USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Plans Amendment Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington

Environmental Assessment

Pacific Northwest Region (R6) Oregon and Washington January 2021

Photo Credit: Mark Penninger, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, La Grande, OR Field Office

1 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Responsible Official

Jim Hubbard, Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20250 [email protected] 202-720-2791

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Forest Service Planning Framework ...... 5 1.2 History of the Eastside Screens ...... 5 1.3 Analysis Area ...... 7 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 7 1.5 Need for Change ...... 8 1.6 Goals ...... 9 1.7 Changes between Draft and Final Environmental Analysis ...... 10 1.8 Tribal Rights and Interests ...... 10 1.9 Decision to be Made ...... 11 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 11 2.1 Current Management Alternative ...... 12 2.2 Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management (Proposed Action) .... 13 2.2.1 Adaptive Management Strategy ...... 13 2.3 Old Tree Standard Alternative ...... 15 2.4 Adaptive Management Alternative ...... 16 2.5 Standard with Exceptions Alternative ...... 16 2.6 Stability and Change Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 17 2.7 Alternatives Considered but Not Fully Analyzed ...... 18 2.8 Compliance with NFMA-Substantive Requirements ...... 19 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Effects ...... 20 3.1 Vegetation ...... 20 3.1.1 Introduction ...... 20 3.1.2 Analysis Methods ...... 20 3.1.3 Indicators ...... 20 3.1.4 Assumptions ...... 24 3.1.5 Affected Environment ...... 28 3.1.6 Environmental Effects ...... 33 3.2 Decaying Wood: Snags and Down Wood ...... 42 3.2.1 Composition, structure, and quality ...... 42

3 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.2.2 Green tree retention for future snag recruitment ...... 44 3.2.3 Down wood ...... 46 3.2.4 Affected environment ...... 47 3.2.5 Effects to Decaying Wood ...... 51 3.3 Disturbance ...... 54 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 54 3.3.2 Effects Analysis ...... 59 3.4 Social and Economic Resources ...... 70 3.4.1 Introduction ...... 70 3.4.2 Analysis Area ...... 70 3.4.3 Affected Environment ...... 71 3.4.4 Environmental Effects ...... 87 3.5 Aquatic Resources (Fisheries) ...... 91 3.6 Wildlife ...... 93 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 93 3.6.2 Environmental Effects and Indicators ...... 105 3.7 Botany ...... 120 3.7.1 Key Indicators ...... 120 3.7.2 Analysis Methods ...... 121 3.7.3 Affected Environment ...... 121 3.7.4 Environmental Effects ...... 128 4 Cumulative Effects ...... 143 5 Public Involvement and Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 146 5.1 Tribes ...... 146 5.2 Stakeholder Engagement ...... 146 5.3 Other Agencies ...... 147 6 GLOSSARY ...... 148 7 Literature Cited ...... 153 8 Appendix A-Botany Sensitive Species List ...... 192 9 Appendix B-Alternatives Crosswalk ...... 207 10 Appendix C-1995 Eastside Screens ...... 219 11 Appendix D-Wildlife Effects Table ...... 232 12 Appendix E – Description of the Viability Outcomes ...... 240 13 Appendix F – Related Plan Components ...... 241

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 FOREST SERVICE PLANNING FRAMEWORK National forests and grasslands are required to have a Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Those plans inform the overall management of each unit and all projects on each unit must conform with the associated LRMP. When plan components (desired conditions, goals, standards, or guidelines) need to be changed for any reason the planning unit must complete a plan amendment (36 CFR 219). The amendment process is intended to help keep plans current and responsive as conditions change or science alters our understanding. The Eastside Screens were adopted in 1994-95 (see below) and amended the underlying forest plans which were published in either 1989 or 1990, depending on the forest. The Eastside Screens consisted of three components for screening proposed timber sales: riparian screen, ecosystem screen, and wildlife screen. The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) and Pacific Anadromous Fish Strategy (PACFISH) now operate in place of the riparian screen. Under the ecosystem screen, the Forest Service compares current forest structure conditions of a proposed project area with the historical range of variability (HRV). Under the wildlife screen, the Forest Service imposes certain harvesting restrictions according to whether or not the condition of forest structure within a project area is within the HRV for late and old structure (LOS) forest1.

1.2 HISTORY OF THE EASTSIDE SCREENS The Forest Service developed the Eastside Screens in the 1990s in response to concerns about old trees on the eastside of the Cascades. House Speaker Tom Foley (Washington) and Senator Mark Hatfield (Oregon) requested that Agricultural Secretary Edward Madigan form an interagency panel to complete a scientific evaluation of the effects of Forest Service management practices on the sustainability of eastern Oregon and Washington forests. The panel addressed seven key questions defined by Speaker Foley and Senator Hatfield (Everett et al. 1994). The panel produced the Eastside Forests Ecosystem Health Assessment (EFEHA) or the “Everett Report.”

EFEHA concluded that there was a loss of large trees and old forests, fragmented landscapes caused by small harvest units, and conditions were ripe for large and severe insect, disease, and wildfire disturbances due to large increases in forested area, density, and shade-tolerant forest cover. The panel did not address social or economic concerns but acknowledged their importance for ecosystem sustainability and identified the need for more information about social values and expectations for management of eastside forests.

During the same timeframe, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the courts to suspend old tree harvest on eastside forests. Regional Forester (RF) John Lowe

1 Late and Old Structure (LOS) forest includes both “Multi-strata with Large Trees,” or “Single Strata with Large Trees,” as described in Table l of the ecosystem standard.

5 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

asked the EFEHA team to develop interim policies that could be applied to vegetation management and timber sale projects. This team developed the Eastside Screens in part to keep existing large and old trees and manage national forests to promote an increase in the number of large and old trees. They recommended replacing it within 12–18 months with more formal landscape evaluations that responded to their key findings. A lower-end size limit of 21 inches was negotiated with the plaintiffs included in the NRDC petition. On June 12, 1995 RF Lowe signed the Decision Notice for the “Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales” (Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2), which slightly modified the initial screens. During the last three decades there have been multiple interpretations and guidance documents issued on how to implement the screens. Some guidance documents encouraged forests to complete project specific plan amendments to cut trees over 21 inches while others outlined direction that trees greater than 21 inches could be cut under certain conditions. Due to changing and conflicting guidance national forests have taken different approaches to addressing this issue on the ground. Some national forests in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington have completed multiple project specific forest plan amendments that alter the 21-inch standard in some way. Other forests have avoided the harvest of trees over 21-inches to avoid project specific forest plan amendments. Still others have started amendments and not implemented the projects; for example, in 2014 the Snow Basin lawsuit led the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest to pull a proposed amendment to the Eastside Screens because the court found that the Forest Service could not use a site-specific amendment to address a forest-wide problem. In total since 2003, there have been 24 amendments to forest plans related to the 21-inch standard. Amendments generally focused on removing young grand fir or white fir in dry forests, but some also addressed removal of lodgepole, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine. Project level analyses have shown no significant adverse impacts to resources as a result of the amendments and in fact the analyses have demonstrated positive impacts in terms of restoring stand and landscape resilience. The limitations of the 21-inch standard have become increasingly apparent in recent years as the Forest Service has intensified its focus on restoring historical forest conditions and forest resistance and resilience to wildfire and other disturbances and as public and agency interest in these issues has grown. At the same time, scientific knowledge about frequent-disturbance environments like those in eastern Oregon and Washington has increased. The need for new approaches to forest management has become even more urgent given ongoing changes such as an increase in the length of fire season and the area burned by wildfires. Managers ability to create forests more resistant and resilient to disturbance is limited. For example, managers can’t remove young but large trees and fast-growing shade tolerant species that compete with pines and larch for resources on dry sites. Restoring and adapting forests and increasing landscape resilience and resistance to large disturbances like wildfire, drought, and insect outbreaks requires an approach better aligned with scientific research for dry forests than the 21-inch standard allows. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Figure 1. The analysis area encompasses 7,867,951 acres on the Fremont-Winema, Deschutes, Ohcoco, Malheur, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests.

1.3 ANALYSIS AREA This analysis of an amendment to the 21-inch standard of the Eastside Screens applies to National Forest System lands managed by the Deschutes, Fremont-Winema, Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests, not including lands managed under the Northwest Forest Plan, congressionally designated wilderness areas, research natural areas, and experimental forests (Figure 1). This area totals 7,867,951 acres.

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of this assessment is to analyze a durable, science-based alternative to the 21-inch standard in the Eastside Screens. Adapting the standard to incorporate science and 25 years of learning would enable managers to more effectively restore forestlands in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.

7 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

1.5 NEED FOR CHANGE Scientific research and over 20 years of on-the-ground experience implementing the 21- inch standard demonstrate a need to change policy to better adapt forest conditions to current disturbance regimes and expected climate-induced changes including longer fire seasons, larger areas burned and increased risk of insect and disease mortality in forests (see Disturbance section). Forests that historically experienced frequent fire have become more dense (see Vegetation section), and the trees that make up these forests have shifted away from species that are well-adapted to fire and other disturbances like insect attacks (see Disturbance and Vegetations sections). Vast areas of forestlands across the analysis area are maladapted to the ecological processes of frequent disturbance landscapes, hindering the Forest Service’s ability to maintain and restore the ecological integrity of these landscapes. Adapting the 21-inch standard to incorporate 25-years of science and experience would support the Forest Service’s ability to restore eastern Oregon and Washington forests and adapt landscapes to changing conditions. Increases in stand basal area since frequent fire was excluded from eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington forests are largely attributable to growth and establishment of relatively large, fast growing, shade tolerant species like grand fir and Douglas-fir (Hagmann et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Merschel et al. 2014, Hagmann et al. 2014, Hagmann et al. 2013). The amount of shade tolerant trees is increasing dramatically across the analysis area due to past selective harvest of old and large fire resistant trees and fire suppression (Hagmann et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Hagmann et al. 2013). Species like Douglas-fir, grand fir and white fir, and (in some places) lodgepole pine have moved into areas where their densities were historically lower and ponderosa pine was dominant ( Everett et al. 2000, Perry et al. 2004, Hagmann et al. 2013, Heyerdahl et al. 2019, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Johnston et al. 2017, Merschel et al. 2018). Shade tolerant tree growth has increased density (trees per acre) and canopy cover in stands, and it directly limits the persistence and recruitment of fire tolerant trees, making forests more likely to die when a wildfire, drought, or other natural event occur (Hessburg et al. 2020, Tepley and Hood 2020, Voelker et al. 2019). Increases in stand basal area have significantly reduced drought resistance of all trees, including old trees (Bradford and Bell 2017, Millar and Stephenson 2015, Fettig et al. 2007, Kolb et al. 2007, Waring and Law 2001, Kolb et al. 1998). Restoring historical competition dynamics and a higher proportion of shade intolerant species increases the resistance of stands to drought, insects, and fire disturbance effects associated with a warming climate (e.g., Tepley et al. 2020, Zhang et al. 2019, Vernon et al. 2018, Sohn et al. 2016) (see Vegetation section). One expression of the lack of alignment between current forests and their biophysical environment (e.g. lots of trees on dry sites) is the high level of mortality in old forests (see Vegetation section). Old trees provide critical habitat functions and form the foundation for forests that are resilient to future change because they have persisted through past climatic and disturbance variability (Marcot et al. 2018, Hessburg et al. 2015, Bull et al. 1997). Old pine trees with high resistance to wildfire were heavily targeted in the past by logging (Hessburg and Agee 2003), are still deficit across the landscape compared to historical conditions and continue to decline (see Vegetation section). Achieving more effective conservation of old trees in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington is important to tribes, recreationists, local communities that depend on ecosystem services from national forests, and the general public because of the critical functions they provide and the values they represent to many people (Hessburg et USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

al. 2020, Lindenmayer et al. 2012, Lutz et al. 2009, van Mantgem et al. 2009). A variety of empirical studies and science syntheses demonstrate that protection of all trees greater than 21 inches prevents restoration of conditions that are most likely to maintain old trees into the future (Johnston et al. 2021, Lindsay and Johnston 2020, Merschel et al. 2019, Johnston et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Stine et al. 2014). For example, trees are at elevated risk of mortality when competing for resources like light and water (Bradford and Bell 2017, Millar and Stephenson 2015, Fettig et al. 2007, Kolb et al. 2007, Waring and Law 2001, Kolb et al. 1998). Many large and old trees will be lost to mortality as disturbance processes become more extensive in the coming decades (Kerns et al. 2018, Littell et al. 2018, Mote and Salathe 2010). Although replacing the 21-inch standard with different conservation policies may result in more large trees being cut, better providing for stand and landscape scale resilience to disturbance has the potential to optimize provision of large and old trees over time (Spies et al. 2018, Bradford and Bell 2017, Sohn et al. 2016, McDowell and Allen 2015, Millar and Stephenson 2015) because it would allow for harvest of young trees that are larger than 21-inches that are the result of past logging and fire exclusion (Merschel 2019). In addition to the ecological need, there is a need for increased efficiency in Forest Service decision-making. Since the 21-inch standard was adopted in the mid-1990s, forests in the analysis area have completed 38 project-specific amendments to the Eastside Screens. Twenty-four of the amendments allowed cutting of trees greater than 21-inches. Such project-level amendments require repetitive analysis. Forest plan amendments also require the decision to be signed by a forest supervisor instead of a district ranger, adding another level of complexity to the process. Some of these project- level amendments have been developed with the engagement and support of diverse interests that make up local collaborative groups. The Snow Basin project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest included a project- specific amendment to the 21-inch standard. It was challenged and in December of 2014, the United States District Court of Oregon ruled that the Forest Service should consider the cumulative impacts of its decisions to amend the 21-inch standard across the whole forest rather than just within the project area. This analysis serves that purpose across all six national forests.

1.6 GOALS The goal of this proposed amendment to the 21-inch standard reflects the purpose and need for the original screens, which is the “…need to maintain the abundance and distribution of old forest structure.” The original 1994 EA explains, “The purpose is to preserve those components of the landscape -- old forest abundance, wildlife habitat in late and old structural stages, and riparian areas -- which new information suggests is vitally important to certain species of wildlife and fish and to the overall vegetative structure of the forest.” This amendment would ensure that species composition and age are appropriately considered in achieving this goal. Given new science and our evolving understanding of frequent-disturbance landscapes, a standard that prohibits logging of all trees larger than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) is no longer adequate to support landscape restoration and resiliency efforts. 9 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

This proposed amendment is narrowly focused on Scenario A of the wildlife standard of the Eastside Screens. This means that at the project level, the ecosystem screen is still applied first, and the proposed amendment would only affect project areas where LOS forest is found to be below HRV for one or more biophysical environments.

1.7 CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS In response to public comments and feedback on the draft EA, we: • Analyzed an additional, more conservative action alternative. • Developed a more detailed monitoring approach. • Consolidated information on disturbance into a new analysis section and added additional detail. • Incorporated additional information and analysis on climate change within relevant resource analyses (e.g. within the vegetation and wildlife analyses). • Added a carbon storage analysis. • Shared additional detail on how vegetation was classified for the vegetation analysis. • Clarified the forest structure analysis. • Highlighted effects at the stand scale for the vegetation analysis to help compare differences between alternatives. • Added more detail about the wildlife species addressed and their habitat associations. • Added additional detail from climate vulnerability assessments to better address habitat resiliency and sustainability. • Incorporated additional information on insects and pathogens in the snag analysis, including how various alternatives affect future snag recruitment and green tree retention. • Added new information on culturally important plants and new botany information in the affected environment section. • Updated whitebark pine status to a proposed species instead of a candidate species.

1.8 TRIBAL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS The Forest Service understands the significance and interconnectedness of treaty rights and resources within American Indian tribal cultures. Many tribal members continue to foster longstanding, customary relationships with natural resources on national forests and grasslands, continuing an interdependent relationship whereby tribal practices nurture ecological systems, and those systems in turn nurture and sustain cultural identity and continuity. Laws protect American Indian rights to use and possess sacred objects; to protect their ancestral graves, archaeological, and cultural sites; to secure the freedom of worship through ceremonial and traditional practices; and to collect native plant and animal resources for traditional cultural purposes. Agreements for collaboration, consultation, and cooperation in managing natural resources on national forests and grasslands are in effect between the Forest Service and multiple tribes within the analysis area. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

The Forest Service maintains government-to-government relationships with American Indian tribes that have sovereign governments. These relationships are important for protecting and managing ecological resources to honor, support, and respect cultural, spiritual, and community interests and to integrate these as much as possible into agency planning and project implementation. In their treaties with the United States, the tribes expressly reserved many of their aboriginal rights, including rights to harvest a range of resources both on and off reservation lands. The Forest Service has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian tribes beyond those identified in treaties; these are clarified in statutes, executive orders, and case law interpreted for the protection and benefit of federally recognized American Indian tribes. In meeting these responsibilities, the Forest Service consults with tribes whenever proposed policies or management actions may affect tribal interests. Six federally recognized American Indian tribes have tribal lands or territory within the analysis area. A significant portion of lands ceded by tribes were established as part of the National Forest System by the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897. While federal law governs relations with all federally recognized American Indian tribes, each tribe is different and is recognized as a separate and unique government. While some tribes have treaties, other tribes were recognized under different authorities and have different rights. Treaty rights and the historical relationships between tribes and the lands they aboriginally relied upon may differ greatly among tribes. Cultural differences between tribes can also be significant. In some cases, several tribes may each have legitimate interests in the same lands because they each may have occupied or otherwise used those lands during overlapping or different historical periods. These factors and others combine to make each Forest Service-tribal consultation relationship unique. These relationships will continue into the future and will shape projects that would be developed under any change to the 21-inch standard. Tribal communities often rely on traditional foods, such as water, salmon, game (such as elk and deer), roots (such as cous, camas, and bitterroot), and berries (such as huckleberries and chokecherries). While these plants and animals, as well as water and other resources, have cultural significance, they also provide nutrition to many tribal people. Culturally significant foods are especially important and provide critical subsistence given the high incidence of poverty in American Indian communities. Traditional foods and plants that could be affected by a change in the 21-inch standard are discussed in relevant resource sections of the analysis.

1.9 DECISION TO BE MADE Jim Hubbard, Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment, is the decision maker for this project and will decide which alternative to select. He will compare each alternative’s ability to meet the purpose and need and weigh the effects of each alternative as presented in the environmental analysis.

2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Through the means described elsewhere in this document, individuals, groups, organizations and county governments have provided feedback to the decision maker and 11 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

the interdisciplinary team. The discussions and suggestions made during early engagement activities and during the public comment period supported further development of the alternatives and the analysis of issues addressed in this assessment.

2.1 CURRENT MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE This alternative analyzes the 21-inch standard as applied within the analysis area. Currently, implementation of the Eastside Screens is inconsistent across the region. Section 6(d)(1) stipulates that: Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stages that are within or above HRV in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS with-in that biophysical environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into the LOS stage that is deficit if this meets historical conditions. No restriction on the harvest size of trees is stipulated. In practice many Forests and projects have applied a restriction to the harvest of trees larger than or equal to 21 inches dbh to the management of all LOS. Section 6(d)(2) (and 6(d)(2)(a)) stipulate that: Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance LOS components in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following standards: a) Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥ 21-inch dbh that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities. This standard has been applied as written across Forests. Section 6(d)(4) stipulates that: All sale activities (including intermediate and regeneration harvest in both even- age and uneven-age systems, and salvage) will maintain snags and green replacement trees of >21 inches dbh (or whatever is the representative dbh of the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other documented procedures. NOTE: for Scenario A, the live remnant trees (< 21" dbh) left can be considered for part of the green replacement tree requirement. The Current Management Alternative represents continued implementation of the green tree retention standard described in the above paragraph. The Current Management Alternative allows for the removal of some large, shade- tolerant trees if a commercial process (i.e. a timber sale) is not used to remove the trees. For example, trees could be dropped and retained on site, or trees could be turned into snags. As some commenters noted, the Forest Service may allow tribal members to use such trees for cultural purposes as well. Finally, some commenters suggested that the Forest Service could protect small, old trees under current management. While that is theoretically possible, current management revolves specifically around size rather than age, and we analyze current management accordingly. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

2.2 OLD TREE AND LARGE TREE GUIDELINE WITH ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ACTION) The Proposed Action is to replace the 21-inch standard with a guideline that emphasizes recruitment of old trees and large trees. Purpose of the new guideline: Maintain and increase old and late structure forest. Favor fire tolerant species where appropriate. The new guideline would replace language at 6(d)(2) and 6(d)(2)(a) with: Outside of LOS, many types of timber harvest activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following plan components: Managers should retain and generally emphasize recruitment of old trees and large trees, including clumps of old trees. Management activities should first prioritize old trees for retention and recruitment. If there are not enough old trees to develop LOS conditions, large trees should be retained, favoring fire tolerant species where appropriate. Old trees are defined as having external morphological characteristics2 that suggest an age ≥ 150 years. Large trees are defined as grand fir or white fir ≥ 30 inches dbh or trees of any other species ≥ 21 inches dbh. Old trees will be identified through best available science. Management activities should consider appropriate species composition for biophysical environment, topographical position, stand density, historical diameter distributions, and spatial arrangements within stands and across the landscape in order to develop stands that are resistant and resilient to disturbance. In practice over the past several decades, site specific diameter limits have been applied through prescriptions to meet project goals after Forest Plan amendments to harvest trees over 21 inches diameter have been completed. Site-specific diameter limits for Douglas- fir, grand fir and white fir include 28 to 35 inch diameter limits. For this proposed amendment, forest inventory data and modeling designed to meet the purpose and need was also used as a guide to develop the diameter guideline for shade tolerant species. Most trees that would need to be removed over the next 25 years to meet the purpose and need would still be under 30 inches diameter.

2.2.1 Adaptive Management Strategy

There are four components to the Adaptive Management Strategy (Figure 2): 1) Local monitoring, 2) Effectiveness monitoring, 3) Regional review, and 4) Regional Adaptive Management Work Group. Local Monitoring (Encouraged)

2 External morphological characteristics could be assessed using local or regional field guides such as Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington (Van Pelt 2008) or other best available science.

13 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

When projects are implemented that involve the harvest of large trees the Forest Service may coordinate project-level multiparty monitoring. The Forest Service encourages integration of monitoring questions into the existing multiparty party monitoring efforts, such as those associated with the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) or other programs. The Forest Service is encouraged to engage tribal natural and cultural resource staff in this work to incorporate consideration of tribal treaty rights and culturally-significant plants. Local monitoring could focus on implementation monitoring or effectiveness monitoring and could ask questions related to development of late and old forest conditions, effectiveness of particular management activities, development of snags, or other issues of interest.

Broad-scale Effectiveness Monitoring (Required) Effectiveness monitoring would assess conservation and recovery late and old structure forest across the analysis area. Effectiveness monitoring questions include: A. Are large trees increasing in number while setting species composition on a trajectory appropriate to the ecological setting? B. Is the density, quality, and distribution of snags improving across the landscape? (Optional) An age-related monitoring question is highly recommended. This question should be informed by the scientific community and the Regional Adaptive Management Workgroup. Effectiveness monitoring questions and the thresholds below may be added to or altered based on feedback from the scientific community or lessons learned from the Regional Adaptive Management Workgroup.

Thresholds: A. If large trees are not increasing in number with appropriate composition, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across the whole analysis area or by national forest or potential vegetation zone. B. If effectiveness monitoring does not occur, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across all six national forests.

Regional Review (Required) The Regional Forester will conduct a review of monitoring data once a year. Once every five years, a decision will be made on whether to continue with the guideline or move to the age standard, as described in the alternatives section of the analysis. The Regional Forester may order a move to the standard for a potential vegetation zone, individual national forests, or across all six national forests as warranted by the monitoring data. The Regional review will include at least the Regional Forester, the Regional Planning and Natural Resources Directors, a Forest Supervisor representing the six eastside Forests, and the Director of the PNW Research Station. The Regional Forester may choose to invite outside review if desired. The Regional review team will consider the monitoring findings compiled through Regional effectiveness monitoring and learnings from the Regional Adaptive Management Work Group.

Regional Adaptive Management Workgroup (Encouraged) To ensure transparency, build trust, and provide accountability the Regional Adaptive Management Work Group would be created. The Work Group is designed to develop shared knowledge about LOS development on Forest Service lands in eastern Oregon and USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 southeastern Washington. The Work Group would also be a place for Forest Service practitioners and partners to share on-the-ground experience and learning across Forests to promote learning and innovation. Project level monitoring could be used to provide insights into regional data trends. Objectives • Maintain transparency around planning and management methods to protect and develop late and old structure (LOS) forest characteristics by: o Reviewing and discussing regional monitoring data and trends that emerge from the implementation and effectiveness monitoring efforts. o Sharing information from local monitoring efforts to inform understanding of regional trends and improve effectiveness of project implementation. • Provide accountability and demonstrate integrity in plan implementation. • Facilitate communication and support relationships with and among stakeholders. The work group would not supplant any local collaborative, multiparty monitoring, or other project-level collaborative efforts. The work group would hold at least one meeting a year and convene one multi-party field tour per year (if possible, e.g. no global pandemic). Other activities could be convened as resources and interest allow.

Figure 2. Adaptive Management Framework. See Appendix B for a comparison of plan language for each alternative.

2.3 OLD TREE STANDARD ALTERNATIVE This alternative replaces the current size prohibition with an age prohibition. The new standard would replace language at 6(d)(2) and 6(d)(2)(a) with: Outside of LOS, many types of timber harvest activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance LOS components in stands subject to timber 15 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following plan components: a) Trees estimated to be old (≥ 150 years) shall not be removed. Forests may use best available scientific information to estimate the age of old trees based on external morphological characteristics. Management activities should retain and emphasize the recruitment of large trees of the appropriate (dependent on the site) species composition and spatial arrangement within stands and across the landscape. Exclusive of the snag and green tree retention change described below, all other standards would be maintained as they currently exist. See Appendix B for a comparison of plan language for each alternative.

2.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE In this alternative, the 21-inch standard would be removed. Management activities would not include a size or age requirement. This alternative would include the same adaptive management approach described in the proposed action. See Appendix B for a comparison of plan language for each alternative.

2.5 STANDARD WITH EXCEPTIONS ALTERNATIVE We developed this alternative in response to public comments that expressed a desire for a more conservative approach. The new standard would replace language at 6(d)(2) and 6(d)(2)(a) with: Management activities within and outside old forest stands shall retain and recruit old trees (≥150 years, regardless of dbh) and large trees (≥21 inches dbh). If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS of LOS from that biophysical environment. Projects shall be designed to manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet late and old structural (LOS) conditions, in a manner that moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV. Specifically, projects shall focus on removal of small and medium trees, leaving sufficient stock for the replacement of LOS, before contemplating removal of large trees.

Exceptions: No trees 21 inches dbh or estimated to be ≥150 years old shall be removed except for the following reasons: 1. Outside of≥ RHCAs where tree(s) need to be removed to favor hardwood species, such as aspen or cottonwood, or other special plant habitats like meadows. 2. When appropriate stand density and species composition – that which favors the maintenance & recruitment of LOS – cannot be attained by removing only trees < 21 inches dbh, young (<150 years old) grand and white fir that are 21 inches dbh with their crown growing within the canopy of desirable fire resistant species (ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir) may be ≥ removed. Such trees could be removed or turned into snags in areas where snag desired conditions are not being met. 3. For personal use pursuant to Tribal Treaty gathering rights. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

2.6 STABILITY AND CHANGE COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES In addition to describing the change common to all alternatives in this section, we highlight key policies that remain the same. All standards and policies from the existing Eastside Screens remain the same with the exception of section 6(d)(2)(a) (Interim wildlife standard, Scenario A, 21-inch standard) and section 6(d)(4)(a) (Interim wildlife standard, Scenario A, Snags, green tree replacements, and down logs). See Appendices B and C for a comparison of alternative language as well as Eastside Screens language that remains unchanged. The change to section 6(d)(2)(a) is explained in the action alternative descriptions above, and the changes to section 6(d)(4)(a) and 4(a)(1) are described below. No changes to current riparian standards or the ecosystem standard are proposed. In addition, the vast majority of process and language in the wildlife standard remains exactly the same. We change 2 of the 20-plus Eastside Screens’ management standards in order to adapt management policy to reflect science and experiential learning over the past 25 years. Snag and Green Tree Retention for Future Snag Recruitment The following language would replace Eastside Screens language at section 6(d)(4)(a) and 6(d)(4)(a)(1). Intent: Retain existing snags and green trees to provide for recruitment of future snags and down wood, in order to support life history requirements for a diverse array of wildlife. Snags Standard: Maintain all snags > 20 inches (or whatever is the representative DBH of the overstory layer if it is less than 20 inches) OR complete a snag analysis using the best available science on species ecological requirements as applied through current snag tools, models, or other documented procedures to maintain or increase diverse snag composition, size, structure, and distribution (i.e. groups or clusters) for a diverse composition of wildlife species and ecological site conditions. Guideline: If snags meeting the objectives of the standard must be felled for operational safety, then the following should be considered: • Protect snags from operations by grouping or clustering in skips or leave areas. • Assess snags in the project area both prior and while layout is occurring, considering wildlife, layout and other expertise. o Identify landings in advance away from groups or clusters of snags or leave areas whenever possible. o Contain equipment and vehicles to identified landings and skid trails whenever possible. Green Tree Retention for Future Snag Recruitment Standard: Retain green trees to meet future snag and down wood recruitment for a diverse composition of wildlife species using best available science. Retain partially hollow or hollow trees that could become snags and down wood whenever possible.

17 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Guidelines: • Use natural decay processes and agents to recruit future snags from green trees. • Strive for diverse composition and size class of tree species including true firs and hardwoods. • Strive for tree species that are tolerant, resistant, or immune to root disease, especially if root disease is known to occur nearby or on site. • Prioritize and retain deformed, damaged, or broken topped trees. • Consider retaining groups of trees. • Consider retaining tall old and larger trees on ridgelines with sloughing bark. • Consider retaining more true firs on north facing slopes. • Consider retaining trees with mechanical wounds if possible, for future development of decayed wood. • Consider diverse techniques outside of girdling and inoculation for future snag creation. NOTE: for both Scenario A and B, the live remnant trees left can be considered as part of the green tree for future snag recruitment requirement. This standard and associated guideline are intended to complement Scenarios A and B to enhance future snag recruitment for the needs of wildlife.

2.7 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT FULLY ANALYZED Lower diameter limit Some participants in the public engagement sessions suggested we lower the diameter limit to 16 inches dbh. This alternative would not allow us to reduce competition and associated mortality in old trees across the landscape by removing some young but large shade tolerant trees. Please see need for change section for additional detail. Basal area alternative This alternative would have allowed activities to occur within and outside of LOS if harvest activities would increase the basal area-weighted age of stands, and there would be no net loss of LOS. Exceptions would have been permitted by the following process: • If a forest wants to manage an area in such a way that basal-area weighted age of the stands will not increase, it may do if it uses a collaborative process with a representative range of stakeholders to engage the public and the project is being proposed to: o Meet or maintain desired conditions for species composition by removing shade tolerant species in favor of shade-intolerant species, o Meet or maintain desired conditions for low density stand conditions in appropriate biophysical settings where removal of smaller trees alone cannot achieve desired conditions, o Control or limit the spread of insect or disease infestation, or o To favor aspen, cottonwood, whitebark pine, or special plant habitats. • Projects brought forth through the exception process must include multi-party monitoring. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because concepts such as “basal area weighted age” are difficult for many people to understand and this alternative would USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

require data that is often not readily accessible at the project level rendering it technologically infeasible and burdensome to implement. All trees over 21 inches that are cut would remain on site In pre-NEPA public meetings and discussions, an option was suggested that would allow for cutting of trees as needed with all cut trees greater than 21 inches dbh left onsite. This option is currently available to managers without completing a forest plan amendment because the Eastside Screens only apply to subset of management activities, and the 21- inch standard does not apply to this kind of “drop and leave” scenario. Regardless, the drop and leave option is not always feasible or desirable because it could create fuel loads that make forests susceptible to uncharacteristic fire severity. Drop and leave scenarios may also conflict with existing Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) direction to maintain lower fuel loads post –treatment than created by drop and leave scenarios. Combined age and diameter limit standard This alternative would have given managers the ability to choose either age or size in implementing projects. That is, managers would either be required to protect all trees over 21 inches (30 inches for shade tolerant species) or managers would be required to protect all trees > 150 years of age. While similar to the preferred alternative, this option is a standard rather than a guideline. Other alternatives more directly and reliably met the purpose and need in a way that was simpler and easier for managers and interested publics to understand.

2.8 COMPLIANCE WITH NFMA-SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS When proposing a Forest Plan amendment, the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219), as amended, requires the responsible official to identify the substantive requirements of the rule that are likely to be directly related to the amendment (36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)). The substantive requirements that are likely to be directly related to the proposed amendment are: 1) 36 CFR 219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to change; 2) 36 CFR 219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems; and 3) 219.9(b)(1) The responsible official shall determine whether or not the plan components required by paragraph (a) of this section provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of each species of conservation concern (SCC) within the plan area. If the responsible official determines that the plan components required in paragraph (a) are insufficient to provide such ecological conditions, then additional species-specific plan components, including standards or guidelines, must be included in the plan to provide such ecological conditions in the plan area.

19 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

3.1 VEGETATION 3.1.1 Introduction The Eastside Screens were intended to conserve and promote late structure forest and old trees. These trees were originally defined as all trees greater than 21 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). The purpose and need of the Eastside Screens has not changed, but 25 years of learning from science and experience demonstrate that this early definition of late and old structure forest (LOS) did not adequately account for species composition or age and does not fully support landscape restoration and resiliency efforts. We are currently lacking forests across the analysis area that are open, multi-aged, and fire resistant with old-growth trees while late structure forests with less fire resistant trees are overabundant (Merschel et al. 2019, Hagmann 2019, Johnston et al. 2018, Spies et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Stine et al. 2014, Hagmann 2014). This analysis assesses how changing the 21-inch dbh harvest prohibition would affect species composition, old trees, large trees, and forest structure.

