such as roads and ditches generally are permanent
because the soil structure is severely altered during construction. Compaction resulting from tractor
yarding can potentially last for several decades (Froehlich and McNabb, 1984), thereby reducing
productivity. Soil surface erosion rates following timber harvest can potentially remain elevated for two
to seven years, depending upon the removal method and site characteristics. The effects of nutrient
removal through woody debris removal, soil erosion, burning and site preparation can be short lived, or
long lasting depending upon the extent, duration and intensity of the disturbance.
215
Past projects involved timber harvest, pre-commercial thinning, underburn, non-system road construction,
construction of log landings, and road reconstruction and road maintenance. Soil productivity has been
reduced through soil compaction, puddling, displacement, erosion, mass wasting or severe burning caused
by management actions during the implementation of these projects. Detrimental soil conditions from
these activities would continue to recover over time. Soil compaction will slowly decrease in the top 4
inches of soil due to frost, fibrous plant roots and rodents. Compaction below 4 inches will change very
slowly over the next century as roots of shrubs and trees and deep burrowing rodents enter that layer.
Displaced soil from temporary roads, skid trails and landings would remain displaced unless equipment is
used to replace it. Accelerated erosion would rapidly decrease, but would only approach pre-project
levels as ground cover reaches pre-project levels, which will take a few years to decades.
Fuelwood Cutting
Cutting and removal of standing and down fuelwood or course woody material (CWM) in the project area
has reduced recycling of nutrients to the soil (within a few hundred feet of open roads) and caused
detrimental soil compaction where vehicles were driven off-road to retrieve fuelwood. The potential for
causing detrimental compaction depends on vehicular access, soil conditions at time of fuelwood
retrieval, and frequency of entry.
For these sites, shallow-rooted vegetation and rodents will slowly reduce detrimental compaction to a
depth of about 4 inches over the next few decades. Deeper compaction and detrimental displacement are
reversible only with mechanical treatment. Detrimental soil conditions (DSCs) from fuelwood cutting are
very minor, less than 0.01% across the project area, and no increase in extent is expected.
Livestock Grazing
Table 100. Livestock grazing allotments and acreages within Sparta project area
Allotment Name National Forest Acres Acres within Project Area
Eagle Valley 32,569 10,130
Goose Creek 27,269 7,227
Trouble Gulch 1,111 593
Total Acres 17,951
Livestock can cause detrimental compaction on major trails, and around watering areas and some salting
sites. Accelerated erosion also can occur at these high-use sites. The affected area overlaps most of the
entire project area, which is divided into 3 allotments (Table 100). Activities include use and maintenance
of water developments and the use of established trails by livestock. Annual grazing in the allotments has
led to cumulative effects in the form of detrimental soil compaction and displacement at high use sites.
The area affected by livestock with detrimental soil conditions is very small, likely much less than 0.1%
of the analysis area and no increase in extent is expected.
Noxious Weed Treatments
This activity causes negligible soil disturbance and no detrimental soil conditions. Effects of noxious
weed treatment activities on soil resources are negligible when they are applied at times and locations that
minimize risk and according to label directions.
Recreation Activities
Off road vehicle (ATVs) use at campsites and picnic areas causes’ detrimental soil compaction,
detrimental puddling and can lead to soil erosion. Hiking on developed trails maintains bare soil
conditions and accelerates erosion on those trails. The affected area (excluding road use which is
216
discussed above) is much less than 1% of the project analysis area. No change is expected in detrimental
soil conditions due to repeated annual use of dispersed recreation sites and facilities.
Wildfire
Erosion rates after a major wildfire would increase 100 times or more, from about 0.05 ton/acre/year to
more than 5 tons/acre/year for moderate to high severity (DeBano et al 1998) wildfire in a burned area
large enough to allow overland flow to reach a stream. Effects would be similar to those documented on
the forest for the Monument Fire (Bliss 2003b).
Severe burn effects followed by infrequent short-duration, high-intensity (10 to 100-year 30-minute)
storms and more common long-duration (2 to 5-year 6 to 24-hour) storms would likely cause severe
erosion and sedimentation on steeper slopes before adequate ground cover canopy cover would be
achieved. Based on ground cover recovery studies in the Blue Mountains (Johnson 1998), under natural
conditions with no livestock grazing it is estimated it would take about 1 year to achieve minimum
desired ground cover in low severity burn areas, about 2-3 years in moderately low severity burn areas,
and about 3-5 years in moderately high and high severity burn areas. It would take decades to achieve
optimal desired condition of 85-100% ground cover under a forest canopy.
Were wildfire to occur in or above any unstable or marginally stable area, there is a high probability that
movement in existing unstable areas would accelerate, and that new landslides would develop in
marginally stable areas. Total acreage of a debris avalanche, or slump/earthflow could exceed 10 acres in
some areas, such as along Eagle Creek or Little Eagle Creek. Moderate to high severity wildfire in or
above any unstable or marginally stable area would accelerate landslide movement. Movement may be
slow (slump or soil creep) to fast (debris flow or avalanche). Slumps and soil creep or earthflows may be
short to long-duration events. Movement may occur once over a period of seconds to minutes, or may
occur over longer periods. Debris flows or avalanches are rapid events; elapsed time would be seconds to
minutes (Varnes 1978).
Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSCs)
Previous entries for timber harvest, slash disposal and road building were the major causes of direct
effects leading to DSCs for project area soils. Firewood cutting, recreation uses including ATV use on
trails or cross country and livestock grazing generally have caused lesser amounts of DSCs within the
proposed treatment units. DSC values described here are the result primarily of direct effects to soils
from compaction or displacement by various management activities. The direct effects from management
can lead to indirect effects such as soil erosion. Direct effects on forest soils gradually recover over time.
DSC surveys essentially measure residual effects of past and on-going management on the soil resource.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Alternatives 2 and 3 would remove biomass with tractor/ground-based logging on 3,858 and 3,471 acres
(including aspen restoration work), respectively. Skyline cable system logging would occur on 569 and
323 acres respectively. Vegetation would be removed by logging systems on a total of 4,427 acres for
Alternative 2 and 3,794 acres for Alternative 3. Other effects analyzed include fuels treatments, and soils
effects from system and temporary roads. The focus for this analysis of effects of the project is the
condition of soils within project units. It is estimated that detrimental soil disturbance would occupy
approximately 8% to just under 20% of the project acres for most units after project implementation.
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 were analyzed for this project to determine the magnitude of effects on the
soil resource. Alternative 2 has the greatest potential effect on soils, so this analysis will focus on
Alternative 2 effects. Table 101 lists proposed project activities. Table 10 shows tractor logging and
skyline logging areas by project alternative and land type association. Project effects are predicted based
on soil effects models discussed in later sections of this report, rather than LTAs.
217
Table 101. Action Alternatives management activities for Sparta Project.
Management Activities Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Forested Stand Treatments Acres Acres
Commercial Thinning (HTH) 4,196 3,600
Partial Overstory Removal (HOR) 217 181
Aspen Restoration/Conifer Removal 14 13
Total Commercial Harvest Acres 4,427 3,794
Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) post-harvest 3,997 3,401
Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) only 1,362 1,510
Total PCT Acres 5,359 4,911
Fuels Treatments Acres Acres
Post-Activity Prescribed Fire (RXF) Treatments
5,527 4,876
Natural Fuels Prescribed Fire (RXF) 4,793 4,543
Total RXF Acres 10,320 9,419
Logging System Activities Acres Acres
Tractor 2,715 2,324
Forwarder 1,129 1,134
Skyline 569 323
Total Logging System Acres 4,413 3,781
Transportation Activities Miles/Units Miles/Units
Maintain NF System Roads for log haul 128.5 122.5
Open Roads (ML2-3) 80.7 79.9
Closed Roads (ML1) 47.8 42.6
Total Temporary Road Miles 2.9 0.34
New Construction 2.56 0
Existing Wheel tracks 0.34 0.34
Decommissioning System Roads 6.9 6.9
Reconstruction of System Roads 26.6 25.7
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction 1 Bridge 1 Bridge
Bridge Abutment Repair 2 Bridges 2 Bridges
Table 102. Proposed Action logging systems and treatment areas by land type association (LTA)
Logging System Alternative 2 Logging System Alternative 3
Map Unit
Tractor Forwarder Skyline Total
Map Unit
Tractor Forwarder Skyline Total
Acres
116 715 100 108 923 116 570 108 80 759
117 62 18 107 187 117 33 0 70 103
131 24 0 21 45 131 0 0 13 13
166 15 0 0 15 166 <1 0 0 <1
167 49 1 128 178 167 41 3 78 122
168 2 0 28 30 168 0 0 0 0
216 898 7 94 999 216 755 7 57 819
217 13 0 0 13 217 1 0 0 1
256 <1 0 0 <1 256 <1 0 0 <1
266 819 1,003 15 1,837 266 815 1,016 0 1,831
267 101 0 37 138 267 101 0 24 125
268 2 0 0 2 268 2 0 0 2
317 14 0 31 45 317 4 0 <1 4
Totals 2,715 1,129 569 4,413 Totals 2,324 1,129 323 3,781
Detrimental Soil Conditions
Detrimental soil condition are caused by any management practice that results in loss of productivity due
to soil compaction, puddling, displacement, erosion, mass wasting or severe burning.
218
DSCs ranged from 3-19% on project units after treatment and mitigations.
Table 103. Alternative 2 DSCs in select treatment units based on soils models surveys
Unit
Ground-based acres
(except where noted)
Existing DSC's
(%)
Post-Harvest DSC's
Unit
Ground-based acres
(except where noted)
Existing DSC's (%)
Post-Harvest DSC's
4 24 (GP) 4 17 81 144 4 5
7 7 4 17 89 27 (GP) 5 18
12 106 (GP) 5 18 90 13 (S) 4 4
13 10 3 16 91 32 (GP) 5 18
14 85 3 16 107 15 5 18
18 24 3 16 118 39 (GP) 4 17
32 119 (F) (GP) 4 17 119 8 (S) 4 5
34 78 (F) (GP) 4 17 125 41 (GP) 3 16
35 46 (F) (GP) 4 17 129 55 (GP) 4 17
36 125 (F) 4 17 131 54 (F) (GP) 4 17
38 122 4 17 134 43 (F) (GP) 5 18
40 14 (F) (GP) 4 17 139 10 (S) 6 7
41 139 (F) 2 15 152 8 (GP) 6 19
43 200 (F) 2 15 618 311 (RXF) 4 17
45 90 (GP) 3 16 620 117 (RXF) 3 16
46 176 (F) 2 15 630 367 (RXF) 4 17
48 34 (GP) 4 17
F = Forwarder yarding GP = Grapple Piling
RXF = Prescribed burning S = Skyline yarding
50 31 3 16
52 89 (GP/RXF) 3 5
53 108 3 16
61 6 (RXF) 4 17
62 97 (RXF) 4 17
73 252 (RXF) 2 15
74 137 (RXF) 2 15
Effects for the proposed action (Alternative 2) would have the greatest effect on soils of all the
alternatives. Effects described here are for both action alternatives, based on the effects of
implementation of the Alternative 2. Effects to soils would be slightly less for Alternative 3 because of
reduced harvest treatment acres for this alternative.
For comparisons between alternatives estimated total detrimental soil conditions for both action
alternatives were calculated based on the anticipated type of treatment. These estimates are for post-
project detrimentally disturbed soil as a result of implementing the project only, and do not account for
existing detrimentally disturbed soil areas. Detrimental soil conditions are estimates based on soils
effects models. Results of the models for the project estimate acres of detrimentally disturbed soil, and
are shown in Table 104.
219
Table 104. Total detrimental soil condition acres estimated from Sparta project by action alternative.
Treatment Detrimental Soil Conditions (acres)
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Ground-Based Logging 353 302
Forwarder Logging 147 147
Skyline Logging 57 32
Prescribed Burn 0 0
Totals 557 481
Alternative 2 creates an estimated additional 500 acres of detrimentally disturbed soil based on soil
effects models for ground-based logging, and 57 acres for skyline logging, with total detrimentally
disturbed soils of 557 acres. Alternative 3 will create 449 acres of ground-based and 32 acres of skyline
detrimentally disturbed soil with total detrimentally disturbed soils of 481 acres.
The effects to soils from implementation of both action alternatives would be similar in terms of total
DSCs. Acres of DSCs for Alternative 3 soil effects would be less than Alternative 2. The difference
between Alternative 2 and Alternatives 3 is less than 100 acres of DSCs. Implementation of Alternative 2
will lead to more soil effects than alternative 3. Alternative 3 would create about 76 acres or 14% less
DSCs than Alternative 2. For ground-based logging, Alternative 3 would create 51 acres less DSCs than
Alternative 2. Reducing ground based logging would have the greatest effect on reducing DSCs for
comparison of alternatives.
These results provide background information on how Alternative 2 compares to other alternatives
regarding detrimental soil conditions. The difference in alternatives shows that there would be less
detrimentally disturbed soil in Alternative 3. Effects to soils for this analysis in the following discussion
are discussed in term of erosion and mass wasting risk, and soil quality. The following discussion
highlights specific effects of the implementation of the action alternatives.
Vegetation Removal Effects
Commercial harvest treatments in both alternatives would remove a considerable amount of forest
overstory and understory vegetation depending on the prescription for the stand. Commercial harvest
would take place on 4,427 and 3,794 acres respectively for Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table 101). Non-
commercial thinning would remove mostly understory trees, and would take place on 1,362 and 1,510
acres for Alternatives 2 and 3. Prescribed burns and other fuels treatments would primarily target
understory vegetation. Fuels treatments would take place on 4,793 and 4,543 acres for Alternatives 2 and
3. Removal of vegetation would reduce the amount of material available for erosion control and nutrient
recycling. Overall, removal of vegetation would have effects, but not adversely affect short and long-
term soil productivity as effects tend to be localized.
Erosion: Any increase in erosion as a result of removing vegetation would be indirect. Harvest of trees
would reduce canopy cover by about 10-30%, which would reduce interception loss by the forest canopy
by a small percentage. It would also increase rainfall delivery to the ground, again by a small percentage.
This could lead to increased localized erosion in bare compacted soil areas during intense rainfall events,
and would increase potential for localized erosive overland flow following ground-disturbing activities
(yarding, grapple-piling of slash, pile burning and underburning) until ground cover potential is increased
by litterfall and re-growth of vegetation. The effects of increased erosion potential would slowly return to
pre-harvest levels as tree canopies expand over 20-30 years to fill space vacated by harvested trees. Risk
of delivery of sediment to streams from operation in project units is very low.
Mass Wasting: All effects would be indirect. Root systems of trees reduce soil creep on steeper slopes,
usually steeper than 60%. Root systems of trees also reduce landslide potential especially in areas where
the seasonal or permanent ground water table is at or near the soil surface, such as in RHCAs. Current
stability of harvest units and adjacent areas is relatively stable. Harvest of trees in steeper areas outside of
RHCAs would slightly increase potential for soil creep and landslides in those areas.
220
Mass wasting potential on steep slopes would increase for 5-20 years as roots of stumps rot, then would
stabilize and drop as roots of existing trees grow into those areas and as new trees establish deep root
systems. Mass wasting potential in areas with high ground water table (in RHCAs) would slowly
decrease as trees in upslope harvest units grow.
Soil Quality: Soil quality effects would be direct and indirect. Felling of trees would cause some soil
compaction and displacement, but the effects would be non-detrimental. Harvest of trees would reduce
annual production of fine organic matter (needles, twigs, limbs) necessary for erosion control and nutrient
recycling in forests.
All coarse woody material (CWM) from trees would not be removed during harvest operations. Residual
CWM from harvest operations would include stumps, tops, limbs, defect, breakage, trees felled during
temporary road construction, and trees felled for access or safety purposes during yarding. In skyline
yarding units, tops would be removed to landings. In all units, most harvest-generated slash left in units
would be piled and burned. Therefore, most residual CWM from harvest operations would be in large
logs left for wildlife purposes and in stumps. CWM left in stumps would likely be in the 0.5-1.5 tons/acre
range (Bliss 2004d). CWM left in logs for wildlife purposes would also most likely be in the 0.5-1.5
tons/acre range (Bliss 2004d). Therefore, total residual CWM would likely be in the 1.0-3.0 tons/acre
range. This analysis does not account for CWM piled and burned, and burned during underburning, nor
does it account for in-fall of green and dead trees.
CWM provides many long-term benefits for soils and the environment. It is a food source for many
organisms that recycle wood into the soil, including plants, fungi, ants, and soil animals. It is a slow-
release source of nitrogen and other nutrients. It is one of the ground cover components important for
erosion control. It is a source of complex carbon compounds essential for maintenance of soil structure.
It provides habitat for small rodents that churn the soil surface, thereby incorporating woody debris and
other organic materials into the soil. Removal of timber from the units would reduce the above long-term
benefits of CWM.
Status of CWM tonnage in harvest units over the next 20-30 years to the next harvest cycle is uncertain.
Few trees are expected to die and fall to the ground in this time period. Inputs from snag falls, lightning
strikes, wind microbursts and prescribed fire tree mortality would add perhaps 1 ton/acre of CWM in
affected sites. Prescribed fire at intervals would reduce CWM by burning rotten stumps and rotten logs.
Therefore, it is likely that, on a landscape basis, CWM tonnage in units would go down over the next 20-
30 years due to frequent prescribed fire.
Ground-based Yarding Systems
Ground-based yarding is proposed on 3,844 acres (tractor and forwarder) for Alternative 2, with slightly
less acres and overall effects to soils for the Alternative 3 (3,458 acres). Consequently, DSCs generated
by Alternative 3 would be slightly less for ground-based logging. Ground-based yarding is done on
slopes up to about 30% slope gradient; there are inclusions of steeper slope areas in some units. Landings
would be spaced about 500 to 800 feet apart, would range from about 0.06 acre (50 ft x 50 ft) to 0.23 acre
(100 ft x100 ft) in size, and may include portions of system roads. Each landing would service an area
from a few acres to about 15 acres in size. Landings would occupy about 1-2% of each unit. Landings
are assumed to be 100% detrimental compaction and displacement.
Erosion: All effects of ground-based yarding on erosion potential would be indirect. Natural ground
cover in forested areas is 85-100%. Reduction of ground cover to less than 60% on skid trails and
landings would increase risk of accelerated sheet, rill and gully erosion during intense rainfall events,
especially in compacted bare soil areas longer than 30 feet (Hauter & Harkenrider 1988). Potential for
this to occur would increase as slope gradient and skid trail length increase and as canopy and ground
cover decrease.
221
The potential affected area is the 10-20% of a unit that would be in new skid trails and landings, and
reused skid trails and landings from previous entries. Implementation of standard mitigations (waterbars,
etc.) would reduce potential for accelerated erosion. The objective of these mitigations is to disrupt water
erosion processes until ground cover objectives can be achieved.
Some risk for erosion of skid trails exists as analyzed using the WEPP (1999) erosion model. Erosion
predicted was for 5 and 10 year storm events, with the maximum amount predicted for a 10-year event of
0.06 tons/acre. No erosion was predicted for storm events with less than a 5 year return interval. A similar
erosion scenario is likely for landings where disturbance is greater, but slopes are generally flat on project
landings, leading to less erosion potential. For this project erosion is not expected to increase
significantly as result of ground-based yarding based on WEPP model runs. See the Sparta hydrology
report for modeling results. Risk of delivery of sediment to streams from operation in project units is
very low.
Erosion potential would drop as ground cover (litter, basal area of vegetation, biological soil crusts)
increase following logging, and would achieve minimal acceptable levels of 60-70% in about 2-5 years in
most areas. Erosion potential would also decrease as canopy cover (trees, shrubs, grasses) increases over
the disturbed areas.
Mass Wasting: All effects of ground-based yarding on mass wasting potential would be indirect. Risk of
increasing mass wasting potential is low because sensitive areas were excluded from units during unit
design.
Soil Quality: Direct effects of ground-based yarding on soil quality would include soil compaction,
puddling, displacement, and organic matter loss. Indirect effects could include increased erosion and
mass wasting potential. Soil disturbance on skid trails and landings would range from minimal
displacement of duff and vegetation to gouging and displacement and/or compaction of the soil up to
several inches deep. New ground-based yarding activities (including landings) would cause soil
disturbance within each unit, primarily compaction and displacement. Use of existing skid trails would
reduce potential for creating new DSCs, and would reduce final DSCs.
Over time, shallower soil compaction in subsoiled and unsubsoiled areas would naturally recover by frost
heave, rodents, and fibrous roots of plants to a depth of 4 inches over a period of 10-30 years. Deeper
(greater than 4-6 inches) compaction would persist for more than 100 years. Displacement would remain
unmitigated. Erosion potential would be higher on un-subsoiled skid trails and landings.
Skyline Yarding System
569 acres of skyline yarding would occur in Alternative 2, and 323 acres under Alternative 3. Skyline
yarding is done on slopes steeper than 30-35% slope gradient; and there are inclusions of less steep areas
in some units. Roadways and road fills would be used as is for landings. Landings would be spaced
about 200 feet apart. About 40-50 feet of road and road fill would be used for each landing. Skyline
corridors below landings would average about 12 feet wide and may be several hundred feet long. From
past harvest, it is estimated about 8 percent of units would be in skyline corridors (Bliss 2003a).
Trees would be directional-felled toward skyline corridors, then cut into lengths, and whole-tree yarded.
The trees closest to the landing would be yarded first. Trees would be single-suspension yarded, which
means the smallest diameter end of the log, including the piece with the top attached, would be dragged
on the ground. Overall, the risk of adverse effects from skyline yarding would drop quickly after the first
few years.
Erosion: All effects of skyline yarding on erosion potential would be indirect. Natural ground cover in
forested areas is 85-100%. Reduction of ground cover to less than 60% in skyline corridors would
increase risk of accelerated sheet, rill and gully erosion during intense rainfall events, especially in bare
222
soil areas longer than 30 feet (Hauter & Harkenrider 1988). Potential for this to occur would be highest
on the 1% of skyline corridors where DSCs may occur by logs dragging over the soil surface.
Implementation of standard mitigations for skyline corridors (i.e. waterbars if bare soil areas exceed 30
feet in length) would reduce potential for erosion. The objective of this mitigation is to disrupt water
erosion processes until higher amounts of ground cover can be achieved. Risk for erosion for skyline
yarding is less than for ground-based logging.
Mass Wasting: All effects of skyline yarding on mass wasting potential would be indirect. Risk of
increasing mass wasting potential is low because sensitive areas would be excluded from units during unit
design.
Soil Quality: Direct effects of skyline yarding on soil quality would include soil compaction and
displacement; indirect effects would include erosion. Soil disturbance in skyline corridors would range
from minimal displacement of duff and vegetation to gouging and displacement of the soil up to several
inches deep. Site conditions that would affect soil effects would include slope configuration (concave
versus convex), log weight, and quality of ground cover (coarse woody debris, sedge-grass cover). The
upper half of all corridors normally would receive the most severe soil damage; the exception is where the
slope is concave. Evidence of soil displacement in skyline corridors would persist for decades until
rodents, windthrow, soil creep and vegetation alter the soil surface. Bare soil areas in skyline corridors
would naturally develop minimal acceptable ground cover (i.e. 60-75%) in 1-5 years as litter falls from
trees and/or as plants re-colonize the sites.
Non-commercial Thinning
3,997 acres of post-harvest non-commercial thinning and 1,362 acres of non-commercial thinning only
would occur in Alternative 2. Slightly less than this amount (3,401 and 1,510 acres) would occur under
Alternative 3. For these treatments, usually trees smaller than 2-inch dbh would normally be lopped and
left on the ground. Trees larger than 2-inch dbh would be considered for machine and hand piling and
pile burning. Thinning and machine piling may be done at the same time with the same piece of
equipment on slopes less than 30% gradient.
Erosion: All effects of thinning on erosion potential would be indirect. Additions of woody debris would
have no effect on erosion potential, unless ground cover is below natural potential.
Mass Wasting: All effects of thinning on mass wasting potential would be indirect. No effects are
anticipated.
Soil Quality: Direct effects of thinning include adding fine organic matter and coarse woody material to
the soil surface, and increasing ground cover. Indirect effects include adding nutrients to the soil as
organic matter decomposes. Less than 5 tons/acre of standing coarse woody material from live trees
would be felled, lopped, and then hand-piled and burned as described below. Effects of machine thinning
on slopes less than 30% gradient would be as described under Grapple Pile Slash below. The coarse
woody material would slowly decay to humus over a few to several decades. Residual fine organic matter
would decay to humus in a few years to a few decades.
Grapple Pile Slash and Burning Piles in Ground-based Units
Slash in 1,668 ground-based acres in harvest units would be grapple piled following harvest and before
underburning for the proposed action. Areas in units where grapple piling take place would be slightly
less for Alternative 3 (1,540 acres), consequently effects to soils would be slightly less. All of the grapple
piles would be burned. Most of the burn effects at these sites would be high fire severity, also referred to
as severe burns (USFS 1998). There would be some moderate and low fire severity around the edges of
the piles. Severe burns in areas over 100 square feet qualify as DSCs. Most pile burns would be between
100 and 1000 square feet, so they would qualify as DSCs when burned.
223
Erosion: Effects would be less intense and smaller in area than those described above for ground-based
yarding Systems.
Soil Quality: The Grapple Piling Effects Model indicates there would be about 5-8% ground disturbance,
including about 1-2% DSCs. Burning of grapple piles creates 12-% DSCs. Actual DSCs would be
affected by variables such as soil texture, soil moisture, ground cover (vegetation type and woody debris
tonnage), type of equipment used, and operator skill. Reduction of ground cover to nearly bare ground in
burn pile areas would increase risk of accelerated sheet, rill and gully erosion during intense rainfall
events, especially in bare soil areas with continuous areas longer than 30 feet (Hauter & Harkenrider
1988). Potential for this to occur are low in burn pile areas because they usually will expose less than 30
linear feet of soil. Grapple piles would be between 100 and 1000 square feet in area, so they would
qualify as DSCs when burned. Total combined DSCs from grapple piling and burning piles is 2-4%.
Effects of pile burning on soil quality would be direct and indirect. Direct effects would include
consumption of fine organic matter and coarse woody material on and in the soil, mortality of plants and
animals on and in the soil surface under and near the pile, change in nutrient availability, and change in
soil structure and infiltration rate. Burning would volatilize some nutrients, and would make other
nutrients available for plant growth. Indirect effects would include increased local erosion rates. Severe
burn effects to soils under burn piles would slowly recover over a period of about 10-20 years.
Burn Machine and Hand-piled Slash at Landings
Slash piles at landings of skyline and ground-based units and hand and grapple piles would be burned.
Most of the burn effects at these sites would be high fire severity, also referred to as severe burns (USFS
1998). There would be some moderate and low fire severity around the edges of the piles. Severe burns
in areas over 100 square feet qualify as DSCs. Most of the hand piles would be smaller than 100 square
feet, so most would not qualify as DSCs. However, larger hand piles and all of the slash piles at landings
would be between 100 and 1000 square feet, so they would qualify as DSCs when burned. However,
burning slash piles at existing landings would not create additional DSCs.
Erosion and Mass Wasting: Burning of piles would have a negligible effect on erosion potential and
mass wasting potential.
Soil Quality: Burning of slash piles at landings of ground-based and skyline units would produce up to
0.5-1% DSCs. The estimated mean burn effect would be 1.5-3% DSCs in ground-based units and 0.5-2%
DSCs in skyline units. Effects of pile burning on soil quality would be direct and indirect and are similar
to burn effects described in grapple pile burning. Severe burn effects under burn piles would self-mitigate
over a period of about 10-20 years.
Hand or Machine Pile Slash in Non-Commercial Units
A total of up to 663 acres of slash in non-commercial units would be hand or machine piled to reduce fuel
loading before underburning for Alternative 2 and 780 acres in Alternative 3. Machine and hand piles
would be about 6 to 15 feet in diameter and could cover about 3-5% of the ground surface in each unit.
Machine piles would be larger than hand piles.
Erosion and Mass Wasting: Hand piling of slash would have no measurable effect. Machine piling will
have similar effects to grapple piling and burning of slash piles discussed in an earlier section of this
report. Machine piling will likely occur on a small percentage of treatment acres.
Soil Quality: Effects of pile burning on soil quality would be direct and indirect and are similar to burn
effects described in grapple pile burning. Severe burn effects under burn piles would be restored slowly
over a period of about 10-20 years. Hand pile burning adds 0-1% additional DSCs, and grapple pile
burns can add 1-2% DSCs. The amount of slash produced from non-commercial thinning is usually less
224
than in commercial logging, so DSCs estimates from burn piles will probably be less than more intensive
treatments like grapple piling and burning.
Underburn Skyline and Ground-based Units
About 4,196 acres in harvest units would be underburned for under Alternative 2 and 3,476 acres under
Alternative 3. Effects would be similar to those described in the next section on underburn (RXF) units,
with the following exceptions: Stream channels and certain landslide-prone areas were excluded from the
harvest units, but are included in RxFire units or non-commercial units.