3.1.2 Analysis Methods We use a qualitative assessment to analyze a range of potential outcomes (which will vary depending on future project-level management) based on the disturbance, succession and management assumptions outlined below. The vegetation analysis synthesizes current landscape conditions, the dynamics of each vegetation metric, professional knowledge of forest management, and available monitoring data to draw conclusions about the effects of each alternative. We also use the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to support and enhance the analysis. Effects are based on a 25-year analysis window. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots were used to describe existing landscape conditions and landscape change over time. The FIA data were also used to populate our Forest Vegetation Simulator analysis. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling was conducted to complement and support the analysis. FVS simulations were not intended to mimic all types of management and the associated effects. Rather, FVS simulations help: 1) compare outcomes between alternatives with fixed assumptions, 2) identify limitations that may constrain or enhance management, 3) shed light on how the alternatives could meet objectives, and 4) identify unexpected outcomes. The primary objective for simulations was density reduction, within the constraints set by each alternative. The smallest size classes of trees were thinned first. However, for the Adaptive Management Alternative thinning across all size classes was modeled. In all modeling scenarios fire tolerant species were preferred for retention. Additionally, green tree retention requirements were applied.

3.1.3 Indicators Indicators were developed based on the scientific literature and preliminary engagement with the public and Forest Service staff. Indicators include: 1) forest species composition, 2) large trees, and 3) old trees, and 4) forest structure. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

• Species Composition – This indicator measures the relative proportion of fire tolerant species in a forest stand. Ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir are considered fire tolerant species. • Old Trees – For this analysis, we define old trees as 150 years and older (Henjum et al. 1994, Van Pelt 2008, Hessburg et al. 2020). • Large Trees – Trees greater than or equal to 21 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) are considered large for the purpose of the analysis. • Forest Structure – Forest structure measures dominant tree size and canopy cover within a stand. Late structure forests are classified as either late open or late closed. Middle age forests are classified as mid open and mid closed.

3.1.3.1 Species Composition Tree species can be categorized according to their tolerance to natural events, or disturbances. Trees have individual traits that support their ability to live through natural events like wildfire or insect attacks, which gives them ‘tolerance’ to such events. The term ‘shade tolerance’ describes a trees ability to capture resources in areas with limited sunlight (Powell 2014a, 2014b; Hessburg et al. 2020). Shade tolerant species are capable of growing under canopies of other species and competing with them for water and other resources. In the analysis area, these shade tolerant species grow more quickly than fire tolerant species like ponderosa pine. Shade tolerant trees tend to be less tolerant of fire, and we call them less fire tolerant or fire intolerant throughout this analysis for simplicity. The amount of fire intolerant trees is increasing dramatically across the analysis area due to past selective harvest of old and large fire resistant trees and fire suppression (Hagmann et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Hagmann et al. 2013). Fire intolerant tree growth has increased density (trees per acre) and canopy cover in stands, and it directly limits the persistence and recruitment of fire tolerant trees, making forests more likely to die when a wildfire, drought, or other natural disturbances occur (Hessburg et al. 2020, Tepley and Hood 2020, Voelker et al. 2019). This analysis assesses the ability to manage toward more fire-adapted trees in dry and moist forests. In patches across the landscape, and in places like north slopes or deep valleys, species like grand fir remain important to provide for a diversity of conditions and habitats.

3.1.3.2 Old Tree Indicator Old trees play a valuable role in forests by maintaining a legacy of species genetics and providing ecosystems with long-lived structure with demonstrated resistance3 to disturbance (Franklin et al. 2018, Marcot et al. 2018, Hessburg et al. 2016, Agee and Skinner 2005). Old trees tend to be more drought resistant in the absence of intense

3 We define resistance as the ability of a tree to withstand burning without mortal damage or a stand to withstand wildfire with limited mortality (Platt 2014).

21 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

competition from other trees. Old trees are still lacking relative to historical levels, and the analysis considers how well alternatives support maintenance and growth of old trees.

3.1.3.3 Large Tree Indicator Maintaining or increasing the abundance of large trees, particularly where old trees may be lacking, can enhance ecological function. Large trees are not necessarily old and do not have the same genetic or physiological characteristics as old trees (Van Pelt 2008, Hagmann et al. 2018, Johnston et al. 2018, Merschel et al. 2019). This analysis assesses maintenance and growth of large trees. We are particularly interested in the growth of large fire tolerant trees compared to fire intolerant trees.

3.1.3.4 Forest Structure Indicator Forest structure measures tree size and canopy cover. Structure classifications account for the variety of natural conditions and disturbance regimes (e.g. wildfire) across the analysis area. Tree age is not considered in this metric. Late forest is classified for 6 primary vegetation zones and 19 vegetation sub-zones within the analysis area. The 6 primary vegetation zones are named for the trees species that would dominate a site in the absence of disturbance and are called potential vegetation zones: white fir/grand fir, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, juniper, sub-alpine fir/Engelmann spruce, and lodgepole pine (Figure 3). The sub-zones describe biophysical characteristics (e.g. xeric, dry, moist). Seventy-six percent of the analysis area is within a dry/xeric subzone while 13% falls within moist subzones and 11% in wet subzones. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Percent of Forested Lands by Primary Potential Vegetation Zone Subalpine Fir - Engelmann Spruce Lodgepole 4% Pine 1% Juniper 5%

Douglas-Fir 14% White Fir/Grand Fir 42% Ponderosa Pine 34%

Figure 3. White fir/grand fir and ponderosa pine potential vegetation zones dominate the project area (41 and 34% respectively). The Douglas-fir potential zone covers about 14% of the project area, and juniper, sub-alpine sir/Engelmann spruce and lodgepole pine zones account for another 10%. Other potential vegetation zones make up less than 1% of the analysis area. Late structure occurs where a minimum number of large trees per acre (tpa) is reached, which varies by vegetation zone (Table 1). Late structure forests are also classified as either late open or late closed based on canopy cover relative to site ecology.

Table 1. Late forest structural stages in the Blue Mountains and Central Oregon by potential vegetation zones and according ecological sub-zones. Late Open/ Potential Late Closed TPA Geographic Area Vegetation Sub- Zone Vegetation Zone Canopy Threshold Cover Break Blue Mountains/ Juniper Juniper Woodlands 20 6 Central Oregon Ponderosa Pine- Blue Mountains/ Ponderosa Pine Lodgepole Pine, Xeric 30 8 Central Oregon Pine

23 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Late Open/ Potential Late Closed TPA Geographic Area Vegetation Sub- Zone Vegetation Zone Canopy Threshold Cover Break Blue Mountains/ Ponderosa Pine Dry Ponderosa Pine 40 10 Central Oregon Blue Mountains/ Dry and Moist Douglas- Douglas-Fir 40 12 Central Oregon Fir Blue Mountains Lodgepole Pine Dry Lodgepole Pine 40 12 Dry White Fir - Grand Fir Blue Mountains/ White Fir - Grand (and moist where 40 12 Central Oregon Fir present) Wet White Fir - Grand Blue Mountains/ White Fir - Grand Fir (and cold dry where 50 20 Central Oregon Fir present) Central Oregon White Fir - Grand Cold Dry and Moist 50 12 Fir White Fir - Grand Fir Subalpine Fir - Blue Mountains Dry Subalpine Fir 40 10 Engelmann Spruce Central Oregon Subalpine Fir - Dry Subalpine Fir 40 12 Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir - Moist and Wet Blue Mountains 40 15 Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir Central Oregon Subalpine Fir - Wet Subalpine Fir 40 20 Engelmann Spruce

We are currently lacking forests across the analysis area that are open, multi-aged, and fire resistant with old-growth trees (late open forests) while late structure forests with less fire resistant trees are overabundant (Merschel et al. 2019, Hagmann 2019, Johnston et al. 2018, Spies et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Stine et al. 2014, Hagmann 2014).

3.1.4 Assumptions Assumptions applied in this analysis with regard to disturbance, forest succession, and management actions are outlined in this section. Current management trends inform assumptions about the methods and extent of future management.

3.1.4.1 Disturbance Assumptions: All Alternatives Disturbances in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington landscapes help maintain ecosystem function and promote small and large-scale change in vegetation and processes. Landscapes of eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington are frequently subject to disturbance from wildfire and insect outbreaks, which result in dynamic landscape characteristics. Forest structure and species composition change through time USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

in response to disturbances, though legacy trees survive to influence subsequent stand development (Marcot 2018, Hessburg 2016, Johnstone et al. 2016, Belote et al. 2015). Climate change will increase the extent of disturbances including fire, insects, disease, and drought. Fires will increase in size, and potentially in severity (i.e. mortality) (Kolden et al. 2015, Hamilton et al. 2016, Westerling 2016, Kerns et al. 2018, Parks et al. 2018). Large-scale insect and disease outbreaks and associated mortality will likely increase, especially where trees are already stressed (Kerns et al. 2018, Irwin et al. 2018, Pureswaran 2018, Littell et al. 2018, Mote and Salathe 2010). In addition to these direct climatic impacts, the associated interactions between abiotic environmental stressors and biotic processes are expected to compound in the future (Fettig et al. 2019, van Mantgem et al. 2013, Sturrock et al. 2011, Hankin et al. 2019, Kemp et al. 2019, Korb et al. 2019).

3.1.4.2 Forest Succession Assumptions: All Alternatives Species composition will continue to shift toward fire intolerant species like grand fir and white fir. These species will be the most abundant young trees as they can flourish in shady understories in the absence of periodic fire. Additionally, regeneration of shade tolerant trees will outpace regeneration of fire tolerant species, continuing the current trend. Regeneration of shade tolerant species will continue in the absence of management and after active management unless adequate seed bed preparation occurs and light penetration to the understory persists long enough for fire tolerant species to establish. Large fires with uncharacteristically large patch sizes will favor species with light windborne seeds that are capable of reseeding areas far away from reproducing survivors. By contrast, fire adapted species tend to have heavy seeds (e.g. ponderosa pine) that do not travel far from the reproducing individual (Kemp et al. 2016, Westerling 2016, Owen et al. 2017, Coop et al. 2019, Downing et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2019). The increasing representation of fire intolerant trees in dry and moist forest landscapes perpetuates conditions more conducive to severe large-scale disturbances with increased risk of a future altered or unique vegetation conditions (Walker et al. 2018, Davis et al. 2019). The current trend toward closed, dense forest structure will continue. Relatively closed, mid-aged (50-150 years) forest stands are abundant as a result of fire suppression and past harvests (Johnston 2017, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Quigley and Arbelbide 1997, Haynes et al. 1996, Quigley et al. 1996). Fire and other disturbances that reduce density and create open forests are not ocurring at a rate that will substantially alter this trend. Furthermore, mechanical treatments to open forests and reduce density are not occurring at rates that outpace current regeneration and succession (Haugo et al. 2015). Because of their current abundance, these less fire tolerant species will comprise an increasing component of large trees on the landscape (Johnston et al. 2017). Large trees of fire tolerant species like ponderosa pine and western larch will experience increasing stress from competition, insects and disease (Voelker et al. 2019, Bottero et al 2017) because shade tolerant trees are able to grow more quickly than shade intolerant trees and because of their current abundance (Johnston et al. 2019).

25 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Trees will become increasingly vulnerable to mortality. Tree mortality will be driven by compounding stressors including inter-tree competition, insects and disease, climate change, and past management including fire exclusion and landscape scale alteration of forest structure (Fettig et al. 2019, McMahon et al. 2019, Anderegg et al. 2015, Battles et al. 2008, Raffa et al. 2008). Competition is particularly acute when trees are large and young because larger trees have greater leaf area and use more resources (Johnston et al. 2019, Gersonde and O’Hara 2005).

3.1.4.3 Management Assumptions: All Alternatives Management trends will continue at a rate similar to the past decade, including trends in timber harvest (Figure 4) and timber volume sold (Figure 5). Silvicultural treatments similar to those implemented over the past decade are projected to continue. About 34,000-54,000 acres of timber harvest occurred annually over the past decade in the analysis area. In most stands, the proposed alternatives would allow harvest of a handful of trees over 21 inches dbh in addition to trees under 21 inches dbh. This would primarily occur to shift late structure closed forest to late structure open forest. This means a very small portion of the landscape would be impacted by the amendment every year. The total area affected by timber harvest will remain stable under all alternatives while the prescriptions within treated stands would change to some extent. In addition, the contractual instruments used to remove timber may change because the economic value of treatments may increase (Fried et al. 2015). The proposed amendment would not expand the total area impacted by timber harvest because harvest levels are heavily influenced by other factors including road systems, logging systems, staff capacity, agency budgets, and management direction in individual forest plans. FVS simulations were not limited by management constraints other than forest plan management direction. This allowed model simulations, on average, of 100,000 acres of treatment per year, which is far higher than the recent annual average. This was done intentionally to better highlight potential impacts of various alternatives. Impacts to soils through vegetation management will not change from current management because Forest Plan standards and guidelines for soil protection and management remain unchanged. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Acres of Top Five Commercial Harvest Methods on U.S. Forest Service lands in Study Area from 1994 to 2019 50,000 40,000 30,000

Acres 20,000 10,000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Year

Single Tree Selection Cut Improvement Cut Commercial Thin Salvage Sanitation Cut Figure 4. Acres of harvest by type within the analysis area since 1994 to 2019. Commercial thinning dominates harvest methods in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington.

Sum of Sold Volume (MMBF) from U.S. Forest Service Lands in Study Area from 1980 - 2018 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600

Million Board Feet 400 200 - 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year

Figure 5. Timber volume sold from national forests within the analysis area from 1980 to 2018. Average timber volume sold levels over the last 10 years are assumed to continue with an approximate average harvest of 200 million board feet per year. These volumes include lands covered by the Northwest Forest Plan on the Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests.

Wildfire will continue to be suppressed at current rates (about 98%). Fire seasons will continue to lengthen and extreme weather conditions will become more frequent

27 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

(Hessburg et al. 2020, Keyser and Westerling 2019, Littell et al. 2009, Westerling et al. 2003). Fire exclusion and past harvest have created uncharacteristically homogenous forest conditions within the analysis area including dense forests with less fire tolerant tree species. This creates uncharacteristic potential for fires with higher mortality levels in many areas (Littell et al. 2018, Mote and Salathe 2010). Successful suppression of fires during mild and moderate fire weather conditions will continue to prevent realization of beneficial effects of fires such the reduction of surface and ladder fuels and the promotion of landscape heterogeneity and fire tolerant species composition (Parks et al. 2014, North et al. 2015, North et al. 2012).

Stand level silvicultural and prescribed fire treatments will comport with the Eastside Screens goal of maintaining and increasing the abundance and distribution of LOS forest. Management activities will preserve those components of the landscape and cultivate old and large trees in a manner that also creates ecologically appropriate forest and wildlife habitat.

3.1.4.4 Additional Management Assumptions Implementation of the Old Tree Standard Alternative would rely on assessments of external morphological characteristics rather than direct measurements of tree age. Analysis of that alternative therefore assumes some old trees would be cut and some trees younger than 150 years retained. These effects would be negligible at both the project and landscape scales. Analysis of the Current Management Alternative assumes that trees equal to or greater than 21 inches dbh would not be harvested when projects are under Scenario A of the wildlife standard. This is consistent current common practices on the affected forests. Analyses for the Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management, Old Age Standard, and Adaptive Management Alternatives assume subpart 1 of Scenario A (section 6(d)(1)) is interpreted to allow harvest of a 21-inch dbh tree where the intent of the ecosystem standard and Scenario A wildlife standard are met, including no net loss of LOS from respective biophysical environments. When LOS is within or above the historical range of variability for a biophysical setting, management activities are acceptable as long as there is no net loss of LOS and management activities either: 1) maintain or improve LOS conditions, or 2) manipulate closed LOS to open LOS consistent with the historical range of variability.

3.1.5 Affected Environment

3.1.5.1 Species Composition Species composition is integral to managing forests in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington for resilience to disturbance (Hessburg et al. 2013, Hessburg et al. 2016, Johnston 2017, Johnston et al. 2018, Hessburg et al. 2019). Conifer species in the analysis area are generally divisible into two major groups based on tolerances to environmental factors like disturbance, light, and water limitations: fire tolerant/shade intolerant and less fire tolerant/shade tolerant. Fire tolerant species tend to regenerate best under open conditions and have physiological characteristics, such as thick bark, that increase their likelihood to survive low to moderate severity wildfire. Ponderosa pine and USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

western larch are considered fire tolerant species. Grand fir and white fir are more shade tolerant and less tolerant to fire. Douglas-fir, although a fire tolerant species, is less fire tolerant than ponderosa pine and western larch (Keane et al. 1990) and more shade tolerant than ponderosa pine (Franklin and Dryness 1988, Johnson and Clausnitzer 1992, Hagmann 2014, Johnston 2018). The amount of trees with lower tolerance to fire is increasing dramatically across the analysis area due to past selective harvest of old and large fire resistant trees and fire suppression (Hagmann et al. 2018, Johnston et al. 2018, Johnston 2017, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Hagmann et al. 2013). Growth of trees with less fire tolerance has increased density (trees per acre) and canopy cover in stands, and it directly limits the persistence and recruitment of fire tolerant trees, making forests more likely to die when a wildfire, drought, or other natural event occur (Hessburg et al. 2020, Tepley and Hood 2020, Voelker et al. 2019). FIA data also shows that grand fir/ white fir cover types4 are increasing at a faster rather than other cover types across the landscape. Shifting species composition and the exclusion of wildfire has resulted in forests with considerably higher densities than historical forests and multilayered structure with high horizontal and vertical contagion (Johnston et al. 2018, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Johnson et al. 1994). In comparison, historical forests were more resistant to disturbance because they had much lower tree density, more open canopies, and were a fine-scale mosaic of individual trees, tree clumps, and treeless openings (Churchill et al. 2018, Johnston et al. 2018, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Johnson et al. 1994). Currently, grand fir and white fir often make up the bulk of the youngest trees (Perry et al. 2004, Merschel et al. 2014, Johnston 2017) across much of the analysis area, setting stands on a trajectory maladapted to frequent disturbances. Shifting species composition affects a wide range of ecosystem functions. Grand fir and white fir require more water per basal area than do shade intolerant species like ponderosa pine (Johnston et al. 2019, Gersonde and O’Hara 2005). Moreover, ponderosa pine is more resistant to drought than shade tolerant species (Lopushinsky and Klock 1974). Accordingly, shifts in species composition and associated increases in basal area over the last century have reduced drought resistance in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington (Voelker et al. 2019). Drought stressed trees can be more vulnerable to mortality from other disturbances, like wildfire (van Mantgem et al. 2013). Species composition, in concert with forest density and structure, is also a key factor in mortality from insects and disease. Species like Douglas-fir, grand fir and white fir, and (in some places) lodgepole pine have moved into areas where their densities were historically lower and ponderosa pine was dominant ( Everett et al. 2000, Perry et al. 2004, Hagmann et al. 2013, Heyerdahl et al. 2019, Hagmann et al. 2014, Merschel et al. 2014, Johnston et al. 2017, Merschel et al. 2018). The combined effects of increased

4 Cover types describe naturally occurring species combinations and are named after the predominant species that are present on the site (Eyre 1980).

29 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

density and altered species composition makes mixed conifer forests within the analysis area more prone to mortality from insects and pathogens (see disturbance section). In the context of climate change, increased fire frequency will favor tree species that are resistant to fire (e.g. thick bark), have high post fire seed dispersal (e.g. Douglas-fir) or cone serotany (e.g. lodgepole pine), and hardwoods that stump sprout (Agee 1993). Species compositions will also shift along elevation gradients as air temperatures rise and subalpine forests transition to other vegetation like high elevation forb or herb. Moist forests will likely expand into the current subalpine areas, with these upslope shifts likely mirrored in dry and xeric forests and grasslands (Halofsky and Peterson, 2017; Halofsky et al. 2019). Species composition in moist forests may be adaptable (especially in the Blue Mountains), but changes in disturbance patterns will likely increase vulnerability to mortality (Halofsky and Peterson, 2017; Halofsky et al. 2019). Drought stress will increase for both ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in dry forests and the extent of dry forest will likely decrease somewhat, especially at lower elevations (Latta et al. 2010). Species specific climate change vulnerability assessments for the most common species in the analysis area vary. Coops and Waring (2011) indicate that ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, western larch and grand fir/white fir in Central Oregon have relatively low vulnerability compared to more climate sensitive species. Devine et al. (2012) indicated that Douglas-fir is slightly more vulnerable than these other species in Central Oregon, but less so in the Blue Mountains where grand fir/white fir are relatively more vulnerable. Case and Lawler (2016) find that grand fir/white fir are comparatively more vulnerable throughout their range. Furthermore, Mildrexler et al. (2016) approached vulnerability from an area or forest group and found it is highly influenced by drought and high temperatures in August and September. The most vulnerable areas identified with this method are on the Fremont-Winema National Forest where soils highly influence water availability (Halofsky et al. 2019). Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine in these areas of drought vulnerability could be the most vulnerable of all forest types analyzed in Central Oregon (Halofsky et al. 2019). Similarly, the southern Blue Mountains have a relatively high potential soil drought stress index in summer, especially the Malheur National Forest (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). Over the past decade, Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) projects within the analysis area used multiparty monitoring to inform forest restoration goals and answer questions related to species composition. Monitoring results echo the scientific literature: establishment rates of shade tolerant species are much higher than for fire tolerant/ shade intolerant species. Species composition is an important basis for forest resistance and resilience at individual tree, stand, and landscape levels. For dry and moist forests, the desired trajectory is toward forests with a greater relative proportion of fire tolerant species.

3.1.5.2 Old Trees Old trees are declining across eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington landscapes. Trees ≥150 years in age decreased by approximately 8% within the analysis area between 2001 and 2017. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Old trees in all but two cover types have decreased by 10 to 100% since 2001. For example, nearly 24,000 acres of old ponderosa pine forest is now dominated by another type of forest or by non-forest conditions. Old Douglas-fir and western larch trees have decreased by 14 % and 29%, respectively. Conversely, old grand/white fir and western juniper trees have increased by 5% and 8%, respectively. Approximately 8,900 acres of old trees dominated by hardwood cover type are gone. Halofsky et al. (2017) note that maintaining and cultivating old trees will become increasingly difficult due to climate change. More episodes of drought and increasing stress from other disturbances like insects will likely make old trees more vulnerable to mortality but could increase the availability of snags and down logs in the short term (Allen et al. 2015). Pressures from multiple disturbance agents could outweigh the relative advantage noted by Waring and Law (2001) that established trees with deep root systems may have over smaller trees, particularly when old trees are overcrowded by younger trees (Johnston et al. 2019, Gersonde and O’Hara 2005). Multiparty monitoring of CFLR projects within the analysis area over the last decade addressed questions regarding how large and old trees influence late structure forest (Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project); and how tree age and size relate to historical conditions, species composition, growth patterns, and the abundance of shade tolerant species (Blue Mountain Forest Partners). Results support findings in the scientific literature: cohorts of more fire tolerant species tend be older than more recently established shade tolerant species, and younger trees grow faster than older cohorts.

3.1.5.3 Large Trees Of total large tree mortality, 63% was caused by insects and disease, 24% by fire, and the remaining 13% by other disturbances like weather and drought. There are an estimated 41.7 million trees larger than 20.9 inches in the analysis area, for an average of about 6 large trees per acre. This population is comprised mostly of ponderosa pine (48%), grand fir/white fir (23%), and Douglas-fir (15%). There are about 43.5 million trees in the next smaller size class (17-20.9") with similar species proportions. Changes in large trees were different in managed forests than in forests that only experienced natural disturbance. The number of large trees increased by 13% in forests that were only mechanically treated, 11% in forests that had no disturbance, and 10% in forests with insect and disease impacts. By contrast, there was a 20% reduction in large trees in areas where wildland or prescribed fire occurred alone. Areas where mechanical treatments and fire co-occurred experienced a 17% decrease in large trees.

The number of large trees in unmanaged forest increased by 8.5% in the past decade as compared to an increase of 12.9% in managed forests. Individual large trees in non- managed forests compete for light and water resources with more numerous and smaller trees. In these stands, trees of all sizes succumb more easily to insect attacks, disease, drought, and fire. Trees that survive the primary effects of these disturbances may succumb to secondary disturbances because they unable to recover from the initial deficit imposed by inter-tree competition.

31 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

The proportional basal area of large trees is 9% in young (less than 50 years old) forest. In plots dominated by mid age and old tree overstory, large trees represent 25% and 48% of basal area, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2. Large trees in the project area.

Stand Age Proportion of large trees (>20.9 inches Percent basal area dbh) in the analysis area* (ft2/acre) of large trees <50 years 3% 9% 50-150 years 68% 25% >150 years 29% 48% *There are 41.7 million trees larger than 20.9 inches dbh in the project area

3.1.5.4 Forest Structure An estimated 1.5 million acres of late structure forest currently exists within the analysis area. Of this area, about 60% is late closed structure and about 40% is late open structure (Figure 6). Late structure forest has increased since 1995 on all six national forests. This is an absolute increase, with most of the late structure gained in closed canopy forest. Late open forest has also increased since 1995. Overall, the increase in closed canopy forests indicates a continued departure from historical conditions across much of the analysis area, as documented in other assessments across eastern Oregon and Washington (Hagmann et al. 2019, DeMeo et al. 2018, Haugo et al. 2015, Hessburg 2005, Johnson et al. 1994). Open forest structure characterized by large, fire and drought resistant ponderosa pines dominated historical conditions across a wide range of biophysical gradients including in what we refer to today as dry and moist forests (Hessburg et al. 2020; Haugo et al. 2015; Stine et al. 2014; Hagmann et al. 2013, 2014). Restoration assessments of forests east of the Cascade crest find that the vast majority of watersheds are in need of disturbance related treatments to open forest canopies, reduce densities, and grow larger trees (DeMeo et al. 2018, Haugo et al. 2015). Historically frequent fire kept the canopy of both dry and moist forests open (see Disturbance section). Frequent fires maintained small (<1.0ha) openings that help limit the spread of biological disturbance agents and crown fires and provided areas for shade intolerant species to regenerate (Churchill et al. 2013, Larson and Churchill 2012).

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Figure 6. Forest structural classes across the analysis area in three time periods: 1995, 2004, and 2014 for all forest types within the analysis area. All closed structures (mid and late closed forest) have increased since 1995. Mid open forest has decreased through time while late open has increased. Early seral forest has remained relatively stable or is slightly decreasing. Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis data classified using methods outlined in DeMeo et al. (2020).

Multiparty monitoring results for restoration projects implemented in the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project indicate success in moving the landscape toward historical conditions. Projects moved forests from both mid and late closed forests to mid and late open forests, consistent with historical ranges (Caligiuri et al. 2020). Monitoring concerns include indications that stand level density reduction goals for resistance and resilience may not be achievable given restrictions on harvest of trees over 21 inches dbh (Johnston et al. 2021). Because we are currently lacking in open forest conditions and have an overabundance of closed forest conditions, increases in open forest in both dry and moist forest groups indicate movement toward historical conditions. An increase in open forest structure would also help create forests more resistant to disturbance and prepared for climate change (see Disturbance section).

3.1.6 Environmental Effects

3.1.6.1 Cold or Other Forest Types The effects of the proposed amendment on cold and other forest is not further addressed in this assessment because the amount of these vegetation types in the analysis area is small and very limited management has occurred in these vegetation types since the implementation of the eastside screens in 1995. Therefore, no difference between any alternative is expected in these vegetation types.

33 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.1.6.2 Species Composition in Dry and Moist Forests

3.1.6.2.1 Current Management Alternative Within managed areas, old ponderosa pine and larch trees will continue to decrease in abundance relative to shade tolerant species like white fir/grand fir because shade tolerant species establish at a higher rate and grow faster. At the landscape scale, mechanical treatments will continue to be outpaced by succession, especially where white fir/grand fir are well established in the overstory.

3.1.6.2.2 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative Within managed areas, fire tolerant trees like ponderosa pine and larch would be promoted within treated areas because of the increased ability to remove less fire tolerant species like grand fir when they are young and large. Depending on project specific goals, the relative dominance of fire tolerant species could increase. The ability to shift species composition would be greater than under the Current Management Alternative. At the landscape scale, succession and fire suppression will continue to promote the establishment and growth of shade tolerant species like grand fir.

3.1.6.2.3 Old Tree Standard Alternative Within managed areas, fire tolerant trees would be preserved and promoted because old trees have characteristics that have helped them survive through past disturbances. Depending on project specific goals, dominance of fire tolerant species could be greatly enhanced through thinning or uneven aged management. The ability to shift species composition would be greater than under the Current Management Alternative but less than the Old and Large Tree Guideline because the Standard focuses on tree age rather than species composition. At the landscape scale, succession and fire suppression will continue to promote the establishment and growth of shade tolerant species like grand fir.

3.1.6.2.4 Adaptive Management Alternative Within managed areas, the relative dominance of fire tolerant trees could be greatly enhanced or continue to decrease depending on project specific goals. Ability to shift species composition would be greater than under the Current Management Alternative, the Old and Large Tree Guideline or the Old Tree Standard because tree size and age would not necessarily be considered in site specific management for species composition. The Adaptive Management Alternative allows for the greatest choice in selecting trees to meet management objectives. At the landscape scale, succession and fire suppression will continue to promote the establishment and growth of shade tolerant species like grand fir.

3.1.6.2.5 Standard with Exceptions Alternative Within managed areas, ponderosa pine and larch trees will continue to decrease in abundance relative to shade tolerant species like white fir/grand fir because shade tolerant species establish at a higher rate, grow faster, and are currently abundant on the landscape. Like the Current Management Alternative, mechanical treatments will have limited ability to reduce shade tolerant species and may be less effective in shifting species composition because this Alternative includes both size and age standards.

3.1.6.2.6 Modeling Results Within treated areas, modeling results show a median value increase of about 1% basal area of fire tolerant species under the Old and Large Tree Guideline and the Old Tree USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Standard compared to Current Management within late structure stands. Modeling shows a potential 11% reduction in basal area of fire tolerant species under the Adaptive Management alternative as compared to Current Management due to a modeling prescription that favors density reduction over all other goals. The Standard with Exceptions Alternative reduces basal area of fire tolerant species 15% compared to Current Management because of limitations on the ability to actively favor fire tolerant species.

3.1.6.3 Old Trees in Dry and Moist Forests

3.1.6.3.1 Current Management Alternative In managed areas, old trees over 21 inches diameter would continue to be protected but would be vulnerable to mortality from insects, disease, and wildfire. Old trees are currently vulnerable to mortality because of competition with other trees and increased disturbance stressors.

3.1.6.3.2 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative In managed areas, old trees would be maintained. Compared to Current Management, mortality rates for old trees would be lower due to reduced competition and increased vigor of old trees.

3.1.6.3.3 Old Tree Standard Alternative This alternative would maximize protection for all old trees within a stand. Young but large trees could be removed, and mortality rates for old trees would be lower due to reduced competition and increased vigor of old trees compared to Current Management.

3.1.6.3.4 Adaptive Management Alternative Within managed areas, old trees could be harvested and could decrease, depending on project specific goals and objectives.

3.1.6.3.5 Standard with Exceptions Alternative In managed areas, fire tolerant old trees would be protected and would likely have marginally lower mortality rates compared to the Current Management Alternative because of reduced competition from large shade tolerant trees. However, the effect would likely be marginal because removal of trees within driplines would reduce proximate ladder fuels and individual tree torching but would not reduce density around old fire tolerant trees enough to mitigate mortality from crown fire within the larger stand or greatly reduce drought, insect or disease stressors.

3.1.6.3.6 Modeling Results Modeling of Current Management, the Old and Large Tree Guideline, the Old Tree Guideline Standard, and the Standard with Exceptions Alternatives applied a “thin from below” prescription. For the Adaptive Management Alternative, we applied a “thin across age classes” perscription and allowed for the removal of large and old trees. FVS modeling compared potential outcomes with density reduction as the primary silvicultural goal. Within treated areas, simulation modeling outside of late structure forest results in a mean value of 6.7 old trees per acre for Current Management, 7.0 old trees per acre for

35 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

the Old and Large Tree Guideline, 7.3 old trees per acre for the Old Tree Standard, 5.1 old trees per acre for the Adaptive Management Alternative, and 7.2 old trees per acre for the Standard with Exceptions Alternative. Trends for old trees were similar within late structure forest. Because thinning is expected to occur on a relatively small portion of the landscape; and because fire, insects, and other disturbances that kill old trees at a high rate in untreated forests will continue; modeling indicates an overall decrease in old trees across the landscape over the analysis period.

3.1.6.4 Large Trees in Dry and Moist Forests

3.1.6.4.1 Current Management Alternative Large trees over 21 inches dbh will continue to increase in managed areas and at the landscape scale. This would move the landscape toward desired conditions for large trees but not for other critical characteristics such as species composition. This will contribute to an increase in large trees, but many of these trees will be species that are less resistant to fire, drought, and other disturbances.

3.1.6.4.2 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative The number of young trees over 21 inches dbh could be reduced within treatment areas under this alternative because old trees would be favored over large trees. The number of young grand fir/white fir between 21 and 30 inches dbh would be reduced. The trees with the greatest potential for removal would be relatively shade tolerant species like white fir/grand fir that have established within the last 150 years. Large trees over 21 inches dbh would continue to increase across the landscape, but at a slightly slower rate than under Current Management Alternative. The number of large grand fir/white fir would decrease, promoting a more fire tolerant species composition over time.

3.1.6.4.3 Old Tree Standard Alternative The number of young trees over 21 inches dbh could be greatly reduced within treatment areas under this alternative. Trees with the greatest potential for removal would be relatively shade tolerant species like white fir/grand fir that have established within the last 150 years, which would help move the landscape toward desired trajectories for other forest attributes like species composition. Large trees over 21 inches dbh would continue to increase across the landscape, but at a slower rate than under Current Management Alternative or the Old and Large Tree Guideline.

3.1.6.4.4 Adaptive Management Alternative The number of trees over 21 inches dbh could be greatly reduced within treatment areas under this alternative. As with the other action alternatives, large trees over 21 inches dbh would continue to increase across the landscape, but at a slower rate than under Current Management Alternative, though differences between each action alternative at the landscape scale are relatively small. The number of large grand fir/white fir would decrease in managed stands, promoting more disturbance resistant species compositions over time. Adaptive management would ensure late forest structure is increasing across the landscape and enable management changes if needed. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

3.1.6.4.5 Standard with Exceptions Alternative Large trees over 21 inches will continue to increase. This helps move the landscape toward desired conditions for more large trees but not necessarily other critical forest characteristics such as species composition or forest structure because the ability to remove shade tolerant trees only applies within the dripline of fire tolerant old or large trees. The number of large trees retained in managed areas could be more for this alternative compared to Current Management, but the retained trees would be increasingly vulnerable to mortality from insects, disease, wildfire, and competition induced mortality.