Underburn (RXF) Units
About 4,793 acres in RXF units would be underburned mostly in forested areas for Alternative 2 and
4,543 in Alternative 3. A few acres of non-forested area will be included in RxFire areas. Intensities
would be a mosaic pattern of no, low, moderate and high fire severity. High fire severity is the same as
detrimental burning. Forested landscapes would experience predominantly low-severity and moderate
severity burns. Pockets of high severity burns could occur as stumps or larger logs are consumed.
Erosion: Effects of underburning on erosion potential would be indirect. The potential for erosion from
prescribed fire is low, as modeled by WEPP (1999). A 5 to 10 year storm may result in up to 0.13 ton/acre
soil loss, which is very low. Erosion potential increases as fire reduces organic ground cover. Reducing
ground cover below 50-60% on hillslopes can increase the risk of severe sheet and rill erosion during
heavy rainfall events. Adequate ground cover needed to protect hillslope soils takes about 1 to 3 years to
recover after prescribed burning. However, these effects would be at the low end of the normal range of
conditions one would expect following wildfire. Potential for increased erosion and sedimentation
potential in and below moderate-severity burn areas would be higher than normal for at least 1-3 years,
until ground cover returns to pre-fire levels.
Mass Wasting: Effects of underburning on mass wasting potential would be indirect. There are no
known high risk (active or marginally stable) mass wasting sites in prescribed burn units. Short-term
reduction in transpiration by grass, shrubs and trees killed by prescribed fire would slightly increase mass
wasting potential in wetlands below burned areas. Mass wasting potential would be higher than normal
until evapo-transpiration and ground cover return to prefire levels, which would take at least 1-3 years.
Soil Quality: Effects of underburning on soil quality would be direct and indirect. Direct effects would
include low to high fire severity effects, partial to complete consumption of fine organic matter and coarse
woody material on and in the soil, mortality of plants and animals on and in the soil surface, and change
in nutrient availability. Severe burn effects (i.e., formation of orange soil) would occur around burned-out
stumps, under well-burned logs, and in other deep fuel concentration areas. However, few if any areas
would be large enough to qualify as detrimental burning. Burning would volitalize some nutrients, and
would make other nutrients available for plant growth. For example, pinegrass usually grows much taller
and blooms profusely one to two years after non-lethal fire due to higher availability of nitrogen and other
nutrients. Indirect effects would include increased erosion and mass wasting potential, as discussed
above. Detrimental soil displacement would be permanent. Detrimental soil compaction and puddling
would be naturally recover through by frost heave, rodents, and fibrous roots of plants to a depth of 4
inches over a period of 10-30 years. Deeper compaction would persist for more than 100 years. It would
take decades for organic matter to return to natural levels on fillslopes, and decades to centuries for
cutslopes; travelways would never achieve potential.
Most burn effects would recover over a period of about 1-10 years, depending on severity. The major
exceptions would be shrub or tree canopy killed by fire, coarse woody material in and on the soil that is
consumed by fire, and high fire severity (orange soil areas).
225
Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2 and 3:
Proposed forest treatments include ground-based harvesting, skyline yarding, temporary road construction
and road management, grapple piling, and burning of grapple-piled logging slash, slash burning at
landings, hand-piled slash burning, and reforestation, prescribed fire underburns.
For comparisons between alternatives estimated total detrimental soil conditions for both action
alternatives were calculated based on the anticipated type of treatment. These estimates are for post-
project detrimentally disturbed soil as a result of implementing the project only, and do not account for
existing detrimentally disturbed soil areas.
Implementation of the action alternatives would increase post-harvest DSCs from 3-19% in project units.
For Alternative 3, slightly fewer DSCs acres are going to be generated overall. Mitigations will be
applied that reduce DSCs below 20% for all action alternatives. The effects to soils of implementation of
the action alternatives will be similar, with the only difference that soil effects will be slightly less for
Alternative 3.
Effects for Alternative 2 would have the greatest effect on soils. Effects to soils would be slightly less for
Alternative 3 because of reduced harvest treatment acres and direct, indirect, and cumulative soil effects.
Alternative 2 creates an estimated additional 500 acres of detrimentally disturbed soil based on soil
effects models for ground-based logging, and 57 acres for skyline logging, with total detrimentally
disturbed soils of 557 acres. Alternative 3 will create 449 acres of ground-based and 32 acres of skyline
detrimentally disturbed soil with total detrimentally disturbed soils of 481 acres.
Implementation of Alternative 2 will lead to more soil effects than alternative 3. Alternative 3 would
create about 76 acres or 14% less DSCs than Alternative 2. For ground-based logging, Alternative 3
would create 51 acres less DSCs than Alternative 2. Reducing ground based logging would have the
greatest effect on reducing DSCs for comparison of alternatives.
For this project erosion is not expected to increase much as result of ground-based yarding or other
activities based on WEPP model runs for the action alternatives. Soil erosion risk is slightly less for
Alternative 3. Risk of delivery of sediment to streams from operation in project units is very low. Some
risk for erosion of skid trails exists as analyzed using the WEPP (1999) erosion model for ground-based
yarding. Erosion predicted was for 5 and 10 year storm events, with the maximum amount predicted for a
10-year event of 0.06 tons/acre. No erosion was predicted for storm events with less than a 5 year return
interval. A similar erosion scenario is likely for landings where disturbance is greater.
Erosion potential would reduce as ground cover (litter, basal area of vegetation, biological soil crusts)
increases following logging, and would achieve minimal acceptable levels of 60-70% in about 2-5 years
in most areas. Erosion potential would also decrease as canopy cover (trees, shrubs, grasses) increases
over the disturbed areas.
Cumulative Effects for Soils
Introduction
Cumulative effects on soils reflect present, on-going, and reasonably foreseeable future actions which
overlap in time and space with the Sparta project and which would contribute to a measurable cumulative
effect on soils resources. The existing condition of project unit soils reflects the impacts of a wide variety
of past actions and is reflected in the affected environment section (Table 99). Detrimental soil conditions
reflect past effects to soils. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are summarized in
Appendix D of the Sparta EA.
226
Cumulative effects to soils for this project are estimated by the existing/ongoing and proposed future
extent and amounts of detrimental soil conditions. DSCs are a good estimate for soils effects, and are
used in this report to show cumulative effects to soils from the project activities and other on-going and
future activities occurring in the project units. The extent and patterns of detrimental soil conditions are
an indicator and an effective way to determine how management has affected soils up to the present.
Equipment use and soils effects models presented earlier in this document provide a mechanism for
determining specific future effects.
Alternative 1
The existing conditions within the project area would continue as they are currently exist. Only the
potential for a wildfire and the implementation of a forest-wide travel management plan would have a
measureable effect on the condition of soils resources within the project area when combined with what is
currently occurring. It is impossible to estimate the potential DSCs associated with a wildfire; however,
depending on the conditions and time of year, they could be significant.
The travel management plan would manage cross-country motor vehicle use and limit use to designated
roads, trails, and areas which would allow user built roads and trails to recover and grow back over
improving soil conditions and allowing for existing detrimental soil conditions to rehabilitate.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The analysis in Appendix D of the EA determined which of the present and reasonably foreseeable future
activities within the project area would overlap in time and space with the activities in the Sparta project
and create a measurable cumulative effect. These effects are discussed below.
Recent and Ongoing Actions with estimated DSCs:
Livestock Grazing (3 allotments)- much less than 0.1% new DSCs from trails, water/salt areas, no
new DSCs since salting/watering areas and trails are established.
Fuelwood Cutting (annually)- Virtually un-measureable increases in DSCs from this activity,
very small amount of new impacts expected.
Noxious Weed Treatments along open roads (annually)- 0% DSCs
Recreation: camping, ATV use, snowmobile use, use of trails to wilderness- DSCs amount very
small, nearly un-measureable, may be locally significant, no new DSCs expected.
The upcoming forest-wide travel management plan would manage cross-country motor vehicle use
limiting motor vehicle use to designated roads, trails, and areas which would allow user built roads and
trails to recover and grow back overtime. This in combination with the decommissioning of roads and the
obliteration of temporary roads on existing wheel tracks would provide for a long term beneficial effect to
soils further reducing DSCs within the project area. Thus, the cumulative effects to soils from those
predicted DSCs from this project and on-going and reasonably foreseeable future activities are not likely
to exceed 20% in individual units as a result of the project.
Consistency with Laws and Policy
All action alternatives would meet soil Forest Plan and Regional soil standards designed to maintain long-
term soil productivity.
227
Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds
Introduction
This report addresses the existing conditions and the potential effects of the Sparta Vegetation
Management Project (Sparta) as it pertains to non-native (invasive) species. Invasive species are defined
as a non-native species whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic, environmental, or
human health harm. An invasive species is distinguished from other non-natives by their ability to spread
in native ecosystems. “Noxious weeds” on the other hand, is a legal term used by state, county, and
federal agencies to denote plants that pose particular threats, generally to agriculture. Many undesirable
non-natives can be invasive and pose threats to healthy native ecosystems but do not meet the criteria for
listing as a “noxious weed.” For that reason, this analysis will focus on all invasive non-native species and
not just those listed as “noxious weeds.”
Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulatory Environment, Forest Plan and Other Direction
Regulatory Environment
Forest Plan
The Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA 2005) amended
the Forest Plan (amendment #RF-5) for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in 2005. The Region 6
ROD outlined 23 standards for the prevention and management of invasive non-native plants that have
been added to all regional forest plans and require consideration of invasive species in all planning
efforts. The regional ROD does not however, approve any site-specific treatment, instead requires a
completed analysis by each National Forest (see the specific sections below for the specific analysis).
Of the 23 prevention and management standards in the regional ROD, only seven directly affect activities
found in the Sparta project. These standards are:
1. Prevention of invasive plant introduction, establishment and spread will be addressed in
watershed analysis; roads analysis…..vegetation management plans, and other land management
assessments.
2. Actions conducted or authorized by written permit by the Forest Service that will operate outside
the limits of the road prism, require the cleaning of all equipment (bulldozers, skidders, graders,
backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) prior to entering National Forest System Lands.
3. Use weed-free straw and mulch for all projects, conducted or authorized by the Forest Service, on
National Forest System Lands.
7. Use only gravel, fill, sand, and rock that are judged to be weed free by District or Forest weed
specialists.
8. Conduct road blading, brushing and ditch cleaning in areas with high concentrations of invasive
plants in consultation with District or Forest-level invasive plant specialists.
12. Develop a long-term site strategy for restoring/re-vegetating invasive plant sites prior to treatment
(if invasive plant treatment is needed prior to project activities as a prevention measure).
13. Native plant materials are the first choice in re-vegetation for restoration and rehabilitation where
timely natural regeneration of native plant community is not likely to occur.
228
Under the Region 6 ROD, these standards apply to the prevention and management of all invasive non-
native species and not just those listed as “noxious weeds”.
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Species Plan
In 2010, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Species Plan ROD was signed. This decision
authorized the treatment of invasive non-native species on specific sites on the forest. This decision
created the ability to conduct Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) on newly discovered sites. The
ability to respond to new spread or establishment of invasive non-native species has given the Forest
Service a tool that should help reduce the spread and establishment of invasive species by about one-half
of the previous rate.
Existing Condition
Invasive Plant Species Presence within the Project area
There are 78 inventoried invasive non-native plant sites (7 different species) within the Sparta Project
Area. The inventoried acres within the project area are shown in the table below (Table 105). Acreages
reflect current information in the Forest INSP GIS layer (GID query, September 15, 2016). In addition to
these listed species the project area also includes Ventenata dubia, Bromus tectorum, and others that are
potentially harmful invasive species but do not meet the requirement for listing on the state or county
“noxious weed” lists.
Table 105. Invasive plant inventory and Oregon Designations
Scientific Name Common Name Gross Acres
Baker County
Designation State
Designation
Cardaria draba whitetop 108 A B
Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed 193 A B
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle 29 B B
Cynoglossum officinale gypsyflower 376 N/A B
Hypericum perforatum common St. Johnswort 12 B B
Lepidium latifolium broadleaved pepperweed 1 A B
Potentilla recta sulphur cinquefoil 32 B B
Total
751 Baker County and the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) designate listed invasive species status
using a similar system.
“A” designated species – an invasive of known economic importance which occurs in the state in
small enough infestations to make eradication or containment possible; or is not known to occur,
but its presence in neighboring states makes future occurrence in Oregon seem imminent.
Recommended Action: Infestations are subject to intensive control when and where found by
Baker County with possible assistance from the Oregon Department of Agriculture.
“B” designated species – an invasive of economic importance which is regionally abundant, but
which may have limited distribution in some counties.
Recommended Action: Moderate to intensive control at the county level.
229
ODA also has “T” designated species, which are a priority noxious weed designated by the Oregon State
Weed Board for which the ODA will develop and implement a statewide management plan. “T”
designated noxious weeds are species selected from either the state “A” or “B” lists.
Treatment and monitoring records document all site visits by invasive plant specialists, spanning the years
since initial discovery and inventory of the site. These records are on file at the Whitman Ranger District
Office in Baker City, Oregon. These sites are visited on a regular basis for treatment and monitoring and
can be relocated and identified on the ground when necessary.
The following table provides site information in relation to activities in the proposed action for the Sparta
project area. Many sites are linear, lying along roads, and in several cases multiple species occur within a
single location.
Table 106. Noxious weed proximity to project activities
Site Number Common Name Proximity to proposed activities
06160700002 diffuse knapweed Linear site along open road 7005. Located within treatment units 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 602/606/611.
06160700004 whitetop Linear on closed road. Located in treatment unit 58.
06160700006 whitetop Linear site along open Rd 7015. Found in treatment units 30, 31, 36, and 618/621.
06160700010 diffuse knapweed Linear and also large patch found within unit 29, 30, 31, 37, 36, 114, 115, 116, 615, 618, 621, 639. Found along open road 7735 and crosses Eagle Cr, up to Empire Gulch road.
06160700027 diffuse knapweed Located along Rd 7015-080, 084 closed road. Found in treatment units 29, and 618/621.
06160700042 whitetop Patch and large linear feature. Rd 7735, Basin Cr. Open road, will be used. Found within treatment units 80, 81, 150, 82, 107, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 123, 615, and 617.
06160700043 Canada thistle Linear feature on open road 7735. Found in treatment units 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, and 131, 615, 617.
06160700044 St John’s wort Found within treatment units 80, 81, and 150.
06160700047 whitetop Linear site along Rd 77. Found in treatment units 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 151, and 152.
06160700048 diffuse knapweed Patch found along closed road. Located in treatment units 41, 43.
06160700052 diffuse knapweed Large linear site, mostly on closed roads off 7005 system. Near private land. Located within treatment units 54, 55, 73, and 74, 612.
06160700053 whitetop Linear site along open road 7005. Found within treatment units 73, 74, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, and 602/606/611.
06160700066 Canada Thistle Found within treatment unit 630.
06160700073 common houndstongue
Adjacent open road within treatment unit 39, 40.
06160700074 whitetop Linear site along open road 7010. Found within units 33, 34, 35, 41, and 43.
06160700075 common houndstongue
Patch on closed Rd 7010135. Found within units 46, 635.
06160700076 whitetop Patch on closed road. Found within units 41, 42, and 43.
06160700077 whitetop Adjacent to open road 7000040. Found within treatment units 41, 43.
06160700078 common houndstongue
Found along closed road. Located within treatment units 41, 43.
06160700079 Canada thistle Small patch along closed road 7735200. Found in unit 124.
06160700080 common houndstongue
Small patch along closed road 7735200. Found in units 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127.
06160700081 common houndstongue
Found within treatment unit 615.
06160700083 diffuse knapweed Patch on closed road, off 7010 road. Located within treatment unit 635.
06160700087 common houndstongue
Large patch near private land. Found within unit 608.
06160700090 common houndstongue
Large patch, found along a closed road system. Found within treatment units 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, and 127.
230
Site Number Common Name Proximity to proposed activities
06160700091 diffuse knapweed Linear site, along bottom of Paddy Cr. Road. Found in treatment unit s 115, 116.
06160700092 St John’s wort Patch in units 52, 53.
06160700099 common houndstongue
Linear along west project boundary. Located in treatment units 41, 43, 44, 45, 52, and 53.
06160700100 Canada thistle Patch in treatment unit 45.
06160700102 sulphur cinquefoil Patch near open Rd. 7010. Located within treatment unit 58.
06160700104 common houndstongue
Large patch near open Rd 7010. Located within treatment units 52.
06160700105 sulphur cinquefoil Patch in treatment unit 635.
06160700106 sulphur cinquefoil Small patch found in unit 116.
06160700107 sulphur cinquefoil Large linear site along open Rd. 77, Paddy Cr to Main Eagle, connects with Empire Gulch. Located within treatment unit 29.
06160700108 Canada thistle Located within treatment unit 635.
06160700109 common houndstongue
Large patch along Rd 7010125. Located within treatment unit 635.
06160700112 common houndstongue
Linear on closed Rd 7735200. Found within treatment units 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, and 64, 641.
06160700113 diffuse knapweed Located near open road 7005020. Found within treatment unit 58.
06160700114 common houndstongue
Patch, most is outside project area, some found in treatment units 61, 62, 65, 66, and 67, 641.
06160700115 Canada thistle Found within treatment units 61, 62, and 63.
06160700117 diffuse knapweed Patch appears to be in small draw near open Rd 7010. Found in treatment unit 46.
06160700120 diffuse knapweed Found in treatment units 41, 43.
06160700121 sulphur cinquefoil Patch on edge of treatment units 41, 43.
06160700123 diffuse knapweed Near draw between closed roads 7010135 and other. Found within treatment units 32, 635.
06160700124 St John’s wort Jct. 7735 at Snow Fork Cr. Riparian, along an open road. Found in treatment units 129, 130, and 131.
06160700131 diffuse knapweed Small patch on closed road close to private land. Found within treatment units 65, 66, and 67.
06160700133 sulphur cinquefoil Patch and linear site along open Rd 7005. Found within treatment units 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 71.
06160700153 whitetop Small patch, on closed road 7739185. Found within treatment unit 630.
06160700198 common houndstongue
Linear site along likely haul route. Found within treatment unit 58.
06160700207 Diffuse Knapweed Found within treatment units 80, 81, and 150.
06160700212 Common houndstongue
Found within treatment unit 630, 641.
06160700216 Canada Thistle Found within treatment units 147, 630.
06160700225 St John’s wort Located along open Rd 7737, and found in treatment unit 107.
06160700228 diffuse knapweed Linear and patch on open Rd 7000. Found within treatment unit 37, 38.
06160700229 St John’s wort Found within treatment unit 36, 37.
06160700230 whitetop Patch and linear site on boundary, closed Rd 7000045. Located within treatment units 52, 53.
06160700249 diffuse knapweed Small patch along closed Rd off of 7010. Located within treatment unit 41, and 43.
06160700252 diffuse knapweed Patch on closed Rd 7739175. Found within treatment unit 96.
06160700254 whitetop Small patch on open Rd 7005. Found within treatment unit 70, and 71.
06160700284 diffuse knapweed Small patch on Rd 7005175. Located along the edge of unit 65
06160700285 diffuse knapweed 3 acre linear site on Rd 7005200. Located along the edge of unit 69.
06160700286 whitetop 18 acre patch within unit 60.
06160700288 houndstongue 19 acre linear site along Rd 7700. Located along the edges of units 128,151, and 152.
06160700289 sulfur cinquefoil 9 acre linear site along Rd 7700.
Treatment and monitoring records document all site visits by invasive plant specialists, spanning the years
since initial discovery and inventory of the site. These records are on file at the Whitman Ranger District
231
Offices in Baker City, Oregon. These sites are visited on a regular basis for treatment and monitoring and
can be relocated and identified on the ground when necessary.
Effects Analysis The effects (expected and potential) were assessed using field surveys, literature documentation,
documented site information, and professional judgment.
The boundary of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects analysis is the project area boundary. This area
encompasses all areas of potential project activities.
Assumptions
The following are assumptions were utilized for analyzing the effects of implementing the alternatives in
the Sparta project.
Invasive non-native species populations are increasing at a rate of 8-12% per year on public lands
(USDA 2005).
The record of decision for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Specie Management
EIS and the adoption of the standards from the Region 6 ROD should slow the annual rate of
spread and establishment of invasive non-native species by up to 50% annually (down to 4-6%)
(USDA 2005, USDA 2010).
Mitigations described earlier are implemented in full.
Timeframes – the following timeframes were used to discuss the direct, indirect and cumulative
effects of project implementation on invasive species related to the potential for establishment
and spread of invasives:
A. Potential for Establishment
o Short-term timeframe: 1-3 years. This period of time would be long enough to notice the
germination and growth of any new invasive non-native species after project activities.
o Long-term timeframe: 25-30 years. This long term timeframe was chosen because
climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc., make
assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative. Further, changes in the plant community
dynamics would have been identified by this point and establishment of invasive non-
native plants due to project activities would have occurred
B. Potential for Spread
o Short-term timeframe: 1-3 years. This period of time would be long enough to notice the
increase in size of a known infestation, and allow for the rapid response to potentially
contain that site after project activities.
o Long-term timeframe: 25-30 years. This long term timeframe was chosen because
climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc., make
assumptions beyond this timeframe speculative. Further, changes in the plant community
dynamics would have been identified by this point and spread of invasive non-native
plants would have been established.
Invasive non-native species are currently damaging the biological diversity and healthy native plant
communities located both on and off national forest system (NFS) lands. The introduction and subsequent
spread of invasive species can have a variety of environmental effects such as displacement of native
232
species, reduction in suitable habitat, reduction in forage for livestock and wildlife, destruction of habitat
and loss of threatened and endangered species (TES) species, increased soil erosion, water quality
reduction, and significant reductions in soil productivity. The establishment and spread of non-native
plants is a dynamic event that incorporates many diverse variables. Invasion theory, as it pertains to non-
native species, contains three main principles: disturbance, propagule pressure, and competition (Hobbs &
Huenneke 1992, Lockwood et al. 2005, Sutherland 2008).
Invasive species are quick to colonize an area of disturbance and can use their “weedy” life-history traits
to establish within novel habitats. Disturbance such as fire, construction, mining operations, and
commercial timber harvest can alter native plant communities and increase the chance of invasion by non-
native species. Several factors such as type of disturbance, proximity to propagule source, and size or
magnitude of disturbance can increase the propensity for invasion of an otherwise healthy plant
community by non-natives.
The second factor in the invasion theory is propagule pressure. Propagule pressure is defined as the
number of possible individuals (seeds, seedlings, etc.) released into a region in which they are not native
and the number of such release events (Lockwood et al. 2005). In essence, the higher the propagule
pressure (more seeds or more opportunities for a release) the greater the likelihood of a successful
colonization. Many factors can lead to increased propagule pressure but the most likely cause is an
increase in the number of release events. Many activities conducted on NFS lands can lead to an increase
in the propagule pressure including fire, timber sales and salvage, road construction, use of heavy
equipment, recreation, and grazing.
The following table summarizes the potential effects of implementing prescribed burning on the invasive
species found in the project area.
Table 107. Effects of prescribed fire on specific invasive non-native plants found within the Sparta Project Boundary
Scientific/Common name Timing Effect
Cardaria draba/Whitetop Spring No effect on plant frequency or control
Fall No effect on plant frequency or control
Centaurea diffusa/Diffuse Knapweed Spring Increased in seasons following fire
Fall Doubled two years after fire
Hypercium perforatum/Common St. Johnswort
Spring Quickly increased after fire
Fall Increased albeit at a lower rate than spring burning
Ventenata dubia/Ventenata Spring Unknown
Fall Unknown
Bromus tectorum/Cheatgrass Spring Little effect due to the difficulty in burning early in the season.
Fall Trend of increased seed production in the seasons following the fire
Cirsium arvense/Canada Thistle Spring Potential discouragement of growth during late spring burning
Fall Frequency of fire can affect the growth of this and other thistles
Potentilla recta/Sulfur Cinquefoil
Spring Plant density increased more slowly but was higher after 5 years
Fall
Plant density was higher than spring burns 1 year after fire but lower after 5 years
Cynoglossum officinale/Hounds
tongue Spring May be favored in a post-fire community
Fall May be favored in a post-fire community
Finally, the last principle of invasion theory is competition. Even though the ability of an invasive to
spread or colonize new sites is generally species dependent, all invasive non-natives are considered
potential threats to native plant communities due to traits that make them good competitors for resources.
Methodology
233
Throughout this document, the potential for each of the proposed activities to increase the establishment
and spread of invasive species is described using the following qualitative scale:
NO – Project activities have no potential to introduce or spread invasive species.
LOW – Activities identified as low would create little to no bare soils and have extremely limited
potential for the introduction of invasive plant material to the project area. If left untreated,
invasive species within these areas would not spread from current locations or expand from
current levels at rates higher than those found in the absence of project activities.
MODERATE – Moderate level activities are those that, with recommended mitigation could be
treated and reduced to pre-project levels, but without the implementation of these measures could
begin to spread beyond current levels.
HIGH - A high level activity is one that is very likely to create opportunities for the spread and
introduction of invasive species which could not be mitigated with prevention measures. To
control a population of invasive species established under high intensity activities would likely
require an increase in invasive treatment activities (including herbicide use) and funding in order
to control the infestation.
In order to analyze the effects of project activities on the potential establishment or spread of invasive
non-native species, a qualitative estimate for the potential of the impact has been established for each
action. They are based on the amount of ground disturbance proposed, the likelihood of spread of an
existing site or new sites being established and the proximity of current invasive non-native species sites.
An activity with little new ground disturbance and no known invasive non-native plants in the vicinity
would be rated as having a low potential for invasive species establishment while an area that proposes
large scale ground disturbance with invasive non-native plants nearby might be rated as a high. Likewise,
if an activity would create little to no ground disturbance and there are no known invasive non-native
species infestations nearby it would be rated as a “No” potential for spread while activities that propose
large scale new ground disturbance with invasive non-native plants on site might be rated as having a
high potential for spread.
Measurement Indicators
The following two indicators will be used to analyze the effects of implementing the alternatives on
invasive species. Differences between alternatives will be displayed by comparing the potential
change in the indicators from the existing conditions.
A. Potential for Establishment of Invasive Species
While direct/indirect effects on the potential establishment of non-native plants are difficult to predict
and quantify, they would occur through ground disturbance and introduction of invaders into new
areas. Disturbance is defined as a punctuated event or series of events that kill or damage existing
organisms, directly or in-directly increase resource availability, and create an opportunity for new
individuals to become established (Sousa 1984). Disturbance associated with vegetation management
activities are expected through movement of heavy equipment, soil displacement, and vegetation
compression; but the amount of disturbance can vary depending on activity density and type. Project
activities can introduce new species into areas by transporting non-native plant material on machinery
or personnel. Increased disturbance and access would increase the potential for new establishment of
invasive non-native species in sites previously unoccupied. Wildfire suppression would also have the
potential to increase the risk of establishment of invasive non-native species, but predicting wildfire
occurrence is problematic.
234
B. Potential for the Spread of Invasive Species
The potential spread of non-native plants is also difficult to predict and quantify; however, it would
occur through ground disturbance and the possible increase in “invasibility” or reduction in
competition from native species after disturbance. Increased disturbance and pre-existing invasive
non-native sites in the vicinity of project activities would increase the potential for spread of invasive
non-native species. Wildfire and the activity involved in suppression would also increase the risk of
spread of invasive non-native species, but predicting wildfire occurrence is problematic. Large scale
and intense wildfire disturbance would create ideal areas for the introduction and spread of non-native
plants. With increasing numbers of wildfires the numbers of non-native species could increase
(Merriam, et al., 2006), with the largest increases found in those areas with pre-existing non-native
plant populations.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect the
establishment and spread of invasive species:
Danger tree removal would not affect invasive non-native plants due to the limited extent of the
project area and minimal ground disturbance. Standards and guidelines that require the cleaning
of equipment and personnel prior to conducting work on NFS lands would also mitigate the
effects of these activities.
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Invasive Species
Three alternatives are being analyzed for this project: Alternative 1 (no action), and Alternatives 2 and 3
(action alternatives); to determine the magnitude of direct, indirect and cumulative effects on invasive
non-native species. In the short term the activities of the action alternatives would cause soil disturbance
and alter the canopy cover which would create opportunities for invasive plants to establish and spread.
Alternative 1 – No-Action Alternative
No project activities (including commercial thinning and prescribed burning) would be authorized under
this alternative. All inventoried invasive sites would continue to be managed in accordance with the
Wallowa-Whitman Invasive Plant Program EIS (USDA 2010) and the Wallowa-Whitman Forest Plan as
amended by Regional Forester Amendment #5 that incorporates the Pacific Northwest Region Preventing
and Managing Invasive Plants Record of Decision (USDA 2005).