3.1.6.4.6 Modeling Results FVS simulation modeling in treated late structure forest areas indicate that the number of large trees on the landscape will increase over time from the current baseline median of 14 large trees per acre under all alternatives. Simulation modeling results in a median of 17.5 large trees per acre under the Current Management Alternative, 17.3 large trees per acre under the Large and Old Tree Guideline and Old Tree Standard, 15.6 large trees per acre under the Adaptive Management Alternative, and 19.1 large trees per acre under the Standard with Exceptions.

3.1.6.5 Forest Structure in Dry and Moist Forests Based on the forest disturbance, succession and management assumptions, the current trend of increasing late structure forest will continue for all alternatives. The increase in late structure forest would create more late open and late closed forest. Closed canopies will continue to increase because tree growth and regeneration will outpace thinning effects from both disturbances and management. To change this trajectory future treatments would need to increase removal of small and mid-sized trees from closed canopy forests, and an increase in acreage treated is not assumed in this analysis.

3.1.6.5.1 Open Structure Conditions in Dry and Moist Forests

Current Management Alternative Late open forest will continue to increase within treatment areas at a low rate because only trees less than 21 inches dbh can be harvested to reduce canopy cover below closed thresholds. Mechanical treatments will have limited ability to create open forests because treatments tend to be limited to thinning from below, increasing homogenization of forest stands and limiting flexibility to create openings, especially where canopy cover is already more than 40-50%. At the landscape scale, open mid age forest (50-150 years) will continue to decrease because trees less than 21 inches dbh comprise the majority of trees contributing to canopy cover outside of late structure forests. This is due to forest succession, the huge class of mid age forests on the landscape, and the limited portion of the landscape treated each year.

Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative In managed stands, late open forest could be created from late closed forest at a moderate to high rate because of increased flexibility to remove large trees where ecologically appropriate. A greater variety of mechanical treatments could be used to create open forest conditions compared to Current Management which would increase the

37 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

heterogeneity of forest stands. At the landscape scale, mid age open forest would continue to decrease but at a slightly lower rate than Current Management Alternative because trees over 21 inches dbh could be removed to create open conditions.

Old Tree Standard Alternative In managed stands, late open forest could be created from late closed forest at a moderate to high rate because reducing canopy cover below closed thresholds would not be limited by tree size. A greater variety of mechanical treatments could be used to create open forest conditions compared to Current Management which would increase the heterogeneity of forest stands. At the landscape scale, mid age open forest would continue to decrease but at a slightly lower rate than Current Management Alternative because trees over 21 inches dbh could be removed to create open conditions.

Adaptive Management Alternative Because this alternative does not include size or age limitations, managers have a high degree of flexibility, and an increase in open forest conditions is contingent on project specific objectives. A broad range of open and closed canopy conditions is possible. Late open forest could increase at high rate compared to the Current Management Alternative if desired at the project level. A greater variety of mechanical treatments could be used to create open forest conditions compared to Current Management which would increase the heterogeneity of forest stands. At the landscape scale, mid age open forest would continue to decrease, but at a slightly lower rate than Current Management Alternative because trees over 21 inches dbh and old trees could be removed to create open conditions.

Standard with Exceptions Alternative Late open forest will continue to increase within treatment areas at a very low rate because of limitations on harvesting both trees greater than 21 inches dbh and old trees. The rate of canopy opening may be even slower than current management. Mechanical treatments will have limited ability to create open forest structures because treatments tend to be limited to thinning from below, increasing homogenization of forest stands and limiting flexibility to create spatial openings, especially where canopy cover is already more than 40-50%. Exceptions for drip line thinning of shade tolerant species around old fire tolerant trees will have little to no ability to change canopy cover. Mid age open forests will continue to decrease similar to Current Management because of harvest restrictions and a large amount of closed mid-age forest currently on the landscape.

Modeling Results FVS simulations within treated areas indicate a potential increase in open forest conditions within late structure forests for all alternatives, including the Current Management Alternative. In managed areas, simulations indicate that the median canopy cover of late open forest varies within 0.5% between the Current Management, Old and Large Tree Guideline, and Old Tree Standard Alternatives. Modeling indicates an estimated decrease of canopy cover within late structure forest in these alternatives of about 30% from current conditions. The Adaptive Management Alternative decreases canopy cover by about 23% because it thinned across diameter classes, leaving more of a variety of tree canopies to contribute to cover through time. The Standard with Exceptions alternative decreases canopy cover 15% less than current conditions. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

3.1.6.6 Carbon Emissions and Storage This proposed action would change the type and number of trees that could be harvested in project level vegetation management projects. The scope and degree of change relative to carbon storage would be minor, affecting roughly 0.05-1 percent of the analysis area per year (approximately 34,000-54,000 of the 6,841,000 forested acres). In addition, all action alternatives focus on above ground carbon stocks, which typically comprise a fraction of the total ecosystem carbon stocks in the analysis area; 50 percent or more of the ecosystem carbon is in the soils, a very stable and long-lived carbon pool (McKinley et al. 2011, Domke et al. 2017). Climate change is a global phenomenon, because major greenhouse gasses (GHGs)5 mix well throughout the planet’s lower atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Considering emissions of 6 7 GHGs in 2010 were estimated at 49 ± 4.5 gigatons carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent globally (IPCC 2014) and 6.9 gigatons CO2 equivalent nationally (US EPA 2015), a project of this size makes an extremely small contribution to overall emissions or may have a beneficial effect. Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to GHGs 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 GHGs and climate change would also be negligible. Further quantification of harvest-related carbon emissions is not warranted for this project because there is little to no change in timber harvest levels. Additionally, actual timber harvest will be analyzed in project-level analysis, and no ground disturbing activity will occur as a result of this amendment. Because of the removal of some large trees in three of the action alternatives, we would necessarily be removing carbon from the landscape in the short term, but the amount of additional carbon removed compared to current management is marginal (see modeling results below). In addition, the tradeoff for forests better adapted to their biophysical environments and on a trajectory toward more resistance and resilience to disturbance is well worth the marginal cost. Some commenters on the draft analysis expressed concern about the potential for significant losses of carbon storage. Some examples of literature cited to support these comments include Mildrexler et al. 2020, Law et al. 2018, Lutz et al. 2018, Hudiburg et al. 2009, and Stephenson et al. 2014. Some of these papers offer simplified carbon analyses that don’t adequately consider important aspects of this issue. For example, Mildrexler et al. (2020) assert that the forests within the analysis area have low vulnerability to climate change though the full body of scientific evidence shows quite the opposite: forests in the analysis area will become increasingly vulnerable to mortality from disturbances including wildfire, drought, and insect and pathogen attacks (Halofsky

5 Major greenhouse gases released as a result of human activity include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. 6 A gigaton is one billion metric tons; equal to about 2.2 trillion pounds. 7 Equivalent CO2 (CO2e) is the concentration of CO2 that would cause the same level of radiative forcing as a given type and concentration of greenhouse gas. 39 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

et al. 2020, Kerns et al. 2018, Parks and Abatzoglou 2020, Reilly et al. 2017). In addition, Mildrexler et al. (2020) do not adequately account for higher mortality rates in fir compared to other species (Filip et al. 2007, Cochran 1998). In fact, research indicates that typical forest restoration treatments that reduce overall stand density, protect old-growth trees, and moderate fire behavior result in increased carbon storage over time relative to no management (Stephens et al. 2020, Hurteau et al. 2019a, 2019b, Liang and Westerling 2018, Krofcheck et al. 2017, Hurteau et al. 2016). We used FVS simulation modeling to compare carbon storage between alternatives. Modeling results assessed relative carbon storage outcomes between alternatives rather than absolute projected volumes. Modeled considered above ground carbon storage and removal and did not consider carbon storage in wood products or soil. No carbon storage benefit is assumed from reduced wildfire severity or forest regeneration, which likely results in overestimated carbon costs for each alternative.

3.1.6.6.1 Current Management Alternative On site above ground carbon increases across the landscape through time due to the growth of existing trees from an average of about 19.9 tons per acre to about 20.8 tons per acre. Carbon removed through harvest of trees averages about 5 tons per acre over the modeling period. 3.1.6.6.2 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative Carbon storage is very similar to Current Management and increases from an average of about 19.9 tons per acre to about 20.6 tons per acre. Carbon removed averages about 5.2 tons per acre over the modeling period. 3.1.6.6.3 Old Tree Standard Alternative Carbon storage is very similar to Current Management and increases from an average of about 19.9 tons per acre to about 20.7 tons per acre. Carbon removed averages about 5.3 tons per acre over the modeling period. 3.1.6.6.4 Adaptive Management Alternative Carbon storage remains stable across the landscape through time. The carbon impact from harvesting trees is generally balanced with the growth of existing trees at an average of about 19.9 tons per acre in 2019 and 2045. Carbon removed through harvest of trees averages about 6.5 tons per acre over the modeling period.

3.1.6.6.5 Standard with Exceptions Alternative The carbon effects of harvesting trees under this alternative are less than under Current Management and more closely resemble a no management scenario. Carbon storage increases from about 19.9 tons per acre in 2019 to about 23.4 tons per acre 2045. Carbon removed through harvest of trees averages about 3 to 3.9 tons per acre over the modeling period.

3.1.6.7 Vegetation Effects Summary The ability of each of the alternatives to meet desired conditions for vegetation cannot be assessed by looking at a single variable, such as old trees, or species composition. All of the vegetation indicators are important (see Table 3 for a summary of effects). The Current Management Alternative continues to increase large trees across the landscape but does not do as well as the other alternatives on all other measures. The Old and Large USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Tree Guideline continues to increase large trees on the landscape while also outperforming the Current Management Alternative for all other indicators. Outcomes for the Old Tree Standard are very similar to outcomes for the guideline but with improved ability to manage for species composition and less flexibility to adapt to changing conditions or local site conditions. The Adaptive Management Alternative greatly enhances management flexibility and so could result in the widest range of potential outcomes. Finally, the Standard with Exceptions results in outcomes similar to the Current Management Alternative with marginal increases in the ability to support old tree persistence and manage species composition and decreased ability to create open forest structure. We note that it is impossible to restore stands to historical conditions or conditions that would be resistant to current and future conditions without cutting some fir larger than 21-inches (Johnston et al. 2021), and this is prohibited in the Current Management Alternative and greatly restricted in the Standard with Exceptions Alternative.

Table 3. Summary of effects to vegetation indicators. Alternative Current Old and Old Tree Adaptive Standard Management Large Tree Standard Management with (CM) Guideline Exceptions

Dominance Continued Increase in Increase in Wide range Continued of fire decrease in proportion of proportion of of outcomes decrease in tolerant proportion of fire tolerant fire tolerant for fire proportion of species fire tolerant species species tolerant fire tolerant species species species Old Trees Continued Decrease less Decrease less Decrease – Decrease decrease than CM than CM wide marginally potential less than CM range Large Continued Continued Continued Continued Continued Trees increase increase but increase but increase but increase – less than CM less than CM less than CM marginally less than CM Open Continued Increase Increase Increase more Continued conditions slow rate of more than more than than CM slow rate of within late increase CM CM increase structure forest

Open Continued Decrease less Decrease less Decrease less Continued conditions decrease than CM than CM than CM decrease outside of late structure forest

41 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.2 DECAYING WOOD: SNAGS AND DOWN WOOD Life history requirements for a diverse array of wildlife are reliant on the retention of snags and down wood and the recruitment of future snags by way of green tree retention. These key habitat elements are influenced by several variables, but wood decay is significant. It can be broken into primary decay occurring in live trees and secondary decay occurring after the tree is dead. For coniferous forests in the Pacific Northwest the primary biological wood decay agents are fungus and insects (Marcot et al. 2001). This section of the EA will discuss decay and pathological disturbance on these elements and will discuss the role insects play to some degree. In addition to tree age, wood decay processes vary greatly by tree species. Shaw et al. (2009) list the relative susceptibility of PNW conifers to stem-decay fungi. Non-resinous species such as true firs, hemlocks, and hardwoods have greater amounts of decay than do resinous species such as pines, Douglas-fir, and larch. Decay fungi also have tree host preferences with some fungi restricted to just a few tree species. One of the most significant sources of heartwood decay in eastern Oregon is Indian paint fungus (Echinodontium tinctorium). Surveys in mature grand and white fir stands in Oregon have indicated that this fungus is responsible for approximately 80% of the decay found (Filip et al. 1984). Although true firs have thin bark relative to Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and western larch, this fungus does not require wounds for entry. Instead, infection occurs through small branchlet stubs in suppressed trees. Suppressed trees grow slowly allowing time for infection to occur before branchlet stubs seal over, at which time the fungus enters a dormant phase. Latent infections are activated by mechanical injuries and frost cracks that allow air into the bole; even very small wounds can activate the dormant infections (Filip et al. 1984). The thin-barked nature of true firs allows this activation to occur regularly as wounding is common.

3.2.1 Composition, structure, and quality Incidence of wood decay is positively correlated with tree age for several reasons. Decay fungi require entry courts into trees to start decay processes. Older trees have had longer exposure to damages that allow entry through the bark such as strikes by adjacent tree failures or rock falls, wind breakage, broken branches, etc. Age increases the odds that some sort of damage has been experienced (Wagener and Davidson 1954). Additionally, large, mature trees generally have low sapwood to heartwood ratios, which indicates they have a relatively narrow area of active sapwood surrounding a larger cylinder of heartwood. This morphology relates to decay and snag longevity in two ways: in living trees, heartwood decay can be extensive while active growth occurs and new rings of sapwood continue to be formed; in dead trees, those that had little to no heartwood decay prior to death have the potential to remain standing for very long periods as the small band of readily decayed sapwood is supported by a large cylinder of sound heartwood. Smaller diameter trees have high sapwood to heartwood ratios, which often results in their failure shortly after death as the sapwood rapidly decays (Hadfield and Magelssen 2006). Finally, decay is a slow process, and extensive decay columns often take years or decades to develop, so larger columns of heartwood decay are more likely to exist in older trees. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Snag longevity is strongly related to tree species and size. A 1995 analysis of remeasured FIA data from western Oregon and Washington, found for most species averaging 3 – 30 inches dbh, most snags fell within the first 10 years and were not replaced with more snags. Trees killed by insects, animals, and suppression by competition were most likely to remain standing as snags over the 10-year FIA remeasurement period. Trees killed by weather (and windthrow) and root disease were most likely to fall soon after death. Smaller diameter snags (<10”) were more likely to fall than larger snags in undisturbed stands regardless of how they died (McComb and Ohmann 1995). Furthermore, snag fall and height loss rates were derived from Continuous Vegetation Survey (CVS) remeasurement data from Forest Service lands in Oregon and Washington. Key findings indicated large snags stand from 2- to 5-times longer than small snags of the same species. The high fall rate (almost 50%) of recent mortality trees needs to be considered in future recruitment of snags and down wood. For most species and especially smaller snags, most snags will fall within the first 10 years. Trees that fall soon after death provide snag habitat only for very short periods of time or not at all but do contribute down wood habitat. Snag or coarse wood dynamic models may be helpful during project analysis. Because many existing snag dynamics models will substantially overestimate future snag abundance and underestimate amounts of down wood, it is important to assess the following: • The cause of tree death. • Trees killed by insects, animals, suppression, and diseases other than root disease are most likely to remain standing as snags. • Because snag retention is so strongly affected by harvest activities, dead wood should be planned for separately for disturbed and undisturbed stands. • The larger the snag diameter, the more likely it is to survive harvest operations and remain standing in future years. Ponderosa pine can be expected to stand the longest whereas hardwoods and true firs will be shortest-lived. We used the Coarse Wood Dynamics Model (CWDM) within the Forest Vegetation Simulator-Fire and Fuels Extension (FVS-FFE) (Mellen and Ager 2002) to provide information on the dynamics of snags and down logs in forested ecosystems across the analysis area. Snag longevity may also be related to rooting habits of trees and susceptibility to root diseases. Ponderosa pine is well known for its ability to grow vigorous taproots and as a result is usually windfirm. True firs, hemlocks, and Douglas-fir are more susceptible to native root diseases – which compromises tree stability and longevity of snags – than are pines and larches. Root-diseased trees may fall soon after death and provide snag habitat only for very short periods of time, or not at all, though they will contribute to down wood habitat.

43 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.2.2 Green tree retention for future snag recruitment When snag densities or downed wood are deficient on a landscape, managers may attempt to create more from live, sound trees using mechanical methods such as topping, girdling, or felling, but these sound green snags may not always provide for short term wildlife habitat requirements (Schreiber 1987). If objectives are to recruit standing snags from green trees that are most likely to provide adequate hollow structures or have complex crowns and branching structure, managers should consider using natural decay and disease processes and base strategies on appropriate tree species, size, spacing and decay/disease agents. These guiding principles can be broken down into two main types of green tree retention for future snag recruitment: 1) green tree selection for hollow structures and 2) green tree selection for trees with complicated crowns or platforms.

3.2.2.1 Green tree selection for future snags with hollows Managers can increase the probability that a tree will have internal decay by using external indicators. If a tree does not have heartwood decay and a hollow present while living it will not form a decayed hollow structure once it is killed. When selecting live trees for retention or snag creation, managers can increase the probability that trees will have heartwood decay by selecting species of advanced age more likely to have internal decay (e.g. non-resinous species such as true firs or hardwoods) (Aho 1977, Mallams et al 2010). External indicators of internal decay in more resinous species such as ponderosa pine, western white pine, larch and Douglas-fir include visible decay conks (i.e. the fungal fruiting body) or bole symptoms such as wounds, fire scars, dead tops, broken tops, bayonet tops, cracks, dwarf mistletoe stem swellings, bends in broken tops where a new leader persisted or cavities excavated by birds (Aho 1966, Aho 1977, Parks et al. 1997, Mallams et al. 2010). While fruiting bodies are the best indicators of internal heartwood decay, they are not always present in trees with extensive internal decay and less frequent on trees with early decay. Lower bole wounds are often associated with more stem decay compared to upper bole wounds (Aho 1977). These indicators increase the likelihood that a tree will contain enough hollows while living and once dead. However, decay patterns vary by species, location and many different site factors, so gathering local knowledge by observing decay in felled trees to better understand local patterns is advised (Aho 1966, Parks et al. 1997). Fruiting bodies that appear at the butt of the tree or on/around roots (annual fruiting bodies such as mushrooms or perennial conks at the base of the tree) indicate that decay is present in the roots or butt of the tree. These trees should not be expected to persist as standing snags and are more likely than sound trees to fail at the roots or base. Hollow trees larger than 20 inches dbh are the most valuable for denning, shelter, roosting, and hunting by a wide range of species (Johnson and O’Neil 2001). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Other methods for creating cavity nesting habitat in living trees involve injuring trees to provide entry courts for decay fungi or artificially inoculating trees with decay fungi (Hennon and Mulvey 2014, Filip et al. 2011). Techniques to create injuries that lead to decay that mimic natural processes include unintentional or intentional wounding of roots, boles or tops during stand entries, crown removal via fork breakage or topping, or breaking branches off close to the bole (triggering dormant infections of Echinodontium tinctorium, for example). Wounds need to be deep enough to reach the phloem layer (which exists at the outer edge of the sapwood) and larger wounds often lead to more decay. Diversity of decay fungi may be increased by creating wounds in both upper and lower boles of trees or retaining trees with various existing wound heights. Artificial inoculation of trees with native decay fungi was found to be more effective in initiating decay than wounding alone for several tree species in Oregon and Washington, but minimal decay hollows were detected 7-14 years post-inoculation (Filip et al. 2011). In another study that artificially inoculated multiple sites on western larches, substantial decay was found six years post-inoculation (Parks et al. 1990). A combination of appropriate decay fungal species and inoculation strategies could be employed to artificially inoculate trees in the PNW.

3.2.2.2 Green tree selection for trees with complicated branching or platforms When selecting live trees for retention or snag creation that have complicated crowns or platforms, retaining trees with dwarf mistletoe infections is appropriate if careful tree species and spacing criteria are employed. Dwarf mistletoes lead to distorted growth and proliferated branching (i.e. brooming structures and platforms), reduced overall tree growth, top kill, mortality and eventually the spread of dwarf mistletoe seeds to regenerating host species (Hawksworth and Wiens 1996). More infections within a tree crown are equated to higher severities and higher chances of mortality (Hawksworth 1977, Hoffman 2004). Dwarf mistletoes are native ecosystem components, contribute to biological diversity in PNW forests and have species specific host associations so can be appropriately managed when multiple objectives are desired (Beatty et al. 1997, Hadfield et al. 2000, Goheen and Wilhite 2006). Severe stand infestation by dwarf mistletoes intensified by poor management can lead to poor or stunted tree growth, lower canopy cover over time and be detrimental to wildlife habitat goals (Hoffman 2004, Bull et al. 1997). Retention selections for trees with dwarf mistletoe need to be carefully designed to maximize potential wildlife benefits while also minimizing the potential for spread to healthy trees and uninfected portions of the stand. In general, dwarf mistletoes can be managed by limiting the tree to tree spread of the forcibly ejected seeds from overstory trees to understory regeneration via species selection or spacing. Most dwarf mistletoe species forcibly eject seeds within 50 feet from where the dwarf mistletoe plant occurs (Hawksworth and Wiens 1996).

45 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Because dwarf mistletoes are species specific, limiting spread can be accomplished by encouraging regeneration of a non-host species in the vicinity of dwarf mistletoe infected overstory trees (Goheen and Wilhite 2006, p. 161). For example, encouraging pine or larch regeneration under Douglas-fir infected with Douglas-fir mistletoe is appropriate, as that species of dwarf mistletoe will not infect pines and larch (Hadfield et al. 2000). Similarly, Douglas-fir and larch can be encouraged under retained overstory ponderosa pine trees infected with dwarf mistletoe (Goheen and Wilhite 2006). Regeneration of host species generally becomes susceptible to infection once they reach three feet tall or ten years old (Hoffman 2004). If species specificities of dwarf mistletoes cannot be employed for meeting wildlife objectives, selection of large trees infected with dwarf mistletoe for complicated crowns or future snags should only be considered while taking stand health and stand trajectories into consideration. Spread to susceptible regeneration or nearby trees can be limited by spatially arranging retentions to limit the spread of seeds. Retained infected trees should be densely grouped together and not scattered across the landscape in order to limit the spread of seeds to other trees or regenerating species. Localized patches of infection could be isolated from susceptible trees or uninfested sections by creating and maintaining buffers of non-hosts (buffer widths will vary by host tree species) (Hoffman 2004). Brooming is most often caused by dwarf mistletoes across eastside forests (especially very large brooming structures and platforms created by Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe on Douglas-fir), but other agents also cause the creation of brooms that may be important locally. Broom rust fungi (caused by the fungi Melampsorella sp. and Chrysomyxa sp. on true fir and Engelmann spruce, respectively), Elytroderma needle cast (caused by Elytroderma deformans), and occasional genetic mutations or unknown environmental triggers can lead to brooms in trees in the PNW.

3.2.3 Down wood Because down wood is generated from a live tree or snag, planning for down wood features should be incorporated into prescriptions or guidelines developed for snag and green tree retention. As much as possible, retain all hollow down wood as well as any hollow trees and snags that will become hollow logs upon falling. Consider tree species when evaluating long-term down wood retention levels, because tree species decay at different rates. Heartwood decay fungi can remain alive and continue decaying the inside of infected trees for several years after they die and fall (Wright 1934), as well as produce fruiting bodies for continued dispersal (Hepting and Roth 1950). Additionally, a fresh Douglas-fir windfall, storm breakage, or slash is very attractive to Douglas-fir beetles, and nearby trees are often killed by beetles attracted the newly down material or by the broods that emerge from the colonized material one year later. The Douglas-fir beetle prefers to attack large, older trees, and likes stressed, diseased, or injured trees as well. East of the Cascades crest, intense Douglas-fir beetle activity sometimes causes mortality of nearly all Douglas-fir > 10 inches (25 cm) dbh (Wright and Lejeune 1967, B. Willhite, pers. Comm. 2020). Abundant new snags are created in these areas, but the accompanying losses of existing cover and large stand structure may degrade the quality of habitat available for some wildlife species. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

3.2.4 Affected environment Maintaining and enhancing the diversity of snags, down wood, and decaying trees across landscapes through time is important for sustaining ecological integrity or the ability for an ecosystem to support and maintain ecological processes and a diverse community of organisms in order to adapt to change. Disturbances at both small and broad spatial scales are important and often drive forest composition, structure, and function all of which contribute to ecosystem characteristics like complex structure and diverse composition. Studies suggest that decaying wood habitat elements function best for wildlife when they are broadly distributed across landscapes and occur in dense clumps as well as individually dispersed to provide for local heterogeneity (Rose et al. 2001). At broad scales, slow, subtle trends may be difficult to see. It is important to know what constitutes an ecologically meaningful change in response variables. Scale is important when interpreting a perceived pattern. It is often important to first take a broad spatial scale approach looking at decayed wood across the landscape but follow with a smaller spatial scale assessment at the project level. This analysis focuses on the broader scale due to the programmatic nature of the amendment under consideration. This does not negate the need or the requirement to assess snags and down wood at the project level where effects of things like roads, firewood, and local snag levels are better addressed. For this analysis, both the direct Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot data and the GNN Trend and Accounting Explorer (TrAccEr) were used to assess snag abundance (Bell et al. 2020, https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/databasedocumentation/index.php and https://lemma.forestry.oregonstate.edu/trend/wht). For annual FIA inventory, trend data are available for plots that have been measured twice using the same inventory plot design https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/DATIM/index.shtml ; these represent measurements from 2001-2007 and 2011-2017. The GNN Trend and Accounting Explorer (TrAccEr) data represent trend data from 1995 to 2017. 2,405 FIA plots were used in this analysis. There was no statistically significant change in snag abundance on any of the six National Forests. A slight increase was observed for the Ochoco and for the Fremont-Winema National Forests, and a slight decrease for the remaining four forests, the Deschutes having the most decrease (Table 4). Abundance is estimated as the number of forested acres where at least one standing dead tree greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh was present.

Table 4. FIA data shows the abundance of large snags of all species by National Forest. *Includes 3 plots from the Crooked River grassland.

Forest/# of forested plots 2001-2007 2011-2017 used in analysis

Acres/ % of Standard Error Acres/ % of Standard Error Forest (Acres) Forest (Acres)

Deschutes/266 81,407/ 11 13,952 68,125/ 9 12,885

Fremont-Winema/609 449,895/ 26 44,764 458,275/ 27 46,138

Malheur/497 494,877/ 35 30,394 477,385/ 34 28,558

47 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Ochoco/226* 217,912/ 35 18,366 230,112/ 37 18,910

Umatilla/309 414,647/ 45 25,818 411,895/ 45 24,869

Wallowa-Whitman/498 425,387/ 31 27,221 423,273/ 31 27,039

Snags were also assessed by wildlife habitat type (WHT) (Johnson and O’Neil 2001) using the DecAID tool (Mellen-McClean et al 2017) and GNN Trend and Accounting Explorer (TrAccEr) with the Olofsson correction factor (Olofsson et al. 2103). We assessed snag levels for Eastside Mixed Conifer-East Cascades Blue Mountains (EMC- ECB) and Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir (PPDF) WHTs for the six forests combined for the time period 1995-2017. These two WHTs represent the vegetation types that would be most affected by the proposed action and alternatives. There are more large snags in the EMC-ECB WHT then the PPDF WHT. A gradual slight increase in large snag abundance is illustrated for both WHTs for all six forests (Figure 8).

Figure 7. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHT’s for all six forests combined, 1995-2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Abundance is estimated as the number of forested acres where at least one standing dead tree > 50cm (20”) dbh was present. Range with SE for each graph: PPDF = 209.93 + 36.74 to 216.05 + 39.53; EMC-ECB = 929.28 + 51.01 to 938.94 + 51.07. The last analysis we did was also with GNN TrAccEr with Olofsson correction estimates for Eastside Mixed Conifer-East Cascades Blue Mountains (EMC-ECB) and Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir (PPDF) WHTs by each individual forest for the time period 1995-2017. For both the PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs, the abundance of snags > 20 inches dbh has generally either stayed the same or has had a gradual slight increasing trend between 1995 and 2017 for five of the six forests. The Deschutes has a slight declining trend for both WHTs (Figure 9). Abundance of snags > 20 inches dbh in the PPDF WHT are highest on the Fremont-Winema followed by the Malheur, Ochoco, Deschutes, Wallowa- Whitman and Umatilla (Figures 9-14). Abundance of snags > 20 inches dbh in the EMC- ECB WHT are highest on the Umatilla followed by the Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, Fremont-Winema, Deschutes, and Ochoco (Figures 9-14).

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Figure 8. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Deschutes, 1995-2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with standard error for each graph: PPDF = 21.50 + 9.35 to 21.42 + 9.31; EMC-ECB = 80.80 + 16.13 to 80.83 + 16.13

Figure 9. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Fremont-Winema, 1995- 2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with standard error for each graph: PPDF = 102.34 + 43.51 to 103.65 + 45.43; EMC-ECB = 21.50 + 21.50 to 166.58 + 21.69.

Figure 10. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Malheur, 1995-2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with standard error for each graph: PPDF = 53.53 + 18.09 to 56.89 + 20.71; EMC-ECB = 169.04 + 21.50 to 171.85 + 21.85.

49 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Figure 11. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHT’s on the Ochoco, 1995-2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with standard error for each graph: PPDF = 21.49 + 9.99 to 22.29 + 10.75; EMC-ECB = 77.81 + 13.38 to 77.87 + 13.39.

Figure 12. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Umatilla, 1995-2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with standard error for each graph: PPDF = 4.29 + 5.12 to 4.38 + 5.72; EMC-ECB = 238.03 + 23.74 to 241.52 + 23.62.

Figure 13. Abundance of large snags by PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Wallowa-Whitman, 1995- 2017 GNN Olofsson corrected estimates. Range with SE for each graph: PPDF = 8.09 + 4.31 to 8.69 + 4.69; EMC-ECB = 200.99 + 26.65 to 201.76 + 26.82.

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

In summary, we looked at: 1) abundance by forest using FIA plot data, 2) abundance by forest and by WHT using the GNN Trend and Accounting Explorer and Trend (TrAccEr) and the Olofsson correction estimate factor. The analysis revealed the following: · There has been no significant change in snags > 20 inches dbh in the analysis area over the time period assessed taking all tree species into account. · There are more large snags in the EMC-ECB WHT than the PPDF WHT across all six forests. · There has been a slight increasing trend in large snags in both the PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs for five of the six forests. · Within the PPDF WHT, abundance of large snags is highest on the Fremont- Winema followed by the Malheur, Ochoco, Wallowa-Whitman, and Umatilla. · Within the EMC-ECB WHT, abundance of large snags is highest on the Umatilla followed by the Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur, Fremont-Winema, Deschutes and Ochoco. · There has been a declining trend in large snags in both the PPDF and EMC-ECB WHTs on the Deschutes.

3.2.5 Effects to Decaying Wood It should be noted that forests will still be required to comply with existing forest plan standards and guidelines until these are amended or revised (see Appendices B, C, and F), including the down wood portion of Scenario A in the wildlife screen. Because, this amendment will not change any of the existing standards and guidelines relative to down wood, an in-depth down wood analysis was not conducted. Down wood is recognized and referred to in the snag and green tree retention for future snag recruitment effects portion due to its interrelation, but project level analysis will continue to be required. This section of the EA discusses the importance of decaying wood habitat elements for wildlife. The botany and wildlife analyses included in this EA identify the individual species within the analysis area that rely on snags by grouping them into “snag dependent species” if relevant. Additionally, appendices A and C associate plant and wildlife species with key vegetation or key habitat elements.

3.2.5.1 Current Management Alternative The Current Management Alternative will keep us status quo. Large diameter snags continue to stay level with only slight, but not statistically significant increases in very broad vegetation types. Fire tolerant trees will continue to decrease in relative abundance to fire intolerant species (see Vegetation section). This is likely to lead to more vulnerability for disturbance mortality which creates snags and down wood but the scope and scale of that disturbance is uncharacteristic and could lead to greater shifts in composition, structure and distribution of tree species as well as the wildlife associated with those. High intensity, uncharacteristic fire may not provide the abundance or distribution of snags anticipated for the duration wildlife needs it. Those snags are likely to fall much faster. This may be good for down wood but still might increase the deficit in long-standing old and large diameter snags. Insect outbreaks are likely to become more widespread and depending on the species, may feed on older and larger trees that are valuable for wildlife. Although fire intolerant species host heart rot readily, these tree species have much quicker falling rates than pine and even though true firs provide 51 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

important wildlife habitat in the short term along with down wood in the longer term, fire tolerant species like ponderosa pine are also extremely important for many wildlife species and will continue to decline. These effects could be more pronounced at the treatment or stand scale for which endemics or short ranging wildlife species with specific life history niches will be more vulnerable. At the broader scale, these changes may initially be subtle, but over time, composition and structural heterogeneity, along with potentially large areas of disconnected vegetation (see Disturbance section), could create undesired effects to larger ranging wildlife species (see Wildlife section). For forests that already have localized declining trends this will be even more undesirable. Administratively, biologists will continue to take extra time analyzing projects guided by the Eastside Screens standard and guidelines with known flawed techniques in order to meet legal requirements. Managing stands for 100% biological population potential for primary cavity excavators is likely to be insufficient for maintaining viable populations and will not account for secondary cavity nesters who utilize snags of greater number and size classes than primary nesters. Current policy also does not account for wildlife species beyond cavity nesters and the ecological integrity of the greater landscape. Although the Eastside Screens provided a temporary pause to assess large trees, snag retention, green tree snag recruitment and down wood, it does not incorporate the current best available science and does not emphasize the retention of old and large snags or recruitment of future snags for a diverse array of wildlife species with differing life history needs.

3.2.5.2 Common to All Action Alternatives Common to all action alternatives, new standards and guidelines for snags and green tree retention will better protect and account for a greater diversity of species and life histories including Regional Forester Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Threatened and Endangered Species. The new standard for snags gives forests a choice during project planning that will inform the decision for implementation and it also has several guidelines (see alternative description section of this EA for more detail). See Decaying Wood specialist report for additional detail on science and public comments that informed the snag and down wood standard and guideline language in all of the action alternatives.

3.2.5.3 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative At the broader scale, old and large fire tolerant trees will increase slightly in abundance relative to current management. Even if the movement is only slightly in the upward trend, this alternative still provides for a shift in species composition and stand structure and could influence the creation of diverse spatial patterns based on individual stand conditions by prioritizing old trees regardless of size and then large trees within the desired canopy and structure condition. The number of individual young (less than 150 years) fire intolerant trees over 21 inches but less than 30 inches could be reduced within treatment areas under this alternative because old trees would be favored over large trees. Snag and green tree retention for future snag recruitment standards and guidelines regardless of tree species would help provide for the desired vegetation species shift while emphasizing structural heterogeneity to meet objectives for late and old structure forests. This alternative also has a monitoring and adaptive management component in order to provide information for future projects. Monitoring may trigger a change in the USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

language that replaces the current 21-inch standard, but the new standards and guidelines for snags and green tree replacement would not revert to the original language in the Eastside Screens.

3.2.5.1 Old Tree Standard Alternative At the broader scale, old trees regardless of size will increase slightly in abundance relative to the existing condition. At the stand level, old trees must be kept. The number of young trees over 21 inches dbh could be reduced greatly within treatment areas under this alternative. The trees with the most potential to be removed would be fire intolerant species like grand fir that have established within the last 150 years. This alternative provides for an older composition of stands which provides for the late and old part of forests but does not emphasize large trees regardless of age and species. The new snag and green tree retention for future snag recruitment standards and guidelines would be incorporated, but at the project scale that analysis may need to address and provide for more green trees for future snags in order to account for trees prone to decay and larger diameter tree species required for various life histories of a diverse array of wildlife. This effect is likely to be subtle across the landscape but could be more profound at the stand scale.

3.2.5.2 Adaptive Management Alternative This alternative confers the greatest flexibility to managers to shift species composition and stand structure and could greatly influence the creation of diverse spatial patterns based on site conditions or desired future conditions. Management activities would not include a size or age requirement but would include the new snag and green tree retention for future snag recruitment standards and guidelines. Monitoring questions have been established to ascertain treatment efficacy to meet late and old structure vegetation desired condition. Like the old and large tree alternative, if desired condition is not being met through the established metrics and timeline, the Old Tree Standard would become management direction. A monitoring feedback component in order to provide information for future projects is crucial in this alternative in order to meet desired condition. If monitoring is not incorporated, this alternative would be the least desirable. This feedback loop should be done at various spatial scales, and project level monitoring for snags and down wood is enthusiastically encouraged.

3.2.5.3 Standard with Exceptions Alternative This alternative addresses stands within and outside of old forest. This alternative is better than current management overall for snag creation but very similar to the proposed action for large and older trees on the landscape. There are two key differences between the proposed action and this alternative. First, managing stands both within and outside late and older forests with the same diameter standards or exceptions may not be the best way to maintain or increase heterogeneity across landscapes, especially to support a diverse array of wildlife and plant species with complex life history needs. Although the exceptions provided in this standard help prescribe where those situations might occur both within and outside of older forest stands, they may not account for all of them. This is particularly evident between the alternatives relative to the dominance of fire tolerant species. This alternative and current management will have a continued decline in fire tolerant species compared to the proposed action, Old Tree Standard, and Adaptative

53 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Management Alternatives (see Vegetation and Wildlife sections). Secnod, this alternative does not have a monitoring or adaptative management mechanism with questions that have been established to ascertain treatment efficacy to meet late and old structure vegetation desired condition. Forests will still be required to monitor for their respective forest plans but targeted questions for late and old structured forests at the broader landscape as well as local scale, collaborative approaches to management may not be as realized until a forest changes their monitoring plan or incorporates them outside of this decision.

3.3 DISTURBANCE 3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.1.1 Fire Regimes Fire regimes incorporate vegetation, structure, and successional history to provide generalized descriptions of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. Fire regime is based partially on severity (Agee 1993): low severity fire effects are defined by <20% mortality, mixed severity is defined as 20-70% mortality, and high severity regimes have greater than 70% mortality (Agee 1993, Perry et al. 2011). Mortality is defined here as the proportion of basal area of the dominant vegetation type killed by fire in a stand. Each individual fire includes a mix of burn severities (Agee 1993, Reilly et al. 2017, Spies et al. 2018), and mortality occurs in patches8 of varying size within its perimeter. Fire regime classifications are based on the predominant fire severity: a low severity fire regime will have mostly low severity effects with some patches of mixed and high severity (Agee 1993, Spies et al. 2018)9. Fire regimes also account for the frequency of fire occurrence on a landscape. Frequent fire return intervals generally correlate with lower severity fires.

8 We define patch as a relatively homogeneous area that differs from its surroundings. In frequent disturbance landscapes, these patches are often caused by mortality and then regeneration after events like wildfires and insect outbreaks.

9 While Odion et al. (2014) argue that low severity fire regimes had highly variable fire severity (including a significant component of low-severity fire), this paper has very few plots in central Oregon and none in the Blue Mountains. Its relevance to this analysis is questionable. In addition, as Stevens et al. (2016) point out, Odion et al. used a coarse-scale and unorthodox vegetation map that makes the conclusions less reliable. In addition, Stevens et al. (2016) and Spies et al. (2018) point out that Odion et al. (2014) use FIA data in a way that leads to incorrect assumptions, analysis, and conclusions. Other commenters cited Williams and Baker (2012) to argue that there was more mixed and high severity fire historically. Again, this paper looks at a much broader landscape (all western states) and its methods have been called into question. For example, Fule et al. (2013) suggest that using tree size distributions to reconstruct past fire severity and extent is not supported by age-size relationships or local disturbance studies. We note that some commenters suggest we excluded a “body” of science related to mixed and high severity fire (and density) and list six articles that make up this body of science, though some of these articles are defenses of the research after the research methods and conclusions have been attacked by other scientists. A few articles does not constitute a body of research, particularly when the preponderance of evidence in the scientific literature draws different conclusions. Two of these articles are addressed in this footnote. The others are addressed below. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Changes in the extent, severity, or frequency of fire are indicative of evolving interactions between fire and co-adapted ecosystems (Agee 1998). Reduced cultural use of fire and highly effective fire suppression over the last 100+ years have caused fire to occur less frequently in these forest types than it had historically (Haugo et al. 2019). Patches of forest within a fire regime can be heavily influenced by their surrounding spatial context. Forest types typical of mixed severity fire regime can experience low or high severity fire due to these influences. Notably, forest ecosystems that are adjacent to or intermixed with frequent low intensity fire take on the characteristics of that disturbance regime (Agee 1998). Alternatively, these same forests adjacent to wetter cooler forests of a high severity regime can behave more like the adjacent high severity fire regime. Use of fire by indigenous people also influenced fire regimes. The effects of these fires were substantial in spatial and temporal scale (Langille 1903, Weaver 1940, Soeriaatmadja 1965 and references therein, Shinn 1980, Agee 1993). Fire is used to promote foods such as huckleberry and camas and to reduce brush for hunting, foraging, defense, and travel (Boyd 1999). These practices create fire-adapted ecosystems while enhancing the provision of intergenerational socio-ecologic cultural benefits for indigenous people. It is difficult to isolate the effects of indigenous fire use in shaping these ecosystems from those of ‘natural’ ignitions. Fire ecologists generally consider these impacts an inherent part of natural ecosystems in the western US (Agee 1993).

3.3.1.2 Low Severity Fire Regime Forests that historically supported a frequent, low severity fire regime cover approximately 66% of the analysis area and include dry ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer ecosystems (Table 5). Fire-tolerant ponderosa pine and Douglas fir are predominant in these systems, where historical fire return intervals ranged from 8 to 31 years (Heyerdahl et al. 2019, Merschel et al. 2018, Johnston et al. 2017). Fires in these areas tend to be large (e.g. thousands of acres) with mostly low severity effects. Patches of mixed- and high-severity fire create small to medium-sized openings (e.g. less than acre to hundreds of acres) for a new age class of trees (Agee 1993, Spies et al. 2018). Frequent surface fire maintains a relatively open canopy and limited tree regeneration and surface fuels (e.g., needles, branches, and coarse woody debris). These characteristics reduce competition for resources which enhances resistance to other disturbances and promotes tree growth.

3.3.1.3 Mixed Severity Fire Regime Forests that historically supported a mixed severity fire regime cover approximately 29% of the analysis area and include more moist ecosystems such as Douglas fir/ninebark and grand fir ecosystems (Table 5). These systems have a range of severity effects, depending in part on frequency of fire. For example, forests with a mixed severity fire regime and historically frequent fires will have predominately low severity fire effects whereas forests with less frequent historical fire regimes will have predominately mixed- and high-severity fire effects. Mean fire return intervals range from 25-50 or 75 years depending on forest type (Bork 1984, Agee 1999, Shuffield 2010). Patch size is generally 1-250 acres (Hessburg et al. 2007), and patches are created by fires of differing severities. Patch edge is the highest of any regime (Agee 1998, Agee 1999). Fire effects in this regime are a mixture of low and high severity. Low severity fire is generally expected to occur more often where the biophysical environment is drier and 55 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

less productive than where it is wetter and more productive. However, recent research shows a high degree of similarity between low severity and mixed severity fire regimes in eastern Oregon (Hagmann et al. 2013, Merschel et al. 2014). Many sites commonly considered to support mixed severity fire regimes today would have been classified as low severity regimes historically (Merschel et al. 2014). Forests of this regime are dominated by fire-tolerant trees such as Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, or larch (Agee 1993). The current abundance of grand fir in these forests changes how they respond to fire. Grand fir is typically susceptible to mortality from fire because its shallow root systems are easily scorched, the thin bark of young trees easily burns through to the cambium, and its dense flammable foliage and low-lying branch architecture are conducive to spreading crown fire. The unique crown architecture and uncharacteristically high density of grand fir trees across the analysis area (see vegetation section) has serious implications for fire behavior. Additionally, grand fir can out- compete fire tolerant species like ponderosa pine in environments with limited light and inhibit their growth. Grand fir can develop moderate resistance to fire as they grow older (Howard and Aleksoff 2000) but are still more susceptible than species like ponderosa pine (Peterson and Ryan 1986).

3.3.1.4 High Severity Fire Regime The high severity fire regime covers approximately 5% of the analysis area and includes more wet and cold/dry ecosystems (Table 5). These systems are typically dominated by subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce. Wetter grand fir systems at the lower end of this severity spectrum tend to abut and intersperse with subalpine fir and Englemann spruce types in the upper elevations of eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. Fires are typically stand replacing, occur every 100+ years, and lead to complex stand development pathways. High severity patch sizes can be large (thousands of acres). These large but relatively rare fire events historically affected the most acres of high severity forest, yet most fires remained small (e.g. an acre) (Agee 1998). Older trees in high severity fire regimes may have little to no resistance to fire because these trees did not evolve with frequent fire.

Table 5. Fire Regime by Potential Vegetation Zones

Potential Fire Regime based Potential Vegetation Sub Zone Vegetation Zone on severity10 Juniper Juniper Woodlands Low Ponderosa Pine-Lodgepole Pine, Xeric Ponderosa Pine Low Pine Ponderosa Pine Dry Ponderosa Pine Low White Fir - Grand Dry and Moist White Fir - Grand Fir Low Fir Douglas-Fir Dry and Moist Douglas-Fir Low/Mixed White Fir - Grand Cold Dry and Wet White Fir - Grand Mixed Fir Fir Lodgepole Pine Dry Lodgepole Pine Mixed

10 Based on Agee 1993, Agee 1997, and Spies et al. 2006. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Potential Fire Regime based Potential Vegetation Sub Zone Vegetation Zone on severity10 Subalpine Fir - Dry Subalpine Fir High Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir - Moist and Wet Subalpine Fir High Engelmann Spruce

3.3.1.5 Frequent and Infrequent Fire Regimes The interval between fires often determines the amount of mortality that occurs. For this reason, fire ecologists use ‘frequent’ and ‘infrequent’ descriptors to refer to the frequency of fire occurring on landscapes (Johnston et al. 2016, Merschel et al. 2014, 2018) or as modifiers to fire regimes (Spies et al. 2018) in order to more clearly distinguish the role of fire in shaping vegetation. Forests in the frequent fire regimes will have a preponderance of fire tolerant/ shade intolerant species and structures that will respond to fire with less overstory mortality. The landscapes of this analysis area are predominantly in the frequent fire category (Johnston et al. 2016, Merschel et al. 2014, 2018): all of the potential vegetation zones categorized as low severity fire regimes also historically had frequent fire, and within the mixed severity fire regime category, both the Douglas fir and lodgepole pine potential vegetation zones historically had frequent fire.

3.3.1.6 Current Conditions A century of fire exclusion, selective logging, and livestock grazing has led to an increase of fuels (Hessburg et al. 2015), smaller and decreased number of forest openings (Skinner 1995), homogenous stand structures (Agee 1998, Hessburg et al. 2015), and increased proportions of fire-intolerant trees11, especially in low and mixed fire regimes (Hessburg et al. 2015 and see vegetation section). These changes create conditions conducive to fires of higher severity and with larger patches than historical wildland fires (Weaver 1940, Hessburg et al. 1994, Barrett et al. 1997, Moritz et al. 2014) and are not conducive to resilient12 ecosystems (Hessburg et al. 1994, Hessburg et al. 2015).13 Some commenters suggested that moist mixed conifer forests–traditionally mixed severity fire regime landscapes–remain within their normal fire cycles. However, as Hessburg et al. (2020) summarized succinctly, “Recent research shows that frequent fire

11 Some commenters suggest that the number of fire-intolerant/ shade tolerant trees has not changed significantly compared to historical forests and cite Williams and Baker (2012), Baker (2017), and Baker and Williams (2018). However, the methodology used by these papers has been questioned by other scientists. Levine et al. (2019) show that Baker and Williams’ use of mean harmonic Voronoi density (MHVD) overestimates density from 24% to 667%. Johnston et al. (2018) use multiple lines of evidence and also conclude that the Baker and Williams method is unreliable. This would explain the differences Baker and Hanson (2017) note in conclusions drawn by Merschel and Hagmann research. Spies et al. (2018) note that even with Baker’s overestimates of tree density, his work shows an increase of 67-75% in tree density (Baker 2012). 12 We define resilience as the amount of change a system can undergo and retain the same structure, function and feedbacks (Suding and Hobbs 2008). 13 While some commenters suggested that forests in the analysis area have low vulnerability to fire over the next 30 years, they incorrectly cite Buotte et al. (2018) for this claim, and the opposite is anticipated by the literature on this issue as described throughout this analysis.

57 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

also occurred on moister sites where it created low-density stands of large, old ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir (Hessburg et al. 2007; Johnston et al. 2016, 2018; Wright and Agee 2004). Although shade-tolerant trees were somewhat more common on moist mixed- conifer than dry mixed-conifer sites, the fire regimes were often quite similar, and exclusion of fire has led to a dramatic increase in density of shade-tolerant trees there as well (Everett et al. 2000; Heyerdahl et al. 2001; Johnston et al. 2016, 2018; Merschel et al. 2014, 2018).” Since these forests have higher productivity than drier ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forests, changes in density, abundance, and species composition can be even more pronounced (Spies et al. 2006). It almost goes without saying that many researchers have documented the need for restoration in dry forests as well (e.g. Haugo et al. 2015). High severity fire regimes in cold forests have also been altered, mainly by fire suppression (Hann et al. 1997; Hessburg et al. 1999, 2000; Merschel et al. 2018). Scientists now see evidence that cold forests burned in some small patches each year, leading to high variability in patch size and forest age classes (Hessburg et al. 1999, 2000, 2007). Longer fire return intervals in these forests make restoration efforts in these landscapes less urgent as compared to frequent fire regime landscapes.

3.3.1.7 Insects and Pathogens

3.3.1.7.1 Native Insect and Pathogen Roles in Forest Structure The impacts of fire, insect, and pathogen disturbances drive forest succession and shape forest structure and composition; where fire is excluded insects and pathogens drive these processes almost exclusively (Byler and Hagle 2000, Filip and Goheen 1984, Gillette et al. 2014, Goheen and Hansen 1993, Hagle et al. 2000, Hessburg et al. 1994, Shore et al. 2006, Wargo 1995). Disturbances caused by native pathogens and insects are pervasive throughout forest ecosystems—the question is not whether these disturbances will happen but rather what kind, when, and where they will happen (Wargo 1995). Insects and pathogens contribute to changes at varying spatial and temporal scales. For example, root pathogens contribute to slow structural changes at smaller patch scales but also drive compositional and structural change at landscape scales across northern Idaho and western Montana (Hagle et al. 2000). In frequent fire forests east of the Cascades root disease pathogens are considered among the most important disturbance agents during long intervals between fires or harvests (Filip and Goheen 1984). Native bark beetles that evolved with coniferous forest ecosystems are key change agents in these systems (Bentz et al. 2010). Outbreaks of native insects can drastically alter forest structure and succession. The most common of these insects include mountain pine beetle (Bentz et al. 2010, Gillette et al. 2014, Shore et al. 2006), spruce beetle, and western spruce budworm (Powell 1994, Swetnam and Lynch 1989). Endemic levels of native bark beetles and other insects also contribute to smaller scale dynamics (Ferrell 1973, Livingston 2004). Finally, we note that bark beetles and other insects and pathogens often prefer certain tree species, so trees that will be more resistant to particular insects or pathogens can quite often be visually ascertained.

3.3.1.7.2 Interactions of Fire Exclusion and Forest Management with Insects and Pathogens Changes in forest species composition and structure due to forest management, fire exclusion, and selective harvest have reduced forest resistance and resilience to some native insects and pathogens (Hessburg et al. 2000, Hessburg et al. 2005, Hessburg et al. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

2019). In the inland Northwest, species composition has shifted towards increased prevalence and densities of tree species that are susceptible to native root pathogens, dwarf mistletoes, defoliators, and both primary and secondary bark beetles such as interior Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, white fir, and grand fir (Hagle et al. 2000, Hessburg et al. 2019). We note that ponderosa pine has its own set of bark beetles and defoliators that could respond to an increase in pine over time. Changes have been exceptionally pronounced in both Douglas-fir and grand fir vegetation zones. Fire is also a natural control mechanism for dwarf mistletoes, and fire exclusion has altered their distributions and severities (Alexander and Hawksworth 1976, Roth 1953). According to Hessburg et al. (1994), “Excluding fire from grand fir and Douglas-fir forests has perhaps been the single greatest detriment to diversity of eastside forests, and a primary factor in current susceptibility to major pathogens and insects.” In forests with frequent fire, large old trees have survived multiple disturbances and contributed to post-disturbance recovery (VanPelt 2008, Lindenmayer 2014). However, despite their fire tolerance, large remnant trees are highly susceptible to density related bark beetle mortality when fire exclusion results in abundant regeneration (Arno et al. 2008). Mortality from insects and pathogens is dictated by a tree’s inherent susceptibility to the agent of attack and the resources available to the tree to repel or recover from the attack, as determined by the intensity of competition with the surrounding stand (Kolb et al. 1998). Historically, bark beetles in low severity fire regimes would periodically kill small clumps of old trees (Agee 1993), presumably because resource competition would reduce resistance for some or all of the trees in the clump (Kolb 1998) or because physiological changes associated with old age increased their susceptibility (Koslowki 1969). In the contemporary landscape individual trees in high density stands are less resistant and more vulnerable to en masse attacks on otherwise healthy vigorous trees (Kolb et al. 1998). For example, Douglas fir beetles do not normally kill large numbers of trees but will make use of recently killed trees to build large populations that can kill healthy trees across broad areas (Goheen and Willhite 2006). The density-dependent susceptibility of individual trees and stands to insects and pathogens will likely be exacerbated by future climate scenarios (Anderegg et al. 2012, Anderegg et al. 2015, Voelker et al. 2019). Some insects and pathogens may cause more severe mortality effects or affect new areas (Agne et al. 2018). The susceptibility of individual trees to insect and pathogens can often be evaluated directly in the field (e.g. by surveying species composition, assessing crown health, or surveying for structural damage) and used to favor trees that are more resistant to these biotic disturbance agents.

3.3.2 Effects Analysis

3.3.2.1 Indicators • Stand trajectory: this indicator summarizes how disturbances (e.g. fire, insects, and pathogens) influence a stand into the future. • Landscape pattern: this indicator considers the trajectories of watersheds and landscapes as a result of stand-level outcomes. • Adaptability: this indicator assesses the ability of managers to adapt to changing conditions through time.

59 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.3.2.2 Effects Common to All Alternatives

High severity fire regimes landscapes Historically cold forests burned somewhere each year leading to high variability in post fire forest patch size and forest age classes (Hessburg et al. 1999, 2000, 2007). The Forest Service policy and fire culture focused on suppressing most wildfires, even those under moderate weather conditions, is expected to continue to lead to greater landscape homogeneity in high severity fire regime landscapes (Hessburg et al. 2015).

3.3.2.3 Current Management Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent Fire Regime Forests Dramatic change in species composition in these forests has been demonstrated within the project area (Johnston et al. 2016, 2018; Merschel et al. 2014, 2018) and regionally (Hessburg et al. 2020; Everett et al. 2000; Heyerdahl et al. 2001, 2008). The shift in species composition in these dry forests in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington has led to an increase in shade-tolerant species that are not as resistant to fire (higher mortality levels) and often have canopies that extend from the crown near to the forest floor. The increased density and change in structure in these forests can clearly increase the severity of a wildfire (Waltz et al. 2014, Cassell et al. 2019). While these conditions were likely more common historically in particular topographical positions such as north slopes, they are now common across broader landscapes (Hessburg et al. 2016). The 21- inch standard prevents managers from considering species composition and topographical position in its management approaches. Fire-resistant trees are currently more vulnerable to mortality from wildfire under today’s conditions (Hemstrom 2001, Spies et al. 2010). At the stand scale, we would expect to see more mortality in these frequent fire regime landscapes today than we would expect under historical conditions (Hessburg and Agee 2003, Lentile et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2010). Some commenters have suggested that this mortality should be tolerated as it creates more snags. Yet the presence of the additional snags creates increased fuel loads when they fall to the ground creating higher fire severity impacts on soils and remnant trees. Post-disturbance seed sources would continue to be dominated by species that lack strong resistance14 to fire in some areas because of their current abundance on the landscape, and regeneration in these areas will likely continue to be dominated by these species. Moreover, future conditions are expected to be warmer and include longer dry seasons (Mote et al. 2003) and longer fire seasons (Brown et al. 2004). Area burned is expected to increase, likely dramatically, and larger fires are anticipated (Case et al. 2019, Cassell et al. 2019, Kerns et al. 2018, Halofsky et al. 2017, Littell et al. 2009) as well as more severe fires (Vose et al. 2012). Increased water deficit is expected to increase the frequency, extent and likely, the severity of fire (McKenzie et al. 2004, van Mantgem et al. 2013, Parks and Abatzoglou 2020). Conditions will more often be favorable for wildfires of all sizes, leading to more frequent wildfires (Case et al. 2019), including

14 We define resistance as the ability of a tree to withstand burning without mortal damage or a stand to withstand wildfire with limited mortality (Platt 2014). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

wildfires that will burn under extreme weather conditions. Without the ability to further manage species composition and fuel structure, current forest conditions will likely burn with higher severity under more moderate weather conditions (Agee 1997, Parks et al. 2018) and lead to higher mortality levels, including in old forests and old trees (Whitlock et al. 2003, Vose et al. 2012). In addition, these anticipated changes in climate combined with the current density, structure and species composition of frequent-fire forests in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington is expected to lead to higher levels of forest mortality in the future than we currently see, including in old forests and old trees (Parks et al. 2018, Parks and Abatzoglou 2020). Landscapes that historically hosted mixed severity fire regimes will likely progress toward high severity fire regimes or changes in physiognomic types (i.e. shrub dominated systems) that will be increasingly more difficult to recover to mixed severity fire regimes (Odion et al. 2004, Spies et al. 2006, Kane et al. 2015). While more frequent fire will likely decrease abundance of species less tolerant of fire like grand fir and white fir (Chmura et al. 2011), it will take decades for natural fire to decrease the abundance of grand fir and white fir to historical levels, with an increasing risk that fire tolerant forests or forests in general will not return. Fuels and Fire Spread and Intensity Under current management, some ladder fuels will be removed. We assume these ladder fuels will consist mostly of small shade-tolerant trees. Significant ladder fuels will remain because of the 21-inch standard and the crown structure of shade-tolerant trees in this size class. Wind speed through a stand and temperature are expected to increase somewhat in thinned forests (Ma et al. 2010, Moon et al. 2019). Drier conditions are likely to become more common regardless of whether a stand was thinned due to temperature and moisture stress anticipated due to climate change (Mote et al. 2003, Hessburg et al. 2020). In forests with thinning and fuels activities completed, fire intensity and severity would be expected to decrease under mild and some moderate weather conditions (Arkle et al. 2012, Waltz et al. 2014). While commenters expressed concern that thinning in general increases the risk of higher severity fire due to drier surface fuels (Lindenmayer et al. 200915) and increased wind and understory growth (Zhou et al. 2013), the full body of science on this issue is clear and compelling. If thinning is paired with prescribed fire, it is quite effective at reducing fire severity, even under severe weather conditions (Martinson and Omi 2003, Finney et al. 2005, Safford et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Prichard 2020). If thinning is not followed by prescribed fire or other means of surface fuel reduction, it is possible for surface fuel conditions to create more severe wildfires. Safford et al. (2012) state, “Quantitative assessments of fuel treatment effects on fire severity in frequent-fire forest types hardly merit further effort” because the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments is so abundantly clear. Bradley et al. (2016) argue that protected areas burn at lower severities than managed areas, but the authors acknowledge that the coarse scale of the study makes it impossible to assess whether or not management decreased the occurrence of high severity fire.

15 We note the Lindenmayer et al. (2009) article is global in scope and its direct relevance to this project is difficult to assess. More focused and directly relevant empirical science is available on this topic as cited within the analysis.

61 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Other commenters suggest that extreme weather conditions will overwhelm fire treatments or that fire will not intersect with managed areas (Rhodes and Baker 2008, Odion et al. 2014). However, a growing body of evidence suggests that management can be effective at decreasing fire spread and severity at local and regional scales, including under severe weather conditions (Safford et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Hessburg et al. 2019, Prichard 2020). Like Shoennagel et al. (2017), we recognize that fuels reduction work can’t alter wildfire trends (e.g. more and larger fires) but that we can help ecosystems and communities adapt. Prescribed fire is expected to continue at current rates. The current rate of prescribed fire is far below historical levels of acres burned per year, which is unfortunate given the effectiveness of prescribed fire at removing surface fuels, some ladder fuels, and creating a more heterogenous landscape of fuels. Prescribed fires are set under more moderate weather conditions and can be managed to protect high value resources and areas. Yet development in and near forest lands, capacity, and associated operational, social, and ecological issues greatly constrain prescribed fire use. Ability to use wildland fire would be limited because of the high risk of more severe fire caused by dense forest structure, even under moderate weather conditions. Finally, we note that contemporary management utilizing ecological forestry does not intend to change the fire regimes of these ecosystems, but rather to minimize uncharacteristic ecosystem responses to fire (and other disturbance) with the objective of maximizing sustainability of the ecosystems (Franklin et al. 2007). Ecological forestry focuses on managing density, structure, and species composition toward drought and disturbance resistance in frequent disturbance landscapes to develop characteristics that allow for the persistence of important ecosystem characteristics (e.g. old trees) and functions. Drought, Insects and Pathogens Water deficits are exacerbated under current dense forest conditions and will likely lead to significant and ongoing tree mortality (Bentz et al. 2010, Kolb et al. 2016, Stephens et al. 2018). Old trees may be more vulnerable under such conditions than young trees (van Mantgem et al. 2009). Grand fir is less tolerant of moisture stress than other species due its shallow root system. Its dominance across parts of the analysis area increases the vulnerability of forests to mortality – both grand fir mortality and mortality of other species due to competition for limited resources. Favoring fire resistant trees through forest thinning and management activities, along with increasing spatial complexity, is expected to increase resistance and resilience to drought and insect disturbances (Voelker et al. 2019, Sohn et al. 2016, Fettig et al. 2007) at the stand scale. The 21-inch standard limits managers ability to more adequately address competition for scarce resources like water in dry environments. Stand Trajectory Summary

Table 6. Stand Trajectory Summary for Current Management Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent fire regime forests Higher levels of mortality with increasing abundance of species less resistant to fire compared to historical frequent fire forests USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Fuels Some reduction in potential fire severity under mild and some moderate weather conditions Drought, insects and High levels of mortality in dry and moist forests pathogens compared to historical conditions

Landscape Pattern Forest cover is expanding (Reilly et al. 2018) leading to a decrease in non-forest patch sizes at virtually all scales of observation, from less than an acre to thousands of acres (Hessburg et al. 2019, 2016). The resulting fuel connectivity and structure homogeneity could result in disturbances that create uncharacteristically large patches of mortality across the landscape, reducing age class heterogeneity and regeneration potential (Agee 1999, Stine et al. 2014, Stephens et al. 2014) while increasing synchronization of stand ages. The relatively high levels of mortality expected under the Current Management Alternative would decrease the connectivity of old forest patches (McKenzie et al. 2004). Adaptability The current 21” standard is a rigid management policy not well-suited to rapidly changing frequent-disturbance landscapes. Ecology literature is replete with examples of the failures of rigid management policies in dynamic systems (Holling 1973, Chapin et al. 2008, Chaffin et al. 2014). Inflexible plans and administrative or operational constraints will likely fail over time (Herrfahrdt-Pahle and Pahl-Wostl 2012, Hessburg et al. 2020). The need for flexibility to adapt to changing conditions is clear, particularly in light of anticipated changes in climate (Folke et al. 1996, Shafritz et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007, Wellstead et al. 2013, Angeler and Allen 2016).

3.3.2.4 Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent Fire Regime Forests Compared to the Current Management Alternative, this alternative would enable more thinning of large, shade-tolerant trees where appropriate. Lower density and the ability to remove ladder fuels would lead to lower potential fire severity in stands where thinning and fuels reduction is completed (Waltz et al. 2014, Cassell et al. 2019), making them more resistant to disturbance (Agee and Skinner 2005). Managers would have increased flexibility to create approaches that better consider species composition and topographical position compared to current management. These effects are predicted in mild and moderate weather conditions, and in some cases under extreme weather conditions as well (Safford et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Hessburg et al. 2019, Prichard 2020). Compared to current management, there would be a smaller seed source for shade tolerant species and reduced competition for growing resources for fire tolerant species such as ponderosa pine. Considering anticipated changes in climate (described under Current Management above) and this alternative’s increased ability to address density and species composition, this alternative is expected to reduce the intensity of disturbance in forests that have had thinning and fuels management activities compared to current management, particularly under mild and moderate weather conditions but also to some degree under severe weather conditions (Agee 1997, Waltz et al. 2014, Parks et al. 2018, Cassell et al. 2019).

63 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

We note that in no way are we trying to eliminate mortality as some commenters suggest. We would like to see fire severity and patch sizes more closely aligned with historical levels, which would readily provide for legacies and complex early seral habitats. Fuels and Fire Spread and Intensity Compared to current management, additional ladder fuels and large shade-tolerant trees will be removed. Wind speed through a stand is expected to increase somewhat (Ma et al. 2010, Moon et al. 2019). Flashy surface fuels may dry more quickly compared to current management due to wind and microclimate conditions, but the increased time lag is insignificant for the fine fuels that drive quick rates of spread because they inherently dry out quickly (e.g. 1 hour fuels, 10 hour fuels, even 100 hour fuels). These changes in microclimate are more than offset by the reduction in fire severity from reducing live and dead fuels (Parks et al. 2018). Drier conditions are likely to become more common regardless of whether a stand was thinned due to temperature and moisture stress anticipated due to climate change (Mote et al. 2003, Hessburg et al. 2020). While higher mortality from disturbances than historically occurred in frequent fire regimes is still expected, localized reductions in fire severity compared to current management would occur under mild, moderate and some extreme weather conditions in stands where thinning and fuels work has been completed because of the ability to remove additional ladder fuels and reduce density where appropriate (Safford et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Hessburg et al. 2019, Prichard 2020). Prescribed fire is expected to continue at current rates. The current rate of prescribed fire is far below historical levels of acres burned per year. While we assume that prescribed fire will not increase under this alternative, we note that prescribed fire could be introduced with less risk. Likewise, expanded wildland fire use would be possible with strategic placement of forest management activities because of the anticipated reduction in potential fire severity (and thus tree mortality) under mild and moderate weather conditions (Dunn et al. 2020). Finally, we note that while some commenters suggest that there is no way to visually ascertain which trees are best adapted for future survival, that is not in the least supported by the literature on this issue. There are well known species and species traits that are known to support resistance (and thus survival) to fire (Hood and Lutes 2017, Hood et al. 2018). Drought, Insects and Pathogens Thinning and favoring fire resistant trees, along with increasing spatial complexity, is expected to increase resistance and resilience to drought and insect disturbances (Voelker et al. 2019, Sohn et al. 2016, Fettig et al. 2007) at the stand scale. Because of the improved ability to manage density, species composition, and spatial complexity compared to current management, this alternative may increase resistance of forests to drought, insect and disease disturbances. Strategically favoring large, disturbance- resistant trees will likely enhance the longevity of these trees, and the ability to remove large, young trees that are currently competing with old trees is enhanced in this alternative compared to current management. Some commenters suggested that where large trees appear to be in competition and at risk of mortality, they are just furthering the natural processes that recruit valuable large snags and dead wood. The reality and implications are more nuanced. For example, mature (e.g., approximately 100 years old) stands dominated by white or grand fir can be USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

expected to fall apart during their second century because of high levels of tree mortality (e.g. Filip et al. 2007, Cochran 1998), although individual trees may survive for 200 years or more. Their shallow root systems are very susceptible to root pathogens and make them less tolerant to drought than other species. Grand fir and white fir are decay prone in the dead as well as the live state, so persistence as a snag or down log is short (see Decaying Wood section). Grand/white firs are also highly vulnerable to damage or death by wildfire or drought. They are not likely to make a long-term contribution to the live basal area of the stand. Stand Trajectory Summary

Table 7. Stand Trajectory Summary for Guideline with Adaptive Management Stand Trajectory Frequent fire regime forests Lower levels of mortality in managed stands compared to current management Fuels More reduction in potential fire severity due to thinning and fuel activities compared to current management; enhanced ability to use wildland fire Drought, insects and Potential for less mortality in dry and moist forests pathogens where density, composition and spatial pattern have been addressed compared to current management

Landscape Pattern As with the Current Management Alternative, a decrease in connectivity of old forest patches is still anticipated. Because of fuel connectivity and homogeneity, disturbances could become more temporally aligned, creating large patches across the landscapes and reducing age class heterogeneity. Larger patches of forest mortality are expected to synchronize forest age across the landscape. However, the potential to more readily use wildland fire under moderate weather conditions with this alternative could limit fuel contiguity and patch size increase (e.g. Waltz et al. 2014). While fuels-reduction treatments will have little effect on the broad-scale trend of increasing area burned by wildfire, studies show treatments can decrease fire spread and severity at local and regional scales if treatments are sufficiently extensive and strategically located (Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Hessburg et al. 2019, Prichard et al. 2020). A considerable barrier to implementing treatments is cost. Modeling the harvest of trees over 21 inches has been shown to increase viable treatment area in Oregon and Washington up to 2.5 times (Ince et al. 2008, Prestemon et al. 2012). While the action alternatives are not predicted to increase the annual extent of treatments, it is reasonable to anticipate an increase in the area viable for treatments would expand opportunities to select strategic treatment locations, resulting in reduced wildfire spread and severity in locations that have important resources to protect, such as within old forests or near historic sites. Adaptability When fueled by extreme disturbance or climatic events, apparent landscape stability can shift abruptly, changing the distribution of age classes, species, or structures (Hessburg et al. 2020). These altered landscapes can become resistant to further change, e.g. forestland conversions to shrublands due to poor conditions for tree regeneration. Broad-scale and

65 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

abrupt landscape changes can be difficult for plants, animals, and human communities to withstand (Liu et al. 2007, Spies et al. 2014). Managers need to plan for this uncertainty and be ready to adapt as natural systems change by developing practical adaptive management approaches (Folke et al. 1996, Shafritz et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007, Wellstead et al. 2013, Angeler and Allen 2016, Hessburg et al. 2020). This alternative specifically implements an adaptive management policy that consists of a guideline and a threshold for change based on what we learn from monitoring data. This alternative increases the adaptability of management policy to changing conditions in the dynamic landscapes within the analysis area.