Potential for Establishment
There would be no direct effects to the establishment potential of invasive non-native species because no
activities would be authorized. Many vectors for the establishment of new populations would still exist
from on-going recreation and vehicle travel, livestock and big game transport activities within the project
area. Over time, with no additional disturbances to known sites, further treatment success, and no
reduction to existing desirable vegetation cover and vigor the known sites could be eradicated or
significantly reduced.
However, without fuel reduction activities within the project area, indirect effects may exist from wildfire.
Wildfire suppression activities could increase the risk of establishment of new invasive species through
transport of non-native species seeds and material from personnel and equipment. The potential for this
235
impact would be rate as Low due to mitigations and requirements associated with fire suppression
activities that reduce this risk and minimize the possibility of invasive species material transport into
previously unaffected areas.
Potential for Spread
There would be no direct effects to the spread potential of invasive non-native species because no activity
would be authorized; however, as described above, vectors which can spread seeds from known
populations would still occur (recreation, vehicle travel, livestock, big game, etc.) within the project area.
In the long-term, with no additional disturbances to known sites, further treatment success, and no
reduction to existing desirable vegetation cover and vigor the known sites could be eradicated or
significantly reduced.
As discussed under the potential for spread, without fuel reduction the risk of wildfire would continue to
be an issue in the project area. Ground disturbance from wildfire and the associated suppression activities
create ideal situations for the spread of current invasive species sites. The movement of personnel and
equipment through existing non-native species sites could allow for an increased rate of spread.
Therefore, the potential spread in the event of a wildfire would be Moderate.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The following table summarizes the project activities with a potential to affect invasive species
populations within the project area, the acres of each activity by alternative, and the potential effect for
that activity.
Table 108. Summary of Project Activities by Alternative and Potential for Effect
Alternative Elements
Potential Effects Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Commercial Harvest Treatments
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people and vehicles
4,413 acres 3,781 acres
Moderate Moderate
Commercial Old Forest Harvest Treatments
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people and vehicles
526 acres 0 acres
Low No
Noncommercial Mechanical Treatments and Aspen Enhancement
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people and machinery. Reduced canopy.
639 acres 723 acres
Moderate Moderate
Post Treatment Activities Mechanical Grapple Pile/ Landing Pile Burning/ Underburning
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people and machinery. Grapple piles create large diameter burn scars for invasive plants to establish.
4,413 acres 3,781 acres
Moderate Moderate
Post Treatment Fuels Blocks – Prescribed Burning
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Increase in disturbance, available resources, and short-term reduction in competition.
4,793 acres 4,543 acres
Moderate Moderate
Yarding Systems (Ground Based and Skyline)
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant material 4,413 acres 3,781 acres
Moderate Moderate
Roads (closed system roads opened temporarily)
*Treatment *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people, machinery, and vehicles
47.6 miles 42.6 miles
Moderate Moderate
Roads (temporary roads created or existing non-system roads)
*Treatment *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people, machinery, and vehicles
2.9 miles 0.34 miles
Moderate Low
236
Alternative Elements
Potential Effects Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Culvert Replacements (2 culverts)
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people, machinery, and vehicles
< 0.1 acre < 0.1 acre
Low Low
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
*Treatment Acres *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people, machinery, and vehicles
< 1 < 1
Low Low
Roads (Reconstruction)
*Treatment *Potential for Effect
Ground disturbance and introduction of plant materials on people, machinery, and vehicles
26.6 miles 25.7 miles
Moderate Moderate
All of the action alternatives have some amount of proposed treatment for each element listed in Table
108 above except that some of the commercial treatment in Alternative 2 would be in RHCAs and old
forest multistratum (OFMS) stands while Alternative 3 would not leaving no potential to spread invasive
plants in those areas. For all other activities the comparison of the effects of the alternatives is essentially
a comparison of the number of acres proposed for each element. There is an increased risk of potential
effects associated with increased acres treated, but the differences among the alternatives are not enough
to change the score on the qualitative scale used in the assessment.
While the effects of fuels reduction/vegetation management projects on non-native species are difficult to
predict and quantify, and may change depending on the duration of the activity and extent of the
disturbance, certain associated activities may affect different species in different manners. For example,
the effects of prescribed fire and pre-commercial thinning can vary depending on the specific technique
and the timing of the activity. Prescribed burning can affect the invasive non-native plants differently (See
Table 107) depending on the season of implementation. Fall burning has been shown to increase
(although not significantly) the number of native species, while spring burning tends towards a decrease
in the number of non-natives (Potts & Stephens, 2009).
Effects of commercial and non-commercial thinning treatments also depend on the timing as well as the
type of activity. Heavy equipment use has the greatest potential for disturbing soil and introducing plant
material to an area, while low impact mechanical thinning by way of mastication has the least potential.
However, timing of mastication activities appears to affect the response of non-native plants as spring
thinning by mastication showed a decreased in non-native introductions when compared to similar
activities in the fall. Timing of activities within this project should consider these variable effects.
Road activities (including use and construction of temporary roads) can create situations that favor the
spread of invasive plants by disturbing roadsides and carrying seeds to un-infested areas. Use and
construction of temporary roads can allow the easy spread of invasive non-native plants to previously un-
infested areas. The risk associated with road activities and non-native species would increase as miles of
temporary road use and construction increases. Exact estimates of this risk however, are unknown and
difficult to predict.
Potential for Establishment
Direct effects to the establishment potential of invasive non-native species as a result of project activities
would occur by the movement of invasive species materials on project personnel and equipment. As the
number of acres of total treatment increases, the amount of personnel and equipment increases, thus the
short-term risk of non-native species establishment also increases. As can be seen in Table 108,
Alternative 2 proposes the most acres of harvest, noncommercial, and post treatment activities. All of
these activities have a potential to increase the risk of introducing new invasive species. Alternative 2
proposes nearly 600 more acres of commercial harvest removal and over 80 more acres of noncommercial
237
treatment than Alternative 3 which makes the potential risk for non-native species establishment in
Alternative 2 greater than Alternative 3. The mechanical treatment of 526 acres of old forest in
Alternative 2 would increase ground disturbance varying with timing. Alternative 2 also increases
potential risk of establishment by proposing 2.56 miles of new temporary road construction.
The decreased fuel loadings and subsequent reduced potential risk for large-scale wildfire that would
result could reduce the need for suppression activities in the long-term indirectly reducing the opportunity
for the transportation of non-native invasive species material and establishment of new invasive species
and sites within the project area in the event of a wildfire. While more fuel reduction activities would
occur under Alternative 2 than Alternative 3, potential large fire risk reduction would be similar for both
of these alternatives.
The overall effect of the actions in these alternatives on the potential to establish invasive non-native
species is estimated to be Moderate, due to the large number of acres of proposed mechanical activity
with a short-term effect, being offset by the project mitigation measures and the fuels reduction work
resulting in a subsequent decrease in wildfire risk in the long-term.
Potential for Spread
Direct effects to the spread potential of invasive non-native species due to project activities may occur
due to movement of invasive species materials on project personnel and equipment and ground
disturbance as a result of project activities. As the number of acres of total treatment (more potential
disturbance and more movement of project equipment) and the total acres of non-native invasive species
(more propagule pressure) increases; the risk of non-native species spread also increases. As described
above, Alternatives 2 proposes the most acres of total treatment (prescribed fire, non-commercial
thinning, commercial treatment, and post treatment). They also propose the most acres of ground based
and skyline yarding with totals of 4,413 acres (Alternative 2) and 3,781 acres (Alternative 3) and the most
miles of road related activities (Table 108). All of these activities have a potential to increase the risk of
spreading invasive species in the short-term beyond the current extent of known sites; however,
implementation of the prevention mitigation measures such as pre-treatment of known infestations,
avoiding active infestation sites, and machinery cleaning requirements should limit the potential for
spread.
Fuel load reduction contributes to indirect effects in terms of a contributing to a potential reduction in the
risk of spread. This benefit is due, in part, to the decreased fuel loading and reduced risk of large-scale
wildfire in the long-term that would result from this vegetation management project. With a lowered risk
of wildfire potential, there would be a decrease in the amount of potential ground disturbance from the
fire and a decrease in suppression activity. These decreases would reduce the potential “invasibility” of
the area due to wildfire activity and decrease the opportunity for the transportation of non-native invasive
species material on personnel and equipment used for suppression activity. Thus, the spread of existing
invasive species beyond their current extent would also be reduced.
The overall effect of the actions in these alternatives on the potential to spread invasive non-native species
is estimated to be Moderate, due to the increased area of proposed activity and ground disturbance with a
short-term effect being offset by the potential decrease in risk of large-scale wildfire in the long-term.
However, the direct and indirect effects under Alternative 2 would still be greater than those found under
the Alternative 3 due to the increase in activity within the project area.
Cumulative Effects on Invasive Species
Cumulative effects are the sum of all past and present actions, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
in combination with the activities proposed in the Sparta project. Past activities are considered in the
238
existing condition baseline for this project. Present and reasonably foreseeable future activities on Forest
Service and private lands are described in Appendix D of this EA. The analysis in Appendix D also
determines which of the present and reasonably foreseeable future activities overlap in time and space
with the Sparta project and have a measureable cumulative effect for non-native plants in the project area.
Based on the analysis in Appendix D, potential cumulative effects will only be discussed related to private
land activities, grazing, roads and trails, OHV use, special uses, and noxious weed management because
they were determined to overlap in time and space and result in a measurable cumulative effect when
considered in combination with the activities proposed in the Sparta project.
Alternative 1
There will be no direct/indirect effects to invasive non-native plants as a result of the no action alternative
because project activities will not be authorized. All current conditions and trends will continue
unchanged. Since there are no direct/indirect effects then there will be no cumulative effects.
Alternatives 2 and 3
There is a potential for weed seeds to be carried from private land which may not have an active invasive
plant management program to locations within the project area.
Cattle are vectors for invasive plant seeds. Opening up the forest with harvest and fuel reduction practices
decreases forest canopy and creates seed beds through ground disturbance increasing the potential for
cattle to access areas where vegetation previously blocked their access thus allowing the potential for
them to transport noxious weed seeds into new areas and increase the spread of current infestations. More
of this would happen in Alternative 2 than in Alternative 3.
Ongoing road maintenance creates situations that favor the spread of invasive plants by disturbing
roadsides and can increase the establishment by carrying seeds to un-infested areas. There is a slight
potential for invasive spread and introduction from machinery involved in the road maintenance work by
logging equipment crossing over or through areas where new invasive plant material has been introduced
during road work. All action alternatives have a similar potential for this to occur.
Implementation of a travel management plan managing cross-country travel and motor vehicle use on
roads, trails, and areas would reduce the potential to spread invasive plant material on vehicles and
personnel and reduce the ground disturbance from user created roads and trails. Designating roads, trails
and areas has the potential to improve compliance with the Sparta post-sale road management plan
because motor vehicles would be restricted to designated roads and trails. Limiting cross-country travel
and motor vehicle use on non-designated roads would minimize the potential introduction and spread of
noxious weeds and increase the effectiveness of the Sparta post-sale road management plan.
Unregulated use of off highway vehicles poses a risk to the spread and establishment of non-native
species due to the movement of plant material on equipment and the ability to introduce these materials to
random areas that are difficult to identify for treatment. Re-opening roads and opening up stands with
fuel reduction treatments in the Sparta project increases the potential for introduction and spread of
invasive plant material into more areas. More of this would occur in Alternative 2 than in Alternative 3.
Maintenance and repair of most special use facilities can create situations that favor the establishment and
spread of invasive plants by disturbing ground and carrying seeds to un-infested areas. Regional standards
along with noxious weed requirements which are part of the special use permits would help to reduce the
risk of this potential effect. Sparta activities overlap some of these sites and would increase the potential
for spread of invasive species populations.
239
As described under Alternative 1, noxious weed management would continue to occur under all
alternatives in this project which would continue to reduce the extent and amount of invasive plant sites
through active treatment and management throughout the project area. Monitoring and mitigation
associated with the Sparta project in combination with on-going noxious weed management will increase
the effectiveness of noxious weed management under all action alternatives.
Increased flexibility and treatment options as part of the WWNF Invasive Plant FEIS will increase the
effectiveness of on-going treatment and mitigate many of the effects of project activities. Specific
mitigations within this project and the WWNF FEIS can also help reduce the rate and risk of introduction
of non-native species. These measures should reduce risks involved with project activities and reduce the
cumulative impacts on the project area occurring through all management activities.
Generally, the risk of wildfire combined with unregulated travel, road use and grazing has the greatest
potential to create cumulative effects on non-native plants within the Sparta project area but predicting
wildfire occurrence is problematic. Large scale and intense wildfire disturbance would create ideal areas
for the introduction and spread of non-native plants. With increasing numbers of wildfires the numbers of
non-native species could increase in the long-term (Merriam, et al., 2006), with the largest increases
found in those areas with pre-existing non-native plant populations. One benefit of this project is the
decrease of current fuel loading and therefore the risks of uncontrolled high-intensity wildfire, so future
large-scale burns should be reduced. This reduction may further decrease the risk for areas outside of the
treatment area boundaries (Merriam, et al., 2006).
Summary of Effects
The effects found in the above analysis can manifest in a variety of ways depending on the alternative.
Each alternative has its own risks and effects that would be expected from project activities.
As stated earlier, Alternative 1 would have no new direct effects due to project activities within the project
boundary. The risk of a stand replacing wildfire is increased due to increased fuel loading, and the
potential for invasive species spread and establishment would increase beyond the rate found naturally.
This effect, plus continuing risks from other types of activities occurring in the analysis area, would favor
the spread potential of invasive species within the project area (Table 109) to levels beyond that found
without wildfire activity.
Table 109. Summary of estimated effects for all alternatives in the East Face project
Est. Effect* Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Establishment Potential
1 3 2
Spread Potential 4 2 3
* Estimated effect is based on increases (from pre-project levels) in establishment and spread of invasive non-native species due to project level activities. Higher number equates to higher risk but is only used for comparison between alternatives and is not an estimate of the intensity of the effect.
Although risks are present with or without project activities, the danger of invasive species establishment
due to project activities under the action alternatives is higher than the ‘no action’ alternative. The highest
risk of establishment would be under Alternative 2 because it proposes the most acres of potential ground
disturbing activities. However; the potential to spread invasive non-native species under either of the
action alternatives is likely less than under the no action alternative. This is due in large part to the
reduction in wildfire risk associated with the action alternatives (slightly more risk under Alternative 3
due to a smaller reduction in overall fuel loading). With implementation of project design features to
reduce and control the introduction and spread of non-native species we can minimize the impacts that do
exist. Specific mitigations and required standards would continue to reduce the chances of new
240
introductions, establishment, and spread of invasive non-native plants and we could predict an
establishment and spread rate at the upper end of the natural level or about 6-8% for any of the action
alternatives.
Climate Change
The potential effects of climate change on invasive species are unclear. Studies have suggested that
climate change could favor invasion by non-native plants, while others have found that some species may
actually be reduced as a result of potential climate change effects (Bradley, et. al, 2009; Hellman, et. al,
2008). It is safe to assume however, that invasions by non-native species would still be a concern.
With the unknown extent of climate change and the potential effect on non-native species, it is difficult to
analyze the effects of climate change on invasive species in the Sparta project. However, it seems un-
likely that the activities of this project when coupled with climate change would increase the risk of
invasion of the Sparta project area beyond that outlined in this report. Further, it is possible that the Sparta
project may actually reduce the likelihood of invasion through increases in the health of native plant
communities by returning them to their historic range of variability. As stated, healthy native plant
communities are generally more resistant to invasion by non-native plants.
Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction
The Forest Plan (as amended by the 2005 Region 6 ROD, amendment RF #5) provides direction for the
control of noxious weeds and other competing vegetation where such activities are not precluded by
management area direction. The goals focus on maintaining or enhancing ecosystem function to provide
for long-term integrity and productivity of biological communities, treatment of priority infestations, and
monitoring the effects of all activities to reduce the impacts of non-native plants. The site specific
treatment requirements are further amended by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Invasive Plant
Treatment Program EIS (USDA, 2010). The Sparta project is consistent with these goals by implementing
the standards requiring emphasis of prevention of invasive plant introduction, requiring the use of weed-
free materials (straw, mulch, gravel, fill sand, etc.), requiring the cleaning of all equipment prior to
entering National Forest System lands, managing road maintenance activities in areas with high
concentrations of noxious weeds and coordinating activities with pre-treatment, and requiring the use of
native plant materials for rehabilitation and restoration work. The Sparta project is consistent with these
goals through adherence to the FEIS and the Forest Plan.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Eagle Creek drainage within the Sparta project area is designated as a Wild and Scenic River
Corridor. Standards and guidelines specific to the area are stated in the Wallowa-Whitman National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (as amended by the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic
River Corridor Plan) with treatment requirements found in the Wallow-Whitman National Forest Invasive
Plant Treatment Program EIS (USDA, 2010). Standards and guidelines pertaining to invasive species
state that we must recognize, promote, and enhance the qualities that preserve the ecological
corridor. The Sparta project (for invasive species) is consistent with this plan because of the proposed
mitigation measures, adherence to the FEIS, and the Forest Plan.
Range Management
Introduction
This analysis describes existing condition of the rangeland resources and livestock grazing management
found within the proposed Sparta Vegetation Management Project (hereafter called Sparta Project) and
241
the expected and potential effects of the alternatives on the range resources and management. Direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives are identified and discussed. Information sources used
to complete this section include the following:
Plant Associations of the Wallowa-Snake Province (1987 Johnson and Simon)
Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) 1990, including Pacfish/Infish
Biological Opinion and Wild and Scenic River amendments.
Forest GIS Vegetation Layers and Oracle databases (based on stand exams and field
reconnaissance)
Rangeland resource and management documentation is located in the Project File, and includes data,
methods, analysis, conclusions, maps and references and technical documentation used to reach
conclusions in the environmental analysis.
Existing Condition
The boundary for the Sparta Project analysis area includes portions of the Goose Creek and Eagle Valley
allotments on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Whitman Ranger District. Table 110 describes the
total acres of National Forest Service (NFS) lands within each allotment, acres of the project area within
each allotment, and the current management and carrying capacity of each allotment.
These allotments contain various range improvements, including fences, spring developments and cleared
livestock trails. A map of the allotment improvements and the proposed project is in the project file for
use during implementation of the Sparta project to avoid activities associated with the project
unnecessarily affecting the livestock operations and integrity of range improvements.
Most of the rangeland on National Forest System (NFS) lands contained within the analysis area is in
satisfactory condition, fair to good, with an overall stable or upward trend, but in mid to late seral stage
due to lack of disturbance from fire.
Table 110. Livestock Grazing Allotments within the Sparta Project Analysis Area
Allotment Name
National Forest Acres
Acres within the
Project
Current Management and Carrying Capacity
Livestock Numbers
(Cow/Calf)
Season of Use Head Months*
AUMs**
Goose Creek 27,269 7,227 487 6/1 to 10/30 2,433 3,212
Eagle Valley 32,569 10,130 485 6/1 to 10/31 2,439 3,219
Trouble Gulch 1,111 594 8 6/1-9/30 32 42 *Head months are calculated by multiplying the number of months livestock are on the ground by the total number of cow/calf pairs on the allotment.
**AUMs (Animal Use Months are calculated by multiplying the total Head Months by 1.32. This figure is a measure of forage amount used by the livestock on the allotment.
Effects Analysis
Three alternatives were analyzed for this project (See the Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered in
Detail section of this EA for details): Alternative 1 (no action), Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), and
Alternative 3 to determine the magnitude of direct, indirect and cumulative effects on rangeland resources
and livestock grazing.
Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in that they all propose acres of commercial harvest, and prescribed
burning. Use of temporary roads, road maintenance, and other associated activities have very little
effect to livestock grazing. The action items of all action alternatives could affect the rangeland resources
242
and the management of the livestock grazing, but the alternatives do not vary extensively, the effects
would be similar and are discussed as such.
The move the project area landscape back to a will result in a reduction in canopy cover. This reduction in
canopy cover over the mid to long term (4-20 years) will create a general shift in the plant association
seral stage from late to early. This seral stage shift will result in increases in herbage production, available
forage and overall desired ecological range condition (Andariese and Covington 1986, Moore et al. 2006,
Bojorquez Tapia et al. 1990).
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities associated with the Sparta project are of such limited and constrained nature that
they would have no effect on rangeland resources or range management activities.
Temporary Road Construction and reconstruction
Roadside Danger Tree Removal
Reconstruction of System Roads
Pre-commercial thinning only
These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in this section.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Rangeland Resources
Alternative 1 – No Action
There are no known direct effects on range resources from the No Action Alternative. Effects related to
this alternative on range resources are primarily indirect in nature. Benefits to rangeland condition,
livestock distribution, and forage available would not occur because no project activities would occur.
Further canopy closure and decreases in forage availability would continue and potential changes in
livestock distribution through reductions in suitable rangelands would continue. Damage to range
improvements would not occur as project activities will not be authorized.
Alternative 2 and 3 – Action Alternatives
There are 17,357 acres used for livestock grazing within the Sparta Project area. Portions of these lands
are considered un-suitable for livestock use due to available forage or dense canopy cover. The
commercial harvest activities with fuel treatments in Alternative 2 and 3 will convert unsuitable
rangelands (those currently not available for forage utilization due to dense canopy cover or lack of
understory vegetation) to suitable by reducing the overstory canopy cover to less than 60%. Alternative 2
would convert (4,413 acres) and Alternative 3 (3,781acres) in the allotments within the Sparta project.
This reduction in canopy cover will reduce competition for resources to the understory and over the mid
to long term (4-20 years) will create a general shift in the plant association seral stage from late to early
and increase above ground biomass of the understory (Reigel et al. 1992).
The acres treated with natural fuels prescribed fire only in Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce forage
availability in the short term (due to the low fire intensity objectives found in prescribed fire treatments
this time would be approximately 1-3 years). However, in the long term (4-20 years), the reintroduction
of fire disturbance and thinning the overstory will create a general shift in the plant association seral stage
from late to early. The shift in seral stage over time will result in an increase in herbage production
(Andariese and Covington 1986, Moore et al. 2006, Bojorquez Tapia et al. 1990) and available forage,
and an enhancement of overall desired ecological range condition through improved livestock
distribution.
243
Forage quality and quantity would be increased short and long term by opening stands and through
prescribed burning. Opening potential rangelands (not presently accessible due to dense canopy cover or
lack of understory vegetation) to livestock would also provide opportunities for livestock to access
previously treated stands and better utilize forage throughout the allotment thus improving distribution.
Enhanced livestock distribution will enable more even utilization of forage and potentially reduce impacts
to areas of higher use that would continue to occur without treatment.
The implementation of the Sparta project (burning activities) will potentially reduce forage availability to
livestock in the short term (1-3 years). The short-term risk of reduced forage availability due to
prescribed fire treatments will be evaluated (post burn) to determine the size of the treated area, the
intensity of the fire, and (if needed) necessary modifications to the annual permittee grazing instructions.
In general, larger burn blocks that treat a larger proportion of an allotment would require more stringent
restrictions to grazing activities over the short term. Fire intensity (measured by average flame length, 2-
4’ is considered optimum) would also affect possible modification of the grazing prescription. Flame
lengths that surpass the 2-4’ target would require more restrictive modifications to the grazing
prescription. Modifications to grazing instructions could include altered rotation timing (to allow for
regrowth and seed production on burned areas), decreases in allowable use through more stringent
utilization standards, avoidance of burned areas, or any combination of these. Pastures that receive
burning treatments will be administered to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (See Wallowa-Whitman
Land and Resource Management Plant 4-51 and 4-54) following treatment to ensure regrowth of the
vegetation in the treatment areas and ensure desired future conditions are met.
In the long term (4-20 years) however, the decrease in the possibility of large scale wildfire will decrease
due to reduced fuel loadings within the project area. Wildfire is the most likely cumulative effect for
rangeland resources that has potential for negative impacts. This project would reduce the risk associated
with large scale uncontrolled wildfire.
Cumulative Effects on Rangeland Resources
Potential cumulative effects are analyzed by considering the proposed activities in the context of past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects analysis is conducted in those areas
where effects have or may occur. In addition, some activities have an influence that may extend
“downstream” in the subwatershed within the project area boundary. This broad area is referred to as the
“cumulative effects analysis area” and in general all alternatives are considered in the context of relevant
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities in this area. The cumulative effects analysis area
for this project is the area contained within the project boundary. A summary table of the present and
reasonably foreseeable future activities in the cumulative effects analysis area is located in Appendix D
and has been used to assess the cumulative effects of implementing this project on Rangeland Resources.
Of these possible cumulative effects the only potential risk to rangeland resources within this project area
is uncontrolled wildfire.
Alternative 1 – No Action
Treatment under project activities that would occur in the action alternatives will remain untreated for the
foreseeable future under this alternative. A benefit of these treatment activities is a reduction in fine and
ladder fuels and these reductions generally reduce the risk of large-scale uncontrolled wildfire. The
potential for uncontrolled wildfire may increase in the absence of controlled burning, non-commercial
thinning, and harvest treatment, thus leading to reductions in forage availability. Wildfire coupled with
lack of project activities would increase the risk and reductions in livestock grazing, by negatively
impacting distribution, forage availability, destruction of range improvements, and require major
modifications to annual operating instructions.
244
Alternatives 2 and 3
Treatments proposed under these alternatives would likely benefit rangeland resources and grazing
activities. Since a major threat of negative effects to these resources is wildfire, the reduction in fine and
ladder fuels should help to reduce the risk of impacts. Project activities should reduce the risk of
reductions in livestock grazing, by reducing the risks of uncontrolled wildfire.
The only reasonably foreseeable future action which would overlap in time and space within this project
area which may have a potential to have a long term affect to rangeland resources are noxious weed
treatments. This project focuses on invasive non-native vegetation treatment to reduce impacts to native
vegetation and soil resources. Reducing or preventing establishment of invasive species will allow native
plants to maintain dominance, providing forage for native species, cover for migratory birds and small
mammals, and protect soil from surface erosion.
No other present or reasonably foreseeable future activities would overlap in time and space with the
project area, nor would they have a measureable cumulative effect on rangeland resources.
Summary of All Effects
Alternative 1 – No Action
Alternative 1 would have no direct effects because of project activities because no project activities would
be authorized. Indirect effects of the no-action alternative would be a negative effect on forage
availability and livestock distribution because project activities that would modify the canopy cover, plant
community, and community seral structures would not be authorized. Wildfire is the only known
cumulative effect in this project area and which could negatively affect all the indicators shown in Table
111. Risk of wildfire is potentially increased because no fuel reduction project activities would be
authorized.
Alternative 2 and 3 – Action alternatives
Direct effects would be similar under all action alternatives. There is a possibility that project activities
will have a negative effect on annual grazing management. This effect is dependent on monitoring
conducted after activities such as prescribed burning. Depending on the scale of modification to annual
operating plans, livestock operations may need to be altered following project activities. There will be no
direct effect to rangeland improvements from project activities because mitigations requiring avoidance
and consultation with district range managers will be enforced. Indirect effects from project activities
will be positive by increasing livestock distribution and forage availability. These positive effects will
occur because of reductions in over story cover and shifts in seral stage of affected plant communities
(Table 111). There will be no additional cumulative effects from project activities or wildfire, because the
benefits from fuels reductions should reduce the risk of large-scale wildfire.
245
Table 111. Summary of effects to Rangeland Resources by Alternative
Estimated Effect*/Rationale Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Modification to Annual Grazing Management 0 - -
Forage Availability 0 + +
Livestock Distribution 0 + +
Range Improvements 0 0 0 * Effect intensity: 0 designates no change from current, - designates potential negative affect, + designates potential positive affect.
Climate Change
Livestock may impact climate change however; there is very little scientific data on the impacts of
climate changes within the ecosystems present on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Therefore, it is
difficult to address how livestock grazing when coupled with Sparta project activities would affect
climate change conditions. Our current management protocols allow the Forest Service and the Range
Specialists to alter grazing management if a trend change in resource conditions is observed.
Furthermore, annual and long term monitoring protocols are in place to identify when vegetation
dynamics and rangeland conditions need management changes.
Consistency and Compliance
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended by: Eagle
Creek Wild and Scenic River Plan)
All alternatives would be consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan
(including the plan as amended by the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Plan) as all range standards and
guidelines would be met (Wallowa Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan 4-51 to 4-54 and the
Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan pg. 17 standard 69-70). Standards and guidelines
for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management plan that apply to this project are:
69. Domestic livestock grazing levels and allotment management practices existing prior to
designation of the river will generally be permitted, consistent with free-flow, water quality,
and/or values. Allotment management plans shall be modified when grazing practices or other
activities are found to adversely impact Wild and Scenic river values.
70. Range Allotment Management Plans which encompass part of the W&SR corridor will be
considered high priority for revision. AMPs will address protection and enhancement of water
quality and/or values as they are revised.