3.3.2.5 Old Tree Standard Alternative The effects analysis for the Old Tree Standard is the same as the Guideline with Adaptive Management for frequent fire regime forests, fuels, insects and pathogens and landscape pattern. Stand Trajectory Summary

Table 8. Stand Trajectory Summary for Old Tree Standard Stand Trajectory Frequent fire regime forests Lower levels of mortality in managed stands compared to current management Fuels More reduction in potential fire severity due to thinning and fuel activities compared to current management; enhanced ability to use wildland fire Drought, insects and Potential for less mortality in dry and moist forests pathogens where density, composition and spatial pattern have been addressed compared to current management

Adaptability This alternative provides for no adaptability to changing conditions in these dynamic landscapes. Inflexible plans and administrative or operational constraints will likely fail over time (Herrfahrdt-Pahle and Pahl-Wostl 2012, Hessburg et al. 2020). The need for flexibility to adapt to changing conditions is clear, particularly in light of anticipated changes in climate (Folke et al. 1996, Shafritz et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007, Wellstead et al. 2013, Angeler and Allen 2016, Hessburg et al. 2020).

3.3.2.6 Adaptive Management Alternative Frequent fire regime forests Compared to the current management alternative, this alternative would enable more thinning of large and potentially old tree species. With this alternative we expect to generally see relatively lower densities compared to the guideline plus adaptive management alternative and the old age standard and anticipate management toward the lower end of the LOS range. There are no inherent protections or guidance to favor fire tolerant species, though this is common in prescriptions across the analysis area. This alternative would allow for management toward lower densities and would allow for removal of ladder fuels. Compared to current management, there may be be a smaller USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 seed source for shade tolerant species and reduced competition for growing resources for fire tolerant species. Fuels and Fire Spread and Intensity Compared to current management, additional ladder fuels and large shade-tolerant trees will be removed. Wind speed through a stand is expected to increase. Flashy surface fuels may dry more quickly compared to current management due to wind and microclimate conditions, but the increased time lag is insignificant for the fine fuels that drive quick rates of spread because they inherently dry out quickly (e.g. 1 hour fuels, 10 hour fuels, even 100 hour fuels). These changes in microclimate are more than offset by the reduction in fire severity from reducing live and dead fuels (Parks et al. 2018). Drier conditions are likely to become more common regardless of whether a stand was thinned due to temperature and moisture stress anticipated due to climate change (Hessburg et al. 2020). Compared to current management, forests that have been thinned and had fuels activities completed are predicted to experience lower fire intensity and severity under mild and moderate weather conditions, as well under extreme weather conditions in some scenarios (Safford et al. 2012, Martinson and Omi 2013, Prichard and Kennedy 2014, Hessburg et al. 2019, Prichard 2020) although higher mortality than one would expect historically in dry and moist forest types is still expected (Hessburg and Agee 2003, Lentile et al. 2006, Spies et al. 2010). However, the lack of guidance on species composition leads to a lower level of confidence in a lower fire intensity because if species such as grand fir are retained, they often serve as ladder fuels that initiate crown fire, and as a relatively short-lived species they create large fuel sources when they die. Prescribed fire is expected to continue at current rates. While we assume that prescribed fire will not increase under this alternative, we note that prescribed fire may be introduced with less risk. Expanded wildland fire use may be more likely because of reduced fuel conditions, but the outcomes and use of wildland fire are more difficult to assess because of the lack of specific guidance on key issues (e.g. species composition, retention of old trees). Drought, Insects and Pathogens Thinning and favoring fire resistant trees, along with increasing spatial complexity, is expected to increase resistance and resilience to drought, insect, and disease disturbances (Voelker et al. 2019, Sohn et al. 2016, Fettig et al. 2007) at the stand scale. However, since no species composition guidance is included in this alternative, there is a lower level of confidence that this alternative may increase resistance (less mortality) of forests to drought, insect, and disease disturbances (Fettig et al. 2007, Sohn et al. 2016). Stand Trajectory Summary

Table 9. Stand Trajectory Summary for Adaptive Management Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent fire regime forests Less confidence in lower levels of mortality than current management compared to Guideline plus Adaptive Management and Old Age Standard Alts.

67 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Fuels Less confidence in reduction of potential fire severity compared to Guideline plus Adaptive Management and Old Age Standard; Potential for enhanced ability to use wildland fire Drought, insects and Less confidence in reduction in mortality in dry and pathogens moist forests compared to Guideline plus Adaptive Management and Old Age Standard

Landscape Pattern As with the other alternatives, a decrease in connectivity of old forest patches is still anticipated. More homogeneous and connected fuels at the stand and watershed could create larger patches of mortality over time. Larger patch sizes are expected to decrease age class diversity across the landscape and over time. However, depending on project objectives, the ability to more readily use wildland fire under moderate weather conditions could be enhanced and fuel contiguity and patch size increase could be limited. While this alternative is not predicted to increase the annual extent of treatments, it may increase the area viable for treatments and expand opportunities to select strategic treatment locations, resulting in reduced wildfire spread and severity at local and regional scales. Adaptability As described in effects for the proposed action, managers need to plan for uncertainty and be ready to adapt as natural systems change by developing practical adaptive management approaches. This alternative specifically implements an adaptive management policy that consists of a threshold for change based on what we learn from monitoring data. This alternative increases the adaptability of management policy to changing conditions in the dynamic landscapes within the analysis area.

3.3.2.7 Standard with Exceptions Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent Fire Regimes Forests The fire resistant species that would have historically been resistant to fire will continue to be more vulnerable to mortality from wildfire compared to historical conditions due to higher forest densities, altered species composition, and ladder fuels (Hemstrom 2001, Spies et al. 2010, Waltz et al. 2014, Cassell et al. 2019). The narrow exceptions allowed for in this standard create little ability to manage forests towards dominance of large fire- resistant trees. We anticipate less mortality from wildfire in old trees compared to the current management alternative under mild weather conditions (e.g. the range of conditions under which prescribed fire might be used) because some ladder fuels near old trees could be removed. We note that while ladder fuels growing within the crown of an old fire tolerant tree may be removed under this alternative, that would not stop a fire from moving up the crown of another shade tolerant tree whose branches often grow close to the ground. Under this alternative, a large population of shade tolerant trees (many times the size of the estimated historical population of shade-tolerant trees in frequent fire regimes) would continue to provide an ongoing seed source for the regeneration of these species. Species USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

composition would continue to move away from historical species compositions associated with frequent fire regime landscapes. Under anticipated changes in climate, the density, structure and species composition of dry forests within the analysis area under this alternative is expected to lead to higher levels of forest mortality from wildfire in the future than we currently see (quite similar to current management), including in old forests and old trees (Parks et al. 2018, Parks and Abatzoglou 2020). Fuels and Fire Spread and Intensity Under this alternative, some ladder fuels will be removed. We assume these ladder fuels will consist mostly of small shade-tolerant trees and occasionally of large shade-tolerant trees. In forests with thinning and fuels activities completed, fire intensity and severity would be expected to decrease under mild and some moderate weather conditions (Arkle et al. 2012, Waltz et al. 2014). However, significant ladder fuels will remain because of the crown structure of shade- tolerant trees and their prolific extent across frequent fire landscapes within the analysis area. Wind speed through a stand is expected to increase somewhat in thinned forests. Drier conditions are likely to become more common regardless of whether a stand was thinned due to temperature and moisture stress anticipated due to climate change (Mote et al. 2003, Hessburg et al. 2020). The combination of old and large tree retention would be expected to have a high residual stand density which could lead to high surface fuel accumulations driven by inter-tree competition. We also expect rapid buildup of ladder fuels because of the regeneration of shade tolerant species. Prescribed fire is expected to continue at current rates. Ability to use wildland fire would be limited because of the high risk of more severe fire caused by dense forest structure, even under moderate weather conditions. Drought, Insects and Pathogens Old trees may be more vulnerable to mortality under high density conditions than young trees (van Mantgem et al. 2009) even though large, fire tolerant trees are typically more resistant to insects and drought than smaller trees and shade-tolerant trees (Hessburg et al. 2020). Thinning and favoring fire resistant trees, along with increasing spatial complexity, is expected to increase resistance and resilience to drought and insect disturbances (Voelker et al. 2019, Sohn et al. 2016, Fettig et al. 2007) at the stand scale. Compared to current management, this alternative may decrease mortality in fire resistant tree species because competing trees could be removed. However, there is limited ability to manage toward dominance of disturbance-resistant species at the stand scale. Stand Trajectory Summary Table 10. Stand Trajectory Summary for Standard with Exceptions Alternative Stand Trajectory Frequent fire regime forests Higher levels of mortality with increasing abundance of species less resistant to fire compared to historical forests

69 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Fuels Some reduction in potential fire severity under mild and some moderate weather conditions Drought, insects and Lower levels of mortality in dry and moist forests pathogens compared to current management

Landscape Pattern While a modest reduction in mortality is anticipated under this alternative compared to current management, the localized effects are not expected to alter the overall decrease in connectivity of old forest patches. Because of fuel connectivity and homogeneity, disturbances could become more temporally aligned, creating large patches across the landscapes and reducing age class heterogeneity. Adaptability This alternative consists of a rigid management policy not well-suited to rapidly changing frequent-disturbance landscapes. The ecology literature is replete with examples of the failures of rigid management policies in dynamic systems (Holling 1973, Chapin et al. 2008, Chaffin et al. 2014). Inflexible plans and administrative or operational constraints will likely fail over time (Herrfahrdt-Pahle and Pahl-Wostl 2012, Hessburg et al. 2020). The need for flexibility to adapt to changing conditions is clear, particularly in light of anticipated changes in climate (Folke et al. 1996, Shafritz et al. 2005, Millar et al. 2007, Wellstead et al. 2013, Angeler and Allen 2016).

3.4 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES 3.4.1 Introduction Programmatic changes to the Eastside Screens have potential to affect local communities. People in these communities are direct or indirect beneficiaries of forest ecosystems, visitation patterns, scenery, natural resources and experiential opportunities in and around forestlands. Personal and commercial use of natural resources, recreation-based visitation, grazing and other special uses of forests within the planning area generate employment and income in surrounding communities and counties and generate revenues that help improve ecosystem and infrastructure conditions, as well as return revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The proposed Land and Resource Plan Amendment may alter delivery of benefits to people in nearby communities, as well as to non-local users of the Forests.

This section describes the concepts and methods used to qualitatively analyze the potential and significance of financial, economic or social impacts that may result across decision alternatives. This analysis considers communities that may be sensitive to social or economic changes and analyzes potential effects of alternatives on communities, economies, and other beneficiaries of the Forests.

3.4.2 Analysis Area This economic and social analysis applies to the National Forests in Oregon and southeast Washington east of the Cascade Range (Umatilla, Malheur, Wallowa-Whitman, Ochoco, Deschutes, Fremont-Winema) and surrounding counties and tribes and tribal lands in Oregon, Washington, and limited parts of Idaho and northern California. County administrative areas do not represent the full extent of potential social and economic influence from the proposed programmatic changes. However, the counties highlighted USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

(Figure 15) yield information most critical to the proposal and affected populations (METI, 2010).

Figure 14. Map of the county economic analysis area. Source: Headwaters Economics, Economic Profile System (2020).

3.4.3 Affected Environment The geographic region around the six affected National Forests is a diverse social environment comprised of a combination of small towns and rural settings with residents from a wide variety of backgrounds. Residents pursue a range of lifestyles, but many share an orientation to the outdoors and natural resources. This is reflected in both vocational and recreational pursuits including employment in logging and milling operations, outfitter and guide businesses, and ranching and farming operations as well as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, and many other recreational activities.

Timber, tourism, and agriculture are important to local economies. Despite common concern for and dependence on natural resources within the local communities, social attitudes vary widely with respect to their management. Residents hold a broad spectrum of perspectives and preferences ranging from complete preservation to maximum development and utilization of natural resources.

Socioeconomic measures used to describe the affected environment were obtained from the Headwaters Economics Economic Profile System (EPS 2020), which compiles and summarizes primary population and economic data from a variety of government sources.

71 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Key measures used in this report include land ownership, population, income, and natural resource commodity dependency.

3.4.3.1 Land Ownership and Federal Land Payments Decisions by public land managers may influence local economies and lifestyles of residents, particularly where public lands represent a large portion of the overall land base. Agency management actions that affect water quality, access to recreation, scenery (as well as other quality of life amenities), and the extent and type of resource extraction are particularly important in areas where much of the land is managed by public agencies.

Similarly, Federal land management activities generate direct revenues for state and county governments in the form of Federal Land Payments. Some of these revenues are directly attributed to timber sale activities. All counties in the analysis area receive some form of Federal Land Payments, ranging from over $19 million in Lane County, Oregon, down to $39,000 in Walla-Walla County in Washington (Table 11). These revenues fund public services provided by state and county governments, and fluctuations resulting from changes to Federal land management can affect budgets for public services. Across the greater multi-county analysis area, Forest Service payments totaled over $48 million in 2019.

Table 11. 2019 Federal Land Payments to Analysis Area Counties. Source: Data Sources: U.S. Department of Interior. 2020. Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2020. Forest Service, , Washington, D.C.

Analysis Counties Total Federal Land PILT Forest Service Payments Payments

Combined Counties $109,231,257 $32,608,542 $48,715,846

Lane County, OR $19,140,046 $2,167,517 $8,001,291

Douglas County, OR $19,016,922 $2,544,849 $6,872,806

Klamath County, OR $10,684,429 $3,204,149 $6,169,938

Idaho County, ID $8,813,832 $1,762,493 $6,486,887

Jackson County, OR $8,488,301 $1,828,066 $1,536,749

Linn County, OR $4,856,077 $1,007,652 $3,052,146

Grant County, OR $4,683,978 $924,601 $3,747,315

Deschutes County, OR $4,356,473 $3,172,684 $1,113,146

Lake County, OR $3,786,344 $1,220,427 $2,411,778

Crook County, OR $3,546,147 $2,210,867 $1,299,156

Malheur County, OR $3,221,380 $2,718,439 $679

Harney County, OR $3,171,833 $1,150,621 $1,658,179

Baker County, OR $2,647,244 $1,656,951 $844,740 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Union County, OR $2,394,531 $1,628,872 $764,795

Wallowa County, OR $2,107,507 $1,074,053 $1,031,685

Modoc County, CA $1,959,988 $675,836 $1,229,782

Jefferson County, OR $1,290,471 $741,988 $546,973

Adams County, ID $1,233,060 $339,794 $713,483

Umatilla County, OR $1,193,554 $1,074,251 $118,245

Wheeler County, OR $761,092 $215,244 $539,831

Morrow County, OR $618,940 $384,555 $230,458

Columbia County, WA $545,497 $385,583 $159,061

Garfield County, WA $354,651 $234,090 $120,527

Asotin County, WA $230,822 $168,566 $60,953

Nez Perce County, ID $89,065 $86,503 $2,516

Walla Walla County, WA $39,073 $29,891 $2,727

3.4.3.2 Population, Employment, and Income One means of assessing the economic and social environment within a geography is to measure the growth or decline of population, employment, and real personal income. Overall, population varied substantially across counties in the analysis area in 2018. Lane County had the highest population at 379,000 while Wheeler County was lowest at 1,300. The total analysis area had an approximate population of 1.5 million. From 1970 to 2018, the population in the combined area grew by 85%, led by 522% population growth in Deschutes County. Wheeler County had the greatest population decline at -26% over the same period.

Employment growth across these counties ranged from a striking 859% in Deschutes County to -34% in Garfield County. Additional economic performance measures for employment and income are provided below (Table 12). Labor income and total personal income are common proxies for standard of living. Average earnings per job is an indicator of the quality of local employment with higher average earnings per job indicating relatively more high-wage occupations. Per capita income is considered one of the most important measures of economic well-being. However, this measure can be misleading. Because total personal income includes non-labor income sources (dividends, interest, rent and transfer payments), per capita income may be relatively high in areas where many retirees and people with investment income reside. Additionally, because per capita income is calculated using total population as the denominator rather than the labor force, per capita income may be relatively low in places with a disproportionate number of children and/or elderly residents.

73 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

From 1970-2016 real (adjusted for inflation) personal income in the analysis area grew 246%. This trend was led by a 1,213% increase in Deschutes County and restrained by a 7% decrease in Garfield County.

Table 12. 1970 - 2018 Population, Employment, and Income Trends in Analysis Area Counties. Source: Multiple Federal sources including County Business Patterns data, and multiple agencies. Accessed via Headwaters Economics EPS, https://headwaterseconomics.org.

Analysis Counties Population, Population % Employment % Personal Income % 2018 change change change

Combined Counties 1,497,198 85% 145% 246%

Lane County, OR 379,611 75% 147% 241%

Jackson County, OR 219,564 130% 249% 376%

Deschutes County, 191,996 522% 859% 1213% OR

Linn County, OR 127,335 75% 118% 248%

Douglas County, OR 110,283 53% 84% 165%

Umatilla County, OR 77,516 72% 99% 168%

Klamath County, OR 67,653 34% 40% 105%

Walla Walla County, 60,922 45% 89% 160% WA

Nez Perce County, ID 40,408 33% 83% 137%

Malheur County, OR 30,725 32% 39% 81%

Union County, OR 26,461 35% 70% 130%

Jefferson County, OR 24,192 181% 160% 324%

Crook County, OR 23,867 137% 107% 297%

Asotin County, WA 22,610 63% 191% 234%

Idaho County, ID 16,513 27% 49% 100%

Baker County, OR 16,006 6% 37% 83%

Morrow County, OR 11,372 154% 249% 233%

Modoc County, CA 8,777 17% 10% 80%

Lake County, OR 7,879 24% 28% 92%

Harney County, OR 7,329 2% 16% 49%

Grant County, OR 7,176 1% 14% 70%

Wallowa County, OR 7,081 13% 75% 103% USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Adams County, ID 4,250 48% 81% 124%

Columbia County, WA 4,059 -8% -9% 35%

Garfield County, WA 2,247 -23% -34% -7%

Wheeler County, OR 1,366 -26% -8% 15%

The highest current unemployment rates were reported in Modoc, Grant, and Adams Counties. The lowest average income or per capita incomes were reported in Wheeler, Wallowa, Idaho, Adams, Malheur, and Jefferson Counties. In 2018, average earnings per job in the impact area were $49,838 per year, compared to an average of $63,443 for the entire U.S. (Table 13).Like other rural regions in the U.S., economic performance tends to be lower in more sparsely populated counties.

Table 13. Analysis Area Economic Performance Measures for Income and Employment. Source: Multiple Federal sources including County Business Patterns data, and multiple agencies. Accessed via Headwaters Economics EPS, https://headwaterseconomics.org/.

Analysis Counties Population, Unemployment Average earnings per Per capita 2018 rate job income

Combined Counties 1,497,198 4.4% $49,838 $45,703

Lane County, OR 379,611 4.1% $52,412 $46,746

Jackson County, OR 219,564 4.4% $49,539 $47,442

Deschutes County, OR 191,996 3.9% $52,484 $56,136

Linn County, OR 127,335 4.3% $51,176 $43,663

Douglas County, OR 110,283 4.9% $46,832 $41,135

Umatilla County, OR 77,516 4.8% $48,225 $40,398

Klamath County, OR 67,653 6.2% $47,080 $40,609

Walla Walla County, 60,922 4.9% $53,638 $46,975 WA

Nez Perce County, ID 40,408 2.8% $50,737 $45,196

Malheur County, OR 30,725 4.1% $41,760 $31,550

Union County, OR 26,461 4.8% $43,839 $41,277

Jefferson County, OR 24,192 5.1% $42,421 $33,555

Crook County, OR 23,867 5.3% $45,393 $41,682

Asotin County, WA 22,610 4.1% $47,380 $47,951

Idaho County, ID 16,513 4.5% $37,235 $35,754

75 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Baker County, OR 16,006 4.6% $36,124 $41,432

Morrow County, OR 11,372 4.1% $58,705 $39,798

Modoc County, CA 8,777 7.1% $47,043 $45,629

Lake County, OR 7,879 5.4% $42,499 $40,513

Harney County, OR 7,329 5.3% $37,302 $39,827

Grant County, OR 7,176 6.9% $40,957 $42,694

Wallowa County, OR 7,081 5.8% $30,963 $45,910

Adams County, ID 4,250 6.8% $34,517 $38,126

Columbia County, WA 4,059 5.5% $52,098 $50,974

Garfield County, WA 2,247 5.4% $50,841 $45,311

Wheeler County, OR 1,366 4.3% $20,130 $37,811

Commodity sectors are industries with potential to use Federal public lands to extract raw materials or primary agricultural products for commercial use. Commodity sectors include timber, mining, and agriculture. Public lands can play a key role in stimulating local employment by providing opportunities for commodity extraction. It is important to understand the relative size of these sectors to put the economy related to commodity extraction in perspective.

In 2018, agriculture (including ranching) was a slightly larger component of commodity sector employment in the analysis area, accounting for 4.3% of total employment, as compared to timber which followed at 3.8% of total employment (Table 14). Mining was far less critical to the employment base of this area. Travel and tourism activities supported 17.5% of the employment base in the same area. Counties vary in terms of the relative support these sectors provide as a percentage of the overall local economies. Douglas, Crook, Klamath, Linn, Idaho, and Baker Counties have a relatively higher percent of employment in the timber sector. Deschutes, Baker, Jefferson, and Harney County each have over 20% employment in travel and tourism related industries.

Table 14. Commodity Sector Percentage Employment including Travel and Tourism Sector. Source: Multiple Federal sources including County Business Patterns data, and multiple agencies. Accessed via Headwaters Economics EPS, https://headwaterseconomics.org

Analysis Counties Population, 2018 Timber % Mining % Agriculture % Travel & Tourism %

Combined Counties 1,497,198 3.8% 0.1% 4.3% 17.5%

Lane County, OR 379,611 4.1% 0.1% 1.8% 17.3%

Jackson County, OR 219,564 4.2% 0.1% 2.1% 19.1%

Deschutes County, OR 191,996 1.2% 0.1% 1.3% 21.7% USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Linn County, OR 127,335 6.0% 0.1% 6.0% 12.1%

Douglas County, OR 110,283 12.3% 0.1% 4.6% 16.8%

Umatilla County, OR 77,516 0.5% 0.1% 9.2% 17.3%

Klamath County, OR 67,653 7.3% 0.0% 5.3% 18.1%

Walla Walla County, WA 60,922 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 13.3%

Nez Perce County, ID 40,408 0.4% 0.6% 2.0% 15.1%

Malheur County, OR 30,725 0.0% 0.3% 12.4% 17.5%

Union County, OR 26,461 0.7% 0.0% 7.5% 15.7%

Jefferson County, OR 24,192 0.3% 0.0% 8.7% 21.6%

Crook County, OR 23,867 9.4% 0.3% 7.8% 15.7%

Asotin County, WA 22,610 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 15.9%

Idaho County, ID 16,513 5.0% 1.1% 10.7% 11.5%

Baker County, OR 16,006 5.3% 2.5% 10.7% 23.5%

Morrow County, OR 11,372 1.5% 0.0% 16.4% 9.1%

Modoc County, CA 8,777 0.1% 0.0% 13.7% 11.4%

Lake County, OR 7,879 0.0% 1.5% 15.6% 16.9%

Harney County, OR 7,329 0.5% 0.0% 19.5% 23.4%

Grant County, OR 7,176 4.0% 0.0% 12.6% 12.0%

Wallowa County, OR 7,081 2.7% 0.0% 13.2% 15.2%

Adams County, ID 4,250 2.2% 0.0% 11.7% 18.4%

Columbia County, WA 4,059 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 13.4%

Garfield County, WA 2,247 0.0% 0.0% 19.6% 2.0%

Wheeler County, OR 1,366 0.0% 0.0% 29.4% 13.9%

3.4.3.3 Land Use and Development Lastly, in describing the economic affected environment consideration of land-use patterns is relevant (Table 15). Land use pressures, concerns with land management activities, and resource conflicts correlate with increasing residential development. This is especially true of development in the wildland urban interface (WUI) and where a relatively high proportion of land is managed by federal agencies. Approximately 32% of the multi-county analysis area is managed by USDA Forest Service. Idaho County has the highest percentage of lands under Forest Service management at 82%. The highest levels of development in WUI areas tends to happen adjacent to metropolitan areas. Percentage change in residential land area is most noticeable in counties with small populations that 77 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens have grown recently. Agency activities focused on fuels reductions and other WUI- centered ecosystem needs are more likely to affect counties with high or rising WUI development.

Table 15. Land Use Ownership and Development, 2010. Source: Multiple sources. Accessed via Headwaters Economics EPS, https://headwaterseconomics.org

Analysis Counties Forest Service Land % Residential land area % change, 2000-2010 WUI % developed, 2010

Combined Counties 32% 21% 7%

Lane County, OR 48% 14% 12%

Jackson County, OR 25% 20% 14%

Deschutes County, OR 51% 22% 42%

Linn County, OR 31% 11% 3%

Douglas County, OR 31% 14% 3%

Umatilla County, OR 20% 12% 6%

Klamath County, OR 45% 20% 4%

Walla Walla County, WA 0% 25% 0%

Nez Perce County, ID 1% 23% 11%

Malheur County, OR 0% 27% 2%

Union County, OR 47% 40% 1%

Jefferson County, OR 24% 24% 10%

Crook County, OR 23% 92% 7%

Asotin County, WA 13% 53% 3%

Idaho County, ID 82% 59% 8%

Baker County, OR 33% 36% 4%

Morrow County, OR 11% 21% 6%

Modoc County, CA 51% 79% 2%

Lake County, OR 19% 80% 0%

Harney County, OR 8% 48% 0%

Grant County, OR 55% 43% 1%

Wallowa County, OR 57% 30% 2%

Adams County, ID 58% 138% 10%

Columbia County, WA 29% 43% 4% USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Garfield County, WA 21% 23% 15%

Wheeler County, OR 15% 55% 0%

3.4.3.4 Populations at Risk and Environmental Justice Communities Identifying potential environmental justice communities requires observing or measuring poverty, federal assistance, and minority population presence within the analysis area. The human environment surrounding the National Forests in eastern Oregon and Washington includes families living below the poverty line. Tabular data below (Table 16) describe the number of families living below the poverty line, including families with children and single mother families with children. Malheur and other rural counties measure above other counties for percentage of families in poverty. Multiple counties within the analysis area have a higher percentage of households in poverty than the U.S. average. See Social and Economic specialist report for more detail.

Table 16. Families in Poverty by Analysis County, 2018. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2019. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C.

Analysis Counties Total families for whom Families in Families with Single mother poverty status is determined poverty children in poverty families in poverty

Combined Counties 371106 10.5% 7.7% 4.4%

Lane County, OR 88873 10.3% 7.5% 4.5%

Jackson County, OR 55629 11.5% 8.7% 4.6%

Deschutes County, OR 48879 7.3% 4.9% 2.4%

Linn County, OR 31814 10.5% 7.5% 3.9%

Douglas County, OR 29377 11.3% 7.8% 4.9%

Umatilla County, OR 18188 13.8% 11.5% 7.7%

Klamath County, OR 17277 14.0% 9.6% 4.9%

Walla Walla County, WA 14341 7.8% 6.4% 4.6%

Nez Perce County, ID 10657 9.0% 6.9% 4.9%

Malheur County, OR 6782 17.1% 14.4% 7.9%

Union County, OR 6733 10.5% 8.1% 5.3%

Crook County, OR 6198 10.1% 8.0% 5.4%

Asotin County, WA 5807 7.4% 5.7% 3.6%

Jefferson County, OR 5383 11.3% 8.0% 5.8%

Baker County, OR 4319 10.9% 7.8% 4.0%

Idaho County, ID 4244 9.0% 4.5% 1.6%

79 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Morrow County, OR 2927 11.1% 7.8% 3.3%

Modoc County, CA 2173 9.0% 6.6% 1.1%

Harney County, OR 2137 11.9% 8.0% 5.3%

Lake County, OR 2120 15.3% 11.1% 8.6%

Wallowa County, OR 2051 11.5% 8.6% 4.9%

Grant County, OR 1937 7.6% 4.3% 2.4%

Adams County, ID 1115 6.5% 5.3% 4.8%

Columbia County, WA 1101 5.4% 2.3% 0.5%

Garfield County, WA 656 6.4% 5.6% 1.5%

Wheeler County, OR 388 12.1% 9.3% 2.3%

Race and ethnicity are strongly correlated with disparities in health, exposure to environmental pollution, and vulnerability to natural hazards. Research has consistently found race-based environmental inequities across many variables including a tendency for minority populations to live closer to noxious facilities and Superfund sites and be exposed to pollution at greater rates than whites. Many health outcomes are closely related to local environmental conditions. Minority communities often have less access to parks and nutritious food and are more likely to live in substandard housing. Minorities tend to be particularly vulnerable to disasters and extreme heat events. This is due to language barriers, housing patterns, quality of housing, community isolation, and cultural characteristics. Blacks and Hispanics, two segments of the population that are currently experiencing poorer health outcomes, are increasing as a percentage of the U.S. population. American Indians have a distinct pattern of health effects different from blacks and Hispanics. Native populations are less likely to have electricity than the general population. They have high rates of infant mortality, suicide and homicide, and nearly twice the rate of motor vehicle deaths than the U.S. average. Specific to the program actions associated with Eastside Screens, evidence exists that low-income and minority populations do not benefit proportionally from hazardous fuel reduction projects on federal land (Adams and Charnley 2020). These potential impacts are important to consider in the design and implementation of on-the-ground projects. Across counties in the analysis area, Jefferson, Walla Walla, Umatilla, Lane, Klamath, Morrow and Malheur Counties have higher than average minority populations by percent and may be more likely to observe issues related to hazardous fuel reduction projects. Native American populations are highest in Jefferson, Nez Perce, Klamath, Umatilla, Idaho, and Lake Counties (Table 18). Population demographics in these areas can relate spatially to unique tribal community values associated with certain resources and species. More discussion on tribal values is provided in the Cultural and Heritage Resources section below. Additionally, tribal communities make up a significant proportion of environmental justice communities across the extensive analysis area. Tribal cultural USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 values and economic connection to project area ecosystem services and natural resources are unique.

Table 17. Race and Ethnic Profile by Analysis Counties, 2018. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce. 2019. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, Washington, D.C.

All other Black or America Other Hispanic races African n Indian races ethnicit American y Jefferson County, OR 29% 1% 17% 11% 20% Walla Walla County, WA 16% 2% 1% 13% 21% Umatilla County, OR 15% 1% 3% 10% 26% Lane County, OR 13% 1% 1% 11% 9% Klamath County, OR 12% 1% 4% 7% 13% Morrow County, OR 11% 0% 1% 10% 36% Malheur County, OR 11% 1% 1% 9% 33% Combined Counties 11% 1% 2% 8% 11% Nez Perce County, ID 10% 0% 6% 4% 4% Modoc County, CA 10% 2% 3% 5% 14% Linn County, OR 10% 0% 1% 8% 9% Harney County, OR 9% 1% 2% 7% 5% Lake County, OR 9% 0% 3% 6% 8% Columbia County, WA 9% 1% 0% 8% 8% Jackson County, OR 9% 1% 1% 7% 13% Garfield County, WA 8% 0% 0% 8% 2% Union County, OR 8% 1% 1% 6% 5% Douglas County, OR 7% 0% 1% 6% 6% Crook County, OR 7% 0% 1% 6% 8% Asotin County, WA 7% 0% 1% 5% 4% Baker County, OR 7% 1% 1% 5% 4% Idaho County, ID 7% 0% 4% 3% 3% Deschutes County, OR 7% 1% 0% 5% 8% Wheeler County, OR 6% 0% 1% 5% 10%

81 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Grant County, OR 5% 0% 1% 4% 4% Wallowa County, OR 5% 0% 1% 4% 3% Adams County, ID 4% 0% 1% 3% 4%

3.4.3.5 Benefits to People (Including Ecosystem Services) National forests and grasslands provide public benefits including ecologically derived benefits known as ecosystem services. These include timber, clean air and water, forage, and energy production. National Forest System lands also provide recreation, cultural and heritage opportunities that support the physical and mental health of communities, and opportunities to gather with friends and family, and to connect to the land. In many rural areas the infrastructure, employment, and goods and services forests provide are a basis for the structure of the community.

Ecosystem services (the benefits that forests provide to people) include recreation, scenery, cultural and heritage resources, research and education, access, forest products, water and air, forage, minerals and more. Key ecosystem services reviewed in this analysis are important to a wide group of people and may be impacted by changes to forest management. Of the broad categories of ecosystem services valued across these Forests, forest products, cultural and heritage resources, wildlife habitat, and foraged botany are most relevant to the scope of the proposed amendment.

3.4.3.5.1 Forest Products (timber and other wood resources) Forest products are one primary focus due to the potential impacts from changes to the Eastside Screens. In terms of direct benefits to people, timber sales contribute to local income and employment opportunities, particularly in timber dependent communities. In Douglas, Klamath, and Crook Counties a higher proportion of the population works in industries related to processing forest products and may be more susceptible to changes in timber market conditions, including supplies available from National Forests.

Historic timber harvest volumes from forests in eastern Oregon and Washington were much higher than in recent years (Figure 16). Harvest volumes have decreased from a high of 1,500 MMBF in 1987 to a relatively steady level of about 200 MMBF annually from 2000-2018. In 2018, 204 MMBF was harvested from the Forests in the analysis area. In recognition of this recent trend, local forest product manufacturers have largely adapted to the more limited timber supply available from National Forests. Industrial processing capacity needed to return to higher harvest volumes would not be immediately available. Given the dynamics of competition for the production of structural lumber increased harvest volume may not be strategically appropriate for firms in the analysis area. Hessburg et al. (2020) summarize relevant information:

The pattern of mill closures on the east side is consistent with patterns across the West and the United States as a whole. A literature review shows that mill closures result from a mix of factors, with timber supply changes being one con- tributor (Charnley et al. 2018). Other factors include reduced demand for wood products in the housing sector, technological improvements that increase efficiency, competition from other mills, and industry restructuring. The importance of the federal timber supply to mill success is much greater, however, USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

in areas such as the east side, where federal forests comprise most of the productive forest lands.

Complete loss of milling infrastructure would present a significant challenge to implementation of fuels reduction in frequent-fire forests. Prestemon et al. (2012) showed that if no timber products could be sold from forest restoration actions, there was no place on the east side where the expected net economic benefit from fuel treatment would be positive, even when accounting for avoided wildfire damage. These results imply that, in the absence of the ability to sell timber, (1) fuel treatments on the east side would have to be paid for, and (2) it makes little economic sense to do fuel treatments when the only economic benefit is avoiding damage to property or natural resources from wildfire. But this is purely an economic view.

In general, mills have trended toward processing smaller logs over the past several decades (Gale et al. 2012, McIver et al. 2015) (fig. 8), but industry-wide specifics are unavailable to the authors. In some cases, east-side mills have added new infrastructure specifically focused on small-log processing (e.g., White 2018). Managers considering harvest of larger trees need to be cognizant of mill piece size restrictions, and investments to recapitalize milling infrastructure to more efficiently handle smaller material. Harvesting large trees from east-side forests only to have them shipped outside the local area for processing is inconsistent with community and local stakeholder motivations to positively affect local economies via restorative activities (Brown 2019, Davis et al. 2018b, White et al. 2015).

Additional details on the forest products and timber industry in Oregon are available in the 21-inch Market Report, available in the project file. This short report details the Oregon industry size and trends along with identification of mills around the project area. Nationally, long term demand for solid wood products and various other forest products has increased or remained stable, with a combination of population increase as well as house starts. Broad evidence to the multi-decadal increase in forest product demand and consumption in the U.S. is detailed in many reports including GTR “Status and Trends for the U.S. Forest Products Sector: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment” (Skog et al. 2012). Importantly, the relationship between the proposed Eastside Screens changes and potential harvest volume is not particularly strong. Silvicultural practices and timber sale administration allow for a great deal of substitution across species and dimensions of available trees in the market context as well as in the design and application of timber sale cutting units. Additionally, industrial use across the West has shifted towards smaller dimension timber for economic and technological reasons, as discussed above. Larger dimension trees are more efficient to transport but may be less desirable for sawmills that have transitioned to processing smaller dimension timber. Lastly, changes to Eastside Screens are anticipated to increase the flexibility of timber sale designs to achieve project-level economic goals along with beneficial ecological outcomes. This may increase project efficiency but will not necessarily lead to greater harvest volumes.

83 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Deschutes National Forest Fremont-Winema National Forest Malheur National Forest Ochoco National Forest Umatilla National Forest Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Figure 15. Timber Volume Cut from Six National Forests (MBF, 1980-2018)

In addition to timber, the availability of wood resources for subsistence and other uses would also be affected. This includes the availability of biomass, heating fuel, and other products resulting from commercial and non-commercial treatments. Fuels treatments can generate additional raw materials for industry and subsistence uses. Like timber sales, treatment contracts can influence local economics by generating income and employment for firms and proprietors. Fuels treatment trends have decreased on some Forests and increased on others over the last 40 years (Figure 17). For example, Deschutes National Forest has increased fuel treatments to mitigate risks to new development in the WUI. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Deschutes National Forest Fremont-Winema National Forest Malheur National Forest Ochoco National Forest Umatilla National Forest Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Figure 16. Annual Fuels Treatment Acreage from Six National Forests (Acres, 1980-2020).

3.4.3.5.2 Cultural and Heritage Resources Regional cultural and heritage resources are a key point of interest with respect to Eastside Screens. Tribes and other historically positioned communities and stakeholders often ascribe cultural value to important individual sites, trees, and groves as well as to habitat types that foster diverse and culturally meaningful plants and animals. Forests are important to tribes in part due to the ecosystem services they provide; the habitats they sustain for fish and wildlife; the foods, medicines, fuels, and materials they produce; and their importance to tribal members’ sense of place.

One cultural keystone species important to PNW tribes is huckleberry, especially thin- leaf huckleberry (Vaccinium membranaceum, Long et al. 2018, Steen-Adams et al. 2019). Forest tree size and distribution can impact populations of thin-leaf huckleberry, which are most prevalent in open forest stands of the western Oregon Cascades (Kerns et al. 2004). The Sahaptin, Wasco, and Northern Paiute peoples (comprising the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs) historically used fire in the moist mixed-conifer zone of the eastside Cascades to maintain and extend forest openings created by previous ignitions to promote huckleberry shrub productivity and access to harvest sites (Steen-Adams et al. 2019). Cultural burns ceased by the 1940s, leading to forest canopy closure and encroachment of trees and shrubs. These changes contributed to a decline in huckleberry productivity in traditional harvest areas and declines in associated social and cultural traditions (Steen-Adams et al. 2019). Thus, it is important to consider how changes in forest management may affect culturally-important species and resources.

First foods and other staple resources for tribal community subsistence include tree species that supply firewood, plants that are foraged, and habitats that supply elk and deer, and other game for hunting (Endress et. Al, 2019, First Foods Upland

85 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Vision). Eastside Screens are ecologically linked to the supply of these subsistence resources for tribes and rural communities. Tribes also value large, old trees that have been culturally modified, bearing evidence of historic or prehistoric human forest uses. This includes scars from wood, bark, or sap harvest. Some anthropogenic scars found on North American trees date back as far as the 1400s (Arno et al. 2008, Mobley and Eldridge 1992). For example, Deur (2009) describes Klamath and Modoc tribal use of sap and inner bark (or cambium) from pine (especially lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and junipers) in south-central Oregon and northeastern California. The Klamath Tribes’ historical practice of harvesting cambium for food and medicinal use was also documented by earlier anthropologists (Coville 1897, Spier 1930). Today, culturally-modified trees provide Native American communities with a link to traditional cultural practices and beliefs, and a tie to their past (Deur 2009). They also provide information about traditional forest management practices and beliefs about preservation and conservation, warranting further study (Turner et al. 2009). For instance, the partial harvest of tree products reflects a reverence for trees as only parts of the tree were removed, keeping the tree alive (Zahn et al. 2018, Deur 2009, Turner et al. 2009). Government programs in the U.S. and Canada are crucial to the preservation of culturally-modified trees (Mobley and Eldridge 1992). Franklin et al. (2013:27) recommend conserving and restoring culturally-modified trees as a management goal in eastern Oregon forests. Social-ecological systems in the PNW have been shaped by indigenous peoples over millennia, and there is great potential for integrating traditional ecological knowledge into forest management and decision-making (Long et al. 2018, Charnley et al. 2007, Steen-Adams et al. 2019). One effective way to do so is to directly engage traditional knowledge holders as active participants in forest planning, management, and implementation (Charnley et al. 2007). Collaboration in resource management can help build trust between the Forest Service and Tribes (Dockry et al. 2018). Other ways to build trust include upholding formal relationships and agreements, developing informal and personal relationships, practicing respect, listening, and demonstrating engaged leadership (Dockry et al. 2018).

3.4.3.5.3 Wildlife and Wildlife-Based Recreation Wildlife species present on National Forest System lands have varying levels of community interest and human-placed value. Effects to wildlife are covered in detail in section 3.2.4. Many species are important for hunting, viewing, and existence values; including but not limited to those listed as sensitive, threatened, or endangered. The vitality of these species can contribute to social and economic conditions in surrounding communities.

3.4.3.5.4 Forage, Range and Botany Like cultural and heritage resources, forage and range opportunities and botany species of interest have human-use as well as other economic and social value. These resources may be influenced by changes to silvicultural practices. This includes resources within forest stands as well as grazing opportunities on rangelands leased by the Forest Service for use by cattle and other ranching businesses. Additionally, many plant species are grouped as tribal first foods, and carry significance both culturally and economically to tribal communities. For more information on botany, see the Botany section of the EA. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

It is important to note that the economic values associated with range, alone, are sizeable. In 2016, economic contributions from range resources across the six Forests in this analysis area provided an estimated direct employment of 820 jobs and millions in direct labor income associated with these jobs.

3.4.3.5.5 Adaptive Management As summarized by Franklin et al. (2018), forest management policy has historically been subject to a roller-coaster pattern described by Gunderson and Holling (2002), in which initially robust policies become rigid and ingrained until social forces drive policy disintegration, which is then followed by change to a new policy. A prime example is timber policy in the Pacific Northwest, where timber policies became so rigid and ingrained that it took presidential intervention to break loose existing management policies and lay the groundwork for the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan, which, when change finally occurred, was so dramatic that it led to wrenching downturns in local timber-dependent economies (Franklin et al. 2018). Adaptive management, in which gradual change occurs may reduce these dramatic policy shifts.

3.4.4 Environmental Effects The proposed amendment, and the alternatives considered here, are programmatic and reflect changes to management practices, allowing for in some cases greater adaptivity to conditions found on the ground. Due to the limited scope of this amendment, and the unknowns associated with specific site and project activity, the potential social and economic effects described here are limited to qualitative, descriptive analysis, which are summarized in an ordinal ranking (Table 19) across alternatives. The focus of this effects section is to identify the relative balance of key benefits to people, including ecosystem services, identifying any possible relative shift in benefit streams across alternatives. Key benefits are those that have a wide social or economic importance and, more importantly, have the potential to change as a result of a decision alternative. Below, the relative effects to key benefits are described in greater detail. In summary of all alternatives (Table 19), available volume for forest products and jobs and income supported by the harvest of timber, and milling operations are ranked as having the highest benefit in the adaptive management alternative, second highest in the old tree standard alternative, third in the old tree and large tree guideline alternative, and lastly, forth under the current management alternative.

All other benefit types have the same or similar relative benefit ranking, across alternatives. That is, in total, all action alternatives are slightly, or higher, preferred over the current management alternative, for these remaining benefits listed below (Table 19). Benefit rankings indicate potential improvements to the overall human environment, both economically and socially, given the increased management flexibility offered by the action alternatives. Rankings were determined through a synthesis of resource discussions and analysis, as well as cumulative professional input. There are multiple primary reasons for this ranking outcome. Foremost on the list, this result relates to increased potentially for larger natural disturbance impacts, under current management direction. Large fire events have the ability to remove or interrupt ecosystem services, and benefit streams that humans and communities enjoy, at greater scale and with less control in many cases, than human-sourced disturbances.

87 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Another contributor to this ranking involves shading and encroaching habitat conditions. Older habitats and ponderosa pine encroachment can remove additional forage opportunities for recreation relates species, such as deer and elk, as well as for domestic cattle operations. They can also limit meadow and wetland retention, potentially affecting aquatic and terrestrial species that survive in these land types. Increased management flexibility leads to better fire management results, as well as habitat, current and future desired conditions. Beyond over all rankings, for some species and resources there are important risk trade- offs to consider. For example, cultural resources include forage species like huckleberries, as well as characteristics such as large and old tree details that are impacted greatly by large fire events, in addition to disturbances by human activities. To the extent that action alternatives would improve fire event outcomes and limit the scale of impacts from natural disturbances relative to the slight increase in human disturbances, would represent an overall benefit, but still represent a risk trade-off. Similar risk trade- offs could be described for individual wildlife and plant species, as well as individual places and habitats with community significance. Analysis of individual species and resource details are available in respective resource sections of this EA. Justifying the rankings below specifically for cultural resources; in this analysis increased management flexibility as described across alternatives is not evaluated as the equivalent of directly removing large characteristic trees from the landscape, nor is it viewed as directly, or indirectly, removing economic and subsistence opportunities from environmental justice communities, including first foods of tribal communities. Within the scope of future project decisions, resources that are inherently valued or providing direct-use values to rural and tribal communities will be evaluated by a defined management activity, and in a focused spatial scale. Analysis of individual species and resources relevant as first foods or important to environmental justice communities are available in respective resource sections of this EA.

Table 18. Alternative Ordinal Ranking Across Benefit Types

Benefit to People Current Old Tree and Large Old Tree Adaptive Standard Management Tree Guideline Standard Management with Alternative Alternative (with Alternative Alternative Exceptions Adaptive Alternative

Management)

Forest Products 5th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th Resources

Jobs and Income 5th 3rd 2nd 1st 4th Opportunities

Forage, Botany, 3rd 1st 1st 1st 2nd Range Opportunities USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Cultural and 2nd 1st 1st 1st 1st Heritage Resources

Wildlife and 3rd 1st 1st 1st 2nd Wildlife-Based Recreation

Aquatic Resources 2nd 1st 1st 1st 1st

3.4.4.1 Effects Details for Forest Products Volume availability was analyzed in the FVS model runs utilized in the vegetation section 3.2.1. The model was given the task to identify volume available for removal in commercial timber harvest as well as non-commercial thinning at intervals of time that were appropriate for silvicultural prescriptions. The result of the FVS model yielded the maximum available volume, across alternatives. Given the differences in stand management direction, each alternative yielded a slightly different total available volume. The following graphs visualize these differences across alternatives (Figure 18 - Figure 20). Most notably, the Adaptive Management Alternative provided the highest level of management adaptability and therefore increased the available volume for treatment by approximately 45 percent over the current management alternative to 6.65 MMBF, compared to 4.60 MMBF under current management direction, in year one (Figure 19 and Figure 20). The old tree standard alternative and guideline alternative increase available volume as well, by 13 and 4 percent, respectively, or in volume terms 5.18 and 4.77 MMBF, respectively. These potential volume availability differences do not represent Forest scheduled activities, or site-specific plans, but rather potential based on a density target. With increased volume available in the action alternatives, it is reasonable to assume that additional volume could be treated under the forest management projects of each Forest. As a result, the action alternatives provide increased potential for the support of income and employment associated with timber harvesting activities and forest products manufacturing. Similar outcomes were determined for non-commercial volume available for removal. With the exception of a slight decrease in guideline alternative in year one, the action alternatives remain as productive, or better than the current management direction, in terms of offering smaller diameter wood resources for treatment (Figure 20).

89 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

7

6

5

ALT0 4 ALT1 3 ALT2 ALT3 2

1

0 2020 2030 2040 2045

Figure 17. FVS modeled inventory of merchantable volume per alternative and event year in million board feet (MMBF).

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% ALT1 25% ALT2 20% ALT3 15% 10% 5% 0% 2020 2030 2040 2045

Figure 18. FVS modeled inventory of merchantable volume per alternative and event year (% above Current Management Alternative). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 ALT0 250,000 ALT1 200,000 ALT2 150,000 ALT3 100,000 50,000 0 2020 2030 2040 2045

Figure 19. FVS modeled inventory of sub-merchantable volume per alternative and event year (Cubic Ft).

3.4.4.2 Adaptive Management Adaptive management can ease the dramatic policy shifts of federal forest management seen in past decades. By incorporating monitoring and built-in decision points, adaptive management directly adapts policy to address changing conditions inherent in dynamic forests shaped by frequent disturbances such as the ones that cover the vast majority of the analysis area. Adaptive management supports more gradual shifts in policy or management which can reduce extreme or sudden shifts in policy (Gunderson and Holling 2002). The alternatives that incorporate adaptive management would help managers adapt strategies to changing conditions. The adaptive management framework includes an intentionally inclusive process that should increase the likelihood of adaptive management success.

3.5 AQUATIC RESOURCES (FISHERIES) The PACFISH and INFISH objectives, goals, standards and guides would not be changed. All management direction would remain the same within RHCAs for all six national forests (Table 20). PACFISH and INFISH management direction is similar to the goals of the amendment with regard to allowing vegetation treatments within RHCAs for the purposes of maintaining habitat that support populations of well-distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities (INFISH Appendix E; PACFISH Appendix C). Goals within PACFISH and INFISH strategies focus on ecological processes and functions under which riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed. These strategies do not limit the size of trees harvested within RHCAs. However, treatments cannot retard attainment of riparian management objectives (RMOs). Standards and guidelines within PACFISH and INFISH would still be applied at the project level in order to meet the RMOs. Since no changes will be made to these aquatic conservation strategies, a No Effect determination applies to all Threatened and Endangered, R6 Sensitive and MIS fish species (Table 21) in the analysis area.

91 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Table 19. Aquatic Conservation Strategies by National Forest.

National Forest Aquatic Conservation Strategy Deschutes INFISH Fremont-Winema INFISH Malheur INFISH & PACFISH Ochoco INFISH & PACFISH Umatilla PACFISH Wallowa-Whitman INFISH & PACFISH

Table 20. Threatened or Endangered (critical habitat present except where indicated), Management Indicator, Regional Forester Sensitive Fish Species on Each National Forest within the Amendment Area.

National Forest Threatened or Endangered MIS RFSS

Deschutes Bull Trout (Salvelinus none Inland Columbia Basin Redband confluentus) Trout (O. mykiss gairdneri)

Steelhead – Middle Columbia River DPS (Onchorhynchus mykiss)

Fremont- Bull Trout All Salmonidae Family Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus Winema species found on the tridentatus) Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes forest brevirostris) Modoc Sucker (Catostomus microps)

Lost River Sucker (Deltistes Goose Lake Sucker (C. occidentalis luxatus) lacusanserinus)

Warner Sucker* (Catostomus Pit Sculpin (Cottus pitensis) warnerensis) Miller Lake Lamprey (Entosphenus minimus)

Pit Roach (Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus)

Oregon Great Basin Redband Trout (O. mykiss)

Oregon Lakes Tui Chub (Siphateles bicolor oregonensis)

Goose Lake Tui Chub (S. bicolor thalassina)

Malheur Bull Trout Bull Trout Pacific lamprey

Steelhead – Middle Columbia Steelhead – Middle Westslope Cutthroat Trout (O. clarkii River DPS Columbia River DPS lewisi) USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Cutthroat Trout (O. Inland Columbia Basin Redband clarkii) Trout

Redband Trout (O. mykiss)

Ochoco Bull Trout Rainbow Trout (O. Inland Columbia Basin Redband mykiss) Trout Steelhead – Middle Columbia River DPS Steelhead (O. mykiss)

Umatilla Bull Trout Rainbow Trout Pacific Lamprey

Steelhead – Middle Columbia Steelhead Inland Columbia Basin Rainbow trout River DPS Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steelhead – Snake River DPS Margined Sculpin (Cottus marginatus) Chinook Salmon – Snake River Spring/Summer ESU* (O. tshawytscha)

Chinook Salmon – Snake River Fall ESU

Wallowa- Bull Trout Redband/Rainbow Pacific Lamprey Whitman Trout (O. mykiss) Steelhead – Middle Columbia Inland Columbia Basin Rainbow trout River DPS Steelhead Westslope Cutthroat Trout Steelhead – Snake River DPS

Chinook Salmon – Snake River Spring/Summer ESU

Chinook Salmon – Snake River Fall ESU

Sockeye Salmon – Snake River ESU (O. nerka)

* Critical habitat not located on National Forest Service lands, but actions can influence effects to species. DPS=Distinct Population Segment ESU=Environmentally Significant Unit

3.6 WILDLIFE 3.6.1 Affected Environment The planning area includes a diverse array of forest types, habitats, and wildlife species (Stine et al. 2014, Singleton et al. 2019) distributed across two broad ecoregions. The Blue Mountains Ecoregion occurs in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington and the Eastern Cascades Ecoregion occurs north-south along the eastern portion of the Cascades mountains (Stine et al. 2014). The national forests associated with the Blue Mountains Ecoregion include the Umatilla, Malheur, and Wallowa-Whitman, and the national forests associated with the Eastern Cascades are the Deschutes, Ochoco, and 93 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Fremont-Winema. These broad ecoregions have unique climate, topography, and disturbance regimes that interact to form a template upon which habitats are formed for a broad diversity of plant and animal species across the planning area. There are two federally listed wildlife species that are known or suspected to occur in the planning area, the Threatened Oregon spotted frog, (Rana pretiosa) and Canada lynx, (Lynx Canadensis). Endangered Gray wolf (Canis lupus) are also known to occur in the planning are but were delisted in November of 2020. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) are known to occur in the planning area and was a proposed species but in October of 2020 the US Fish and Wildlife Service made the decision not to add it to the federal list. These two species remain on the US Forest Service, Region 6 Sensitive Species list. In addition, there are 86 species that are on the Region 6 Sensitive Species list, including 25 bird species, 12 mammals, three amphibians, one reptile, and 45 invertebrates (USFS 2019). See Table 22. On November 3, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule to delist the gray wolf, effective January 4, 2021. For this analysis, the gray wolf was assessed as a federally listed species.

Table 21. A summary of the suspected or documented Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, R6 Sensitive, and MIS wildlife species (invertebrates and vertebrates) in the planning area and the number of species associated with late and old forest structure.

Species Status National Forests in the Blue National Forests in the East Mountains Ecoregion Cascades Ecoregion Umatilla Malheur Wallowa- Deschutes Ochoco Fremont- Whitman Winema No. Federally 1 2 1 3 0 3 Listed Species No. Federally 1 1 1 0 0 0 Listed Species-LOS Associate No. R6 42 26 36 30 22 40 Sensitive/MIS No. R6 11 8 9 11 6 9 Sensitive/MIS- LOS Associate

3.6.1.1 Species/Habitat Groups The first step in the assessment process was to determine which species to address. The most recent version of the Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed species list and the Region 6 Sensitive Species list were used (USFS 2019). This list was narrowed down to only include the six National Forests included in the Forest Plans amendment. Management Indicator Species were then added to this list based on the species that have been identified for each National Forest. There is considerable overlap in the Management Indicator Species list and the Region 6 Sensitive Species list once these lists were aggregated across the six National Forests. This list included 89 wildlife species. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Information on the habitat relationships for each of these species was used to assign them to the habitat-types described in Johnson and O’Neil (2001). Species were then placed in habitat groups based on those assigned to similar habitat-types. Because late and old structure (LOS) habitat is of special concern and is the focus of this Forest Plans amendment, species associated with late and old forest structures (large trees, large snags, downed wood) were identified and grouped. An important distinction in habitat-types was made for those species associated with old forest with an open canopy (late-open) versus those associated with old forest with a multi-layer closed canopy (late-closed), as these structure types are a focus of the 1995 Eastside Screens (USFS 1995). In addition, tree species can be an important component of habitat for some wildlife species (Pilliod et al. 2006) so to account for this three different forest types were assessed, Dry Forest, Moist Mixed-Conifer Forest, and Cold Forest (Table 23) (Lehmkuhl 2005, Stine et al. 2014) 3.6.1.1.1 Linking Species to Habitat Associations and Risk Factors The next step in the process was to determine the habitat relationships for all of the species on the list. This involved a considerable amount of literature review and interpretation in order to link species with the habitat associations as described in Johnson and O’Neil (2001). Johnson and O’Neil (2001) habitat-types were used in order to be consistent with other habitat classification efforts being undertaken by the Forest Service. The habitat-types identified for each species-group were cross-walked to existing habitat or vegetation information (Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017; Haugo et al. 2015, 2019) in order to establish a baseline of conditions and to estimate trends in the availability of habitats for those species associated with late and old forest structures. A number of R6 Sensitive Species are invertebrates and many have a limited amount of information available on their habitat relationships. The Species Fact Sheets provided by the Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) provided a reliable source of information that summarized what is known about the habitats used by these species. A focus of this step of the process was to identify wildlife species that are associated with late and old forest, and/or key components of late and old forest such as large trees, old trees, and large snags. This information allowed species to be placed into broad habitat groups such as those associated with different forest types, closed and open canopy forest, and large trees and snags (Table 23). In addition to determining a habitat relationship for each species, the literature that was reviewed often identified other factors that influence the viability of species. These were referred to as risk factors and were categorized and recorded for each species.

Table 22. Wildlife species/groups, habitat associations, and key habitat elements that influence their viability.

Wildlife Habitat Group Wildlife Species Key Habitat Elements Habitat Generalist Gray Wolf, Wolverine Secure, undisturbed habitats; ungulate prey Dry Forest Open Canopy White-headed woodpecker, Open canopied forests with LOS Purple martin, Fringed large early-seral trees and myotis, Blue mountainsnail, snags Humped coin, Shiny

95 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

tightcoil, Intermountain sulphur Closed Northern goshawk, Cooper’s Closed canopy, multilayered Canopy hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, forests of mixed tree species Pileated woodpecker, Little with large trees and snags brown myotis, Johnson’s hairstreak Moist Forest Open Canopy Black-backed woodpecker, High densities of snags LOS Three-toed woodpecker, created by mixed and high Lewis’ woodpecker, Fringed severity fires; large trees and myotis, Humped coin, Shiny snags and green forest tightcoil Closed Northern goshawk, Cooper’s Closed canopy, multilayered Canopy hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, forests of mixed tree species Great gray owl, American with large trees and snags marten, Pileated woodpecker, Northern three-toed woodpecker, Little brown myotis, Fisher, Fir pinwheel, Dalles Hesperian, Johnson’s hairstreak Cold Forest Open Canopy Black-backed woodpecker, High densities of snags LOS-Open Three-toed woodpecker, created by mixed and high Lewis’ woodpecker, Canada severity fires; High densities lynx of young trees following fire Cold Forest Closed Northern goshawk, Cooper’s Closed canopy, multilayered Canopy hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, forests of mixed tree species Great gray owl, American with large trees and snags marten, Pileated woodpecker, Northern three-toed woodpecker, Canada lynx, Fisher Snag Dependent Associates Pileated woodpecker, Diversity of tree species, Blackbacked woodpecker, decay classes, and size White-headed woodpecker, classes, including large (>20 Lewis' woodpecker, yellow inch dbh) snags bellied sapsucker, red- breasted sapsucker, Williamson's sapsucker, down woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, northern flicker Riparian/Wetland Associates Bald eagle, Harlequin duck, Large trees, large snags and Rocky mountain tailed frog, downed wood in mixed USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Bufflehead, Umatilla conifer closed canopy forests megomphix, Crater Lake associated with riparian and tightcoil, Pristine wetlands springsnail, Meadow fritillary, Silver-bordered fritillary Ungulates Mule deer, Rocky mountain Access to high quality forage elk and cover No bold or italics=TEP species, Bold=R6 Sensitive Species on one or more of the National Forests, Italics=Management Indicator Species on one or more of the National Forests, Bold and Italics=R6 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species

3.6.1.2 Environmental Baseline

3.6.1.2.1 Habitat Generalist Group – Gray Wolf (R6 SS) and Wolverine (S)

Gray Wolf Wolves were a federally listed Endangered Species in central and western Oregon, including a portion of the planning area, but were delisted in November of 2020. They are a USFS R6 sensitive species and are protected under Oregon State fish and wildlife regulations. Gray wolves are habitat generalists and once occupied most of the United States, with the exception of the southeast (Mech and Boitani 2003). However, a significant amount of gray wolf historical range in the contiguous United States was modified due to human use (Chambers et al. 2012). While lone wolves can travel through, or temporarily live almost anywhere, large portions of gray wolf historical range no longer contain habitat suitable to support wolf packs (Mladenoff et al. 1995, Carroll et al. 2006, Oakleaf et al. 2006, Jimenez et al. 2017). Suitable habitat primarily consists of forested terrain containing adequate prey (elk, white-tailed deer, and mule deer) to support a wolf population. Constituents of suitable habitat include but aren’t limited to minimal roads and human development, as human access to areas inhabited by wolves can result in wolf mortality. There are numerous studies on den site selection and response of wolves to human disturbance during the denning period. While some wolves will tolerate limited human disturbance of dens (Thiel et al. 1998, Frame et al. 2007, Person and Russell 2009), other wolves will abandon their dens and move their pups (Mech et al. 1991). Currently there are three Areas of Known Wolf Activity (AKWAs) and three Areas of Estimated Wolf Activity within or near the planning area. The estimated number of wolves associated with these Wolf Activity Areas is shown in Table 24. Breeding was confirmed within four of these areas in 2019 (ODFW 2019).

Table 23. The gray wolf activity areas within or near the eastern Oregon and southeast Washington plan amendment area (based on ODFW 2019).

Gray Wolf Activity Area Estimated Number of Breeding Confirmed Wolves Known Wolf Use Areas

97 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Heppner 5 Yes Indigo 5 Yes Rogue 4 No Estimated Wolf Use Areas Fivemile 5 Yes White River 5 Yes Silver Lake 2 No

Wolverine Wolverines are habitat generalists that primarily occupy areas that are at high elevation and isolated from human activity (Carroll et al. 2001, Rowland et al. 2003, Aubry et al. 2007). Montane coniferous forests, suitable for winter foraging and summer kit rearing, may only be useful if connected with subalpine cirque habitats required for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging (Copeland 1996, Copeland et al. 2010). Wolverines have large spatial requirements. Wolverines can travel long distances over rough terrain and deep snow (Hornocker and Hash 1981, Banci 1994). Home ranges of wolverines are generally extremely large, but vary greatly depending on availability of food, gender, age, and differences in habitat. Home ranges of adult wolverines range from less than 38.5 mi2 to 348 mi2 (Banci 1994). These home range sizes are large relative to the body size of wolverines, and may indicate that wolverines occupy a relatively unproductive niche in which they must forage over large areas to consume the amount of calories needed to meet their life-history requirements (Inman et al. 2007). In Oregon, the wolverine was likely extirpated by 1936 (Hiller 2011). Reports of wolverines occurred in northeastern Oregon during the 1960s to the 1990s based on records from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hiller 2011). A wolverine research project resulted in the confirmation of three individual wolverines in the Wallowa Mountains of northeastern Oregon on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (Magoun et al. 2013). The wolverine is Suspected to occur on other national forests and the Crooked River National Grassland within the planning area, however, they have not been confirmed. Wales et al. (2011) completed a viability assessment for wolverine, to establish baseline conditions and inform Forest planning. The viability assessment considered the current condition of vegetation, potential denning habitat, road density, and winter recreation routes on wolverine habitat. The current viability outcome scores for wolverines across the three national forests in the Blue Mountains were considerably lower than the viability outcomes estimated for historical conditions, largely due to the prevalence of roads (Wales et al. 2011).

3.6.1.2.2 Late and Old Structure Habitats There are a broad array of animal species across that planning area that are associated with Late and Old Structure (LOS)(Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Stine et al. 2014). The number of wildlife LOS associates includes one federally listed mammal species and 14 Region 6 Sensitive Species. Of the R6 Sensitive Species that are USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

associated with LOS, there are seven bird species, two mammals, one amphibian, and four invertebrates.

Dry Forest LOS Currently, about 1.32 million acres of the planning area is comprised of Dry Forest LOS, of which about 30% is in an Open canopy forest condition and 70% is in a Closed canopy forest condition (Table 25). Monitoring data shows a slight increase in Dry Forest LOS- Open since 1995, and a considerable increase in Dry Forest LOS-Closed during the same time period. Historical estimates of these habitats suggest that there has been a considerable increase in the proportion of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats and a dramatic decrease in the proportions of Dry Forest LOS-open habitats (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). The current condition of wildlife habitats in the planning area shows that viability outcomes for a wide-range of species have declined from historical conditions due a variety of habitat changes and risk factors (e.g., roads, past timber harvest, grazing, etc.)(Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Stine et al. 2014, Gaines 2017). The species whose current viability outcomes have declined the most from historical conditions include those associated with Dry Forest LOS-Open habitats (Table 23). The low abundance of this habitat is relatively consistent across the six National Forests and across the two Ecoregions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Stine et al. 2014, Gaines 2017, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). However, it is not as highly departed from historical conditions in southern part of the planning area (Fremont- Winema National Forest, Wisdom et al. 2000). Key components of Dry Forest LOS-Open habitats include abundant fire tolerant large and old trees (primarily ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir), large snags, and a high degree of within-stand spatial variability (Churchill et al. 2017, Hessburg et al. 2020). Monitoring information shows that there has been a considerable increase in the abundance of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees >21 inches DBH in the planning area since 1995 (Table 25), however these species also experienced high levels of mortality from insects, diseases and fire. However, there has been a considerable decline (about 5%) in the abundance of old trees in the past decade, in particular old ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch trees. Research and monitoring suggest that restoration treatments in dry forest that restore the abundance of fire tolerant trees (e.g. ponderosa pine), retain old trees, adequate numbers of large trees and snags, and enhance spatial variability can enhance conditions for wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS-Open habitats (Gaines et al. 2007, Lyons et al. 2008, Gaines et al. 2010, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Latif et al. 2015). Historically, fire tolerant trees and open forest conditions in dry forests were maintained by frequent low-severity fires (Churchill et al. 2017). Current management direction requires that Dry Forest LOS-Open and Closed habitats be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (USFS 1995).