The Wild and Scenic River plan identifies the following desired future condition:
Each component of the Wild and Scenic River system will be administered to protect and
enhance the values for which the river was designated and to provide public use and enjoyment of
those values. Emphasis will be given to protecting the outstandingly remarkable (OR) values for
which the river was designated. Thus, the OR values of fish, recreation, scenery, cultural
(historic) resources, geology/ paleontology will be protected and enhanced. The entire river
corridor will be free of impoundments.
Enhancement of river corridor ecosystems, riparian vegetation, and water quality will receive
high emphasis, balanced with improved management of recreation uses in all future management
activities in the Eagle Creek corridor.
Vegetation management within the corridor will emphasize maintaining a healthy and diverse
river ecosystem. As time goes by riparian vegetation will become more abundant as streamside
management units receive more management emphasis. Range allotment management plans will
be revised to incorporate river management objectives.
246
Rangeland resources and the Sparta project meet these condition requirements through enforcement of all
utilization measures as outlined in the LRMP and all amendments. Enforcement and administration of
these standards are achieved through allotment management plans and annual operation instructions that
outline required actions of grazing permittee’s.
Access and Transportation Management
Introduction
This analysis describes existing condition of the transportation system within the proposed Sparta
Vegetation Management Project (hereafter called Sparta Project) and the expected and potential effects of
the alternatives on the transportation system and its management. Where appropriate, it focuses on the
portion of the system potentially impacted by the Sparta Project. It also describes transportation-related
activities proposed as part of this project, including construction of temporary roads, maintenance and
reconstruction of existing roads, and use of rock and aggregate sources. Direct, indirect and cumulative
effects of the alternatives are identified and discussed. Information sources used to complete this section
include the following:
Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan (LRM, 1990)
Forest GIS Roads Layers and INFRA databases, queried in 2016, collectively referred to as the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Transportation Atlas (transportation atlas, 2016)
Roads would be used to access commercial and non-commercial harvest units and to remove logs and
other products. Roads would also be used to access units for prescribe fire activities, SAI activities, and
monitoring.
Road data is compiled from information (travel route data and routes) in the INFRA database and GIS as
of 09/12/2016. This database and the associated GIS data are referred to in this report as the forest
transportation atlas. Miles of road are represented as GIS miles, measured from the length of arcs in GIS.
These lengths will vary some from actual miles on the ground depending on such factors as the accuracy
of the map alignment, road grades, and overall length. Some roads exist on the ground (such as user
created roads, abandoned roads and some roads on private land) which are not system roads and have not
been recorded in the database. Although presumed small, the quantity is unknown and these roads are not
accounted for in the data.
Maintenance levels are identified for each road in the system. In the atlas, roads are assigned both an
operational maintenance level (reflecting existing conditions) and an objective maintenance level
(identifying a needed change in maintenance level that has been analyzed and approved, some of which
may still need to be implemented). Throughout this report, maintenance levels reported are operational
unless noted otherwise. Maintenance levels assigned to roads in the project area are maintenance level
(ML) 1, ML 2 and ML 3:
ML 1: closed roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses;
ML 2: roads open for use by high clearance vehicles;
ML 3: roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car
Maps displaying location of proposed transportation system elements for each action alternative are
provided in Appendices A and B of the EA. Details such as route numbers and miles proposed for
treatment are presented in the attachment at the end of this report.
247
Existing Condition
The primary routes accessing the area were likely established as wagon roads, during the decades
following the first European settlement of Eagle Valley and prior to establishment of the national forest.
Beyond these valley-bottom routes, much of the existing transportation system was constructed primarily
for timber harvest. Roads were located to facilitate ground-based skidding and, later, skyline logging
systems. Early ground-based logging in the area skidded on slopes steeper than 35 percent, possibly up to
45 to 50 percent.
Open and Closed National Forest System Roads
The NFS (National Forest System) arterial and collector roads serving the project area are 70, 77, 7005,
7015, 7020, 7720, 7735, and 7739. Within the project, most of these roads (totaling 57 miles) are
identified in the atlas as maintenance level 2 (maintained for high clearance vehicles). Two of these routes
(7015 and 77 going north from 7015), totaling 14.7 miles are maintenance level 3 (maintained for
passenger cars). All have crushed aggregate surfacing or improved surface of rock base material. Baker
County now has jurisdiction on two roads (2.6 miles lie inside the project boundary) providing access to
and within the project area: BAK-891 (NFSR 70) and BAK-923 (NFSR 7005). These roads are known
locally as Collins or Forshey Meadows Road and Sparta Road respectively.
The following recreation and administrative sites lie within or in close proximity to the project area:
Lily White Work Camp off Bridge abutment was repaired in October of 2011. 7020
Martin Bridge Trailhead off NFSR 77 on Eagle Creek
McBride Campground off NFSR 77
Eagle Forks Campground off NFSR 7735 on Eagle Creek
Paddy Flat Seed Orchard
Roads associated with these sites (including access roads, parking areas, and spur roads within the sites)
are considered part of the road system.
The existing open road system is generally in fair condition. Maintenance work has been deferred to
where trees and brush in the ditches and shoulders are getting large and thick enough to be beyond the
scope of timber sale maintenance specifications (greater than 4 inch diameter). Surface and drainage
conditions are varied. Some road sections exhibit surface rilling, indicating need for repair of surface
cross drainage and, in some cases, need for additional drainage.
Approximately 87 miles of closed NFS roads (maintenance level 1 or ML1) are within the Sparta area.
Most are suitable for use with some maintenance work, although only a portion are recommended for use
in this project (see discussion below). The Transportation Atlas shows 8.5 miles of NFSR have been
decommissioned: 1.7 miles in Little Eagle Creek subwatershed and 6.8 miles in Eagle-Paddy.
Table 112. Miles of road in the Sparta area by subwatershed, jurisdiction, and operational maintenance level
Jurisdiction
Subwatershed
Total Miles Little Eagle Creek
Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek
Forest Service
ML3 4.4 10.3 14.7
ML2 16.5 40.0 56.5
ML1 21.8 65.5 87.3
Total FS 42.7 115.8 158.5
County 0.0 2.6 2.6
248
Jurisdiction
Subwatershed
Total Miles Little Eagle Creek
Eagle Creek-Paddy Creek
Private and Unknown 0.1 1.1 1.2
Total Open (NFSR) 20.9 50.3 71.2
Total Closed NFSR) 21.8 65.5 87.3
Total All Roads 42.8 119.5 162.3 Note: County, private and unknown roads are assumed open.
Four bridges are located along proposed haul routes. Existing conditions of each are described in Table
113.
Table 113. Bridges along proposed haul routes and existing condition
Bridge Existing Condition Description
7020000-4.4, Main Eagle #2
This bridge has fill material raveling out from under the west abutment. Riprap needs placed to replace lost material and stabilize the fill. If this work is not done, holes may eventually develop in the roadbed where it meets the bridge deck. This road may or may not be used for haul.
7015000-4.6, Main Eagle #3
This bridge is in good condition and is adequate to safely accommodate log haul.
7735000-6.2, Little Eagle #2
This bridge has extensive rot in the wood of the deck and extending into the stringers. There is currently a weight restriction posted at the bridge. At a minimum, the superstructure needs replaced. The existing abutments, while serviceable, create some channel restriction and should be evaluated as well.
7735450-0.1, Holcomb
Bridge is in satisfactory condition. Some minor road work is needed to repair fill slopes at the bridge approach.
Travel restricted areas
In accordance with the Travel Opportunity Guide (1991) and Forest Orders 233-01 and 442-01, there are
currently areas of restricted travel which lie within the Sparta project area.
Two existing motorized-use closure areas occur within the project area:
1. Eagle Creek: Closed to all motorized vehicles from December 1 through April 15 except routes
designated open. Boundaries of the area are approximately Eagle Creek and roads 7735, 7737,
7735450, and 7739. Open roads include 7735, 7739, 7737, 7737150 to m.p. 0.2, and 77. The
purpose is to reduce wildlife disturbance, protect fragile soils, calving and fawning, and prevent
harassment of big game while on their winter range.
2. Holcomb Creek: Closed 3 days prior to the opening of general deer season through March 31st.
Boundaries of the closure area are from NFSR 7735 on the north and east, to Eagle Creek on the
south and west. The purpose is to reduce wildlife disturbance, provide non-motorized hunting,
protect fragile soils, calving and fawning, and to prevent harassment of big game while on their
winter range.
Designated snow mobile routes
Snow mobile routes restrict non-over-snow vehicles during the time snow is groomed. Closure is posted
on the ground to provide public safety, reduce user conflict, and identify motorized snow play
opportunities. Roads restricted include 70, 7015, 7015150, 7015075, 7020, 77, 7720, 7735, [7739,
7739125, 7700150]. Brackets indicate connecting segments to make one through route.
249
Road densities
Road densities were calculated as recommended in the forest plan (pg 4-35), which establishes open-road
density guidelines for certain Management Areas (MAs) – MA 1, MA 1W, 3 and 18. The subwatersheds
were clipped to the analysis area boundary to be comparable to the open road densities described in the
Cumulative Effects. Miles of open roads are based on operational maintenance level 2-5 for NFS roads.
Small portions of the Goose Creek subwatershed (165 acres) and Lower Eagle Creek subwatershed (48
acres) are also located within the project area which results in a very small number of acres being
analyzed within each management area. Due to the inappropriate scale of the analysis area for an
evaluation of this type the resulting figures are skewed and do not provide useful information (WWNF
Forest Plan, page 4-35); therefore, they were not carried forward in this analysis.
Land allocated to timber emphasis (MA 1) generally should not exceed 2.5 miles of open road per acre of
land within the subwatershed (Forest Plan 4-58). Open road density values for MA 1 in both Little Eagle
Creek and Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek subwatersheds are currently above this upper level (Table 114).
MAs 3 and 1W (Timber and Wildlife Emphasis) are big game winter range. Standards and guidelines
generally limit open road density to 1.5 miles per square mile during the time that the areas are being used
by big game. Where snow normally will provide an adequate level of road closure on winter ranges,
additional closures to meet the 1.5 mile per square mile standard will not be necessary (Forest Plan 4-62
#10 and Record of Decision page 12). While open road density in these areas are near or somewhat above
1.5 (from 1.82 to 2.57), many roads are within seasonal closures (see above) while others are closed by
snow during winter.
Table 114. Existing Open Road Densities within Sparta Project Area
Subwatershed Management Area
Total Acres Square Miles Open Road Miles
Open Road Density
Little Eagle Creek
1 3,148 4.92 16.62 3.38
3 1,396 2.18 3.98 1.82
Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek
1 5,962 9.32 26.81 2.88
1W 622 0.97 2.5 2.57
3 3,867 6.04 14.87 2.46 Miles shown are calculated from GIS. In areas where the square miles are less than 0.1 mi/mi2, the road density has been rounded to zero. Subwatersheds where there are no road miles or relevant management areas (MAs with no FP open road density requirements) are not shown for clarity.
Effects Analysis
Effects related to roads are generally addressed as impacts to other resources such as aquatics, soils,
invasive weeds, and wildlife. To help support the analyses of these other resources, the effects described
here will focus on providing information on road development needs and road density estimates.
The analysis for determining the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project on the transportation
system is generally bounded by the project area, except in consideration of haul routes. Effects to haul
routes, and activities along those routes (danger tree removal), will extend to the point where the road
leaves NFS lands and/or is no longer under NFS jurisdiction.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect the
transportation system:
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
Right-of-way acquisition
250
Pre-commercial thinning
Prescribed fire activities (pile burning and underburning) -Road use would be limited to access to
and from units. While some burn units have been designed to take advantage of roads as existing
fuel breaks, no disturbance of the road surface is planned.
Mechanical firelines
Connective corridors
These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in this section.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Transportation System
The Sparta project area is the analysis area for direct and indirect effects to the transportation system.
Alternative 1-No Action
This alternative would have no effect on the projects area’s existing road density because no NFS roads
would be built or closed under this alternative. Conditions discussed for the affected environment (see
existing conditions discussed above) would continue under this alternative. Routine maintenance and
repairs would continue to be made on a cyclic basis, depending on funding level and forest-wide
priorities. Opportunities to replace or upgrade road/stream crossing and improve road surface drainage
would occur only as funding allows and on an incremental road by road basis.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Table 115. Transportation Activities Summary by Alternative
Transportation Activities Alternative 2 Miles
Alternative 3 Miles
Maintain NF System Roads for log haul miles 128.5 122.5
Open (maintenance level 2-3) miles 80.7 79.9
Closed (maintenance level 1) miles 47.8 42.6
Danger Tree removal (along system haul roads) 128.5 122.5
Total Temporary Road Construction miles 2.9 0.34
New Construction 2.56 0
Existing non-system 0.34 0.34
Decommission of Existing NF System Roads miles 6.94 6.94
Reconstruction of NF System Roads miles 26.6 25.7
Open
Deferred maintenance/repairs miles 20.7 20.7
Bridge replacement/reconstruction (1 bridge) 1 bridge 1 bridge
Bridge Abutment Repair (2 bridges) 2 bridges 2 bridges
Closed (maintenance level 1) miles
Deferred maintenance/repairs miles 5.9 5.0
Haul routes
The appraisal point for timber sales generated by the Sparta project would be La Grande, Elgin or John
Day. The appraised haul route for approximately 60 percent of the project area would funnel to NFSR 77
(Eagle Creek), then west on 7015 (Empire Gulch), then south on BAK-891 (FS 70), BAK-923 and BAK-
852 (Sparta) to State Hwy. 86, then west to I-84 at Baker City. The portion (approximately 20%) of the
project to the far northeast will haul southeast down NFSR 77 (Summit Ridge) to State Hwy. 86 east of
Richland, then west to I-84. The portion (approximately 20 percent) of the project to the far east and south
of road 77 will haul south on NFSR 7735 (Little Eagle Creek), then BAK-969 to State Hwy. 86 at
Richland, then west to I-84.
251
Alternative routes are possible to haul toward Medical Springs on roads 67, or 70, but there is a bridge
weight restriction that would need addressed by conducting a new load rating to verify its capability to
sustain highway legal loading, or repair/replacement of the bridge, if this route were chosen (Main Eagle
Bridge #1). However, based upon a preliminary cost analysis and historical experience, the most likely
routes will be to the south to State Highway 8, then west to Interstate 84, whether the final destination is
La Grande or Elgin.
The current Wallowa-Whitman N.F. Commercial Road Use Rules and Road Use Permit Requirements
apply to all commercial use of NFS roads. There are no specific road rules applicable to roads in the
Sparta project area. Typically, timber sale contracts on the Wallowa-Whitman N.F, Whitman R.D. have
restricted haul in the following manner:
Haul during the normal operating season
No haul on weekends and Federal holidays
Dry, frozen, or stable ground conditions on native surface roads
All use must cease when road damage (as defined in the Commercial Road Rules) begins to
occur.
There are inholdings of private land within the project area that are crossed by through-roads that do not
have permanent easements to the Forest Service. Those roads include segments of 7010250, 7020175,
7005215, 7735490, and 7735325 which will be used for timber haul from proposed commercial units. The
Forest will proceed with permanent easement acquisition. In the event a permanent easement cannot be
acquired before a project will be implemented, the Forest will seek a temporary road use permit. See table
for locations and ownership information.
Roads associated with recreation and administrative sites within the project area (including access roads,
parking areas, and spur roads within the sites) would not be used for log haul and would not be impacted
by this project.
Road maintenance
The purchaser of a timber sale contract or contractor of a stewardship contract would be required to
perform road maintenance commensurate with their use on all NFS roads. Maintenance would be
performed as needed on all haul routes. Maintenance would be performed in accordance with timber sale
contract specifications. In addition, deposits are collected on crushed aggregate roads for Road Surface
Replacement (RSR).
Typical maintenance activities include: snow plowing for winter haul, blading roadbeds, dust abatement
(usually with water), surface rock replacement, ditch and culvert cleaning, removal or ramping over of
small slumps and slides, road-side brushing of overhanging limbs and small diameter trees (<4 inch),
logging out blown down trees, and felling danger trees. Felled danger trees would be left in place or
removed if merchantable and marked for removal.
During harvest activities, closed roads would be opened for project use and typically re-closed prior to
acceptance of the harvest units. During use they would be maintained as needed to prevent resource
damage. The most common needs on closed roads proposed for use in the project are clearing, logging
out, and addition of surface cross drainage. Following use, water bars would be installed to provide
drainage prior to closing.
In Alternative 2, 8.98 miles of currently open roads would be closed after harvest activities are complete
and the remaining currently open roads would remain open after harvest activities. In Alternative 3,
approximately 10.9 miles of ML 2 roads would be closed post-sale and an additional 2.18 miles would be
closed with supplemental funding. Post-haul maintenance activities would include blading followed by
252
water barring or cross-ditching on most maintenance level 1 and 2 roads. Post-haul blading would be
performed on ML 3 roads and construction of earthen barricades would take place on ML 1 roads not
scheduled to be left open.
Some roads would require reconstruction (see below). Road maintenance work is still required for
reconstructed roads as use continues and maintenance levels are maintained. This is primarily for during-
and post-haul needs.
Road Reconstruction
The term reconstruction refers to road work outside the scope of timber sale maintenance specifications
and would be listed in the timber sale contract for specified road reconstruction and applicable to BT 5.2.
No reconstruction work is planned that would raise the road standard to a higher level. This work is
needed to support the removal of timber. It is necessary to provide safe and efficient access for timber
harvest, along with recreational users, administrative and private land access, and permittee and special
interest uses. Reconstruction would also provide resource stabilization and enhancements that would
reduce sedimentation and improve water quality in the watershed.
Road reconstruction is proposed in both action alternatives associated with the Sparta project.
Approximately 25.7 to 26.6 miles of NFS road, comprised of maintenance level 1, 2 and 3 routes, would
be reconstructed as summarized in Table 115. As these road miles are very similar among alternatives, all
three alternatives will be discussed together. See Appendix A of this report for route-by-route descriptions
of reconstruction needs.
Generally, road reconstruction would take place within the original footprint of the road template (i.e.,
between top of cut and toe of fill) and would be considered as heavy maintenance for the effects on other
resource areas. Replacement of culverts and repair of two bridge abutments would be required. This work
would remain in the original footprint of the road. Some closed roads are extensively grown in, have
blown down trees, and slide material to the degree that they would be classified as reconstruction rather
than maintenance. Some closed roads have springs that would need drainage work and subgrade
reinforcement to be suitable for haul.
Replacement or reconstruction of a bridge across Little Eagle Creek on NFSR 7735000 is proposed (Little
Eagle Bridge #2). Specialized equipment and construction experience would be required for completion
of this work. Neither the segment of road to be relocated or the bridge to be replaced are located in the
Wild and Scenic River corridor.
Temporary roads
By definition, temporary roads are authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other written authorization
that is not a forest road and that is not included in a forest transportation atlas (FSM 7705). In the context
of timber management, temporary roads include those roads needed only for the purchaser’s use for a
given timber sale(s), such as roads used to haul timber from landings to permanent National Forest
System roads. The Forest Service and the purchaser must agree upon the location, resource protection
requirements for road construction, clearing widths, and closure or rehabilitation requirements (FSH
2409.18, Ch 43.2). Temporary roads are not constructed to serve long-term future uses and must be closed
prior to closure of the timber sale. Temporary roads may only be used for short-term, non-recurrent use by
the purchaser. Purchasers would not be allowed to construct temporary roads in lieu of building specified
roads needed for future recurrent management of the area (FSM 2432.34b). Temporary roads are
addressed in the Timber Sale Contract in section BT6.63. Plans and criteria can be further specified in
provision CT5.1#, Temporary Road and Landing Construction.
BT6.63 text:
253
As necessary to attain stabilization of roadbed and fill slopes of Temporary Roads, Purchaser
shall employ such measures as outsloping, drainage dips, and water-spreading ditches.
After a Temporary road has served Purchaser’s purpose, Purchaser shall give notice to Forest
Service and shall remove bridges and culverts, eliminate ditches, outslope roadbed, remove ruts
and berms, effectively block the road to normal vehicular traffic where feasible under existing
terrain conditions, and build cross ditches and water bars, as staked or otherwise marked on the
ground by Forest service. When bridges and culverts are removed, associated fills shall also be
removed to the extent necessary to permit normal maximum flow of water.
Temporary road construction is planned to access harvest units where NFS roads do not exist. These roads
are needed to provide access for logging and hauling equipment in the harvest unit. Skyline units must
have yarders in key locations in order to log the unit. Roads to landings within tractor units reduce the
skidding distances, may reduce the amount of soil disturbance created by skid trails, and enhance the
economics of logging the unit. Particularly for skyline units, the unit cannot be harvested without an
access road to the landings. Once logged, these units would not be logged again for at least 20 years.
Because the sole purpose and need for the road is timber harvest to a local unit, they are planned as
temporary rather than system roads. See Haul Route Table for estimated miles planned. Temporary road
access may be located on existing templates or undisturbed ground. For the purpose of analyzing the
effects on soil conditions and hydrology, miles of temporary road are differentiated between known
existing templates and new disturbance. All temporary roads would be closed and rehabilitated under the
terms of the timber sale contract (BT5.1, CT5.1#, BT6.63) prior to acceptance of the associated units.
NFS road decommissioning
Roads were identified in the Eagle Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA-FS, 1997) as a source of sediment
to streams, especially roads located within riparian areas. Roads were also identified under the 2015
Wallowa-Whitman Travel Analysis Report (WWNF TAR) (Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule) as
possibly not needed for future management of forest resources which could be considered for
decommissioning or designation as a trail. Reducing the number of unneeded roads is expected to aid in
resource protection and establishment of a minimum sustainable road system. The objective of road
decommissioning is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads to a more natural state to protect
and enhance NFS lands (FSM 7734.02). Decommissioned roads are removed from the forest
transportation atlas. Road decommissioning treatments may range from simply administratively removing
the road from the system to fully restoring the slope to near natural contours. The level of treatment is
determined site-specifically based on the road’s current condition and location, and what is needed to
meet the objective to hydrologically stabilize the road.
Using the WWNF TAR as a base, and then refining those recommendations using on-the-ground road
reconnaissance, a group of roads adjacent to harvest units and within the project area was identified as
candidates for decommissioning: 28 road segments totaling approximately 6.9 miles. Each of these has an
operational maintenance level 1 and objective maintenance level 1 or D-Decommission. Most are located
in draw bottoms or are in close proximity to stream channels, where stabilization treatments would benefit
water quality. Others are in poor location for the aquatic resources and have naturally revegetated and
restored to a level where it would be more prudent to construct a new road than to reconstruct the old
road. These roads are shown on transportation system maps in the Road Management Maps in
Appendices A and B of the EA. The need for each road was confirmed during project design of the Sparta
project. If the road was needed for harvest activities in the Sparta action alternatives, the objective
maintenance level was kept as ML1 and it was not considered for decommissioning. These roads planned
to be used for haul would be treated under a timber sale in the same manner as closed roads.
254
Additional treatments needed on roads identified for decommissioning would be performed utilizing a
separate contract or possibly a stewardship contract to accomplish decommissioning objectives.
Material sources
Six existing material sources have been identified for future use in the project area. Rock material
produced from these sources would be utilized for pit-run, borrow, road surfacing, and subgrade
reinforcement in areas where springs or wet areas have developed in the roadbed. Each of these sites has
been previously developed for crusher and stockpile sites and approximately 5,000-15,000 cubic yards of
material could be crushed and stockpiled from these sources. The pit development areas may be increased
by 1-2 acres. In addition, there are numerous smaller sites that may be used for aggregate or roadside
borrow sources. No aggregate sources/quarries within the Wild and Scenic River corridor would be
developed for this project. The project record file contains detailed lists of all potential material rock
sources. The main sources are listed in the alternative description section of this EA.
Open road density
Table 116. Post-Sale Open Road Densities (ORD) by Alternative
Subwatershed Management Area
Total Acres
Alternative 1 ORD (mi/mi2)
Alternative 2 ORD (mi/mi2)
Alternative 3 ORD (mi/mi2)
Little Eagle Creek
1 3,148 3.38 3.09 2.97
3 1,396 1.82 1.82 1.82
Paddy Creek-Eagle Creek
1 5,962 2.88 2.56 2.39
1W 622 2.57 2.10 2.10
3 3,867 2.46 2.29 2.21
Although the management area 1 portion of Little Eagle Creek subwatershed would be above the forest
plan open road density standard of 2.5 miles per square mile under both action alternatives, it is difficult
to reduce road densities within this area due to the presence of several major road systems (roads 7700,
7725, 7720, 7735, and 7739) which are key for access into the area and cannot be closed. Post-sale road
management in Alternatives 2 and 3 would move nearly all of the management areas toward or within
open road density standards (Table 116). The majority of the big game winter range portions (MA1W
and MA3) of both subwatersheds are located within the Eagle Creek Cooperative Closure area which
would reduce the open road densities to below Forest Plan standards during the critical winter range
periods.
Travel restricted areas
Motorized use (for timber operations and administration) in closure areas during closure periods would be
permitted through the timber sale contract. Special requirements may be utilized in contract provisions to
limit use and haul during certain critical times identified in this analysis.
Designated snow-mobile routes
Winter-use of these routes would need to be assessed and written approval provided prior to permitting.
Designation of alternative routes for snow mobiles would be considered.
Cumulative Effects on Access and Log Transportation
Potential cumulative effects are analyzed by considering the proposed activities in combination with the
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the defined analysis area. The cumulative effects
analysis area for this project is the area contained within the project boundary, with the addition of haul
routes under NFS jurisdiction that extend beyond. A summary table of the present and reasonably
foreseeable future management activities that are either currently occurring or would occur within the
next five years are located in Appendix D of the EA. Those activities that overlap in time and space with
255
the Sparta activities within the analysis area that have the potential to create a measurable cumulative
effect on the transportation system will be analyzed below.
Alternative 1
No direct or indirect effects to the transportation system are expected. Therefore, on-going and reasonably
foreseeable road maintenance and repairs would not have additive impacts and would not result in any
cumulative effects.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Travel Management Plan
Changes to use of the transportation system in the Sparta project are expected to result from
implementation of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest’s travel management plan (TMP). Under the
2005 Travel Management Rule, the forest is required to designate roads, trails and areas for public motor
vehicle use. Since the forest is currently an open forest for vehicular use, these designations may be more
restrictive than what would be allowed under the road management plan for Alternative 2. This may
result in concentrating the recreational, commercial, and administrative users on a smaller number of
roads. This concentration of use may generate conflicts between users, especially with OHVs and full-
size traffic.
Increasing the number of users on a smaller road system would increase the amount of wear on the roads.
More frequent blading of roads may mitigate the above negative impacts on the road surface and
surfacing. This increase in maintenance would require additional funding which is not predicted to occur
based on current declining budget trends. Therefore, road maintenance would be deferred until funding
becomes available. Designation of roads, trails, and areas by publishing of the motor vehicle use maps
(MVUM) would have a minimal short-term effect on the transportation system as it currently exists on the
ground. Long-term, as use and maintenance is eliminated on undesignated roads, these roads are likely to
grow over with trees and vegetation and become unusable by standard motorized vehicles.
Road closures proposed under Alternative 3 would most likely begin before the TMP and MVUM are
published; however, the TMP would provide not only an alternative method for closing these roads
(promulgation versus physical closure, barricades, and barriers) but would also provide for enhanced
compliance with the intent of the closures over time.
Under both action alternatives there would be a change in how the use of closed roads for project
purposes would be authorized. During the implementation of a timber sale contract, roads designated on
the MVUM (open roads) and closed roads would be identified in the timber sale contract, and the
associated requirements for maintaining a road open to the general public for use would be specified
accordingly. The timber sale contract is the mechanism that would permit the contractor and his
employees and subcontractors to travel on roads otherwise not designated, and it would include
requirements for the contractor to close roads via signing or physical closures would be implemented on
these undesignated roads.
For roads that are not designated on the MVUM, when the contractor opens these roads for project use,
they would be maintained as open for joint use traffic unless otherwise stated in the timber sale contract
(e.g. when the road is determined to be unsafe during periods of haul for joint use). In this case, the road
would be open to public traffic during times when the contractor is not working. Upon completion of the
timber sale activities on a road, if the road is not a designated road on the MVUM, it will have drainage
devices installed and be physically closed in a manner consistent with its anticipated future use. If it is a
designated road on the MVUM, it will have drainage devices installed appropriate to its maintenance
256
level and will be left open to vehicular travel. Undesignated roads which have a designation for OHV use,
that are used for timber harvest or haul, will be managed as maintenance level 1 roads during the life of
the contract as described above. When final maintenance and closure activities take place on these types
of road, the road and any barricade(s) shall remain passable by OHV’s less than or equal to 50” in width.
Minimum Road System
Under 36 CFR 212.5, Subpart A, the Forest Service was directed to identify the minimum road system
needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest
System lands. This analysis was completed in September 2015 (WWNF TAR) and identified roads likely
needed for resource management on the forest as well as those roads no longer needed to meet forest
resource management objectives. It should be noted that the TAR is only a recommendation, and site –
specific evaluation and verification of these recommendations occurred during the Sparta planning
process. Minor changes to the recommendations in the TAR would be made as a part of the decision made
for this project.
Summary of All Effects
Alternative 1 - No Action
There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to the transportation system. There would be no
change in open road density within the Sparta project area.
Alternatives 2 and 3
Alternatives 2 and 3 would both reduce open road densities within the project area with a larger reduction
occurring under Alternative 3 in most management areas. Neither alternative proposes any new
permanent road construction. While both alternatives would move the area toward Forest Plan standards,
open road densities may change under both alternatives with implementation of the TMP at the
conclusion of that planning process.
The existing NFS road system will be used for project activities, with the greatest potential for effect
resulting from log hauling. Proposed maintenance and reconstruction is described for both action
alternatives. Objective maintenance levels would change under Alternative 2 for the 8.98 miles of open
roads to be closed and the two additional roads proposed for leaving open long term (7010175 and
7015075). Alternative 3 would move maintenance levels to ML1 for those roads currently open which
are not identified to be open in the road management plan under this alternative.
In addition to reconstruction proposed to facilitate timber harvest, there are proposed changes to the road
system that would occur under both action alternatives: replacement/reconstruction of a bridge, abutment
reconstruction on two additional bridges, removal/replacement of culverts for fish passage and water
quality enhancement, and reconstruction of some road segments to improve drainage and prevent runoff
into streams (such as realignment of road segments away from streams).
Consistency and Compliance
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended
Open Road Density: Alternatives 1 and 2 would maintain open road densities at current levels.
Alternative 3 would be consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management Plan
guidance moving the project area toward open road densities as directed for specific management areas
(4-34), in MA 1 (4-57) and MA 3 (4-58-62).
257
All alternatives are also consistent with other direction pertaining to transportation system management
(4-34-35).
There are not specific open road density standards or guidelines for Management areas 7 (Wild and
Scenic Rivers) and 15 (Old Growth). Forest plan direction for MA 7 is that the transportation system must
be consistent with wild, scenic, and recreational river objectives (4-71-75), which is discussed below.
Forest plan direction for MA 15 relative to transportation is to avoid new NFS road construction to
manage new and existing roads to retain the old-growth characteristics of the area including solitude (4-
90). The proposed Sparta project would be consistent with this guidance because there would be no new
permanent roads constructed.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with forest plan guidance for wild and
scenic rivers (MA 7), and specifically for Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River as outlined in the river plan
(Forest Plan Amendment 2).
Road work (including maintenance) would be conducted in a manner consistent with the Wild and Scenic
River designation. The proposed work would protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values
associated with Eagle Creek. Specifically, road reconstruction would be aligned with the following
desired future condition for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River: “Water quality will improve over
time with the emphasis on [outstandingly remarkable] values and water quality, and the requirement to
protect river values in all adjacent area activities. Watershed enhancement projects will continue to be
identified and accomplished over time.” In addition, the following standards/guide for watersheds (#56) is
applicable: “Improve road maintenance levels on roads to reduce sedimentation.” Road reconstruction
and maintenance projects identified in these alternatives address this guidance by:
Reducing sedimentation by constructing and maintaining drainage devices, such as ditches,
surface cross drains, and culverts, which not only reduce the volume and velocity of water flow,
but also the duration upon which the flow lies on the road itself. This allows the deposition of any
sediment in the flow to be released at more frequent intervals across the landscape, reducing or
eliminating any direct deposits into the streams themselves.
Reducing or eliminating rutting and channeling of water through road blading, thus reducing the
volume and velocity of water being transported over the road, allowing it to be distributed slowly
through sheet flow to the adjacent roadside vegetation.
Buttressing a roadbed by addition of crushed aggregate surfacing, thus allowing traffic to use a
road without creating ruts, rills, or other road damage. Construction of blind drains where spring
or other bogs have developed in the traveled way have a similar result.
Recreation standards and guides for the Recreational River classification (c. 2) states, “Road access will
be provided to most areas along the Recreational sections. Existing level of access will be maintained.”
This standard and guide would be met by maintaining and/or reconstructing certain segments of NFSR
7015, 7020, 77, and 7735, which are the main ingress and egress to Eagle Creek. This would enhance the
recreational experience by providing a safer and more durable route to travel, by blading and providing
drainage and surfacing as necessary to reduce the susceptibility to rutting, channeling, or concentration of
water (mudholes) on these roads.
Travel Management Rule of 2005 (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, 295)
Forest-wide travel management planning to meet the requirements of Subpart A of this rule was
completed in 2015 and used as a baseline for project design related to road management. Planning for
Subpart B of this rule (designated roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use) has been put on hold until
the completion of the Blue Mountain Forest Plan revision. With the exception of the 6.94 miles of roads
being recommended for decommissioning in this project, all other system roads within the project area
258
would be available for consideration during the planning for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor
vehicle use within the project area. See the Cumulative Effects section for discussion of the Wallowa-
Whitman Travel Management Plan (TMP).
Cultural and Paleontological Resources
Introduction
This section covers the effects of implementation on cultural and paleontological resources. Reports and
analyses can be found in the Sparta analysis file.
A. Cultural Resources
Prehistory
The Sparta project area elevation ranges from 3,600 feet to 5,600 feet. Due to the elevation gradient of
the project area Native American use is assumed to have been occasional to seasonal. Temporary camps
were limited to spring, summer, and early fall use. Deer, elk and other big game continue to be a
significant source of meat for Tribal members today. Plants are also gathered within the region by Tribal
members. Important vegetation of the Blue Mountain Province of the Columbian Basin physiographic
area includes trees (ponderosa pine, grand fir, Douglas fir, and western larch), grasses and shrubs
(bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, and bitterbrush), berries (strawberry, serviceberry, gooseberry,
huckleberry, current, and chokecherry), and roots (camas, cous biscuitroot, bitterroot, wild carrot, and
wild onion).
Prehistoric and historic American Indian cultural resource site types may include lithic scatters (chipped
stone artifacts), resource utilization areas such as tool stone quarries and plant processing sites, seasonal
camps such as small habitation areas or large villages, and special places. Special places may consist of
sites and places that are valued for cultural, religious, or traditional importance (for example, traditional
food locations such as berry areas, root gathering areas, medicinal plant grounds, and collection areas for
materials for utilitarian and ceremonial craft production, as well as usual and customary hunting and
fishing locations.). Artifacts may include obsidian, chert, or basalt projectile points, knives, scrapers,
burins, bi-faces, utilized flakes, and debitage. Bone tools, stone cobble tools, mortars and pestles, net
sinkers, beads, and metal objects such as those relating to firearms may also be included in artifact
assemblages.
History
Trappers and Protestant and Catholic missionaries began to arrive in the area around 1807. In 1855,
treaties were formed with the Cayuse, Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Nez Perce tribes. The Forest Service,
through the Secretary of Agriculture, is vested with statutory authority and responsibility for managing
resources of the National Forests. Commensurate with the authority and responsibility to manage is the
obligation to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with Indian tribes in developing and planning
management decisions regarding resources on NFS lands that may affect tribal rights. The Sparta project
planning area is within the interest areas of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).
Elements of respective American Indian cultures, such as tribal welfare, land, and resources, were
sometimes entrusted to the United States government as a result of treaties. Trust responsibilities resulting
from treaties dictate, in part, that the United States government facilitates the execution of treaty rights
and traditional cultural practices of American Indians by working with them on a government-to-
government basis in a manner that attempts a reasonable accommodation of their needs without
259
compromising the legal positions of the respective tribes or the federal government. Specific treaty rights
applicable to the land base managed by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are generally articulated in
Article III of the 1855 Nez Perce Treaty:
“The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said
reservation is further secured to said Indians: as also the right of taking fish at all usual and
accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary buildings
for curing, together with the privilege or hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing
their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.”
And as part of Article I of the 1855 Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla Treaty:
“Provided, also, That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and
bordering said reservation is herby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and
accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United states, and of erecting suitable
buildings for curing the same; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing
their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them.”
Persons who traveled to the Willamette Valley often passed through northeastern Oregon on the Oregon
Trail. Settlements were not established in the area until the 1860s at the same time gold began to be
discovered. Gold mining created the need for new and larger settlements. Gold camps stimulated the
economy through their demand for food, living supplies, and mining equipment. The need for food
brought ranchers to the area. Once the railroad reached the region, the lumber market grew. By the
1880s, lumber began to be shipped to distant markets.
Effects Analysis
The Sparta Project heritage resources analysis area encompasses all of the 17,951 acre project area. The
area of potential effect, following Region 6 guidance and 36 CFR 800.16(d), for the Sparta project area
consists of slopes less than 15 percent within the analysis area. Site records and existing maps were
reviewed; all known sites were surveyed again for this project. Transects that follow Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office guidelines at 20 meter intervals were used. Springs are considered a high
potential area and were surveyed.
Cultural resource identification in the project area focused on three primary types of resources: prehistoric
archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, and places that support resources of contemporary tribal
interest. No new or isolated sites were discovered within the project area.
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources
Alternative 1 – No Action
There were no new sites located during the survey of Sparta. The Sparta project area has had numerous
activities take place over the years. These activities have included logging, mining, and grazing. There
were no new prehistoric or historic properties located within the area of potential effect. Many of the
historic sites that were revisited were found to be in high states of decomposition. This decomposition is
from natural causes. In not too many years most of the historic sites will no longer be visible. There are 3
linear features within the Sparta project as well. One ditch is still in use and is maintained by a local
rancher for irrigation water.
Under this alternative, no treatment activities would be undertaken; therefore, there would be no direct,
indirect or cumulative effects to these resources.
260
Alternatives 2 and 3
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest zone archaeologist has determined that Sparta Vegetation
Management Project is considered an “undertaking” pursuant to the definition provided in section 301(7)
of the National Historic Preservation Act. This undertaking will have a No Historic Properties Affected
determination pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4, Stipulation III (B) 2 of the Programmatic Agreement,
undertaking meets the criteria in the PA for a Historic Properties Avoided determination (See SHPO
concurrence in project files).
There are three historic mining ditches that cross through units of Sparta. One of the ditches is the historic
Sparta Mining Ditch, dug by overseas Chinese in 1873 and which spans approximately 30 miles. All three
ditches are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as previously determined. Therefore the
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement between the State Historic Preservation Office and the United
States Forest Service for the management of historic water transportation ditches on the Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest will be met. Historic Water Transportation Ditch Corridor Management
Guidelines are for those units in Sparta involved with all three ditches.
Treatment of lithic scatters that are appropriate to avoid impacting lithic scatter sites according to the
Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Forest Service, Oregon State
Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
The complete list of Project Design Features to protect Heritage resources are listed in the mitigations
section of the alternatives description to would or eliminate potential adverse impacts to cultural,
historical, or heritage sites and resources.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would be consistent with the Wallowa-Whitman Land and Resource Management
Plan as all cultural resource standards and guidelines would be met (USDA Forest Plan 1990).
B. Paleontological Resources
Mapping, field observations, and research have been used to determine if the proposed alternatives would
have any adverse impacts on paleontological sites located within the Sparta project area or affect any
geologic unit producing paleontological resources. There is one known paleontological site located
within the Sparta project area. Because all alternatives require ground disturbing activities,
paleontological resources may be likely to be adversely impacted. However the ground disturbing
activities likely to impact paleontological resources are limited to temporary road construction. Any
ground disturbing activities will trigger a paleontological survey and development of conservation
strategies for those projects.
Affected Environment
Of the eight geologic units within the Sparta project area, only one has yielded a vertebrate fossil to date.
The geologic unit of concern is the Martin Bridge Limestone formation, a late Triassic marine sediment
layer that is part of an exotic accreted margin (Blackburn 1991, p.184). The Sparta project area has many
scattered outcrops of the Martin Bridge Limestone and some prominent cliffs. The Martin Bridge
Limestone formation is an important resource because it is the only prominent Triassic limestone exposed
in northeastern Oregon and adjacent Idaho (Stanley et. al. 2008, p.228). Along with the vertebrate fossil
occurrence, there are many studies have been done on the invertebrates forming ancient reefs in the
Martin Bridge Limestone formation.
The vertebrate fossil discovered within the Martin Bridge Limestone formation was an Ichthyosaur
species, and the oldest specimen of this kind found in Oregon to date. It was a large fishlike carnivorous
reptile, sized 1.5 to 15 m in length, which lived during the Triassic and Jurassic periods (Orr 1985, p. 75).
In 1981, a field camp class from University of Oregon found twenty-three articulated vertebrae with ribs
and natural arches intact in a single location (Orr 1985p. 77). The specimens have been curated and
261
stored at the Museum of Natural and Cultural History in the Condon collection on the grounds of
University of Oregon in Eugene.
Paleontological Special Interest Areas are a result of an area that is rich in rare or paleontological fossils.
These areas become inaccessible for rock hounding or removal of any rock material. No Paleontological
Special Interest Areas have been established on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest due to lack of
concentrated vertebrate fossil sites.
Effects Analysis
Assumptions
The project area is the analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on this resource.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect
paleontological resources:
Danger tree removal
Pre-commercial thinning
Prescribed fire
Treatments in RHCAs
Connective Corridors
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
Closed roads re-opened for administrative access
Road Decommissioning
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
Culvert Replacement
ROW Acquisition
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Paleontological Resources
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on paleontological resources because it would
continue current management.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The 1981 discovery location is not within any treatment unit and therefore would not be affected by this
vegetation management project. However the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) according to
Don Elder of the USDA Forest Service (Elder, p. 1) of the Martin Bridge Limestone formation is rated as
a 3a: Sedimentary units; often marine with scattered vertebrate fossils; fossil content varies in
significance, abundance and predictable occurrence.
All action alternatives propose creating temporary roads, which is a significant ground disturbing activity.
Even though the equipment isn’t supposed to go to a great depth, outcrops of the Martin Bridge
Limestone would be affected by the blading of roads to get into locations. Temporary roads constructed
in areas outside the Martin Bridge Limestone formation would not affect potential paleontological
resources. Table 117 shows the roads within the formation, the evaluation of the proposed area, and
potential to find paleontological resources.
262
Table 117. Potential for Effects of Temporary Road Construction on Paleontological Resources.
Temporary road number Evaluation Potential
T-10 Fairly steep slope along a ridge, scattered outcrops that may be cut into
High
Three skyline and tractor units overlap the Martin Bridge Limestone formation. The other activities
related to vegetation management projects (ie. skidding, underburning, etc.) would have less affect on the
paleontological resources because of the lack of contact with the bedrock in the Martin Bridge Limestone
formation. However, tractor units would have the most effect to potential paleontological resources if
tractors were continually running over outcrops. The tractor units that are partially or entirely within the
Martin Bridge Limestone under Alternatives 2 and 3 are: 118, 115, and 116. Rubber tired or tracked
tractors need to be used to prevent fracturing and crushing of the bedrock and therefore the vertebrate
fossils inside. A paleontological trained person will be on site to observe all temporary road building (T-
10) in the above units. During timber sale activities such as skidding and cross country travel, all
limestone outcrops should be avoided and a paleontological trained person should be notified during work
in the above units to do spot checking.
Should further ground disturbing actions take place outside the proposed temporary roads and tractor
units, or other activities come in contact and cut into bedrock, a Forest Service paleontologist or approved
contract paleontologist will be contacted to determine if the resources on site will be impacted. If
paleontological resources are found to be impacted during vegetation management activities, a survey will
be required and further conservation strategies will be developed.
Cumulative Impacts on Paleontological Resources
No on-going or reasonably foreseeable future activities which overlap in time and space with the Martins
Bridge Limestone formation would have impacts on paleontological resources, therefore; unless other
significant paleontological resources are located during the Sparta vegetation management project, there
would be no cumulative effects for the areas being worked on within the Martin Bridge Limestone
formation. If there are significant discoveries during the duration of the Sparta management project then
those sites will have to be evaluated and avoided for the Sparta and future projects.
Climate Change
This proposed action would affect 3,781 to 4,413 acres of forest by commercially removing trees from
treated stands, retaining a residual stand of about 50-70 percent of the original stand by basal area. This
scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the 23,531 forested land being considered in the
two subwatersheds as a whole. Climate change is a global phenomenon because major greenhouse gasses
(GHG) mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of GHG
in 2010 was estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatonnes1 globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatonnes nationally (US
EPA, 2015), a project of this magnitude makes an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions.
Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to
greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible.
In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s contribution
to cumulative effects on global greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has summarized the contributions to climate change of
global human activity sectors in its Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). In 2010, anthropogenic
(human-caused) contributors to greenhouse gas emissions came from several sectors:
1 A gigatonne is one billion metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 trillion pounds.
263
Industry, transportation, and building – 41%
Energy production – 35%
Agriculture – 12%.
Forestry and other land uses – 12%
There is agreement that the forestry sector contribution has declined over the last decade (IPCC, 2014;
Smith et al., 2014; FAOSTAT, 2013). The main activity in this sector associated with GHG emissions is
deforestation, which is defined as removal of all trees, most notably the conversion of forest and grassland
into agricultural land or developed landscapes (IPCC 2000).
This vegetation management and fuel reduction project does not fall within any of these main contributors
of greenhouse gas emissions. Forested land will not be converted into a developed or agricultural
condition. In fact, forest stands are being retained and thinned to maintain a vigorous condition that
supports trees, and sequesters carbon long-term. US forests sequestered 757.1 megatonnes2 of carbon
dioxide after accounting for emissions from fires and soils in 2010 (US EPA, 2015). However there is
growing concern over the impacts of climate change on US forests and their current status as a carbon
sink. There is strong evidence of a relationship between increasing temperatures and large tree mortality
events in forests of the western US. There is widespread recognition that climate change is increasing the
size and frequency of droughts, fires, and insect/disease outbreaks, which will have major effect on these
forests’ role in the carbon cycle (Joyce et al. 2014).
The project is in line with the suggested practice of reducing forest disturbance effects found in the
National Climate Assessment for public and private forests (Joyce et al. 2014). Here specifically, the
project proposes to reduce stand densities to increase resistance to drought and insect mortality, using
prescribed fire and thinning to increase resistance and resilience to wildfire, thinning, removal of small
trees, etc. The release of carbon associated with this project is justified given the overall change in
condition increases forest resistance to release of much greater quantities of carbon from wildfire,
drought, insects/disease, or a combination of these disturbance types (Millar et al. 2007). This project falls
within the types of options presented by the IPCC for minimizing the impacts of climate change on forest
carbon, and represents a potential synergy between adaptation measures and mitigation. Actions aimed at
enhancing forest resilience to climate change by reducing the potential for large-scale, catastrophic
disturbances such as wildfire also prevents release of GHG and enhances carbon stocks (Smith et al.
2014). The Sparta project reflects the rationale behind these recommendations because it manages stand
densities making the stands more resistant to insect attack or fire, etc. and maintaining or increasing
biomass production over the long-term.
Timber management projects can influence carbon dioxide sequestration in four main ways: (1) by
increasing new forests (afforestation), (2) by avoiding their damage or destruction (avoided
deforestation), (3) by manipulating existing forest cover (managed forests), and (4) through transferring
carbon from the live biomass to the harvested wood product carbon pool. Land-use changes, specifically
deforestation and regrowth, are by far the biggest factors on a global scale in forests’ role as sources or
sinks of carbon dioxide, respectively (IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000).
Projects like the proposed action that create forests or improve forest conditions and capacity to grow
trees are positive factors in carbon sequestration.
2 A megatonne is one million metric tons of CO2; equal to about 2.2 billion pounds.
264
Recreation
Introduction
The following will cover the recreation activities related to: dispersed recreation, developed sites, trails,
and recreational permitted uses which are outside of congressionally designated areas. There is a separate
section for the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) which is a congressionally designated area.
Although the majority of recreation activities within the Sparta project area are predominately dispersed
in nature, there is also an array of developed sites, trail use and special use permitted activities. Other than
the presence of the wild and scenic river, the number of facilities, development scale of the recreation
sites, and predominant recreation uses are fairly typical for other areas across the forest.
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest developed a recreation program niche which reflects its defining
or unique characteristics and abilities (WWNF, 2006). To define these characteristics, the niche focuses
on recreation setting descriptions and emphasis, site function, key activities, site types and capacity. The
Sparta project area is within the ‘Wallowa Mountains’ setting. The three settings for the forest were
delineated based on large geographic areas with elements of landscape characteristics, common
management themes, similar recreation activities and site developments. The ‘Wallowa Mountains’ is
characterized as - a mixture of backcountry roads and trails transitioning into wilderness. This
designation is a mid-range recreation setting set between the ‘Hells Canyon’ setting (a combination of
river corridors, scenic byways, viewpoints, and access into upland areas/wilderness, and cultural sites),
and ‘Blue Mountains’ setting (more traditional uses along forest routes transitioning into the
backcountry). Major activities identified in the ‘Wallowa Mountains’ setting include;
hiking/backpacking, horseback riding/packing, viewing wildlife and scenery, fishing, snowmobiling, and
hunting.
Existing Condition
Recreation Activities
Although no specific recreation use studies were completed for Sparta, inferences can be made to the
typical types of activities that occur in the project area based on a national recreation survey. In 2014 the
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) conducted the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)
(WWNF, 2016) survey to gather information about recreation visitor satisfaction, activities and use levels.
One product of the survey revealed the primary and overall participation levels for various activities.
Table 118. Participation in WWNF Recreational Activities (top 10 only)
Top activities on the WWNF
Percent of visitors who participated in this activity
Percent of visitors who participated in this as primary
activity
Relaxing 48.3 10.5
Viewing Natural Features 46.8 8.7
Viewing Wildlife 46.3 4.5
Hiking/Walking 43.7 10.5
Driving for Pleasure 26.5 3.2
Picnicking 18.4 2.4
Fishing 17.3 7.6
Visiting Historic Sites 15.4 0.2
Gathering Forest Products 14.7 10.5
Developed Camping 13.1 2.6
Some of the least participated activities which occur on the WWNF are; motorized trail activity (2.8%),
resort use (2.3%), Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use (2.1%), and snowmobiling (1.2%). The highest
265
percent of survey respondents were from; within 0-25 miles of the forest (26.9%), within 26-50 miles of
the forest (19.6%), within 101-200 miles of the forest (17.2%), and within 201-500 miles of the forest
(14.4%). A total of 6.4% of visitors travelled to the forest from greater than 500 miles away. During their
time on the forest, visitors spent an average 3.1 hours at developed recreation sites, 46.0 hours at
overnight sites, 34.8 hours in designated Wilderness, and 11.3 hours in undesignated areas.
Although inferences can be made from NVUM survey or from local manager’s observations about the
types of uses that occur in Sparta, no specific information is available to better understand why visitors
come to this area. One reason for visitation to an area may be linked to a visitors ‘sense of place’. Sense
of place is the human connection to a place, and may involve meanings and values that facilitate intimate
connections with particular geographical area (Farnum, et al., 2005). This is an individual’s attachment to
a place based on both internal (i.e. emotional, personal, social, cultural, activity) and external factors (i.e.
scenic, aesthetic, landscape). It also varies between local residents who often feel that they have a unique,
special, privileged sense of place, and tourists or regular visitors who also have strong attachments to
places. Since this is an individual’s ‘human connection’ to a place, it is anticipated that a variety of
comments and reactions to management proposals will be received. However managers face a challenge
in that there will be multiple senses of place and a variety of possibly conflicting meanings and
attachments amongst users.
Dispersed Recreation
Visitors participating in dispersed recreation activities do not primarily use or rely upon developed sites
such as campgrounds, or picnic areas to conduct their activity. However they may use a developed site to
support their activity, such as parking at a trailhead or getting drinking water from a campground, but
their main time is spent away from the developed sites. All of the activities listed in Table R3 (except
developed camping) could be viewed as dispersed recreation activities. Other ones which may be seen in
the project area include activities like OHV use, snowmobiling, horseback riding, and cross country
skiing.
Dispersed camping is a popular activity for overnight users who do not camp in a developed campground.
Outside of the wild and scenic river corridor area there are 33 identified dispersed campsites. These
campsites receive low to moderate use beginning in late spring with the majority of sites showing heaviest
use during the fall hunting season. They are identified by their rustic user-built features such as rock fire
rings, tables and meat poles (to hang big game). The campsites are primarily located in flat areas off main
transportation systems adjacent to water sources like streams and meadows. Camp sizes vary but the
average ones can accommodate 1-2 vehicles with larger ones hosting 3-4 truck/trailer or RV units. Many
of these campsites have been used for decades with some sites showing soil compaction and a loss of
vegetation.
As shown in Table 118 above, other types of dispersed recreation occur year-round. Visitors enjoying
these recreational pursuits may use forest roads as transportation networks (i.e. OHV riders, snowmobile
riders, cross-country skiers, driving for pleasure, viewing wildlife), or just travel cross country away from
roads and trails (i.e. hunters, viewing nature, fishing, hiking or walking). Recreationists who pursue
dispersed activities often do so for a combination of desires to; be away from crowds, seek solitude, enjoy
nature (scenery, geology, wildlife) and cultural sites, seek challenges or adventure, or wanting to be more
self-reliant.
Currently, OHV use can occur both on designated open roads, closed roads, trails and in many cross-
country locations in Sparta. Overall motor-vehicle use in the area is light yet it does increase during the
big-game hunting season. There is one cooperative travel management area which restricts motor-vehicle
266
uses during certain periods of the year. These areas are managed in conjunction with the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife within the project area.
Table 119. Cooperative Travel Management Areas
Cooperative Travel Management Area Approx Acres (outside of WS River)
Closure Period
Eagle Creek (Southeast part of project area – along Eagle Creek)
3,456 Closed Dec 1 through April 15 (except for snowmobiles)
Developed Recreation Sites
There is only one developed recreation site located outside of the wild and scenic river corridor in Sparta.
This small facility known as Summit Point Trailhead is located on the northeast edge of the project area.
The site has parking for about 5 truck and trailer vehicles (approximately 15 people), and some stock
structures like hitching rails and loading ramps. It has a development scale of 2 which is defined as
having minimum site modification, rustic or rudimentary improvements designed primarily for protection
of the site rather than the comfort of the user. The site is used to access the Cliff River Trail (#1885) into
the Eagle Cap Wilderness area. Overall use of the facility is low except during fall hunting season when it
may be used at a moderate level.
Developed Trails
As typical in other areas on the WWNF, this area has both summer horse/hiker trails and winter
snowmobile trails.
Table 120. Developed Trails within the Sparta Project Area
Trail Name and Number Miles in Project/ (Total Miles )
Designed Use Trail Class (USDA-FS, 2008)
Sullivan (#1946) 0.4 mi (6.6) Pack saddle 3 – developed
Cliff River #(1885) 0.3 mi (10.5) Pack saddle 3 - developed
Forshey Snowmobile (#S-7000E) 0.8 mi (7.6) Snowmobile 3 – developed
Empire Gulch Snowmobile (#S-7015) 2.9 mi (4.7) Snowmobile 3 – developed
Lily White Snowmobile (#S-7020) 3.3 mi (4.5) Snowmobile 3 – developed
Eagle Drive (#S-7700E) 8.2 mi (27.8) Snowmobile 3 – developed
Little Eagle Snowmobile (#S-77150) 5.5 mi (10.1) Snowmobile 3 - developed
Project Area Totals = 21.4 miles
The trailhead for the Cliff River Trail is located at Summit Point. This trail receives moderate use in the
summer and fall to access the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Sullivan Trail does not have an established trailhead
and receives light use. The 21.4 miles of designated and groomed snowmobile trails are all located on
existing open forest roads. They are part of a larger trail system that attracts touring snowmobilers
throughout the winter months, December through April. Staging areas for these trails are located out of
the project area in Halfway, Forshey Meadows, and Catherine Summit.
Permitted Uses
Some recreational activities are managed under permits which allow recreationists or operators to do
certain activities under the terms of the permits. These permits include; gathering firewood, gathering
forest products like mushrooms, hunting and recreation special use activities. Use of these permits can be
considered ‘recreational’ since visitors often participate in them for primary or secondary forms of
enjoyment.
Annually the WWNF sells over 2,500 of personal use firewood permits and over 1900 forest product
permits like mushroom and Christmas tree tags. Each permit has terms and conditions which guide uses
267
and locations for the activities. Although no data is available for how many permits are used in Sparta,
these activities can generally occur in most areas outside of riparian areas, old growth area, tree
plantations, and other special designated location described on the permits. There are no long-term
recreation special use permits such as outfitter and guides inside the project area.
Sparta lies within the Keating Big Game Management Unit. The area is popular during big game bow and
rifle seasons in late summer and fall, and turkey hunting in the late fall and early spring. Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife will continue to offer hunting opportunities in this area as part of their
management of big game.