Moist Forest LOS Currently there are approximately 2.01 million acres of Moist Forest LOS across the planning area, of which about 14% is in an Open canopy forest condition and 86% is in a Closed canopy forest condition (Table 25). Monitoring data indicate that there has been very little change in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-Open and an increase in the amount

99 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

of Moist Forest LOS-Closed since 1995. Historical estimates of closed- and open- canopied habitats in Moist Forests suggests that there has been an increase in closed canopy conditions and a decrease in open canopied habitats (Stine et al. 2014, Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Hessburg et al. 2020). There have been widespread declines in the viability of species associated with Moist Forest-LOS due to a variety of habitat and risk factors, many of which are beyond the scope of this amendment (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Stine et al. 2014, Gaines 2017). However, because of the increase in closed canopied habitats, current viability outcomes have declined less (compared to open-canopied dry forest habitats) for wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-Closed (see Table 23 for a list of species). This pattern is consistent across all six of the National Forests and across both Ecoregions. Key habitat components for wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS include old and large trees, multi-layer canopies, and relatively high canopy closure (Daw and DeStefano 2001, Blakey et al. 2020). Monitoring shows that the abundance of Douglas- fir and white/grand fir trees >21 inches DBH have increased considerably within the planning area since 1995 (Table 26). The abundance of old trees varies by species. Old Douglas-fir and western larch trees have declined while grand fir and white fir have increased. Wildlife species associated with these forests often use a combination of closed canopy, multilayered forests for nesting or denning and forest openings that are in close proximity to closed canopy LOS for foraging (Bull 1987, Bull and Henjum 1990, Bull and Holthausen 1993, Daw and DeStefano 2001, Blakey et al. 2020). Historically, the mix of closed canopy and forest openings was maintained in a mixed-severity fire regime (Stine et al. 2014, Hessburg et al. 2020). Research on wildlife species associated with these forests suggests that forest treatments that mimic historical landscape patterns, creating a mix of closed and open canopy habitat conditions could be used to maintain species viability and restore landscape pattern (Stine et al. 2014, Lehmkuhl et al. 2015, Gaines et al. 2017, Hessburg et al. 2020). Moist Forest LOS-Open and Closed habitats would be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (USFS 1995).

Cold Forest LOS Cold Forest LOS is limited within the planning area (Table 25). Currently there are about 193,400 acres, of which 28% is in an Open canopy forest condition and 72% is in a Closed canopy forest condition. Monitoring information shows that there has been an increase in the Cold Forest LOS-Open habitat and little change in the amount of Cold Forest LOS-Closed habitat since 1995. These habitats show less departure from historical conditions than other LOS habitats. Wisdom et al. (2000) reported broad-scale increases in habitats for wildlife species associated with Cold Forest LOS (see Table 23 for a list of species) within the Ecological Reporting Units that occur in the planning area. Similarly, Gaines (2017) found some reductions in viability outcomes for wildlife species associated with Cold Forest LOS but these reductions were not nearly as large as for Dry Forest LOS-Open associated species. These habitats generally occur within high elevation forests and within roadless and wilderness areas (Singleton et al. 2019). Research on wildlife species (e.g. martens) associated with Cold Forest LOS habitats has shown that forest treatments aimed at reducing fuels simplified forest structure and USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 reduced habitat use and negatively affected movement patterns (Moriarty et al. 2015, 2016). A key recommendation from these studies is to focus fuel treatments in lower elevation forests where there are greater departures in forest vegetation from normal fire return intervals (Moriarty et al. 2016). Historically, a high-severity fire regime maintained a shifting mosaic of closed and open canopy forest conditions, including post- fire areas with high densities of snags upon which some wildlife species depend (e.g., black-backed woodpecker; Saab and Dudley 1998, Haggard and Gaines 2001, Saab et al. 2009). Recommendations for wildlife species associated with these forests suggests that forest treatments that mimic historical landscape patterns, creating a mix of closed and open canopy habitat conditions could be used to maintain species viability and restore landscape pattern (Lehmkuhl et al. 2015, Gaines et al. 2017, Hessburg et al. 2020). Cold Forest LOS-Open and Closed habitats would be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (USFS 1995). The effects of the proposed amendment on Cold Forest habitats and associated species is not further addressed in this assessment for the following reasons: • The amount of these habitats in the planning area is small and very limited management has occurred in these habitats since the implementation of the Eastside Screens in 1995. • A considerable proportion of these habitats occur in roadless and wilderness where limited management is likely to occur. • If these habitats are managed, they would be managed towards or within HRV for LOS open and closed conditions, which is consistent with meeting the viability needs for species associated with these habitats (e.g., see wolverine, Canada lynx). • Project level analyses and consultation will be required to address any site- specific effects that projects may have on Cold Forest LOS associated species and habitats.

Table 24. Current Amount and Trends for Late and Old Structure (LOS) Habitat under the Current Management Alternative

Potential Late and Old Structure Habitat Current Acres (in Trend 1995 to Vegetation 1,000s) Present Group Dry Late-Open 399.16 Slight Increase Late-Closed 926.12 Considerable Increase Moist Late-Open 273.90 No Change Late-Closed 1,739.01 Increase Cold Late-Open 54.29 Increase Late-Closed 139.12 No Change

101 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Table 25. Trends in the numbers of trees >21 inches dbh by species.

Tree Species Number of Trees >21 in. DBH (in 1,000s) 1995 2004 2014 Summary All Trees 35,502 38,276 (+8%) 41,695 (+17%) Considerable Increase PIPO 17,224 19,034 (+10%) 20,204 (+17%) Considerable Increase PSME 5,059 5,629 (+11%) 6,278 (+24%) Considerable Increase ABCO/GR 7,936 8,278 (4%) 9,776 (23%) Considerable Increase

3.6.1.2.3 Snag Associated Species Dead trees, live trees with some decaying wood, and down wood provide important habitat for a wide-variety of wildlife species and are a key component of LOS habitat (Rose et al. 2001, Baker and Lacki 2006, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). Recent research suggests that the population of snags in the appropriate condition (e.g., hardness) for use by cavity excavators may be a small portion of the total snag numbers on a landscape (Lorenz et al. 2015). Monitoring information from 1995 to 2017 showed that the general trend in the abundance of snags >20 inches dbh has generally remained stable (with some differences among forests and habitats, see Decaying Wood section for more details). The availability of large snags (>20 inches dbh) across the landscape has been reduced below historical levels by past management practices, especially within dry and mesic forests (Hessburg et al. 1999, Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck et al. 2013). The viability assessments that have been completed for species associated with snag habitats shows that viability outcomes have been somewhat reduce for wildlife in Moist and Cold Forest LOS-closed habitats compared to historical viability outcomes, primarily associated with past timber harvest (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017, Hessburg et al. 2020). However, viability outcomes for snag associated species within Dry Forest LOS-Open and post-fire habitats has declined considerably compared to historical conditions, primarily a result of fire suppression, past timber harvest, and post- fire salvage harvest (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines et al. 2017, Singleton et al. 2019). Some forest management activities directly influence the availability of snag habitat for snag-associated wildlife species. These activities include firewood cutting (Bate et al. 2007, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), hazard tree reduction that causes loss of snag habitat along roads and recreation sites (Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck et al. 2013), and removal of snags during timber harvest for safety reasons (Wisdom and Bate 2008). In addition, the alteration of natural disturbance regimes can have considerable influence on the availability of snag habitat. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

3.6.1.2.4 Riparian and Wetland Associated Species Riparian and wetland associated species, such as the Oregon spotted frog (Threatened), Rocky mountain tailed frog (Sensitive), and Bald eagle (Sensitive) will not be further evaluated in this analysis for the following reasons: • Aquatic and riparian species habitats are protected through the guidance of the PACFISH/INFISH strategies and will not change under this amendment. • Project level analyses will be required to address any site-specific effects that projects may have on riparian and wetland associated species and their habitats.

3.6.1.2.5 Deer and Elk Mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk are management indicator species used by the national forests in eastern Oregon. Deer and elk have considerable cultural, economic, and ecological values (ODFW 2003a,b). The Rocky Mountain elk population objective in eastern Oregon is about 72,000 elk, with major populations occurring in the Blue Mountains and in south-central Oregon (ODFW 2003b). The national forests in eastern Oregon provide much of the summer range that elk use. Summer elk forage consists of lush forbs, grasses and shrubs high in nutrients and easily digestible. Generally, higher elevation wet meadows, springs, and riparian areas in close proximity to forest cover offer these conditions for the longest period into summer. Elk achieve peak body condition in the late summer and fall, and their winter survival and productivity depend on their ability to develop fat reserves from the forage they consume during the summer (Cook et al. 2005). Mule deer are widespread in eastern Oregon, and the population objective is about 350,000 (ODFW 2003a). Mule deer populations in central Oregon have declined 24% from 2001 to 2015 (Mulligan 2015) because of limited forage availability, habitat loss to urban and agricultural development, migratory movement barriers, and illegal hunting (ODFW 2003a, 2011). The national forests in the planning area provide important summer range, which generally consists of forage, cover, and security from disturbance. The application of thinning and prescribed fire to restore forest structure and composition can alter elk and deer forage and cover. Fire suppression and exclusion has allowed forests to become denser, reducing the abundance and diversity of understory plants that provide mule deer and elk forage (see Cook et al. 2005 for a review). The application of thinning and prescribed fire can dramatically increase understory plant diversity and productivity and restore forage availability for mule deer and elk (Lehmkuhl et al. 2013, Barker et al. 2019, Hull et al. 2020). For example, removal of tree canopy (to <40% canopy closure) in dry forests using thinning and prescribed fire treatments can increase the availability of forage for elk by 2-3 times compared to closed-canopy forest conditions (Lehmkuhl et al. 2013). Deer and elk also rely on dense forests for cover for security and in some cases dense forest canopy reduces snow depths allowing deer and elk to access forage during the winter (Cook et al. 2005). Cover standards are provided in existing Forest Plans and will not be changed as a result of this amendment.

103 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.6.1.3 Wildlife and Climate Change The impacts of climate change show that year-round warming and declines in summer precipitation are occurring throughout the western US (IPCC 2014, Melillo et al. 2014). This is having profound effects on wildfire regimes with fire seasons lengthening and burned area increasing (Westerling et al. 2006, Westerling 2016). Climate modeling predictions suggest that burned area will increase by three to four times, individual fire sizes will increase, and fire severity will increase where forests are dense and layered with abundant woody fuels (Dennison et al. 2014, Abatzoglou and Williams 2016). The ongoing and anticipated climatic changes to eastern Oregon environments are likely to result in a variety of effects to wildlife populations and their habitats (Stine et al. 2014, Halofsky and Peterson 2016, Singleton et al. 2019). A striking conclusion reached from several climate change studies is the degree of change that has already occurred to wildlife habitats and populations (Root et al. 2003, Lawler and Mathias 2007, Langham et al. 2015). There are a range of responses of wildlife to changing climatic conditions that have occurred, or are anticipated to occur, including: altered species distributions, altered habitat availability or quality, changed timing of breeding and other life history activities, changed food availability, increased pathogens and invasive species distributions, altered survival and extinction risks, and changed interactions among species (Stine et al. 2014, Langham et al. 2015, Singleton et al. 2019). An important climate change impact that significantly influences wildlife habitats is the documented increase in the amount of wildfire (Westerling et al. 2006, Dennison et al. 2014, Westerling 2016) and the anticipated 2-4 fold increase in fires expected in the inland west by the 2040s (Littell et al. 2010). Climate adaptations that increase the resiliency of forested wildlife habitats to increased wildfire and other disturbances are important to sustaining viable wildlife populations (Halofsky and Peterson 2016, Singleton et al. 2019, Table 27).

Table 26. Climate change stressors and adaptation options by habitat group (from Singleton et al. 2019).

Habitat Group Stressors Adaptations Dry Forest-LOS-Open High fuel loads and Promote open forest structure encroachment of shade- with fire-tolerant tree species tolerant trees increase risk of through use of mechanical large-scale, high intensity and prescribed fire treatments wildfire and pine mortality Dry Forest-LOS-Closed, Contiguous forest landscape Reduce contagion for large- Moist Forest-LOS-Open, patterns, dominated by scale disturbances using Closed densely stocked trees have mechanical and prescribed increased vulnerability to fire treatments; Use wildfire, insects, and disease topography to assess where to locate Closed structure; Maintain habitat connectivity Cold Forest Insects, disease, wildfire from Reduce risk of large-scale, adjacent Dry and Moist high intensity fire being forests carried into high elevations from adjacent warmer forests USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

with prescribed and managed wildfire. Manual tree removal to reduce conifer encroachment into woodlands and meadows

3.6.2 Environmental Effects and Indicators

3.6.2.1 Assumptions • Existing forest plan direction provides cover:forage requirements and timing restrictions to assure that restoration treatments address deer and elk habitat and potential for disturbance. • The remaining portions of the Eastside Screens remain in place providing management direction to provide for habitat connectivity, to protect known goshawk nest sites and associated habitat, and to manage LOS open and closed habitats to within or towards the historical range of variability. • Replacing outdated science used to determine snag numbers (e.g., population potential for primary cavity excavators) with a Standard to use the best available science to maintain or increase snag habitat will result in improved conditions for snag-dependent wildlife species and provide an important habitat component for LOS associated species. • Project-specific NEPA and ESA Consultation will be required and can address more site-specific wildlife issues. • Net LOS (open or closed) will increase under management objectives (not including disturbance) as managed non-LOS stands develop over time.

3.6.2.2 Desired Conditions • The abundance and connectivity of habitat for LOS associated species is within the historical range of variability for both open and closed forest structure conditions and across different forest types, providing conditions that maintain or restore a high viability outcome (A or B, Appendix E). • The abundance and spatial arrangement of old trees, large trees, and large snags are within the historical range of variability, providing conditions that maintain or restore a high viability outcome (A or B, Appendix E). • Forested wildlife habitats are sustainable and resilient to the ongoing and anticipated effects of climate change.

3.6.2.3 Methods of Analysis and Key Indicators The term “viability outcome” was used to describe the amount and spatial arrangement of habitat and the risk-factors that influence the viability of wildlife species that represent a habitat-group. Viability outcomes are described in detail in Appendix A and in Gaines et al. (2017). This terminology was used in previous viability assessments (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017) that were used to establish a baseline of conditions for wildlife species across the planning since the 1995 Eastside Screen amendment

105 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens occurred (USFS 1995). Viability outcomes are used to compare how each alternative contributes to the viability of wildlife associated with each habitat group. Key indicators represent habitats and risk factors that were determined to influence the viability outcomes of species associated with each habitat group (Table 28). The indicators were based on a review of the best available scientific information that represents current understanding of the habitat associations of species in each group. Key

Table 27. Key indicators used to assess potential effects to wildlife habitats and species.

Wildlife Habitat Issue Wildlife Habitat Group Key Indicators Federally listed wildlife Habitat Generalists including Security habitat, prey base species gray wolf, wolverine Amount of late and old forest Dry Forest LOS Associated The amount and trends in habitat Species Late-closed habitat The amount and trends in Late-open habitat Trends in the availability of large and old trees Moist Forest LOS Associated The amount and trends in Species Late-closed habitat The amount and trends in Late-open habitat Trends in the availability of large and old trees Availability of large snag Snag Habitat Associated Trends in the availability of habitat Species large snags Forage available to ungulates Deer and Elk Management Availability of forage Indicator Species Resilience of forested wildlife LOS associated species and Ability to implement climate habitats other species associated with adaptations that restore forested habitats disturbance regimes and sustain habitat

3.6.2.4 Effects Common to All Alternatives

Habitat Generalists – Gray wolf and Wolverine Deer and elk are the primary prey species of gray wolves (R6 Sensitive Species-Blue Mountains Forests) and an important prey component for wolverine (R6 Sensitive Species-Documented on Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, suspected on the other five Forests). Previous consultations have established protection guidelines for gray wolf den and rendezvous sites on the national forests. The US Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted and has concurred with these effects determinations. Note: the changes to the USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

federal status of the gray wolf and wolverine have been made but are pending legal challenges. Thus, consultation was completed to assure they are covered in case they remain federally listed. Effects Determination for Gray Wolf The proposed amendment May Affect but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect gray wolves. This determination is based on the following: • Six known wolf activity areas occur on or adjacent to the National Forests in the planning area. Conservation measures agreed to in previous programmatic consultations would minimize disturbance and reduce the potential for conflicts with proposed actions to known or future discovered wolf activity areas. • Wolves may avoid or be displaced in a particular area during the time forest management activities are occurring, but this is likely to have discountable effects to wolves due to their wide-ranging behavior. • Forest management activities that are covered by this amendment may cause big game to change their use patterns, which may change the use patterns of wolves. However, the scale of displacement is small and discountable in comparison to the normal range and movements of wolves. • Forest management activities that are covered by this amendment may increase restoration treatments used to reduce canopy closure in the closed- canopy forest habitats that have increased as a result of fire suppression and past management practices. As a result, the amount of forage available for deer and elk could be increased. • Conservation measures agreed to in previous programmatic consultations on gray wolves would minimize potential effects to the gray wolf during the denning season by restricting activities within 1 mile of a known or discovered den or rendezvous site from April 1 to July 15. Effects Determination for Wolverine The proposed eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington Forest Plans amendment May Impact, but would not likely lead to federal listing of the wolverine. This determination is based on the following: • Low potential for forest management activities addressed in this amendment to disturb wolverines during denning. • Increased restoration treatments that reduce canopy closure and increase understory plant diversity and composition could increase forage available for deer and elk, an important food resource for wolverines. • Wolverines may avoid or be displaced in a particular area during the time forest management activities are occurring, but this is likely to have discountable effects to wolverines due to their wide-ranging behavior. • Other risk factors (recreation, roads, etc.) also influence wolverine populations will continue to occur but are not addressed in this amendment. 107 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

• Project level analysis would still be required and would address any site-specific impacts to wolverines. Canada Lynx Canada lynx is also a federally listed species but is only “Suspected” to occur in the Blue Mountains ecoregion of the planning area. Lynx are closely associated with mid and upper elevation subalpine fir forests (Aubry et al. 2000, ILBT 2013). The Blue Mountains are identified as a Peripheral Area by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2005) and in the lynx conservation strategy (ILBT 2013). There is no designated Critical Habitat for Canada lynx in the planning area (USFWS 2014). The only management direction that applies to Canada lynx concerns vegetation management (ILBT 2013): Therefore, for the following reasons, Canada lynx will not be further addressed in this analysis: • The uncertainty of lynx occurrence in the planning area; • The lack of any designated critical habitat in the planning area; • The only lynx conservation measure in Peripheral Areas is consistent with the Eastside Screen (USFS 1995) emphasis on managing LOS habitats within the historical range of variation; and • Project specific analyses would still be required to address any site-specific effects that projects may have on federally listed species.

3.6.2.5 Current Management Alternative Late and Old Structure Associated Wildlife Species Dry Forest LOS The continued implementation of this alternative would result in a steady increase in the amount of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a slow increase in Dry Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 29). Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would continue to remain well below their historical amounts (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Dry Forest habitats are at considerable risk of loss to large, high severity wildfires in their current condition (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). The viability of species associated with Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would continue to remain low as their viability outcomes are well below historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines 2017). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS- closed habitats, whose viability outcomes have declined less compared to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). This alternative includes plan components for key elements of Dry Forest LOS habitat. This alternative includes a standard limiting the harvest of live trees >21 inches dbh. However, this alternative does not provide for the retention of trees with old tree characteristics that are <21 inches dbh (Hessburg et al. 2020). These trees are a key component of old forest habitats and are expected to decline over time due to a combination of stressors: competition, fire, insects, diseases and drought (see Vegetation USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

and Disturbance sections). Since 1995, the tree species associated with Dry Forest (sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) that are >21 inches dbh increased in abundance across the planning area, however these tree species would have increased even more if they had not experienced high mortality rates from insects, disease, and fire. In addition, under this alternative the abundance of old trees have declined considerably, in particular ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch, all important tree species for wildlife in Dry Forests. This alternative limits the ability to restore species composition to fire tolerant tree species that are a key habitat component for many species associated with Dry Forest LOS habitats (Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Moist Forest LOS The continued implementation of this alternative would result in a steady increase in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a slow increase in Moist Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 29). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as these habitats become more abundant through forest succession (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). However, these habitats are currently highly susceptible to large, high-severity wildfires (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). The availability of trees >21 inches dbh typical of Moist Forest habitats, such as Douglas- fir, white fir and grand fir, have increased considerably since 1995, and are likely to continue to increase under this alternative.

Table 28. Current Amount and Trends for Late and Old Structure (LOS) Habitat under Current Management Alternative Potential Late and Old Current Acres (in Predicted Trend Present to +25 Vegetation Structure 1,000s) Years Group Habitat Dry Late-Open 399.16 Low rate of increase Late-Closed 926.12 Steady increase* Moist Late-Open 273.90 Low rate of increase Late-Closed 1,739.01 Steady increase* *Does not account for an increasing risk of habitat loss from large-scale, high severity wildfire. Snag Associated Wildlife Species The abundance of large snags has remained relatively steady across the planning area since 1995 (with some variability across Forests and habitat types). However, the current abundance of large snags remains below historical levels as a result of past and current management practices, especially within dry and mesic forests (Hessburg et al. 1999, Bate et al. 2007, Wisdom and Bate 2008, Hollenbeck et al. 2013).

109 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

This alternative includes management direction for large snags and green tree replacements, but desired snag levels are based on outdated scientific information (e.g., population potential for primary cavity excavators) that limits the contribution of this alternative to the viability of species associated with snag habitats and does not provide specific guidelines on characteristics that optimize snag recruitment through green tree retention. To date, this alternative has not resulted in an increase in large snag abundance towards historical levels. Deer and Elk Current management direction has limited the amount of forest treatments used to reduce canopy closure in closed-canopy forest habitats that have increased as a result of fire suppression and past management practices (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018). As a result, the amount of forage available for deer and elk has been reduced. This alternative would continue to limit the application of restoration treatments that reduce forest canopy and increase the quality and quantity of forage for deer and elk (Endress et al. 2012, Lehmkuhl et al. 2013, Hull et al. 2020). Habitat Sustainability and Resiliency This alternative would limit the ability of managers to restore open-stand conditions and fire tolerant tree species composition in dry forests. This is an important climate change adaption that has been recommended to create more resistant and resilient habitats and landscapes (Singleton et al. 2019, Table 27). As a result, there would be in an increased risk of habitat loss due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires at the stand and potentially the landscape levels (Littell et al. 2009, Prichard et al. 2010, Haugo et al. 2019, Prichard et al. 2020). Current Management Alternative Wildlife Summary • Implementation of this alternative would make a relatively low contribution to the viability of wildlife species associated with late-open habitats, whose viability outcomes (Viability Outcomes D and E, Appendix A) are well below their historical viability outcomes (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017). • This alternative would maintain the viability of species associated with late-closed habitats (Viability Outcomes A and B, Appendix A), though these habitats would be at relatively high risk of loss to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. • This alternative includes outdated management direction for snags and green tree replacements, and large snag habitat has remained below historical abundances, thus limiting the contribution to the viability outcomes for snag associated wildlife species. • This alternative limits the ability to apply restoration treatments that reduce tree canopy closure and enhance elk and deer forage. • This alternative limits the ability of managers to implement climate adaptations that would create more resistant and resilient habitats and landscapes. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

3.6.2.6 Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative

Late and Old Structure Associated Wildlife Species Dry Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in a steady increase in the amount of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession. This alternative would result in a low-moderate increase in Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as treatments are implemented that restore open structure conditions and emphasize more fire tolerant tree species (Table 30). The abundance of Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would be managed towards historical amounts (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020) and the risk of loss to of these habitats to wildfire would be somewhat reduced (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). This alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of species associated with Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as their viability outcomes are currently well below historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines 2017). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats, whose viability outcomes have declined less compared to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). Both Dry Forest LOS-closed and open habitats would be managed towards or within the historical range of variability. Habitat connectivity would continue to be provided and goshawk nest sites protected as per the Eastside Screens (see Appendix C). This alternative includes plan components for key elements of Dry Forest LOS habitats. This alternative includes a guideline limiting the harvest of old trees regardless of tree size or species. Old trees are a key habitat component for Dry Forest LOS associated species and have been declining under the current management alternative. This alternative includes a guideline to retain large trees to meet future LOS structural objectives and a standard for green trees for future large snags. Since 1995, the trees >21 inches dbh and tree species associated with Dry Forest (sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir) increased in abundance across the planning area. However, these tree species would have increased even more if they had not experienced high mortality rates from insects, disease, and fire. This alternative would facilitate the management of large and old trees, in particular fire tolerant trees in Dry Forest habitats, so that the impact of stressors such as competition, fire, insects, diseases and drought, would be reduced. This alternative would result in a continued increase in the abundance of large trees while moving species composition and forest structure towards more resilient and sustainable conditions in Dry Forest habitats. Moist Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a steady increase in Moist Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 30). Management direction would still apply that requires Moist Forest LOS-open and closed be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (see Appendices B and C).

111 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats, as these habitats become more abundant through forest succession (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). However, these habitats are currently highly susceptible to mortality from wildfire (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020), and vulnerability of these habitats in managed areas will decrease under this alternative (see Disturbance section). Habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protections portions of the Eastside Screens would still apply (USFS 1995), also contributing to species viability. This alternative provides protections for old trees regardless of size or species. The abundance of old trees is likely to increase as a result of implementing this alternative. The availability of trees >21 inches dbh typical of Moist Forest habitats, such as Douglas- fir, white fir and grand fir, have increased considerably since 1995. These trees are likely to continue to increase under this alternative, though at a slower rate than under the Current Management Alternative. This slower rate of increase would be a result of some trees >21 inches dbh, particularly shade-tolerant fir species, being removed to protect large and old fire tolerant trees (e.g., ponderosa pine) and to restore species composition towards more resilient and sustainable conditions.

Table 29. Current Amount and Trends for Late and Old Structure (LOS) Habitat under the Old and Large Tree Guideline Alternative

Potential Late and Old Current Acres (in Predicted Trend Present to +25 Vegetation Structure Habitat 1,000s) Years Group Dry Late-Open 399.16 Low-moderate increase Late-Closed 926.12 Increase Moist Late-Open 273.90 Steady increase Late-Closed 1,739.01 Increase

Snag Associated Wildlife Species This alternative includes a standard to retain large (>20 inches dbh) snags and to manage green tree replacements based on the best available scientific information. This alternative requires that a snag habitat assessment be completed to maintain or increase habitat for snag dependent species and provide an important structural component of habitat for LOS associated species. The snag management guidance provided by this alternative should improve the ability of managers to restore the abundance of large snags towards historical numbers and contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with snag habitats. Deer and Elk The implementation of this alternative would enhance the ability of mangers to apply forest restoration treatments that would reduce canopy closure in the closed-canopy forest habitats. These habitat conditions have increased as a result of fire suppression and past management practices (Haugo et al. 2015) and reduced forage availability for ungulates. Where restoration treatments occur that reduce canopy closure to <40% and include prescribed fire, the amount of forage available for deer and elk would be considerably USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

increased as understory plant diversity and composition is restored (Endress et al. 2012, Lehmkuhl et al. 2013, Barker et al. 2019, Hull et al. 2020). Cover requirements for deer and elk in existing forest plan direction would still apply. Habitat Sustainability and Resiliency This alternative would result in a declining risk of habitat loss due to uncharacteristically severe wildfires at the stand and potentially the landscape scales (Prichard et al. 2010, Haugo et al 2019, Prichard et al. 2020). This alternative allows for removal of shade- tolerant tree species to restore forest structure and composition of LOS-open habitats and other forested habitats. Restoration treatments that include thinning and prescribed fire have been shown to reduce fire severity, increase large tree survival and, depending on the spatial location, can alter fire behavior at the landscape scale (Prichard et al. 2010, 2020). These are important climate adaptation actions to enhance the resiliency and sustainability of forested habitats (Halofsky et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Table 27). Old and Large Tree Guideline Alternative Wildlife Summary • Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of wildlife species associated with late-open habitats, whose viability outcomes (Viability Outcomes D and E, Appendix A) are well below their historical viability outcomes. • This alternative would maintain the viability of species associated with late-closed habitats (Viability Outcome A or B, Appendix A). • The snag management guidance provided by this alternative should improve the ability of managers to restore the abundance of large snags towards historical numbers and contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with snag habitats. • This alternative retains the Eastside Screens’ ecosystem screen, habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protections contributing to species viability. • This alternative facilitates the application of treatments that reduce forest canopy closure and enhance elk and deer forage and retains cover standards in existing Forest Plans. • This alternative would facilitate the application of restoration treatments that include thinning and prescribed fire and have been shown to reduce fire severity, increase large tree survival and, depending on the spatial location, alter fire behavior. This alternative would enhance the resiliency of forested habitats and the sustainability of LOS habitats.

3.6.2.7 Old Tree Standard Alternative

Late and Old Structure Associated Wildlife Species Dry Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the amount of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession (Table 31), though at a slower

113 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

rate than under the Current Management Alternative. This alternative would result in a low-moderate increase in Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as treatments are implemented that restore open structure conditions and emphasize more fire resistant tree species (Table 31). The abundance of Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would be managed towards historical amounts (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020) and the risk of loss to of these habitats to wildfire would be somewhat reduced (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). This alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of species associated with Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as their viability outcomes are currently well below historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines 2017). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats, whose viability outcomes have declined less compared to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). Both Dry Forest LOS-closed and open habitats would be managed towards or within the historical range of variability. Habitat connectivity would continue to be provided and goshawk nest sites protected as per the Eastside Screens. This alternative includes plan components for key elements of Dry Forest LOS habitats. This alternative includes a standard limiting the harvest of old trees regardless of tree size or species (Van Pelt 2008). Old trees are a key habitat component for Dry Forest LOS associated species, and have been declining under the current management alternative. This alternative includes plan guidance to retain large trees to meet future LOS structural objectives and green trees for future large snags. This alternative would facilitate the management of large trees, in particular fire tolerant trees in Dry Forest habitats so that the impact of stressors such as competition, fire, insects, diseases and drought, would be reduced. This alternative would result in a continued increase in the abundance of large trees but at a slower rate than the Current Management Alternative. This slower rate of increase would be a result of some trees >21 inches dbh, particularly shade-tolerant fir species, being removed to protect large and old fire tolerant trees (e.g., ponderosa pine) and to restore species composition towards more resilient and sustainable conditions. Moist Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a slight increase in Moist Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 31). Management direction would still apply that requires Moist Forest LOS-open and closed be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (USFS 1995). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats, as these habitats become more abundant through forest succession (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). However, these habitats are currently highly susceptible to large, high-severity wildfires (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020), and vulnerability of these habitats in managed areas will decrease under this alternative (see Disturbance section). Habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protections portions of the eastside screens would still apply (USFS 1995), also contributing to species viability. This alternative provides protections for old trees regardless of size or species. The abundance of old trees is likely to increase as a result of implementing this alternative. The availability of trees >21 inches dbh typical of Moist Forest habitats, such as Douglas- USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 fir, white fir and grand fir, have increased considerably since 1995. As in Dry Forest LOS, these trees are likely to continue to increase under this alternative, though at a slower rate than under the Current Management Alternative.

Table 30. Current Amount Trends for Late and Old Structure (LOS) Habitat Under Old Tree Standard Alternative

Potential Late and Old Current Acres (in Predicted Trend Present to +25 Vegetation Structure Habitat 1,000s) Years Group Dry Late-Open 399.16 Low-moderate increase Late-Closed 926.12 Increase Moist Late-Open 273.90 Slight increase Late-Closed 1,739.01 Increase

The effects analysis for Snag Associated Wildlife Species, Deer and Elk, and Habitat Sustainability and Resiliency are the same as for the Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management. Old Tree Standard Alternative Wildlife Summary • Implementation of this alternative would make a moderate contribution to the viability of wildlife species associated with late-open habitats, whose viability outcomes (Viability Outcomes D and E, Appendix A) are well below their historical viability outcomes. • This alternative would maintain the viability of species associated with late-closed habitats (Viability Outcome A or B, Appendix A). • The snag management guidance provided by this alternative should improve the ability of managers to restore the abundance of larger old snags towards historical numbers and contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with snag habitats. • This alternative retains the ecosystem screen, habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protection portions of the Eastside Screens contributing to species viability. • This alternative facilitates the application of treatments that reduce forest canopy closure and enhance elk and deer forage and retains cover standards in existing Forest Plans. • This alternative would facilitate the application of restoration treatments that include thinning and prescribed fire and have been shown to reduce fire severity, increase large tree survival and, depending on the spatial location, alter fire behavior. This alternative would enhance the resiliency of forested habitats and the sustainability of LOS habitats.