Effects Analysis
Methods
The method of analysis included:
A review of the appropriate Forest Service policy and goals, objectives and standards of the
Forest Plan
An analysis of the Forest Plan recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS)
Project site visits
A review of Forest-level recreation use surveys
A review of the USDA Forest Service literature related to recreation management (i.e. sense of
place)
Data base queries for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest GIS data base queries (i.e. dispersed
recreation points, developed recreation points, management areas)
Data base queries for the USDA Forest Service I-web data base
The existing condition was compared with possible changes to recreation use if alternatives were
implemented.
The environmental effects will be discussed in different timeframes. For direct and indirect effects, a short
term for recreational visitors is viewed as occurring within two years (or 2 visitation seasons from the
beginning of the implementation activity (i.e. harvest, post-harvest activities and prescribed fire
treatments are on-going). Long term is viewed as a period of time ranging from two to ten years after
initiating the implementation activity (i.e. harvest and post-harvest activities are done).
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities in the action alternatives would have a negligible potential to effect recreation
opportunities in the project area:
Danger tree removal
Snag Retention
Snag Creation
Aspen Treatments
Right of Way Acquisition
These activities will not be discussed further in this analysis.
268
Direct and Indirection Effects to Recreation
Alternative 1 – No Action
There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1. Vegetation densities or characteristics
would not be modified, and the forest would continue to be influenced by natural processes and limited
management actions, such as fire suppression. Since no implementation activities would result under this
alternative, no change is anticipated in the number of visitors, frequency or season of use in dispersed
recreation activities, developed recreation sites, trails, or permitted uses. Recreational visits within the
project area would remain near the same levels as previous years and under this alternative traditional use
patterns and recreational opportunities would not be impacted. Hunting, hiking and other dispersed
recreation and permitted uses access and opportunities are expected to remain unchanged.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The specific project activities with potential to impact recreation are common to all the proposals in
Alternatives 2 and 3. Each of these Alternatives propose different levels of activities but the effects to the
public involved in different recreation endeavors common to the area are relatively the same.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would include four main project activities that could affect recreation:
Timber harvest (i.e. commercial harvest of timber, post-harvest noncommercial thinning, and
noncommercial thinning)
Post-harvest activity fuels treatments (i.e. grapple pile, hand pile/burn)
Prescribed fire (i.e. post-harvest activity fuels treatment and ‘standalone’ prescribed fire
prescriptions)
Road and Access activities (i.e. danger tree removal along open system haul roads, haul roads,
temporary road construction, permanent road reconstruction, road realignment, road
decommissioning, bridge reconstruction and repair)
A review was made of the project proposal for all action alternatives with Forest Plan Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) goals and the standards and guidelines related to recreation. The Sparta
project activities are within these Goals, Standards and Guidelines because:
For the Roaded Natural ROS class:
Timber harvest is allowed within this ROS class and is scheduled as part of the project
Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) of ‘retention’ and ‘partial retention’ will be retained as seen
from roads and trails. See Scenery Specialist Reports.
Access generally will be retained on single or double lane dirt/gravel roads
Road management objectives will continue to accept or encourage use by dispersed recreationist
in highway vehicles (except the proposed road closures summarized below)
No development scale changes are proposed for developed sites or dispersed recreation sites
It is anticipated that use densities in people at one time per acre range between 0.04 and 0.25
density includes averaging in developed sites will remain the same
There are no proposals related to interpretation
For the Semi-Primitive Motorized ROS class:
Vegetation management will include timber harvest for the purpose of maintaining a healthy
attractive semi-primitive setting. (See Forest Vegetation Specialist Report)
Harvest units will meet ‘foreground retention’ VQOs. See Scenery Specialist Reports.
Motorized harvesting will occur on primitive roads during low public use seasons
269
No changes to road management objectives are proposed (except the proposed road closures
summarized below)
No development scale changes are proposed for developed sites
There are no proposals related to interpretation
For Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in MA1 and 1W:
The presence of the dispersed camps is recognized as contributing to dispersed recreation in the
project area
Mitigations such as treatment of slash and harvest material, site cleanup, and notifying the general
public of on-going activities will be considered and efforts made to retain the natural character of
the dispersed area. See Forest Vegetation, Visuals/Scenery Resources and Fire/Fuels and Air
Quality Specialist Reports.
Prescriptions for timber harvesting, cleanup, site preparation, and thinning will consider the
environmental setting that contributes to the attraction of these sites for recreation purposes. The
attempt will be made to retain this attractive character during and after treatments.
Dispersed Recreation – Dispersed recreation activities will be affected by all four types of project
activities mentioned above. In the short term, timber harvest, post-harvest, and prescribed fire activities
may restrict user access into a treatment unit due to safety purposes, or users may be discouraged from
entering a unit due to the presence of equipment and workers. This may occur in peak summer visitations
or during the fall hunting seasons. Downed trees, slash piles, loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms,
berries), active fire and residual smoke will also discourage visitor use in an area. Noise and other
disturbances may affect the quality of the recreation experience for an individual regardless of the
proximity to the activity.
A change in natural features or landscape characteristics may elicit different responses in visitors. As
discussed above one attraction to an area may be linked to visitors ‘sense of place’ (Farnum, et al., 2005).
A visitor’s sense of place includes attachments to external factors like natural features or landscape
characteristics. Important landscape features may consist of large old growth trees and groves, variety of
trees species, an open or closed tree canopy, rock formations, water bodies, and natural appearing
openings (USDA-FS, 1995). The proposed treatments such as harvesting large trees, reducing slash or
altering canopy cover will change or remove some of these natural features. In some cases the changing
landscape will displace or discourage certain types of dispersed recreational activities (i.e. studying
nature, viewing wildlife). In other areas it may encourage new dispersed recreational activities (i.e. big
game hunting, photography) not available under the previous landscape.
For Alternatives 2 and 3 there are 14 dispersed camps that are within harvest units. Depending on when
the timing and proximity of the treatment activities occur, campers at these sites may be displaced or have
a less quality experience due to noise, equipment activity, and dust. For Alternatives 2 and 3 there are two
dispersed camps that are within units scheduled for prescribed burning. Similar to camps within harvest
units campers again may be displaced or have a less quality experience due to smoke, active fire and
equipment activity.
Direct effects to recreationists accessing the 33 dispersed camps in the project area or other areas will
occur on roads during haul periods. The presence of large trucks or an increased frequency of traffic may
discourage road use to these sites as well as associate activities outside the WSR corridor until the road
work subsides. When roads are being constructed/reconstructed visitors may expect delays or closures
during work periods. Once temporary roads are closed or system roads are decommissioned they will no
longer be available for snowmobile access to backcountry areas. If roads are used for winter haul, they
may be available for access by winter recreationist like cross-skiers which is uncharacteristic in most
years due to closure by snow.
270
Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments will elicit various responses from recreationists.
Recreationist seeking more open stands of forest may enjoy increased scenery views, improved cross
country skiing or snowmobiling, and some types of big-game hunting and wildlife viewing. Other visitors
may view a loss of large trees and denser forest as a reduction in opportunities to view natural features
and scenery, observe wildlife and take self-discovery hikes. Another long term effect will provide safe and
adequate roaded and trail access for the recreating public, through the cutting of danger trees and
improving roadside visitor travel. This is also a long term effect for developed recreation and permitted
uses.
Developed Recreation - Although similar to the effects of dispersed recreation, developed recreation is
more limited due to the number of sites in Sparta. Access to developed sites will be delayed or restricted
during haul periods, or road construction. The presence of large log trucks and other equipment on haul
routes may discourage users from driving the main access route to developed sites or other associated
activities outside of the developed recreation area. The noise, dust, smoke and equipment activity during
harvest, post-harvest and prescribed fires may affect the quality of the recreation experience for a visitor
regardless of the proximity to the activity. The frequency and intensity of these activities may vary from a
few hours to several weeks. Some loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing
opportunities may result with the vegetation treatments and prescribed fire activities visible from the
developed sites.
Developed Trails – There would be no direct or indirect effects to the summer pack saddle/ hiking trails
since no activities are proposed on them. Snowmobile trails have the potential to be impacted if a
designated snowmobile route is plowed for winter haul. Coordination with the local snowmobile clubs
may alleviate the concern if alternate temporary routes are groomed during the short term.
Permitted Uses – All permitted uses are authorized under the term and conditions of a permit which allow
activities not available to a non-permitted user. Most of these uses are intrinsically tied to road access, and
the removal of forest products is dependent upon specific areas or vegetation. Permitted uses will be
affected by all four project activities mentioned above. Like dispersed recreation, timber harvest, post-
harvest, and prescribed fire activities have short term effects and may restrict or discourage entry into a
harvest unit. Depending on the level of treatment activity, permit users may be displaced to other areas
inside or outside Sparta. Increased obstacles like downed trees and slash piles, or loss of forest-products
(i.e. mushrooms, berries) will also change harvest patterns. Residual smoke, dust, fire, noise and
equipment activity is also not conducive to a quality recreation experience. The same effects for road use
described in ‘Dispersed Recreation’ is also applicable to this recreation use. If roads are used for winter
haul, they may be available for access by winter recreationist like Christmas tree cutters who normally do
not have access in many roads during the winter due to deep snow packs. Firewood cutters may find some
benefits from roadside ‘salvage’ but may lose opportunities if firewood is removed from a unit as part of
the fuel reduction prescription.
Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments will solicit various responses from permit users.
Permit holders like mushroom pickers, will find short term benefits from open, disturbed mixed-conifer
forest stands, whereas berry pickers may view the loss of berry patches as a negative impact.
Cumulative Effects to Recreation
Alternative 1
Past projects and actions which have affected recreation uses include timber harvest, road construction,
and recreation uses. Residual effects of past timber harvest influences dispersed recreation activities by
displacing some uses (i.e. big game hunters may go to areas with more denser canopy covering, berry
271
pickers may go to areas where plants are more abundant) whereas it may have encouraged other uses (i.e.
open areas allow better viewing background scenery). Road construction has had both a positive and
negative effect. It has been viewed by some users as increasing access to areas, yet has had a negative
affect for non-motorized users who may have previously used an unroaded area. The allowance of cross-
country travel has affected some non-motorized recreation activities due to sight, sound and emissions of
vehicles. The establishment of dispersed camps has provided traditional camp sites by making user
created routes to the sites and expanding the ‘camp-able’ area.
Because there are no activities proposed under the no action alternative there are no cumulative effects
associated with this alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 3
This project in combination with current activities has a slight potential to influence dispersed recreation
activities by displacing big game hunters, berry pickers, firewood gathering, open areas for viewing
scenery, etc. Road decommissioning proposed in this project would have a slight impact on motorized
use, including closing access to dispersed camping areas; however, leaving roads 7010175 and 7015075
open after project completion under Alternative 2 would offset some of these impacts. Alternative 3
proposes to close 2.29 more miles of currently open roads than Alternative 2 following the completion of
project activities.
The Forest Travel Management Plan (TMP) in combination with the road management proposals in this
project have the most potential to impact motorized and non-motorized users as it will designate roads,
trails, and areas where the public may recreate with their motor vehicles. Once implemented, the travel
management plan would manage cross-country motor vehicle use even in areas where the harvest and fuel
reduction activities have reduced obstacles and motor vehicles could travel. It will also enhance the
effectiveness of the regulated cooperative closure area within the project area and reduce potential user
conflicts enhancing non-motorized recreation opportunities.
Restrictions on cross-country motor vehicle travel could reduce the effect to non-motorized recreation
activities from the sight, sound and emissions of vehicles. It may also impact special uses such as
firewood gathering and dispersed camping. Cross-country travel restrictions while possibly impacting
firewood gathering, would provide additional protection to snags which may be more available due to the
more open nature of the treated stands post-harvest and slash treatments.
Maintenance of the 7700 and 7015 roads within the project area along with haul activities has the
potential to increase dust and noise in dispersed camping areas and to increase travel delays for short
periods during maintenance and harvest activities. It could also result in some additional safety hazards
along the 77 road for motorists especially during a busy summer season.
Sparta project activities in combination with the remainder of the special uses within the project area do
not create a cumulative impact on recreation or permitted uses.
Summary of Effects
To display the differences between alternatives, indicators have been identified that affect the recreation
activities. The qualitative rationale for these analysis indicators are summarized below.
272
Table 121. Recreation Effects Indicators
Indicators Effects Summary
Acres of Timber Harvest (commercial
harvest of timber, post-harvest noncommercial thinning, and noncommercial thinning)
Restricts/discourages access into harvest units due to closures or work activity
Discourages/displaces use due to physical obstacles (i.e. slash), dust and noise
Decreases habitat for forest products (i.e. berries) or increases habitat for forest-products (i.e. mushrooms)
Increases localized use by visitors wanting more open stands, and decreases use by visitors wanting more closed or untreated stands
Loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing opportunities from developed sites
Increases roadside safety from hazard tree removal
Acres of Post-harvest Fuels Treatments (grapple pile, hand pile/burn)
Restricts/discourages access into units due to closures or post-harvest activity
Discourages/displaces use due to physical obstacles (i.e. slash piles), and noise
Decreases habitat for forest products (i.e. berries) and increases habitat for forest-products (i.e. mushrooms)
Increases localized use by visitors wanting more open stands, and decreases localized use by visitors wanting more closed or untreated stands, and larger trees
Loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing opportunities from developed sites
Acres of Prescribed Fire (post-harvest
activity fuels treatment and ‘standalone’ prescribed fire only)
Restricts/discourages access into treatment units due to closures or work activity
Discourages/displaces use due to active fire or residual smoke
Loss or change of vistas, scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing opportunities from developed sites and dispersed areas
Miles of Road Reconstruction (Deferred
maintenance on open/closed roads, road realignment)
Restricts/discourages access into dispersed area or developed sites due to work activity
Loss of access after temporary roads closed
Increases roadside safety from hazard tree removal
Miles of Temporary Road Construction Temporarily decreases opportunities for dispersed activities away from motorized uses
Miles of Road Decommissioning Decreases motor-vehicles use when roads are decommissioned
Increased opportunities for dispersed activities away from motorized uses
Miles summer or winter road haul (for
existing roads open to passenger car and high clearance vehicles)
Discourages access into harvest units, dispersed areas, developed sites
Eliminates snowmobile use on haul routes
Increases forest products gathering and winter recreation on typically unplowed routes
The following table displays the quantitative differences in units (acres/miles) for each of the indicators
discussed in Table 121.
Table 122. Comparison of Sparta Alternatives
Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Acres timber harvest 0 4,413 3,781
Acres post-harvest fuels treatment 0 9,942 8,469
Acres prescribed fire 0 4,793 4,543
Miles danger tree removal along roads
0 128.5 122.5
Miles road reconstruction 0 26.6 25.7
Miles temporary road construction 0 2.9 0.34
Miles road decommissioning 0 6.94 6.94
273
Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
This project would meet recreation goals and desired future conditions because the current wide variety of
recreation opportunities will still be available to all segments of the public during and after project
implementations. The elimination of any recreation opportunity is not part of the project alternatives.
However there may be changes in the amount and location of some opportunities in the short term due to
harvest activities and fuel treatments.
The ROS goals would be met for the Roaded Natural setting because the project involves timber harvest
activities with compliance of the visual quality objectives (see Visuals/Scenery Resource section). Road
management activities will continue to provide for dispersed recreation. The project does not propose any
changes to the dispersed site development levels, developed site user densities, or any interpretation
developments. The ROS goals would be met for the Semi-Primitive Motorized setting because the project
involves timber harvest activities with compliance of the VQOs (see Visuals/Scenery Resource section).
All recreation standards and guidelines would be met as well and no Forest Plan amendments are required
for the activities proposed in the Sparta project.
Wild and Scenic River - Unreasonably Diminish - Section 7 (a) of the Wild and Scenic River Act requires
an evaluation of water resource projects outside the river corridor to determine if they “will not invade the
area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the area as
of the date of designation . . .” In reviewing the project proposals as related to recreation, it has been
determined that they would not invade the tributaries since none are proposed in the tributaries. In
addition they would not unreasonably diminish the recreation resource in the adjacent area outside of the
WSR corridor because;
The available types and annual use for dispersed recreation activities will not be affected
unreasonably in the short and long term. No prohibitions are being made to the dispersed
activities. Dispersed uses may fluctuate each year but other factors like weather, choosing a
different vacation destination, fuel prices, and success/non-success of obtaining a hunting tag also
influences use in an area.
The number, annual use and site capacity for developed recreation sites will not change in the
short or the long term. All developed recreation sites will remain open, no individual
campsites/grounds will be altered, and as mentioned above use varies depending on factors other
than the level of project activities.
The number of trail miles and use will not change in the short or long term. No prohibitions are
being made to the number of trail miles or trails open and available for use.
The number of permits and areas will not change in the short or long term. No changes in the
terms of the permits or available locations are part of this project.
There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments to the recreation resource associated with any of
the alternatives analyzed. The number, available types and use capacity for developed, dispersed and trail
recreation activities will not be changed by the project proposal.
Visuals/Scenery
Introduction
Scenery provides the setting for all activities experienced by forest visitors. Each setting is comprised of
scenic attributes that are derived by the environmental context of topography, geology, and climate.
These underlying factors are expressed and highlighted by the scenic attributes that they support.
Scenery, just as any other resource, must be cared for and managed for future generations. The activities
274
proposed by the Sparta Project potentially affect the current and future condition of these valued scenic
resources. Managing scenery resources involves the process of analyzing effects, implementing scenic
character goals and applying scenic conservation design features to achieve the WWNF Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) desired conditions and direction for scenery resources.
The Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR) runs through the project area. The outstandingly
remarkable values are designated for unique, rare, or exemplary features significant at a regional or
national level. Scenery is a designated outstandingly remarkable value for the highly diverse and scenic
attractions of the Eagle Creek drainage, and the overall undisturbed natural appearance of the valley. To
protect and enhance this outstandingly remarkable value is a goal of this project. Harvest treatments that
are within this project are expected to meet the retention visual quality objective (VQO), and to improve
the resiliency of the stands surrounding the WSR corridor.
This evaluation applies current National Forest Scenery Management methodology in conjunction with
existing Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF) Plan direction. This includes scenery sustainability
concepts described in Scenery Management System (SMS) Handbook Appendix J – Recommended SMS
Refinements. It relies on field studies and photography from inventoried sensitive viewpoints and other
views of the project area, as well as coordination with project interdisciplinary team members, and
consideration of public preferences for scenic quality. Cumulative scenic quality was within the
geographic scope of roadways and other viewpoints within and adjacent to the project.
Integration of this scenery analysis assures the Sparta Project is consistent with scenery-related Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest direction, Forest Service (FS) policies, and applicable elements of FS Visual
Management and Scenery Management systems. Refer to Appendix B of the Scenery Management
System Handbook #701 for a complete list of references requiring Forest Service management of scenery
and aesthetics.
The Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan establishes standards and guidelines for the
WSR corridor. The standards and guidelines are as follows for that portion of the corridor within the
project area:
Table 123. Landscape Management. Manage visual resources to meet the following visual quality objectives (VQO's) within the corridor and adjacent seen areas.
River Classification Visual Quality Objective
Wild Preservation is the norm, all distance zones
Scenic
Retention foreground
Retention middleground
Retention background
Recreational
Retention foreground
Retention middleground
Retention background
River corridor viewshed management direction has been established in the "Eagle Creek
Viewshed Corridor Plan" completed by Walker and Macy, April 1992. The Viewshed Corridor
Plan will be used to achieve protection and enhancement of the Scenic outstandingly remarkable
value (ORV). Analysis of the visual effects of proposed activities within the corridor will be
considered from two vantages: all existing riverside viewpoints and from Sensitivity Level 1
travelways within the corridor (Forest Roads 77, 7755, 7735, Martin Bridge Trail, Main Eagle
Trail).
275
The Sensitivity Level of the Martin Bridge Trail and Road 7735 from Eagle Forks Campground
to the National Forest Boundary near Skull Creek are upgraded to Sensitivity Level 1 to more
accurately reflect the ORV status of Scenery.
Landscapes containing negative visual elements will be rehabilitated. Landscapes may be
enhanced by opening views to distant peaks, unique rock forms, unusual vegetation, or other
features of interest, consistent with protection and enhancement of ORVs, water quality and free-
flow.
Short-term visual impacts of prescribed fires that depart from established VQOs direction may be
considered acceptable if necessary to protect and enhance scenic values and to meet the VQOs in
the long term. Such departures must be approved by a landscape architect.
(Eagle Creek WSR Management Plan Standards and Guidelines, pg. 13, 14.)
This visual analysis was conducted from the riverside viewpoints, and the stated travelways. The
proposed treatments were considered in light of these standards and guides. Thinning for desired species,
and for the health and vigor of the stands were designed to move the stands toward the desired future
condition. Prescribed burning was designed to protect and enhance the scenic values by making the stands
on the ridges above more fire resistant.
Existing Conditions
Existing Scenic Integrity
Scenic Integrity is measured on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest through Visual Quality Objective
levels defined by the FS Visual Management System’s Chapter 1 USDA Handbook # 462. These levels
and descriptors of how people perceive them are shown below.
Table 124. Visual Quality Objectives and Perceived Alteration
Visual Quality Objectives Scenic Integrity as people perceive it
Preservation Unaltered , visually complete or intact
Retention Unnoticeably altered
Partial Retention Slightly altered
Modification Moderately altered
Maximum Modification Heavily altered
Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably altered
The existing scenic integrity meets the visual quality objective of the Forest Plan. Within the project area
there are evidences of past activities. Shelterwoods are apparent within areas of modification. Partial
removal treatments can be seen in partial retention areas, stumps area apparent. Along with the evidences
of treatments are the indirect effects of additional variety in color and texture as deciduous shrubs and
larch species have begun to take hold. There are large areas of natural appearing landscapes. Overall,
from middleground and background views there is little evidence of man’s activities in this project area.
Sensitive Viewsheds
FS 77 Rd - This road runs north to south along the western edge of the project area. The road is located
along the broad ridge and views into the project are of the upper slopes and ridges of the landscape. The
steeply incised drainages are for the most part not visible from this route. The scenery is primarily
timbered with scattered openings varying from one to ten acres in size. The openings are of grass slopes
which provide diversity in pattern, form and color contrast. There is evidence of past project work which
has created openings visible in foreground views. The openings have grasses and low growing deciduous
shrubs. Western larch is also coming up in these openings. The vegetation in these openings provides
276
dramatic fall color diversity. Currently, the scenery meets partial retention. The VQO’s along this route
are partial retention and modification.
This road runs adjacent to Eagle Creek and then runs up the Paddy Creek drainage, and then down the
south fork Spring Creek. The landscape setting along Eagle Creek is a steeply incised drainage. This
drainage runs slightly northwest to southeast. The west facing slopes currently have a pattern of grassy
slopes amidst timbered slopes with rock outcrops that punctuate the vertical topography. The views to the
upper portions are the slopes are limited to the openings in the deciduous vegetation in the riparian zone
in which the road traverses. The opposite side of the canyon faces northeast and is heavily timbered with
mixed conifer. Currently, the scenery meets retention in this viewshed. The VQO within the Eagle Creek
corridor is foreground retention.
The sections of road in the Paddy Creek drainage and south fork Spring Creek drainage are also steeply
incised. Paddy Creek runs northeast to southwest. The upper portions of the south east facing slopes are
open grasslands. The lower portion is timbered and stringers of coniferous forest run up the minor
drainages. The timbered sections are very densely stocked. Small stringers of deciduous trees run up the
riparian edges of Paddy Creek. The views are limited by the steep topography and timber. South fork
Spring Creek drainage runs northwest to southeast. This drainage is generally timbered. Views are very
limited by the densely stocked vegetation. Currently, the visual quality of these viewsheds meets
retention. The viewshed along Road 7739 is within modification visual quality objective.
Existing Scenic Stability
A new scenery indicator has been developed for use within the FS Scenery Management System (applied
in this analysis according to procedures described in the 2007 Recommended Scenery Refinements,
Appendix J of the SMS Handbook #701.
For the Sparta project area, the existing Scenic Stability analysis focuses on the single major scenery
attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions and stresses identified by field observation
and Fire Regime Conditon Class (FRCC) coarse-scale data on vegetation and fire history data (Fire
Regime Condition Class, Sciarrino, 2003).
Scenic stability levels are defined as follows:
Scenic Stability Level Definitions
Very High Stability—All dominant and minor scenery attributes of the valued scenic character
are present and are likely to be sustained.
High Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and
are likely to be sustained. However, there may be scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem
stressors that present a low risk to the sustainability of the dominant scenery attributes.
Moderate Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present
and are likely to be sustained. A few may have been lost or are in serious decline.
Low Stability—Some dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are present and
are likely to be sustained. Known scenery attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may
seriously threaten or have already eliminated the others.
Very Low Stability—Most dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are
seriously threatened or absent due to their conditions and ecosystem stressors and are not likely to
be sustained. The few that remain may be moderately threatened but are likely to be sustained.
277
No Stability—All dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic character are absent or
seriously threatened by their conditions and ecosystem stressors. None are likely to be sustained,
except relatively permanent attributes such as landforms (SMS Handbook, Appendix J –
Recommended SMS Refinements, 2007).
Ecosystem Risk To dominant scenic attributes
Stability of the dominant scenic
attributes Scenic Stability Level
LOW Risk to ALL (includes dominant and minor scenic attributes)
ALL are Stable VERY HIGH STABILITY
LOW Risk to ALL ALL are Stable HIGH STABILITY
HIGH Risk to a FEW MOST are Stable MODERATE STABILITY
HIGH Risk to SOME SOME are Stable LOW STABILITY
HIGH Risk to MOST FEW are Stable VERY LOW STABILITY
HIGH Risk to ALL NONE are Stable NO STABILITY
“ALL” means 90-100% of all the dominant attributes
“MOST” means 60-90% of all the dominant attributes
“SOME” means 40-60% of all the dominant attributes
“FEW” means 10-40% of all the dominant attributes
“NONE” means 0-10% of all the dominant attributes
(SMS Handbook, Appendix J – Recommended SMS Refinements, 2007, pg. 18).
Potential Vegetation Groups, Stand Structure and Historical Range
There are definite trends in the species composition, and stand structure that pose increasing risk to
scenery resources. The project area has two forested potential vegetation groups (PVGs), well described
in the silvicultural section; due to fire suppression activities over the years much of the dry upland forest
type has been transitioning to more mixed conifer. The implications of these trends are that the majority
of the project area is shifting from low or mixed intensity fire behavior to high intensity fire. The stand
structure of most of the project area is outside the historical range in all PVGs. These trends confirm the
reduced resiliency of these stands to uncharacteristic fire that would burn larger and more intensely.
Within this project area the fire occurrence rates are high due primarily to lightning strikes, (See the Fire
and Fuels Sections) which show that the likelihood of a fire start is relatively high. With fuel loads and
crown base heights as they are the flame lengths can easily cause a crown fire which makes direct fire
suppression tactics feasible.
Existing Scenic Stability Summary
Trends and conditions that exist in the project area are creating greater and greater hazard to the scenic
resources. Species composition is becoming increasingly dominated by grand fir and Douglas-fir which
are non-fire resilient species. These dense multi-layered stands are very susceptible to large stand
replacement fire. The existing scenic stability of the Sparta area is very low.
Eagle Creek is a designated Wild and Scenic River. The project area drapes over the Recreation and
Scenic sections of the river. The recreation segment is from the Eagle Cap Wilderness boundary near
Humming Bird Creek to Paddy Creek. The designation covers a ¼ mile width from the high water mark
on both sides of the river. The scenic section is from Paddy Creek to Little Eagle Creek. Scenery is
recognized as an outstandingly remarkable value (ORV) in the Eagle Creek corridor and thus requires
protection and enhancement under the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
278
The standards for scenery within the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor are shown in the table
below:
Table 125. Visual Quality Objectives in the Wild and Scenic River Corridor
River Classification Visual Quality Objective
Wild Preservation- all distance zones
Scenic Retention- all distance zones
Recreation Retention-all distance zones
Recreation (trailed river
section) Preservation – all distance zones
The project area is comprised of scenic and recreation classifications; therefore retention is the VQO
within the wild and scenic river corridor.
Sense of Place. Sense of place is addressed to display how the area is perceived by the public, and to
display the physical setting in which the project area lies. The Wallowa-Whitman NF uses the Sense of
Place definition in Appendix J : Sense of Place: “The identity of a place created by people’s social
meanings and attachments, including valued scenery and recreation settings, cultural and spiritual
values, economic, social and biophysical characteristics.” The Forest defined spatial units that had
particular characteristics which could support a defined set of recreational experiences. The WWNF
conducted a recreation facilities analysis which characterized the forest and defined spaces in terms of use
and sense of place.
The project area lies primarily within the Wallowa Mountains. The characterization of this area is as
follows:
A Forest’s recreational program niche is reflective of its “defining or unique characteristics and abilities”.
For the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, this niche spans 2.3 million acres from the central Blue and
Wallowa Mountains in northeast Oregon across the Snake River into the Seven Devils Mountains in
western Idaho. These diverse landscapes distinguish the Forest’s 3 main areas, Hells Canyon, the
Wallowa Mountains, and the Blue Mountains. Visitors and local residents return to the Forest each year to
enjoy a unique blend of: outstanding rugged scenery, backcountry and wilderness exploration; a variety of
wild and scenic rivers and mountain lakes; and Native American and pioneer history.
Wallowa Mountains – Home of the Eagle Cap Wilderness, this setting is classically pristine with high
alpine areas and powerful landscapes. Several Wild and Scenic rivers and high elevation lakes serve as
destinations.
Eagle Creek – The diversity of landforms, water, color, and vegetation presents throughout the designated
portion of Eagle creek is one of the most attractive attributes of the river corridor. Rock outcroppings are
abundant and at times dramatic. Dark forested hillsides facing north are contrasted by south facing grassy
slopes that are sparse of trees. The valley floor alternates between flat meadows and narrow gorges as the
river changes from calm, meandering and sometimes deep, to swift and shallow (Eagle Creek Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan, 1993).
Sparta Project Area - This landscape is a steeply incised canyon land at the base of steep sub alpine peaks.
The drainages are a major component of the scenery. Steep slopes are covered with a mosaic of
coniferous forest and grassy south slopes. Western larch provides fall color and ponderosa pine provide
open park-like stands of large tree boles amidst understory grasses and shrubs. Riparian areas support
deciduous trees and shrubs that provide diverse fall color. Aspen stands can be found in places where
279
moisture is available. Rock outcrops punctuate the scenic views. Eagle Creek is a prominent visual
feature in the canyon bottom.
Desired Scenic Character
Broad landscape- The Sparta area is 2-5 miles from the Eagle Cap Wilderness from which Eagle Creek
flows down through a steeply incised canyon. The project straddles the canyon, and the scenic character
is a compilation of scenic attributes that are supported by the ecological context. These scenic attributes
make up the scenic character. In the Sparta area the scenery is influenced heavily by the steeply incised
canyons. The basalt rock formations provide strong vertical features on the steep slopes. The deciduous
vegetation in the riparian areas provides fall color and textual diversity, as well as shade for recreation
sites. The ponderosa pine stands have a strong visual characteristic of large trees in open park-like stands.
The mixed conifer stands provide multi-layered characteristics and small openings create a mosaic across
the timbered landscape. Eagle Creek and its tributaries are very aesthetically striking. All these attributes
create very attractive scenery. The major scenic attributes are the timbered vegetation that is diverse and
viable, the streams and the riparian deciduous vegetation, and the steep mountainous terrain. The minor
scenic attributes are the rock outcrop formations.
Scenic Character Context
The Blue Mountains section is the western most section of the Middle Rocky Mountain Steppe. The
terrain has been formed by metamorphic and volcanic activity which developed mountainous landforms.
Today, the mountains are dissected by glacial and fluvial erosion processes. The project area is dissected
most prominently by Eagle Creek and Paddy Creek. Coniferous vegetation spreads across the broad ridge
tops, down the drainages and across north facing slopes. South and west facing terrain has open grassy
slopes. Riparian vegetation along streams is deciduous poplar, alder and willow. Basalt rock outcrops
accentuate the steep faces of the stream corridors. Culturally, the area has been utilized by Native
American tribes which utilized burning practices to improve the production of berries, big game forage,
and to drive game. These fires as well as lighting caused fires thinned the non-resistant tree species from
the stands, creating an open forest dominated by large ponderosa pine and western larch. Small aspen
stands are found where conditions support them (Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section
Descriptions, 1994).
Scenic Attractiveness
“Scenic attractiveness is the primary indicator of the intrinsic scenic beauty of a landscape and of the
positive response it evokes in people” (Landscape Aesthetics, USDA, 1995). Based on commonly held
perceptions of the beauty of landform, vegetation pattern, composition, surface water characteristics, and
land use patterns and cultural features, the scenery is rated on a three point scale:
Class A – Distinctive, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural
features combine to provide unusual, unique or outstanding scenic quality.
Class B – Typical, where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics and cultural features
combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality.
Class C – Indistinctive, where the landscape does not have characteristics that add to the variety,
unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony or uniqueness of the scenery.
The Sparta has areas of Class A and Class B scenic attractiveness. The scenic attractiveness rating is
applied to the process of evaluating the value of the area’s scenery resource.
280
Landscape Visibility
The area roads provide varying degrees of visibility of the project units. These roads are assigned
sensitivity levels in the Forest Plan. These concern levels are the measure of the degree of public
importance placed on landscapes viewed from travelways and use areas. Levels are attributed by use
levels, viewer interest in scenery and duration of view” (ibid). The sensitivity levels are used to
determine the appropriate visual quality objective for areas visible from the particular road or use area.
This project is located in a steeply dissected landscape. Therefore the visibility is variable. The steep
slopes of the Eagle Creek drainage are visible where roads are present on the opposite side of the
drainage. The project units that are located on the upper plateaus are less visible. The timber along these
roads limits visibility, and project units would be seen for short durations as one traverses the road. From
higher elevations such as Summit Point, much of the Sparta area is visible from a mid to background
distance. The following table displays the sensitivity level of each road identified in the Forest Plan.
Level 1 roads are the primary viewing platforms used for this analysis. Level 2 roads are considered
viewing platforms when a portion of the same road is Level 1. Trails in the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic
River corridor are also viewing platforms.
Table 126. Travel Route Sensitivity Levels
Road Concern Level
70 2
7010 3
7015 1, 2
7020 2, 2
77 1, 2
7720 2, 3
7735 3
7739 2
Scenic Classes
Scenic classes are derived from the scenic attractiveness, visibility and sensitivity levels. The scenic
classes are a system of classification describing the importance or value of a particular landscape or
portions of the landscape. Scenic classes range from class 1 being of very high value, to Class 7 being of
low value. The forest has inventoried and classified the forestlands, and assigned visual quality
objectives by scenic class. Class 1 was given a VQO of Preservation.
Table 127. Scenic Class, Visual Quality Objective and Scenic Integrity Level
Scenic Class Visual Quality Objective Scenic Integrity Level
1 Preservation Very High
2 Retention High
3 Partial Retention Moderate
4 Modification Low
5 Maximum Modification Very Low
6 Unacceptable Modification Unacceptably Low
Scenic Stability
Scenic stability is the degree to which the desired scenic character can be sustained through time and
ecological progression. For the Sparta area, the existing scenic stability analysis focuses on the single
major scenery attribute of vegetation, addressing its ecosystem conditions identified by field observation
and Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 7 coarse-scale data on vegetation and fire history data.
Ecosystem changes to other minor scenery attributes such as landform, rock outcrops, and winter snowfall
are not as critical to the Sparta project area’s scenic character as its vegetation, since these changes are
relatively stable over time regardless of fire behavior and human activities.
281
Evaluating scenic stability is done by considering conditions necessary to sustain desired scenic character
of stands within the natural and historic range of the landscape. Appropriate stand density, species
composition, and fuel loads are necessary for stands to maintain the inherent characteristics through their
lifecycle. When trends such as increasing stand density, encroachment of less resilient species, increasing
fuel loads, and high levels of mortality exist, the expected consequences are change in the scenic
character that are beyond the historic scale. Examples of these consequences are large canopy openings
from intense wildfires, large stands of dead and dying timber, and loss of distinctive characteristic such as
open, large tree character pine stands, lodgepole pine stand mosaics and multi-layered mixed species
stands. Gradual trends over time have altered the species composition, stand structure, and age classes of
the forest vegetation. Stands of large mature ponderosa pine that provide an open forest are diminished
due to encroaching mixed conifer species, and past harvest practices that removed pine to release shade
tolerant species.
Much of the coniferous vegetation is trending toward unsustainable conditions. Stocking levels, fuel
loads, and species composition have departed from the reference/historic conditions. The historic fire
regime of the ponderosa pine type is one of frequent low-intensity fires which have maintained lower
stand densities, and fuel loads at a healthy sustainable level. This low-intensity fire regime maintains a
sustainable species composition of predominantly fire-resistant ponderosa pine. These conditions are
specifically rated as fire regime condition class 2 and 3 which indicate that a fire occurrence would most
likely burn at higher severity and at a larger scale than that which is historically characteristic.
These conditions are rated at very low scenic stability because known scenery attributes such as the open
stands of ponderosa pine, and the aspen stands are threatened by uncharacteristic fire and insects and
disease due to these conditions.
Effects Analysis
Methodology
The scenery effects analyses used for this section are those found in the Scenery Management Handbook
#701, Appendix J. Scenery management is based on the classic aesthetic factors of form, line, color and
texture, as well as the principles of sense of place. “Scenic integrity measures the amount of natural or
socially valued appearance in a landscape along with the amount of visual disturbance that contrasts with
and detracts from the appearance (the valued scenic character) existing at the time of measurement.”
“Scenic stability is an indicator of the ecological sustainability of the scenic character’s valued attributes”
(Landscape Aesthetics, USDA, 1995, Appendix J, 2007).
The effects to the scenery resources can be short term and long term. Short term is less than 5 years, and
long term is 5 years to 50 years. Effects that are eliminated by the natural course of a single growing
season are not considered effects because they are a so short lived. Most treatments have long term
effects while the logging activities such as cable yarding, skidding and slash burning are usually short-
term effects lasting less than 5 years.
The project analysis area is the area from which the proposed treatments can be visibly discerned. Most of
the analysis is done within the project boundary with the exception of Summit Point which is a Trailhead
and Fire lookout that affords a broad view of the project area.
The Scenery Management Handbook #701 is the source for scenery resource analysis.
Effects of the action alternatives are based on the full implementation of the scenery mitigation measures
to minimize the effects of logging activities.
282
Direct and Indirect Effects on Scenery/Visuals
Alternative 1 – No Action
The No Action alternative would allow existing conditions and trends to remain and continue. Although a
no-action alternative would create no effects to the scenic integrity and meet all the visual quality
objectives, it would leave conditions that put much of the scenic attributes at risk.
A no action alternative would have no short term effects to scenic integrity, or scenic stability. Existing
scenery integrity and scenic stability would remain the same, and the visual quality objectives would be
met.
The indirect long term effects related to the existing conditions and trends could be substantial. Although
the effects of stand replacement fire are not permanent, they are certainly long term. The overstocked
stands are under greater and greater stress which is likely to lead to insect and disease epidemics. Fuel
loads within the stands increase the hazards of stand replacement fire. All of these conditions will
continue to degrade the scenic stability as stands crowd out fire resistant species and quaking aspen
stands.
In the event of a stand replacement fire the scenic integrity would likely be greatly reduced by
uncharacteristic fire because the firefighting opportunities would be limited due to fuel conditions that
effect flame lengths.
In addition to the loss of large stands of trees, there are also other effects such as those associated with fire
suppression efforts in and around capital investments such as campground, trailheads and along roads
which serve as suppression points and fire lines. Noxious weeds are often another effect that occur after
the fire event has occurred.
Effects Common to all Action Alternatives
The effects of specific prescriptions are described in this section.
Commercial Thinning-(HTH) - Thinning from below opens up the stands by removing the
smallest diameter trees. This provides greater viewing distances into the stand which is
preferable. The appearance of the stands is improved by this treatment by making them appear
healthier. The reduction tree stocking levels improves the resilience of the stands by reducing
stress, and ladder fuels, which reduces the risk of insect and disease epidemic occurrence, and
stand replacement wildfire. This prescription also targets species that are not fire resistant,
therefore further improving the resiliency of the stands. These are benefits that contribute to the
improvement of scenic stability when carried out at a landscape scale.
This treatment will create stumps, slash, and duff disturbance will be visible from foreground
views. These effects will be minor within the first one to two years. As regrowth of shrubs and
grasses occur these effects will be significantly reduced. This prescription does not create
openings that area visible from middleground or background distances. The effects of this
prescription do not reduce the scenic integrity of the unit.
Partial Over-Story Removal (HOR) - This prescription removes some of the overstory trees to
release the more viable understory trees to keep the stand health and more resistant to stand
replacement fires and insects and disease. Treatments such as these open up the canopy
producing textural change visible for middleground views. Foreground views will be affected by
stumps, slash and occasional skid trails. The resulting open canopy will allow more light to reach
283
the forest floor, creating a dappled shadow appearance. These effects are short term impacts to
the immediate foreground and are addressed with project design features.
Quaking Aspen Restoration- Conifer Removal - Quaking aspen stands provide diverse color in
the area. This treatment removes conifers within and around the aspen stands to reduce the
depletion of soil moisture that kills the root system. This treatment will create no effects to
middleground or background views. Foreground views will be affected by remaining stumps.
Slash is limited by whole tree yarding. This treatment serves to preserve the scenic attribute of
quaking aspen stands.
Underburning Natural Fuels or Activity Fuels (RXF) - Underburning natural fuels (RXF) is a
treatment uses to reduce litter and ladder fuels. Effects to scenery are minimal and short lived. A
growing season reduces the effects to the remaining scorched tree trunks, and dead saplings. This
treatment most successfully conserves scenery resources when thorough site preparation is done
prior to underburning. Fire, at low intensity is a natural occurrence in this area, and its effects do
not degrade the scenic quality. This treatment can greatly improve a stands resiliency to large
stand replacement fire which can affect the scenic quality.
Site Preparation- Underburning - The effects of this treatment is similar to the underburning of
natural fuels, however the scorching and soil exposure is more intense. These effects are
consistent with low intensity fire.
Pre-commercial Thinning (PCT) - This treatment reduces stocking levels to promote growth of
desirable species, reduce disease, the treat of future insect outbreaks and ladder fuels that increase
fire intensity and the occurrence of crown fires. Removal of these trees opens view into stands.
The effects to scenery are limited to foreground view effects of stumps, and slash. See project
design features for mitigation of these effects.
Leave Top Attached (LTA) and Whole Tree Yarding (WTY) - Slash is reduced when tops are
left attached and trees are yarded whole to the landing. This effectively leaves the forest floor
cleaner with less slash and ladder fuel, which helps reduce fire intensity.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 is a set of stand and fuels treatments designed to address the purpose and need. This
alternative is fully defined in the EA under Alternative Description. The treatments would improve the
long term scenic integrity, by opening the stands up for increased visibility and visual diversity.
Alternative 2 would increase visibility into stands by opening up the mid canopy, creating greater
foreground diversity. The partial removal and commercial harvest treatments would leave the pine and
larch species that have the desired large tree character, and greater fire resiliency. This effort would
improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. Alternative 2 treats 59 percent (10,568
acres of commercial, non-commercial, and prescribed burning treatments) of the project area to improve
species composition, stand density, and reduce ladder fuels and canopy closure. These treatments would
improve scenic stability from low to high where “all dominant scenery attributes of the valued scenic
character are present and are likely to be sustained” (SMS Appendix J).
Scenic Integrity
This historic character is more fire resistant which will improve the scenic stability by reducing the risk of
large uncharacteristic fire. The logging activities will cause short-term effects that will reduce scenic
integrity for a period of 1-3 years. Tractor yarding and skyline cable yarding will create visible effects for
284
the first year including ground disturbance, slash and debris, but after a growing cycle these effects will
be negligible. See Effects Common to All Action Alternatives above.
Road 70
Road 70 runs through partial retention and modification. Units within the this viewshed have
prescriptions that would primarily alter the visual density related to basal area to create a more open forest
with increased sunlight coming into the understory views. There would be no openings developed to
create changes in form, line, or color. These prescriptions would meet the VQO of partial retention.
Road 7015
The viewshed of Road 7015 includes VQOs of partial retention and retention. The prescriptions in this
area include intermediate harvest and prescribed fire. The harvest units where stumps may be visible are
very limited. Unit 29 is adjacent to the road for approximately two tenths of a mile, however in that area
the road traverses a cut bank of approximately 15 feet in height which would screen any views to stumps
that may remain. The prescribed fire will create some scorching and pockets of mortality which is
expected in this landscape. Partial retention would be met.
Road 7020
The views from Road 7020 are within VQO levels from modification to partial retention. The unit
prescriptions along this route include partial removal harvest, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire.
These prescriptions will improve the scenic character by moving stands toward a more historically
characteristic landscape with open pine stands. It is expected that short term effects to scenic integrity,
related to logging activities will be negligible within a year. These effects are related to initial disturbance
of soils, and stumps. The stumps will be low cut and new understory vegetation will minimize the visual
impact meeting the most restrictive VQO of partial retention.
Road 77
This road runs adjacent to Eagle Creek and then runs up the Paddy Creek drainage, and then down South
fork Spring Creek. The VQO within the Eagle Creek corridor is foreground retention. The units that are
in the foreground of this viewshed are upslope and screened by roadside vegetation. Therefore any
stumps created would not be visible. Units that are within the middleground of this viewshed would
create an increase in coarse texture due to greater basal areas. This impact would meet the partial
retention VQO.
Road 7720
Road 7720 is entirely within modification, and all prescriptions would meet this VQO.
Roads 7735
The viewshed of Road 7735 is classified as retention and modification. Prescriptions of overstory
removal and intermediate harvest would create visual impacts associated with duff disturbance, slash
treatments and stumps. Prescribed fire will create short term effects of scorching and pockets of dead
trees. Unit 116, an intermediate harvest unit would create stumps adjacent to the road in a foreground
retention area for approximately two tenths of a mile. However, the cut banks along this road are
expected to screen views of the unit understory. Retention and modification would be met.
285
Road 7739
The prescriptions within the viewshed of Road 7739 are intermediate harvest and prescribed fire. The
impacts associated with these prescriptions would meet the VQO of viewshed, which is modification.
Martin Bridge Trail
The prescriptions visible from the Martin Bridge Trail are primarily prescribed fire. The effects
associated with prescribed fire units would be to create a mosaic of scorching, green unburned areas and
pockets of dead trees which is an expected natural appearing effect.
Short term effects that would occur are those related to skyline logging. These effects are expected to be
minimal, being within retention after a season’s growth cycle. These cable corridors would be visually
negligible at specific locations along the corridor.
Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor
Alternative 2 proposes to treat 1,342 acres (commercial, noncommercial, and prescribed burning) within
the WSR corridor. The river corridor is in a deep canyon where the visibility is limited by the steep slopes
and canyon rim. Some acres were noted as visible beyond the canyon rim, which seems highly unlikely
therefore they were considered questionable. The seen area analysis was digitally derived from digital
elevation models and did not take into account any vegetation screen that would occur. Therefore the seen
area analysis is a “bare earth” visibility model. This analysis, therefore, identifies acres that would not be
visible due to vegetation that would likely be in the foreground of the viewer.
Of the 1,342 acres visible within the WSR corridor 1,174 acres are prescribed fire. Prescribed fire is a
preferred treatment for managing vegetation within the Eagle Creek WSR.
Of the 1,770 acres visible within the river canyon, but outside the WSR river corridor, 593 acres are
prescribed fire and 409 acres are intermediate harvest and partial overstory removal. These commercial
harvest treatments would not create any unnatural appearing forms, lines or colors; however 4 units (65
acres) require skyline cable logging system that would create a short linear corridor associated with each
unit. The corridor feature would be a short term effect appearing for approximately one year after harvest
implementation. The remaining acres are noncommercial thinning which would create no noticeable
effects.
The units within the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor are within a retention foreground VQO.
The effects of the intermediate harvest and prescribed fire prescriptions will meet the VQOs. The
commercial thinning harvest units are at a distance that no stumps, slash treatments or duff disturbance
would be visible. Changes in texture would be created but would still meet retention. Units 2, 5, 6, 49
require skyline logging which will create a short term effect associated with a skyline corridor that will
not be visible after a year. The natural appearing scenery would be retained. Foreground views would
not be affected by the treatments. The project improves the resiliency as well as improves a fire
suppression effort which is crucial to protecting the scenery resources of the Wild and Scenic River. This
table shows a breakdown of treated visible acres.
286
Table 128. Alternative 2 Treated Acres Visible Within Eagle Creek River Canyon
Treatment Treated acres visible
within WSR viewshed* Treated acres visible within WSR corridor
Treated acres visible outside WSR corridor
Prescribed Fire 1,770 1,178 593
Commercial Harvest 707 297 409
Skyline Cable Units/ Acres 5 units/466ac. 5 units/238ac. 5 units/227ac.
Total visible treated acres 2,478 1,476 1,002 *Total visible acres from Road 77 and Martin Bridge Trail
Scenic Stability
The harvest and prescribed fire prescriptions proposed in Alternative 2 are designed to address the closed
canopy, high density; fire-prone conditions that support stand replacement fire. The treatments would
serve to improve the overall scenic stability by addressing the conditions that put scenic attributes at risk
of stand replacement fire and insect and disease epidemics. It is not expected that the risk will be
eliminated. However, the treatments would improve opportunities for firefighters to minimize the fire
effects.
By favoring the fire resilient ponderosa pine and western larch, this alternative would move the stands
toward the desired scenic character which is more resilient to fire. By reducing stand density, the
remaining stands are less susceptible to insect and disease infestations and epidemics. By reducing ladder
fuels, crown lengths are minimized giving greater opportunity for fire fighters to control the fire before it
becomes a crown fire that would burn a much larger area than is historically characteristic.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 would not treat units in moist forest vegetative groups, units which require new temporary
road construction, and commercial treatments in old forest multi-stratum (OFMS) would result in a net
loss of Late Old Stands (LOS) in the project area. Like the moist forest vegetation groups, the OFMS
units that Alternative 3 would not treat are not resilient to fire. These stands which are primarily
composed of non-fire resilient species are not characteristic of the historical large tree character which is
the scenic attribute of this area.
In the stands treated under Alternative 3, it would increase visibility into stands by opening up the mid
canopy, creating greater foreground diversity. The partial removal and commercial harvest treatments
would leave the pine and larch species that have the desired large tree character, and greater fire
resiliency. This effort would improve the scenic character and the scenic stability of the area. However,
to a lesser degree than Alternative 2. While the stands that would not be treated in this are not
historically characteristic of the area and would continue to have conditions that are susceptible to fire,
this would not be a notable affect to the overall scenic integrity or stability.
Scenic Integrity
Short term effects that would occur are those described in the effects common to all action alternatives.
Foreground views would experience more open stands and greater viewing distance into the stands.
Middleground views would have visible alteration to textures created by thinning units. Like Alternative
2, this alternative would meet the VQOs of the Eagle Creek WSR. There would be very little difference
in effects to scenery between Alternatives 2 and 3. Only units 5 and 49 would be skyline cable logged in
the WSR corridor under Alternative 3. This would reduce some of the short term impacts of the skyline
cable corridor that would exist in Alternative 2.
287
Scenic Stability
Conditions currently that support stand replacement fire which poses substantial risk to the scenic
attributes of the area. Treatments until Alternative 3 would improve these conditions from very low
stability to low stability. (SMS Appendix J).
Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor
Table 129. Treated Visible Acres within Eagle Creek River Canyon
Treatments Treated acres
visible within WSR viewshed*
Treated acres visible within WSR corridor
Treated acres visible outside WSR corridor
Prescribed Fire 908 440 468
Commercial Harvest 624 217 407
Skyline Cable Units/ Acres 46 units/398ac. 19 units/173ac. 27 units/225ac.
Total visible treated acres 398 173 225 *Total visible acres from Road 77 and Martin Bridge Trail
Cumulative Effects on Scenery/Visuals
Alternative 1 – No Action
Continuing trends of increased understory vegetation will reduce views in and through the forest at the
eye level in foreground views and thus reducing the diversity of color and texture available to viewers.
Within the next 20 to 30 years, acres identified as Condition Class 2 will convert to Condition Class 3
increasing the acres in Condition Class 3 which pose high risk to scenery resources during wildfire.
Alternatives 2 and 3
The treatments that reduce flame length such as prescribed fire (RXF) treatments that reduce ladder fuels
create indirect effects to scenery by providing greater firefighting opportunities if a fire should occur. This
in turn will most likely indirectly affect the size and severity of fire events thus reducing the effects to
scenery resources. It is expected that it will be much more likely that effects of fires in this area will
remain within the size and severity characteristic to the historical range.
The timber sale history in this area includes sales from 1954 to 2003. The timber sales 20 years and older
have no remaining scenery effects to scenic integrity. Any openings create during this time have since
been populated by trees and thus eliminated the openings. The harvest activities since 1989 have been
treatments that did not create openings or affect the scenic integrity in a negative manner. These
treatments primarily addressed density and species composition in immature stands. Alternatives 2 and 3
would similarly address these issues throughout the area to have a cumulative positive effect to scenic
stability while maintaining the scenic integrity.
No present or reasonably foreseeable future activities which overlap in time and space with the Sparta
project would have a measurable effect on scenery and visual resources when combined with the
activities proposed under the action alternatives in Sparta (Appendix D of the EA). Therefore, there are
no cumulative effects expected from the action alternatives.
Summary of Effects
The no action alternative would not address the vegetation conditions that are the beyond the historic
range of variability. Alternative 1 would not reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire that could cause
undue effects to scenery, nor will it move the stands toward the desired condition.
288
Alternatives 2 and 3 would move stands toward desired future conditions which are with historic range of
variability, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire, while keeping effects to scenic integrity to a
minimum, meeting all standards. By moving stand conditions toward the historic range of variability, the
area will be more resilient if changes in climate bring drier and warmer conditions.
The vegetation management objectives would be achieved without creating unnatural appearing forms,
lines or colors. The selective overstory removal and thinning would create no openings that are dissimilar
to existing openings in the area, therefore the retention visual quality objectives (VQO) of the Eagle
Creek Wild and Scenic River would be maintained.
Table 130. Comparison of Effects by Alternative for Visual Quality Objective and Scenic Stability
Scenery Elements Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Partial Retention Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO
Modification Meets VQO Meets VQO Meets VQO
Overall Project Area Existing Condition is Very Low Stability
No improvement Improves to High Stability
Improves to High Stability
Ponderosa Pine No improvement Improves to High stability
Improves to High Stability
Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer No improvement Improves to High Stability
Improves to High Stability
Alternative 2 would treat 734 more acres than Alternative 3. Deferring treatment of non-fire resilient
stands would perpetuate the existing condition in these stands thus reducing the effectiveness of the
treatments to improve their vegetative resiliency to disturbance factors such as fire, insects, and disease.
The action alternatives all meet Forest Plan VQOs and WSR objectives and standards. The alternatives
all retain the existing VQOs and therefore meet the Forest Plan Standards and Guides for Scenery. They
all achieve an improvement in scenic stability from very low to low.
Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
Alternative 1 is compliant with the Visual Quality Objectives that are Forest Plan Standards.
It is expected that Alternatives 2 and 3 would not reduce the scenic integrity and thus retain the existing
visual quality objective standards established in the Forest Plan, and the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic
River Management Plan.
The following table shows the summary and compliance of the action alternatives.
Table 131. Summary of Scenery Effects and Compliance
Alternatives Overall Scenic
Integrity
Existing Scenic Stability
Achieved Scenic Stability
Forest Plan Compliance
Wild and Scenic River Compliance
Alternative 2
Partial Retention
to Retention
Very Low Low Meets Forest Plan VQOs
Meets WSR Objectives and Standards
Alternative 3
Partial Retention
to Retention
Very Low Low Meets Forest Plan VQOs
Meets WSR Objectives and Standards
289
Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River
Introduction
The following analysis covers the recreation activities related to: dispersed recreation, developed sites,
trails, and recreational permitted uses which are inside of the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River (WSR)
corridor. As discussed in the Recreation analysis above (for areas outside wild and scenic river), the
majority of recreation activities within the Sparta project area are predominately dispersed in nature, with
other uses occurring in developed sites, on trails and as part of special use permitted activities. Eagle
Creek WSR is also typical of other wild and scenic rivers on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
(WWNF) for the number of facilities, development scale of the recreation sites, and common recreation
uses.
Existing Condition
Recreation Activities
A summary of the WWNFs typical recreation activities is found in the Recreation Specialist Report
(Table 118). These recreation activities are also typical within the WSR corridor.
Dispersed Recreation
As discussed in the Sparta Recreation Specialist Report (Recreation Activities, Dispersed Recreation
section and Table 118), dispersed recreation activities in the project area includes uses such as viewing
wildlife and natural features, hiking, fishing, dispersed camping, hunting and driving for pleasure. These
are also common types of dispersed recreation observed with the WSR corridor.
Dispersed camping is a popular along Eagle Creek since it offers flat camping and parking areas off
Forest Service Road 77, in shaded sites near the water. Along the Recreation section of the river there are
17 identified dispersed campsites. (There are none identified in the Scenic river section). These campsites
receive low to moderate use beginning in late spring with the majority of sites showing heaviest use
during the fall hunting season. The sites are identified by their rustic user-built features such as rock fire
rings, tables and meat poles (to hang big game). Like other dispersed camps on the forest, camp sizes vary
and the average ones can accommodate 1-2 vehicles, yet larger ones can host 3-4 truck/trailer or RV units.
Many of these campsites have been used for decades with some sites showing soil compaction and a loss
of vegetation.
Eagle Creek and the adjacent riparian habitat also attract other types of dispersed recreation use unique
from the upland project area. The river’s ORVs along the 8.5 miles of river in the project area offer a
natural appearing environment where visitors can experience solitude, self-reliance, challenge and risk.
Typical uses may include: viewing scenery, hiking, wildlife viewing, studying and viewing natural
features like riparian plants or birds.
Currently OHV use can occur both on designated open roads, closed roads, trails and although terrain
discourages cross-country use it is still not prohibited in some areas in the WSR corridor. Overall motor-
vehicle use in the area is light yet it does increase during the big-game hunting season. There is one
cooperative travel management area which restricts motor-vehicle uses during certain periods of the year.
These areas are managed in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife within the
project area.
290
Table 132. Cooperative Travel Management Areas
Cooperative Travel Management Area Approx Acres (in WSR corridor)
Closure Period
Eagle Creek (Southeast part of project area – along Eagle Creek)
1,108 Closed Dec 1 through April 15 (except for snowmobiles)
Developed Recreation Sites
There are three developed recreation sites in the wild and scenic river corridor – Eagle Forks
Campground, Martin Bridge Trailhead and Eagle Forks Trailhead. The Eagle Forks Campground and
Eagle Forks Trailhead are located on the southern project boundary and on the edge of the Scenic and
Recreation river line. Part of Eagle Forks Campground is outside the project boundary. This rustic
campground has six single family campsites, one group campsite, an accessible toilet and a well. District
Recreation Managers report that overall use of the campground varies from low in the spring and early
summer, to more moderate use during the summer, and moderate to high in peak holiday weekends. The
Eagle Forks Trailhead has a small pullout area and information board. The Martin Bridge Trailhead has a
larger parking area for 5 truck and trailer vehicles and an information board. Both trailheads receive low
amounts of use from spring through fall.
Table 133. Developed Recreation Sites
Recreation Site PAOTS Site Development Scale River Section
Eagle Forks Campground 40 3 Scenic
Eagle Forks Trailhead 7 2 Scenic
Martin Bridge Trailhead 16 2 Recreation PAOTS – ‘People At One Time’ site capacity. Estimating an average of 5 people per campsite, and 3-4 people per trailhead parking site Development Scale 2 = Minimum site modification: Rustic or rudimentary improvements designed primarily for protection of the site rather than the comfort of the user Development Scale 3 = Moderate site modification: Facilities about equal for protection of natural site and comfort of users (USDA-FS 2006)
Developed Trails
As provided in the ROS Standards and Guidelines and DFC, there are summer horse/hiker and winter
snowmobile trails in both the wild and scenic river sections. Only the Martin Bridge Trail has developed
trailheads – a northern trailhead at Martin Bridge and a southern trailhead at Eagle Forks. Motor-vehicle
use may occur on the Martin Bridge Trail. The snowmobile trail segments are all located on existing open
forest roads. They are part of a larger trail system both within and outside the WSR that attracts touring
snowmobilers throughout the winter months, December through April. Staging areas for these trails are
located in Halfway, Forshey Meadows, and Catherine Summit. District Recreation Managers report that
overall use of the winter and summer trail is low with users expecting few encounters during the season.
Table 134. Developed Trails in WSR
Trail Name and Number Scenic (mi)
Recreation (mi)
Total WSR miles
Trail Class
Martin Bridge (#1878) 5.8 0.6 6.4 3 – developed
Empire Gulch Snowmobile (#S-7015)
1.0 0.7 1.7 3 – developed
Lily White Snowmobile (#S-7020) 0 1.1 1.1 3 – developed
Eagle Drive (#S-7700E) 0 3.8 3.8 3 – developed
Project Area Totals = 6.8 6.2 13.0
Permitted Uses
An overview of the same types of permitted uses that occur within the WSR corridor is in found in the
Recreation analysis section. Permitted activities such as firewood and Christmas tree cutting are not
291
authorized in designated campgrounds, wild and scenic river corridors, old growth areas, active timber
sales units, and other special designated location described on the permits. There are no long-term
recreation special use permits such as outfitter and guides inside the project area.
Sparta lies within the Keating Big Game Management Unit. The area is popular during big game bow and
rifle seasons in late summer and fall, and turkey hunting in the fall and spring. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife will continue to offer hunting opportunities in this area as part of their management of
big game and turkeys.
Effects Analysis
Methods
The same method of analysis cited in the Recreation section was used in this analysis. In addition, a
detailed review was made of the Goals, Desired Future Condition, and Standards and Guidelines in the
Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (WWNF, 1993).
The WSR corridor is the analysis area for this analysis.
A Wild and Scenic River Act Section 7, ‘Evaluation of Proposed Water Resource Projects’ was completed
for the activities proposed in the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River Corridor. The evaluation concluded
that a Section 7 Analysis would be needed for two types of projects;
Timber harvest, prescribed fire and post-harvest activities within the WSR Corridor
Effects on the Scenery ORV that may invade or have an unreasonable diminution to this value.
No Direct, Indirect, or Cumulative Effects
The following activities associated with the Sparta project are either not within the Wild and Scenic River
corridor or area of such limited and constrained nature that they would have no effect on Wild and Scenic
River outstandingly remarkable values.
Closed roads reopened for administrative access
Road decommissioning
Road reconstruction
Aspen Enhancement treatments
Bridge Replacement/Reconstruction
Bridge Abutment
Culvert Replacement
Mechanical Control Lines for Burning
These activities and their effects will not be discussed further in the effects to Wild and Scenic River
section.
Direct and Indirect Effects on WSR Resources
Alternative 1 – No Action
There would be no direct or indirect effects under Alternative 1. Vegetation densities or characteristics
would not be modified, and the WSR corridor would continue to be influenced by natural processes and
limited management actions, such as fire suppression. Since no implementation activities will result under
this alternative, no change is anticipated in the number of visitors, frequency or season of use in dispersed
recreation activities, developed recreation sites, trails, or permitted uses. Recreational visits within the
project area would remain near the same levels as previous years and under this alternative traditional use
292
patterns and recreational opportunities would not be impacted. Hunting, hiking and other dispersed
recreation and permitted uses access and opportunities are expected to remain unchanged.
Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3
The specific project activities with the potential to impact recreation are common to all the proposals in
Alternatives 2 and 3. Each of these Alternatives propose different levels of activities but the effects to the
public involved in different recreation endeavors common to the area is relatively the same. Alternatives
2 and 3 include four main project activities that could affect recreation:
Timber harvest (commercial harvest of timber, post-harvest noncommercial thinning, and
noncommercial thinning)
Post-harvest activity fuels treatments (grapple pile, hand pile/burn)
Prescribed fire (post-harvest activity fuels treatment and ‘standalone’ prescribed fire
prescriptions)
Road and Access activities (danger tree removal along open system haul roads, temporary
road construction, permanent road reconstruction, road decommissioning, bridge
reconstruction and repair)
A review was made of the project proposal for Alternatives 2 and 3 with the River Plan Desired Future
Conditions (DFC) and Standards and Guidelines. The project activities are within these DFCs because:
The quality and diversity of recreation opportunities (ORV) will be maintained. The project will
continue to find forested, uncrowded settings with rustic facilities since the developed recreation
sites capacity and facilities will not be altered.
The project does not propose to restrict or eliminate the existing types of diverse of recreation
opportunities. Short term restrictions for public safety around work activities (i.e. prescribed fire,
timber cutting) will occur.
The project does not propose to restrict the largely free-flowing nature of the river. Scenic River (Semi-primitive Motorized ROS)
o The project does not propose to alter the probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, self-reliance, challenge and risk along the WSR corridor.
o The area will remain characterized as a predominately natural appearing environment. (See Scenery Specialist Report)
o The existing access to the corridor will remain on the main road Forest Road 77 and most of the Scenic river section will be accessible only by the Martin Bridge Trail.
Recreational River Segments (Roaded Natural ROS) o The project does not propose to change interactions or privacy in developed/dispersed recreation
sites nor change the opportunity for self-reliance and limited levels of challenge and risk.
o The area will remain characterized as a mostly natural appearing environment as viewed
from the river or the main roads. (See Scenery Specialist Report)
The project activities are within these River Plan Standards and Guidelines because:
The identified River ORVS will be protected and enhanced.
Other ORVs – Please see the individual Specialist Reports for Fisheries/Aquatics Species,
Visual/Scenery, and Heritage/Paleontology.
There are no planned changes to the river classifications to the recreation or scenic sections
within the corridor.
The Sparta Vegetation Management Plan will fulfill the environmental assessment requirement
for the proposed ground or vegetation disturbing activity.
293
Dispersed Recreation – Dispersed recreation activities will be affected by all four types of project
activities mentioned above. In the short term, timber harvest, post-harvest, and prescribed fire activities
may restrict user access into a treatment unit due to safety purposes, or users may be discouraged from
entering a unit due to the presence of equipment and workers. This may occur in peak summer visitations
or during the fall hunting seasons. Downed trees, slash piles, loss of forest-products (i.e. mushrooms,
berries), active fire and residual smoke will also discourage visitor use in an area. Noise and other
disturbances may affect the quality of the recreation experience for an individual regardless of the
proximity to the activity.
A change in natural features or landscape characteristics may elict different responses in visitors. One
attraction to an area may be linked to visitors ‘sense of place’ (Farnum, et al., 2005). A visitor’s sense of
place includes attachments to external factors like natural features or landscape characteristics. Important
landscape features may consist of large old growth trees and groves, variety of trees species, an open or
closed tree canopy, rock formations, water bodies, and natural appearing openings (USDA-FS, 1995). The
proposed treatments such as harvesting large trees, reducing slash or altering canopy cover will change or
remove some of these natural features. In some cases the changing landscape will displace or discourage
certain types of dispersed recreational activities (i.e. studying nature, viewing wildlife). In other areas it
may encourage new dispersed recreational activities (i.e. big game hunting, photography) not available
under the previous landscape.
For Alternatives 2 and 3 there is only one dispersed camp that is within a harvest unit. Depending on
when the timing and proximity of the treatment activities occur, campers at this site may be displayed or
have a less quality experience due to noise, equipment activity, and dust. In Alternative 2 there are three
dispersed camps within units scheduled for prescribed fire, and no camps in Alternative 3. Similar to
camps within harvest units campers agin may be displayed or have a less quality experience due to
smoke, active fire and equipment activity.
Direct effects to recreationists accessing the 17 dispersed camps in the project area or other areas will
occur on roads during haul periods. The presence of large trucks or an increased frequency of traffic may
discourage road use to these sites as well as associate activities outside the WSR corridor until the road
work subsides. When roads are being constructed/reconstructed visitors may expect delays or closures
during work periods. If roads are used for winter haul, they may be available for access by winter
recreationist like cross-skiiers which is uncharacteristic in most years due to closure by snow.
Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments will evoke various reactions from recreationists.
Recreationist seeking more open stands of forest may enjoy increased scenery views, wildlife viewing
and some types of big-game hunting. Other visitors may view a loss of large trees and denser forest as a
reduction in opportunities to view natural features and scenery, observe wildlife, and take self-discovery
hikes. Another long term effect will provide safe and adequate roaded and trail access for the recreating
public, through the cutting of danger trees and improving roadside visitor travel. This is also long term
effect for developed recreation and permitted uses.
Developed Recreation – No developed recreation sites are within the harvest units. However access to
developed sites in the project area may be delayed or restricted during haul periods, or road construction.
The presence of large log trucks and other equipment on haul routes may discourage users from driving
the main access route to the developed sites or to associated off-site recreation activities. The noise, dust,
smoke and equipment activity during harvest, post-harvest and prescribed fires may affect the quality of
the recreation experience for a visitor regardless of the proximity to the activity. The frequency and
intensity of these activities may vary from a few hours to several weeks. Some loss or change of vistas,
scenery, natural features or wildlife viewing opportunities may result with the vegetation treatments and
prescribed fire activities visible from the developed sites. No long term effects are expected.
294
Developed Trails – There would be no direct or indirect effects to the summer pack saddle/ hiking trails
since no activities are proposed on them. Snowmobile trails have the potential to be impacted if a
designated snowmobile route is plowed for winter haul. Coordination with the local snowmobile clubs
may alleviate the concern if alternate temporary routes are groomed during the short term.
Permitted Uses – The same effects for gathering forest products (i.e. mushrooms and berries) that are
summarized in the Recreation Specialist Report apply to this area within the Wild and Scenic River
(WSR) corridor. Cutting of Christmas trees and firewood is not permitted in the WSR corridor.
Long term effects of harvest and post-harvest treatments will solicit various responses from permit users.
Permit holders like mushroom pickers, will find short term benefits from open, disturbed mixed-conifer
forest stands, whereas berry pickers may view the loss of berry patches as a negative impact.
Cumulative Effects on WSR Resources
The same cumulative effects discussed in the Recreation Resource Specialist Report apply to the WSR
corridor area.
Wild and Scenic River – Direct and Adverse Effects – Section 7 (a) of the Wild and Scenic River Act
requires an evaluation of water resource projects in the WSR corridor to determine if they “would have a
direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established.” In reviewing the project
proposals as shown in Table 6 as related to recreation, these projects will not have a direct and adverse
effect to the recreation resource inside of the WSR corridor because;
The available types and annual use for dispersed recreation activities will not be adversely
affected in the short and long term. Dispersed uses may fluctuate each year but other factors
like weather, choosing a different vacation destination, fuel prices, and success/non-success
of obtaining a hunting tag also influences use in an area. Visitors will continue to find a
forested natural appearing environment, and will find many locations across the project area
for uncrowded settings
The number, annual use and site capacity for developed recreation sites will not change in the
short or the long term. All developed recreation sites will remain open, no individual
campsites/grounds will be altered. As mentioned above, use varies depending on factors other
than the level of project activities.
The number of trail miles and use will not change in the short or long term. No prohibitions
are being made to the number of trail miles or trails open and available for use.
The number of permits and areas will not change in the short or long term. No changes in the
terms of the permits or available locations are part of this project.
It is anticipated that the overall quality of the recreation opportunities will vary but not be
adverse to all users since they have an individual range of sense of place or human
connection to any area.
Summary of Effects
To display the differences between alternatives, indicators have been identified that affect the recreation
activities. These analysis indicators have been qualitatively discussed above and are found in the in Table
121.
The following table displays the quantitative differences in units (acres/miles) for each of the following
project activities occurring within the WSR corridor.
295
Table 135. Comparison of Alternative Activities within WSR Corridor
Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Acres timber harvest 0 140 69
Acres post-harvest fuels treatment
0 28 70
Acres prescribed fire 0 1, 174 1,129
Miles road reconstruction 0 2.4 2.4
Miles temporary road construction
0 0.53 0
Miles danger tree removal along roads
0 9.95 8.9
Miles road decommissioning 0 0.4 0.4
Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans
In reviewing the project proposals for all alternatives and evaluating them with the Forest Plan and River
Plan Recreation Goal, Desired Future Conditions, Management Area Standards and Guidelines and ROS,
they appear to be in full compliance. The alternatives will also meet all relevant laws, regulations, policies
and plans.
There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments to the recreation resource associated with any of
the alternatives analyzed. The number, available types and use capacity for developed, dispersed and trail
recreation activities will not be changed by the project proposal.
Required and Additional Disclosures
This section discloses the effects of the alternatives on the human environment as specified by law,
regulation, policy, or Executive Order.
Cultural Resources
No impacts to any known cultural resource site would result from implementation of any of the
action alternatives. Appropriate protection and avoidance measures have been designed and
applied to the known sites existing within the project area in conjunction with the project
Archaeologist.
Tribal Treaty Rights
Treaties provide that Native Americans will continue to have the right to erect suitable buildings
for fish curing, privileges of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing stock on
unclaimed lands. Indian treaty rights and privileges were considered throughout this analysis and
maintained through appropriate design and layout features, especially related to first food
resources such as fish, wildlife, and riparian areas.
Many plants that can be found in eastern Oregon may have cultural significance, and some of the
plants may be present in the Sparta Project area. The following plants which may be of cultural
significance may be found in environments similar to that of the Sparta Project: Grouse
whortleberry, Blue huckleberry, Russet buffaloberry, Bulrush, Blue elderberry, Scarlet elderberry,
Geyer’s willow, Willow, Gooseberry/Currant, Alderleaf buckthorn, Yampah, Bolander’s yampah,
Bitter cherry, Common chokecherry, Lodgepole pine, Mock orange, Gray’s biscuitroot, Fernleaf
biscuitroot, Cous biscuitroot, Bitterroot, Ocean spray, Strawberry, Hawthorne, Lanceleaf
springbeauty, Horsehair lichen, Balsamroot, Big sagebrush, and Saskatoon serviceberry. (It
should be noted that no official survey was conducted by WWNF botanists for presence/absence
of these plants in the project area.)
296
First foods are those individual resources, reserved in their Tribal treaties, to which Tribal
members retained rights. These rights, such as hunting, fishing, and gathering roots and berries,
have been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court. The Tribes mission is to protect,
restore, and enhance the first foods (including water, salmon, deer, cous, and huckleberry) for the
perpetual cultural, economic, and sovereign benefit of the Tribe. They measure the success of
resource management by the availability and utilization of these resources. The sustainability of
these resources is considered by them the minimum ecological condition necessary to meet the
trust responsibility of the United States.
All alternatives are relatively equal in their treatment of treaty rights and are expected to maintain
treaty rights and opportunities into the future.
Biological Diversity
All existing native and desirable introduced species and communities are maintained with all
alternatives. Erosion control measures (seeding) would use native species when possible (EA,
Alternatives section). Biological diversity is not expected to be affected.
Public Safety
No long-term public safety problems are anticipated with any of the alternatives. Short-term
safety hazards such as log truck traffic and falling trees near roads would be mitigated through
contract safety provisions and are not anticipated to impact public safety.
There is no expectation that there would be a change in public health and safety. Mitigation and
precautions apply to the action alternative. Should a wildfire occur under any alternative, there
could be an adverse impact to public health in terms of air quality and a change in the water
quality. However, under the action alternatives, safe firefighter ingress and egress would be
improved and strategic areas from which to attack fires from would be created. No such
improvement would occur under Alternative 1. Other safety measures are discussed in or are a
standard part of sale contracts.
Standing trees that lean over or near roadways and present a hazard to public safety due to
conditions such as deterioration or physical damage to roots, trunks, stems, or limbs would be
removed from the project area.
There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique
or unknown risks. None of the actions threaten a violation of Federal, State, or local law. Action
alternatives would comply with air and water quality regulations (laws). The effects on the
quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial based on public
participation.
Research Natural Areas, Experimental Forests, and Wilderness
There are no research natural areas, experimental forests, or Wilderness areas within or
immediately adjacent to the Sparta project area. There are no known significant cumulative
effects from the project and other projects implemented or planned on areas separated from the
affected area of the project beyond those evaluated in Chapter IV of the FEIS of the Forest Plan.
The physical and biological effects are limited to this analysis area. No actions are proposed
which are considered precedent setting.
The only potential impacts on Wilderness areas from this project are from potential smoke
incursion as discussed under Fire and Fuels section of this EA; however, any potential for smoke
297
incursion from prescribed fire between July 4 and Labor Day would be restricted. Refer to the
Lands with Wilderness Characteristics effects analysis in this chapter for a discussion of potential
impacts to areas meeting wilderness criteria as defined by FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71.
Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided
Some impacts caused by implementation of management activities proposed in this analysis that
cannot be avoided may be considered adverse according to individual interpretations. Stumps
and disturbed areas are not a pleasing sight to some people, visually or environmentally. Truck
traffic would compete with public traffic on roads used in common. Traffic and removal
activities would also create dust and noise. Smoke from prescribed burning, fuels reduction, and
slash disposal is an irritant and an unpleasant sight to some people. Recreation users may find
changes to the areas they have visited in the past, either through reduced or increased access,
changed landscape, or changes in vegetation.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Irreversible resource commitments are actions that either deplete a non-renewable resource or
disturb another resource to the point that it cannot be renewed within 100 years. There are no
known significant irreversible resource commitments or irretrievable loss of timber production,
wildlife habitats, soil production, or water quality from actions initiated under any of the
alternatives. No heritage sites will be negatively affected.
Impacts to soil and water are controlled by management practices and mitigation measures and
would not represent an irreversible resource commitment. For all practical purposes, rock is a
non-renewable resource. Use of rock as surfacing represents an irretrievable commitment of a
resource, although due to quantities of supply, it is not a significant commitment. Existing roads
constitute a more-or-less permanent commitment of a portion of land to a purpose other than
timber production.
Some non-designated old growth may be affected under the action alternatives, however, the
affect is generally considered a positive one and there will be no net loss of old growth. In
addition, some loss of snag habitat would occur under all action alternatives. It is not known
whether this is an irretrievable or irreversible action at this time. It is also not known what impact
this type of change may have on unidentified nest sites of management indicator species.
Energy Requirements of Alternatives
The need for less energy-efficient and more expensive harvest or fuel reduction techniques is
often due to the need to mitigate visual concerns, soil damage or adverse effects on watershed and
other resources that would occur if more energy-efficient means, such as tractor yarding systems
were employed. In this analysis, a combination of yarding systems and road development
scenarios were developed in order to evaluate the tradeoffs of implementing various options.
Prime Farmlands, Range Land, Forest Land
Actions taken under any of the alternatives would have no impact on farmland, rangeland, or
forestland inside or outside the National Forest. There are no prime farmlands affected by the
proposal. Wetlands and floodplains associated with streams and springs would be protected using
mitigation guidelines previously identified. One designated Wild and Scenic river is located
within the project area. The effects on the Eagle Creek Wild and Scenic River corridor are
discussed in this document and were found to maintain and enhance the outstandingly remarkable
values associated with the scenic and recreation sections of the river.
298
Civil Rights, Women, Minorities, Environmental Justice
There are no known direct or adverse effects on women, minority groups, or civil rights of
individuals or groups. Action alternatives are governed by sale or service contracts, which
contain nondiscrimination requirements to prevent adverse impacts to these groups. The no
action alternative may have some short-term adverse impacts on the local community by not
providing timber sale receipts. To the greatest extent possible all populations have been provided
the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on proposals and activities affecting
human health or the environment. The proposals within this EA would not have a direct or
indirect negative effect on minority or low-income populations (Presidential Exec. Order No.
12898 on Environmental Justice).
Wetlands and Floodplains
Executive Order 11190 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent possible the long and
short term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands”. The
East Face Project is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to destroy or modify any
wetlands. Executive Order (EO) 11988 requires the Forest Service to “avoid to the extent
possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupation or modification
of floodplains. The Sparta Project is consistent with this EO because it does not propose to
occupy or modify any floodplain.
Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the
definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and
considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that the
proposed action and alternatives will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this
finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.
Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the
environmental analysis in this EA.
Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the
effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been
appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised
by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific
information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no
significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors
identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).
1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal
agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.
Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse are discussed in the Effects of Implementation
section of the EA. These impacts are within the range of those identified in the Forest Plan. The
299
actions will not have significant impacts on other resources identified and described in this analysis.
The effect of the decision is non-significant in the long and short term.
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.
Public health and safety will be minimally affected over a short term by the proposed project. Short-
term safety hazards such as truck traffic, heavy equipment on and near roads, and prescribed burning
will be mitigated through contract safety provisions (EA, p. 296).
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources,
parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.
This project proposal does not affect any unique geographical characteristics such as parklands, prime
farmlands or ecologically critical areas. (EA, p. 297). No negative effects to the Eagle Creek wild
and scenic river corridor are expected from the activities proposed in this project and outstandingly
remarkable values are maintained and enhanced (EA, pp. 289-295, 297).
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly
controversial.
Based on the analysis of the effects of implementing this project no substantial scientific evidence
exists to dispute the size, nature, or effects of this project on any human environmental factors. (EA,
Environmental Impacts section)
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve
unique or unknown risks.
There are no known effects on the human environment that are highly uncertain or involve unique or
unknown risks associated with this project. Fuels reduction, vegetation management, prescribed
burning, and road work are common practices and the effects are well known. The EA effectively
addresses and analyzes issues and environmental impacts associated with the project (EA,
Environmental Impacts section).
These actions pose no disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects,
including social and economic effects, on minority or low-income populations. This project has
shared in the federal government’s overall trust responsibility to Indian tribes where treaty or other
legally defined rights apply to National Forest System lands. Consultation has incorporated
opportunities for tribal comments and contributions to the proposed action. This project was included
in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest 2016 program of work presentation to the CTUIR on
October 19, 2016 and the Nez Perce on May 11, 2016 as part of the annual program of work
presentation. Staff to staff meetings were also held with CTUIR on May 25, 2016 and August 23,
2016. Discussions with tribal archaeologists have been incorporated into project design. No other
comments were received. (EA, pp. 11, 258-260, 295)
6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or
represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.
These actions do not set a precedent for other projects that may be implemented to meet the goals and
objectives of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The
Forest Plan, as amended has goals for providing wood products and protection of resources and
municipal watersheds from wildfire. This project does not propose site specific changes/amendments
to the forest plan. (EA, pp. 6-7, 57-298)
300
7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant
impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by
breaking it down into small component parts.
There are no known significant adverse, cumulative, or secondary effects between this project and
other projects (completed, active, or planned) adjacent to the affected area. Effects to the basic
resource values of soil, water, vegetation, air, or fish and wildlife were estimated and determined to
be localized and limited (EA, pp. 58-84, 104-106, 108-130, 141-202, 202-227, Appendix D). This
determination is based on the results of cumulative effects analyses discussed in the EA that
considered past, existing, and proposed activities.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects
listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or
destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.
Based on a cultural resource inventory and report, mitigation and protection measures, the known
cultural, scientific, or historical resources within the project area have been protected during project
design (EA, pp. 258-260, 295). Field studies have been completed for cultural and historic resources
(Heritage Report, analysis file) on USFS lands. The contract will contain a contract clause requiring
protection of any newly detected sites. Consultation with potentially affected tribes and SHPO has
been completed.
9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat
that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
A biological evaluation for wildlife proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species
indicates that this project received a “no effect" determination for the “threatened” Canada Lynx and
“no impact” to the following species listed as “sensitive”: gray wolf and Columbia Gorge Oregonian.
A “May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or
cause a loss of viability to the populations or species determination was made for the following
“sensitive” species: Rocky Mountain tailed frog, Columbia spotted frog, Northern bald eagle, Lewis’
woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, California wolverine, Intermountain Sulphur, Western
bumblebee, Johnson’s hairstreak, and fringed myotis. (EA p. 200, Wildlife Biological Evaluation,
Analysis File)
The biological evaluation for fish species indicates that this project may affect not likely to adversely
affect bull trout designated critical habitat (EA p. 201). US Fish and Wildlife Services’ LOC dated
XXXXXX, 2017 (Analysis File).
Implementation of the Sparta Project may impact redband trout, western ridge mussel, and shortface
lanx individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a
loss of viability to the populations or species. (EA, p. 201)
The biological evaluation for PETS Plants indicates that project activities will have no impact on any
threatened plants. There will be no impact to 21 currently listed Region – 6 Sensitive Plant species
(EA p.198). Project activities may impact individuals or habitat of but will not likely contribute to a
trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) of the
remaining 4 species (Carex cordillerana, Trifolium douglasii, Platanthera obtusata, and Schistidium
cinclidodonteum). There will be no impact to Carex cordillerana sites from project activities as
known sites were protected during project design. (EA, pp. 198-200)
301
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for
the protection of the environment.
The actions proposed in this project area focus on modifying fire behavior in strategic areas to
provide for improved safe areas to firefighting resources, improved stand health, and wood products
for surrounding communities. Analysis of the effects of implementing these actions do not threaten a
violation of Federal, State, or local laws or requirements for protection of the environment. (EA,
Environmental Impacts pp. 57-298)
302
List of Preparers and Reviewers Francis Tyler, Fire and Fuels Management Specialist
Keith Dunn, Fire and Fuels Management Specialist
Steve Hawkins, Assistant Fire Staff
Joe Sciarrino, Silviculturist
Roy Cuzick, Silviculturist
Tom Burry, Logging Systems Specialist
Cindy Christensen, IDT Leader and Planning
Andy Steele, Recreation Specialist
Laura Navarrete, Wildlife Biologist
Penny Hall, Botanist
Aric Johnson, Range and Soils Specialist
Sarah Brandy, Fisheries Biologist
Scott Schaeffer, Invasive Plants Specialist
Erik Harvey, South Zone Archaeologist
Wade Krist, Minerals
John Jesenko, Timber Planner
![News Release · Web view2 [Type text] United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture USDA is an equal opportunity](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5e93a9243156a46f565ddec0/news-release-web-view-2-type-text-united-states-department-of-agriculture-united.jpg)
![Federated States of Micronesia Agriculture Policy Agriculture Policy... · Federated States of Micronesia Agriculture Policy [2] FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA Department of Resources](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5b86505c7f8b9a8f318c3dfb/federated-states-of-micronesia-agriculture-agriculture-policy-federated-states.jpg)