115 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.6.2.8 Adaptive Management Alternative

Late and Old Structure Associated Wildlife Species Dry Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the amount of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession. This alternative would result in a low-moderate increase in Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as treatments are implemented that restore open structure conditions and emphasize more fire tolerant tree species (Table 32). The abundance of Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would be managed towards historical amounts (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020) and the risk of loss to of these habitats to wildfire would be somewhat reduced (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). This alternative would make a low to moderate contribution to the viability of species associated with Dry Forest LOS-open habitats as their viability outcomes are currently well below historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines 2017). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats, whose viability outcomes have declined less compared to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). Both Dry Forest LOS-closed and open habitats would be managed towards or within the historical range of variability. Habitat connectivity would continue to be provided and goshawk nest sites protected as per the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995). This alternative does not include standards or guidelines for key elements of old forest habitat but relies on meeting desired conditions and monitoring and adaptive management to determine if large and old trees are being retained to move toward LOS habitat objectives. Old trees are a key habitat component for Dry Forest LOS associated species and their abundance may be reduced under this alternative. This alternative would facilitate the management of large and old trees, in particular fire tolerant trees in Dry Forest habitats, so that the impact of stressors such as competition, fire, insects, diseases and drought, would be reduced. This alternative would result in a continued increase in the abundance of large trees while likely moving species composition and forest structure towards more resilient and sustainable conditions in Dry Forest habitats. Moist Forest LOS The continued implementation of this alternative would result in an increase in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a low- moderate increase in Moist Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 32). Management direction would still apply that requires Moist Forest LOS-open and closed be managed towards or within the historical range of variability (USFS 1995). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats, as these habitats become more abundant through forest succession (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). However, these habitats are currently highly susceptible to large, high-severity wildfires (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protections portions of the Eastside Screens would still apply, also contributing to species viability. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

This alternative does not include standards or guidelines for key elements of old forest habitat but relies on meeting desired conditions, and monitoring and adaptive management to determine if large and old trees are being retained to move toward LOS habitat objectives. Old trees are a key habitat component for Moist Forest LOS associated species and their abundance may be reduced under this alternative. The availability of trees >21 inches dbh typical of Moist Forest habitats, such as Douglas-fir, white fir and grand fir, have increased considerably since 1995. These trees are likely to continue to increase under this alternative, though at a slower rate than under the Current Management Alternative.

Table 31. Current amount, and past and future trends on late and old structure (LOS) habitat as a result of the implementation of the Adaptive Management Alternative.

Potential Late and Old Current Acres Predicted Trend Present to Vegetation Structure +25 Years Group Habitat (in 1,000s) Dry Late-Open 399.16 Low-moderate increase Late-Closed 926.12 Increase Moist Late-Open 273.90 Low-moderate Increase Late-Closed 1,739.01 Increase

The effects analysis for Snag Associated Wildlife Species, Deer and Elk, and Habitat Sustainability and Resiliency are the same as for the Old and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management. Adaptive Management Alternative Wildlife Summary • A key assumption of this alternative is that monitoring is carried out in a manner that allows changes in the availability of LOS habitats, large and old trees, and large snags to be detected in a timely fashion so that adaptive management occurs before the viability outcome of any MIS or R6 Sensitive Species is reduced. • Implementation of this alternative would make a low-moderate contribution to the viability of wildlife species associated with late-open habitats, whose viability outcomes (Viability Outcomes D and E, Appendix A) are well below their historical viability outcomes. • This alternative would maintain the viability of species associated with late-closed habitats (Viability Outcome A or B, Appendix A). • The snag management guidance provided by this alternative should improve the ability of managers to restore the abundance of large snags towards historical numbers and contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with snag habitats. • This alternative retains the ecosystem screen, habitat connectivity and goshawk nest site protection portions of the Eastside Screens contributing to species viability.

117 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

• This alternative facilitates the application of treatments that reduce forest canopy closure and enhance elk and deer forage and retains cover standards in existing Forest Plans. • This alternative would facilitate the application of restoration treatments that include thinning and prescribed fire and have been shown to reduce fire severity, increase large tree survival and, depending on the spatial location, alter fire behavior. This alternative would enhance the resiliency of forested habitats and the sustainability of LOS habitats.

3.6.2.9 Large and Old Tree Standard with Exceptions

Late and Old Structure Associated Wildlife Species

Dry Forest LOS

The implementation of this alternative would result in a steady increase in the amount of Dry Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a very low rate of increase in Dry Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 33). Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would continue to remain well below their historical amounts (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Dry Forest habitats are at considerable risk of loss to large, high severity wildfires in their current condition (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). The viability of species associated with Dry Forest LOS-open habitats would continue to remain low as their viability outcomes are well below historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2001, Wales et al. 2011, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013, Gaines 2017). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS- closed habitats, whose viability outcomes have declined less compared to historical conditions (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). This alternative includes a standard with exceptions for elements of Dry Forest LOS habitat. This alternative includes a standard limiting the harvest of live trees >21 inches dbh and old trees of any tree species. This alternative limits the ability to restore species composition and reduce the loss of old fire tolerant trees. Fire tolerant old trees are a key habitat component for many wildlife species associated with Dry Forest LOS habitats (Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Moist Forest LOS The implementation of this alternative would result in a steady increase in the amount of Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats as a result of forest succession, and a very slow rate of increase in Moist Forest LOS-open habitats that result from restoration treatments (Table 33). This alternative would contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-closed habitats, as these habitats become more abundant through forest succession (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2001, Gaines 2017). However, these habitats are currently highly susceptible to large, high-severity wildfires (Haugo et al. 2019, Singleton et al. 2019, Hessburg et al. 2020). Viability of wildlife species associated with Moist Forest LOS-Open habitats would remain low. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

The availability of trees >21 inches dbh typical of Moist Forest habitats, such as Douglas- fir, white fir and grand fir, have increased considerable since 1995, and are likely to continue to increase under this alternative. This alternative provides protections for old trees regardless of size or species. The abundance of old trees that are shade tolerant (but fire intolerant, e.g. grand fir/white fir) are likely to increase as a result of implementing this alternative.

Table 32. Current Amount and Trends for Late and Old Structure (LOS) Habitat under the Large and Old Tree Standard with Exceptions Alternative Potential Late and Old Current Acres (in Predicted Trend Present to +25 Years Vegetation Structure Habitat 1,000s) Group Dry Late-Open 399.16 Low rate of Increase Late-Closed 926.12 Steady Increase* Moist Late-Open 273.90 Low rate of increase Late-Closed 1,739.01 Steady Increase* *Does not account for an increasing risk of habitat loss from large-scale high severity wildfire. The effects for Snag Associated Wildlife Species are the same as for the Large and Old Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management. Deer and Elk This alternative would limit the amount of forest treatments used to reduce canopy closure (to <40% canopy closure) in closed-canopy forest habitats. These closed-canopy habitats have increased as a result of fire suppression and past management practices (Haugo et al. 2015, DeMeo et al. 2018) and have reduced the amount of forage available for deer and elk. This alternative would considerably limit the ability of managers to apply restoration treatments that reduce forest canopy at the stand scale that would increase the quality and quantity of forage for deer and elk (Endress et al. 2012, Lehmkuhl et al. 2013, Hull et al. 2020). Habitat Sustainability and Resiliency This alternative would limit the ability of managers to restore open-stand conditions and fire-tolerant tree species composition in dry forests. This is an important climate change adaption that has been recommended to create more resistant and resilient habitats and landscapes (Singleton et al. 2019, Table 27). As a result, there would be an increased risk of habitat loss due to wildfire (Littell et al. 2009, Prichard et al. 2010, Haugo et al. 2019, Prichard et al. 2020). Large and Old Tree Standard with Exception Alternative Wildlife Summary • Implementation of this alternative would make a low contribution to the viability of wildlife species associated with late-open habitats, whose viability outcomes (Viability Outcomes D and E, Appendix A) are well below their historical viability outcomes (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017).

119 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

• This alternative would maintain the viability of species associated with late-closed habitats (Viability Outcomes A and B, Appendix A), though these habitats would be at high risk of loss to uncharacteristically severe wildfires. • The snag management guidance provided by this alternative would improve the ability of managers to restore the abundance of large snags towards historical numbers and contribute to the viability of wildlife species associated with snag habitats. • This alternative limits the ability of managers to apply restoration treatments that reduce tree canopy closure and enhance elk and deer forage. • This alternative limits the ability of managers to implement climate adaptations that would create more resistant and resilient habitats and landscapes.

3.7 BOTANY 3.7.1 Key Indicators Key indicators were selected to assess effects to botanical resources (Table 34).

Table 33. Key indicators used to assess potential effects of the alternatives to botanical resources. Resource element Reason for selection Key Indicator

Threatened, Endangered, Condition and area of Proposed, and candidate habitat plant species • Spalding’s catchfly 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) Relevant threats • MacFarlane’s four- Substantive Requirement 219.9 o’clock • Whitebark pine (also a Region 6 Sensitive Existing protections Species)

Condition and area of habitat types Region 6 Sensitive Species 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) Relevant threats • 229 plants and fungi Substantive Requirement 219.9

Existing protections

Factors influencing the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) Invasive plants establishment and spread Substantive Requirement 219.9 of invasive plants Public comments, Nez Perce Treaty Culturally-significant of 1855, 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Condition and area of botanical resources 219) Substantive Requirement habitat types 219.10 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Species of conservation concern have not been identified for the planning area. The best available approximate for these species is the 2019 Region 6 Sensitive Species list, which is compiled using lists from other federal agencies, state biodiversity or natural heritage programs, and NatureServe (see criteria details on the ISSSSP website, https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/). It is considered to be comprehensive and include all species for which concerns of viability exist. To assess effects for species that may not be on the list, analyses of impacts to habitat types, common threats, and existing protections were conducted and then used, for each alternative, to determine if substantial adverse effects or a lessening of protections would occur for species potentially of conservation concern.

3.7.2 Analysis Methods First, habitat and threat information for each of the 231 federally-listed and/or Sensitive species was gathered from fact sheets, conservation and recovery plans, monitoring reports, reference texts, and taxonomy records largely available online from agencies and conservation partners, as well as expert opinion from resource specialists. Habitat information was then used to assign each species to habitat types roughly corresponding to those in Johnson and O’Neil (2001). Habitat type assignments were generous to include all possible habitat types for a given species. Next, the likelihood of the amendment affecting a given habitat type was assessed. Finally, predictions of the condition and area of each affected habitat type under each alternative were made based on the actions identified in the alternatives and effects described by the Vegetation and Disturbance sections of this EA.

Trends in habitat types were a primary assessment tool for analyzing effects to rare plant and fungal species. Federally-listed species were individually considered for effects, while Sensitive Species and potentially-unlisted species of conservation concern were considered using habitat types. Analyzing impacts to habitat types, common threats, and existing regulatory protections allowed for the determination of substantial adverse effects or a lessening of protections.

All culturally-significant plant and fungal taxa documented in public comments or publications and provided via personal communication were analyzed. Only those documented publicly are listed in this document: huckleberries, Lomatium spp., edible mushrooms, and First Foods of the Umatilla Tribe that include berries, roots, and other plants. Effects were analyzed by considering effects to specific habitats to which these taxa belong, thereby providing assessments for other taxa not explicitly in this list.

3.7.3 Affected Environment

3.7.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and candidate plant species and Region 6 Sensitive Species Two federally listed and one proposed plant species are documented or suspected to occur in the planning area. The two Threatened species are MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlani) and Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii). The proposed plant, also a Region 6 Sensitive Species, is whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). In addition to whitebark pine, there are 228 botanical taxa on the Region 6 Sensitive Species list documented or suspected to occur in the planning area, including 185 vascular plants, 34 bryophytes (i.e., non-vascular plants, excluding algae), three lichen, and six fungi

121 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

(Appendix A) (USFS 2019). These rare species are distributed throughout the planning area in the Blue Mountains and East Cascades Ecoregions (Table 35). Between 47 and 119 rare species occur in each National Forest.

Table 34. A summary of the suspected or documented TEP, R6 Sensitive, and MIS plant and fungal taxa (vascular plants, bryophytes, lichen, and fungi) in the planning area. Species National Forests in the Blue National Forests in the East Status Mountains Ecoregion Cascades Ecoregion Umatilla Malheur Wallowa- Deschutes Ochoco Fremont- Whitman Winema Plants No. Federally 1 0 2 0 0 0 Listed Species No. Proposed 1 1 1 1 0 1 species No. R6 117 102 116 64 47 70 Sensitive/MIS

3.7.3.2 Habitat types affected by the amendment The 229 Sensitive Species occur in many different habitats, which can be grouped into coarse habitat types (Table 36). Habitat types primarily relate to substrate, soil moisture or proximity to water, lifeform and/or species of associated vegetation, and elevation. Many species can be placed in more than one habitat type; assignments were generous to include all possible habitat types for a given species. A great number of species are associated with water, occurring in wetlands, riparian areas, seeps, or seasonally moist areas. Many are also associated with unique features in forests, such as rotting logs, rock outcrops, or openings.

The following species highlighted by public comments were grouped into the indicated habitat types: Blepharostoma arachnoideum – Cool moist forest; Schistidium cinclidodonteum – Cliffs and outcrops, Moderate riparian, Subalpine wet; Tortula mucronifolia – Cliffs and outcrops, Cold forest, Cool moist forest, Moderate riparian, Warm dry forest; Rhizopogon alexsmithii – Cool moist forest; Arabis crucisetosa – Low elevation grasslands, Warm dry forest; Botrychium pumicola, Cypripedium fasciculatum – Cool moist forest, Moderate riparian; Listera borealis – Cold forest, Cool moist forest, Moderate riparian; and Trifolium douglasii –Moderate riparian, Moist/wet meadows, Warm dry forest.

Table 36 presents the likelihood of a particular habitat type being affected by any of the action alternatives. This likelihood indicates whether the proposed amendment may change management activities within a given habitat type, not whether a Sensitive Species would be affected. The two habitat types the proposed change is most likely to affect are cool moist forest and warm dry forest. These types include forests most commonly targeted for silviculture treatments and with trees (white fir/grand fir, Douglas fir, and/or ponderosa pine) that may frequently be 21 inches dbh or greater and subject to consideration under the proposed amendment. These habitats include dry meadows and forest openings that occur in a matrix with forested areas. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Several habitat types are very unlikely to be affected by the amendment and were not further analyzed. Wet areas at all elevations – including, for example, wetlands, wet meadows, riparian areas, stream banks, shorelines, marshes, open water, and vernal pools – would continue to be managed by the objectives, goals, standards, and guides in PACFISH and INFISH (as well as Forest Plans and Amendments), which only allow vegetation treatments within RHCAs to maintain habitat that support populations of well- distributed native and desired non-native plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian-dependent communities (INFISH Appendix E; PACFISH Appendix C). Open and nearly treeless areas such as grasslands, sage, and lithosols would be very unlikely to be affected by this amendment. Similarly, the open areas of the subalpine dry habitat type (e.g., rocky slopes) would not be affected by the amendment. Forested subalpine dry habitats, often associated with whitebark pine, are primarily Wilderness or Roadless areas and rarely subject to timber sales, nor do they include many trees over 21” dbh. See additional whitebark pine consideration in Environmental Effects.

Three habitat types may occasionally have their management affected by the proposed amendment: cliffs and outcrops, cold forest, and juniper. The first includes rock outcrops that may occur inside an affected forest type. The second includes forests dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and/or mountain hemlock, which are rarely productive enough to be targeted for silvicultural treatments: since 1994, just 4.9% of the subalpine fir-Engelmann spruce potential vegetation zone acreage was subject to any type of harvest (e.g., precommercial thin, commercial thin, salvage cut, improvement cut). Similarly, in the third habitat type of juniper, just 4.1% of this potential vegetation zone was subject to harvest since 1994.

Table 35. Habitat types of Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, likelihood of effect to the management of each habitat type, the number of Sensitive Species occurring in each, and example habitats. Management of habitat type likely to be # of Habitat affected by Sensitive type change? Species Example habitats Alkali No 3 Alkaline mud flat, saline area, playa Aquatic No 9 In streams, lakes, ponds, ditches; submerged Big sage No 12 Meadow, scrub, or steppe with sagebrush Cliffs, Rock outcrops in forests or grasslands, cliff outcrops Maybe 39 crevices, rock ledges Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, mountain Cold forest Maybe 23 hemlock, openings in cold forest Moist to mesic coniferous forest, generally closed-canopy forest, damp or decaying wood, Cool moist ectomycorrhizal in moist old-growth forest, forest Yes 19 openings in cool moist forest

123 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Management of habitat type likely to be # of Habitat affected by Sensitive type change? Species Example habitats Dry Dry and open area, open slope, prairie; grasslands No 31 moderate elevations Western juniper woodland, rocky area with Juniper Maybe 3 juniper Shallow soils without well-defined soil horizons, scablands, basalt, volcanic ash deposits, rocky Lithosols No 20 serpentine soils Low elevation Open canyon slopes, plains, prairies, below grasslands No 9 ~2,500 ft elevation Low elevation Shorelines, banks, along streams or rivers; below riparian No 22 ~2,500 ft elevation; open or forested Moderate Shorelines, banks, along streams or rivers; riparian No 38 ~2,500 to 6,000 ft elevation; open or forested Moist/wet Seep, marsh, wetland, moist roadside, wet meadows No 60 depression, open and moist area Subalpine elevation: dry meadow, open forest, Subalpine whitebark pine, talus slopes, ridges, open rocky dry No 41 places Subalpine elevation: marsh, wet meadow, seep, Subalpine moist soil, melting snow, along streams, wet No 58 shorelines Vernal pools No 11 Seasonally wet pools, depressions, wetlands Generally open-canopy forest, ponderosa pine, Warm dry Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, dry mixed- forest Yes 30 coniferous forest, openings in warm dry forests

3.7.3.3 Threats to rare species Threats to rare plant and fungal species in the region are varied, ranging from recreation to stream management to air pollution. Those most relevant to the proposed amendment include timber harvesting (including effects from tree loss, microclimate changes, ground disturbance, roads, and introduced plant species) changes in wildfire frequency and severity (including effects from less frequent and higher-severity wildfire, conifer encroachment, and canopy infilling), and climate change (including effects from long- term hydrologic and temperature changes). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Plants and fungi are affected by climate change in a variety of ways, including changes in species distributions (Hoffman and Sgro 2011, You et al. 2018), growth (Ibañez et al. 2018), phenology (Khanduri et al. 2008, Gordo and Sanz 2010), and biotic interactions such as plant-soil feedbacks (Pugnaire et al. 2019). Changes to disturbance regimes, including wildfire frequency and severity (Westerling et al. 2006, Westerling 2016), are another critical impact. Restoring historical forest structure and increasing the resiliency of vegetation to wildfire can help maintain native plant populations subject to shifts in natural disturbance regimes, including those in the planning area.

3.7.3.4 Culturally-significant botanical resources Many plants and fungi have cultural, spiritual, medicinal, and ecological significance to Tribes with ceded or reserved land in eastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. These plants and fungi have contributed to the sustenance of tribal people for millennia and continue to serve essential cultural and spiritual roles (Endress et al. 2019, Nakia Williamson pers. comm. 16 Nov 2020). Tribes retain gathering rights to these foods, medicines, and ceremonial items on ceded lands, which include portions of the six National Forests in the planning area. Forest Plans, Amendments, and Planning Rules include standards for providing for these treaty rights and considering the effects of proposed activities on gathering sites and resources. In the planning area, collaboration between U.S. and tribal governments regarding impacts to treaty rights varies among Forests, Tribes/Tribal Confederations, and projects. The level and process of collaboration varies with how actively the Forest seeks tribal input, how active a Tribe/Tribal Confederation is in the area, and the status of the working relationship between the groups. In many cases, there is a need to increase tribal involvement in the consideration of cultural plants, First Foods, and gathering sites for a given project. All culturally-significant plant and fungal taxa provided in public comments and via personal communication were analyzed for effects, but to protect sensitive information, only those that are documented publicly are listed (Table 37). Taxa include huckleberries, Lomatium spp., edible mushrooms, and First Foods of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR; Endress et al. 2019). Many of these species are widespread throughout the planning area and span a range of upland habitat types (Table 37). Within habitat types, taxa vary widely in the conditions that favor them – including, for example, subalpine fir forests (Vaccinium scoparium), post-wildfire (Morchella spp.), open-canopy ponderosa pine (Fritillaria pudica), and forest openings (Vaccinium membranaceum). Effects were analyzed by considering ecological impacts to habitat types and conditions where taxa are found. Only habitats likely or occasionally likely to have their management affected by the proposed amendment were further considered in the analysis. Ecological threats to the availability of these taxa that are applicable to the proposed amendment are similar to those of rare plants: timber harvesting (including effects from tree loss, microclimate changes, ground disturbance, roads, and introduced plant species) changes in disturbance frequency and severity (including effects from less frequent and higher-severity wildfire, conifer encroachment, and canopy infilling), and climate change (including effects from long-term hydrologic and temperature changes).

Table 36. Culturally-significant plant and fungal taxa and their habitats. List includes taxa available in public documents; additional taxa were analyzed for effects but are not listed. Habitat types and 125 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens characteristics were gleaned from Endress et al. (2019), field guides, floras, and the Burke Herbarium Image Collection. Habitat types correspond to Table 36. English Scientific Habitat Source for Common Habitat type name characteristics including taxa name Cold forest, Forest openings, open Nez Perce Tribe Huckle- Vaccinium Cool moist forests, bogs, wet Comments on berries spp. forest, Warm meadows Oct. 13, 2020 dry forest Nez Perce Tribe Big sage, Rocky places, ridges, Biscuitroot Lomatium spp. Comments on Juniper sagebrush, grasslands Oct. 13, 2020 edible Cantharellus Cold forest, Varied: under old and mushrooms spp., Nez Perce Tribe Cool moist large trees, post-fire, (chanterelles, Morchella Comments on forest, Warm mycorrhizal with pine morels, spp., Boletus Oct. 13, 2020 dry forest and spruce boletes, etc.) spp., etc. Big sage, Dry CTUIR First Grassy slopes, Camassia grasslands, Foods Upland Camas prairies, dry and moist quamash Moist/wet Vision by Endress meadows meadows et al. 2019 Subalpine dry Open, moist, grassy CTUIR First Spring Claytonia and moist, slopes; areas with late- Foods Upland Beauty lanceolata Warm dry melting snow Vision forest Dry Grasslands, dry and CTUIR First Fritillaria grasslands, Yellow Bell open ponderosa pine Foods Upland pudica Warm dry forest Vision forest CTUIR First Lewisia Big sage, Dry Dry grasslands, Bitterroot Foods Upland rediviva grasslands sagebrush slopes Vision Big sage, Dry CTUIR First Desert Lomatium grasslands, Barren and rocky areas Foods Upland Parsley canbyi Lithosols Vision Big sage, Dry CTUIR First Lomatium Cous grasslands, Rocky places, ridges Foods Upland cous Lithosols Vision Big sage, CTUIR First Lomatium Lithosols, Spring Gold Dry rocky slopes, flats Foods Upland grayi Warm dry Vision forest USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

English Scientific Habitat Source for Common Habitat type name characteristics including taxa name Big sage, Dry CTUIR First Barestem Lomatium Dry and open areas, grasslands, Foods Upland Biscuitroot nudicale rocky areas Lithosols Vision Dry grasslands, Moist and open forest, CTUIR First Perideridia Moist/wet Yampa moist meadows, open Foods Upland gairdneri meadows, and grassy slopes Vision Warm dry forest Dry Grasslands, dry CTUIR First Wild Triteleia grasslands, ponderosa pine Foods Upland Hyacinth grandiflora Warm dry woodlands Vision forest Cool moist forest, Dry Warm aspects, open CTUIR First Amalanchier Serviceberry grasslands, and dry slopes, open Foods Upland alnifolia Warm dry forest, moist gullies Vision forest Riparian, Streambanks and CTUIR First Black Crategous Warm dry lakeshores, warm and Foods Upland Hawthorn douglasii forest open slopes Vision Dry Warm aspects, open CTUIR First Prunus grasslands, Chokecherry forests, clearings, Foods Upland virginiana Warm dry rocky outcrops Vision forest CTUIR First Golden Ribes Riparian Moist stream banks Foods Upland Current aureaum Vision Vaccinium Cool moist CTUIR First Bigleaf Openings and membranaceu forest, Warm Foods Upland Huckleberry clearings m dry forest Vision Grouse Cool moist Forest openings, CTUIR First Vaccinium Whortle- forest, Warm subalpine, vulnerable Foods Upland scoparium berry dry forest to disturbance Vision

127 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.7.4 Environmental Effects

3.7.4.1 Assumptions • Forest Plans and Amendments provide adequate regulatory mechanisms at the project level to prevent moving rare plant and fungal species (TEP, R6 Sensitive, SCC) toward extinction or endangerment, such as surveys and project-specific NEPA and ESA consultation. • The area affected by timber harvest under all alternatives will remain stable while the prescriptions within treated stands will likely change to some extent. • The remaining portions of the Eastside Screens (USFS 1995) will remain in place.

3.7.4.2 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and candidate plant species not further addressed: MacFarlane’s four-o’clock and whitebark pine MacFarlane’s four-o’clock (Mirabilis macfarlani) is a Threatened species documented on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. However, this plant does not occur in or near habitat affected by the alternatives. It is endemic to canyon grasslands of the Snake, Salmon, and Imnaha Rivers in Oregon and Idaho, which are dry and open with occasional shrubs (Yates 2007). The habitat contains essentially no conifer trees and is far from forest, so it is not affected by timber harvest or thinning activities. Thus, all alternatives would have no effect on this species, and it was not further considered in this analysis. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is proposed for federal listing and is a Region 6 Sensitive Species. It occurs in the Cascade, Blue, and Wallowa Mountains and is documented in five of the six forests affected by the proposed amendment (not documented on the Ochoco National Forest). All alternatives would have no effect on this species and it was not further considered in this analysis for the following reasons: 1) Its primary habitat is outside of areas that the proposed amendment would affect. In the planning area, whitebark pine occurs primarily in subalpine and montane cold forests in wilderness and roadless areas; these areas are typically not subject to timber sales and comprised less than 1% of the forests in the planning area. 2) The emphasis of the Eastside Screens on managing LOS habitats within the historical range of variation, including managing for historical and resilient species composition, is consistent with the Range-Wide Restoration Strategy for Whitebark Pine utilized by the Forest Service (Keane et al. 2012). This emphasis on restoration of whitebark pine would continue and would be unaffected by the proposed amendment. 3) Existing protections for whitebark pine, as defined by the standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments, would not be affected. For example, project-specific analyses would still be required to address site-specific effects on proposed species like whitebark pine.

3.7.4.3 Current Management Alternative Under all alternatives, plant and fungal species would continue to be protected by standards and guidelines in current Forest Plans and Amendments, which require project level-NEPA analysis and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation. These also include PACFISH/INFISH standards and guidelines protecting Riparian Habitat Conservation USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Areas. The Current Management Alternative makes no changes to the regulatory framework guiding these project-level analyses.

3.7.4.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species: Spalding’s catchfly Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) is a Threatened species documented on the Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. It primarily occurs in open grasslands, but is occasionally found in open, park-like ponderosa pine forests with Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) in the understory (USFWS 2007). Under the Current Management Alternative, the overall area of this habitat type (dry, late-open ponderosa pine forest) is expected to increase slowly, but the abundance and dominance of old ponderosa pine trees are expected to decrease, shifting species composition and increasing vulnerability to mortality (Table 38, Vegetation section, and Disturbance section for more detail). While predicting the resulting outcome for any one population of Spalding’s catchfly is not possible at a broad scale, the species may experience an increase in potential habitat as more late-open forest develops, but a decline in the suitability of occupied habitat as species composition and disturbance vulnerability shift.

Region 6 Sensitive Species

Effects to the habitats of Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted Species of Conservation Concern under the Current Management Alternative would differ among habitat types (Table 38). Habitat types for each of the 229 Sensitive Species are provide in Appendix A. Under the Current Management Alternative, dry, open forest habitats such as park-like ponderosa stands and juniper woodlands would have mixed outcomes: late-open forests would continue to slowly increase in area, but managers’ ability to adapt treatments to further encourage open-structure forests and reduce uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance would be limited. As a result, the risk of habitat loss to disturbance would continue to be a considerable threat for Sensitive Species associated with this habitat type. In addition, species occurring in forest openings or gaps may suffer from increasing spatial homogenization within stands due to treatments being limited to thinning from below. Conifer encroachment on adjacent dry meadows or would only be controlled for trees <21 inch dbh; young, large trees would not be cut. Outcomes for cool, moist forest would also be mixed under the Current Management Alternative. Coverage of closed canopy structures would increase as tree growth outpaces natural and managed thinning. However, continued loss of old trees and higher-than- historical mortality from disturbance would continue to threaten to species dependent on ectomycorrhizal associations with old trees and on a cool and stable microclimate. Furthermore, increasing spatial homogenization would threaten species dependent on habitat niches such as gaps and openings. Cold forest habitats would continue to be subject to outdated snag and green tree retention science and experience wildfire that leads to greater homogeneity and larger patch sizes compared to historical forests. Species associated with rock outcrops in forests would similarly suffer from the increasing risk of mortality with wildfire, which would alter the microclimates these species are sensitive to.

129 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

This analysis suggests there would not be significant adverse effects to any habitat type. As a result, for all Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH), does not lessen protections, and does not have a significantly adverse effect.

3.7.4.3.2 Invasive Plants Under the Current Management Alternative, invasive plants would continue to be managed according to the standards and guidelines in current Forest Plans and Amendments, which require minimizing their introduction, establishment, and spread, and incorporating prevention and control into project planning. Measures to prevent and control their spread – such as monitoring, treatment, and native plant restoration – would be ongoing, as would the ecological and management factors that tend to increase their abundance and distribution, including climate change, high-severity wildfire, and ground disturbance (Harrod and Reichard 2002, Keeley et al. 2003, Keeley 2006, LeDoux and Martin 2013, Halofsky and Peterson 2017, Reilly et al. 2020).

3.7.4.3.3 Culturally-significant botanical resources Under Current Management, ecological effects to culturally-significant plants and fungi would vary among habitat types (Table 38). These effects are described in the above section Region 6 Sensitive Species and for brevity are not repeated here. In summary, tree growth and regeneration in forests would continue to outpace thinning due to both management and natural disturbances. Where treatments do occur, managers’ ability to adapt treatments to further encourage open-structure forests and reduce uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance would be limited. As a result, continued canopy closure and high risk of uncharacteristically severe disturbance would largely benefit taxa favored by late-closed and mid-closed forest structures or high-severity wildfire, such as chanterelles (Cantherellus spp.) and morels (Morchella spp.). Those that need late-open or mid-open structure, gaps and openings, and low-severity wildfire, such as huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), yellow bell (Fritillaria pudica), and chokecherry (Purnus virginiana), would benefit less from this Alternative than others. As described above, existing standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments that require assessing effects at the project level and providing for gathering rights retained by tribes, as described in treaties, would not change.

3.7.4.4 Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline with Adaptive Management Alternative

3.7.4.4.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species: Spalding’s Catchfly Federally Threatened Spalding’s catchfly (Silene spaldingii) is the only federally-listed species that may be affected by the proposed alternatives. The proposed action could affect Spalding’s catchfly plants that occupy open pine habitatapproximately 7% of plants (USFWS 2007); however, the desired condition would still be to retain or enhance open, park-like late and old structure (LOS) forest characteristics within that 7%. Under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative, both adverse and beneficial effects are possible but highly unlikely; they are thus insignificant and discountable. Adverse effects to Spalding’s catchfly that could occur as a result of this alternative would be related to timber harvesting activities. Specifically, adverse effects could occur USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

due to ground disturbance in occupied habitat. While effects specifically from timber harvest are unknown, ground disturbance generally impacts Spalding’s catchfly by damaging the caudex (thickened stem base) of the plant. It has the biggest effect during the flowering and seeding period (late July to September) and during seedling and shoot emergence in early spring. Ground disturbance can also have indirect impacts by facilitating the invasion of nonnative plants that compete with catchfly for pollinators or underground resources. These adverse effects, however, are unlikely to occur. The alternative affects timber harvest by increasing management flexibility in treating forests to promote late and old structure. While this allows for the opportunity to create more open forest conditions, it is not predicted to increase the area of timber harvest (see Vegetation section). As a result, the potential adverse effects described above would be very unlikely to occur more frequently than they currently do. Furthermore, project-level surveys and analyses prior to any timber harvest would still be required, with the objective of avoiding or mitigating adverse impacts to the species. Beneficial effects for Spalding’s catchfly under the alternative are theoretically possible with the removal of encroaching conifers on grasslands, or the determination and attainment of stocking levels required in its pine habitat (Jerold Hustafa pers. comm. 30 June 2020). However, restoration activity of this type for the purpose of catchfly recovery is unlikely for several reasons. First, conifer encroachment is a minor threat to the species; human development, grazing, and invasive species are more impactful (USFWS 2007). Second, the disturbance associated with conifer removal would likely pose more of a threat than the conifers themselves, and most encroaching conifers are of diameters smaller than 21 inches (and thus outside the scope of this analysis). Finally, the manipulation of forest structure is not recommended as a restoration strategy for this species (USFWS 2007). As a result, beneficial effects to catchfly as a result of the alternative are highly unlikely. All the effects described above are even more unlikely because the open-canopy, park- like forests where Spalding’s catchfly is occasionally found would be treated in very rare instances, if at all. Under this alternative, the Eastside Screens would still prohibit timber sales in LOS stages that are below their historical range of variation (HRV) – and across the much of the planning area, open-canopy, park-like forests (a.k.a. late-open forest) are indeed below HRV. Primary strategies to address climate change threats focus on increasing resilience to ecological disturbance (wildfire, insects, and nonnative species) (Halofsky and Peterson 2016). Rare and disjunct species like Spalding’s catchfly require adaptation strategies and tactics focused on encouraging regeneration, preventing damage from disturbance, and establishing refugia. The objectives of the Eastside Screens to promote resilient forests, along with the continued implementation of the Recovery Plan, would promote resilience and conservation of known populations of Spalding’s catchfly, even in the face of climate change.

3.7.4.4.2 Region 6 Sensitive Species Outcomes for many habitat types of Sensitive Species under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative would be slightly improved compared to the Current Management Alternative (Table 38). Forested habitats would experience slightly improved outcomes

131 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens under the Old Tree and Large Tree Alternative. The area of timber harvest and harvesting practices that affect ground disturbance would not change. Instead, improved restoration opportunities due to the option of removing young, large trees, while maintaining the late structure objectives emphasized in the Eastside Screens, would enhance forested habitats. Compared to Current Management, late-open structure in dry forests would increase in area at a slightly faster rate, and managers’ ability to adapt treatments to further encourage open-structure forests and reduce uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance would be enhanced. A greater variety of thinning methods would increase the potential for maintaining spatial heterogeneity within stands, benefitting habitats of species that need gaps or openings free from conifer encroachment. Improved snag and green tree retention science and management would likely enhance the long-term availability of snags and downed logs. Cool moist forests would see greater protection of old trees than Current Management. Similar to dry forests, there would be lower levels of wildfire mortality, higher spatial heterogeneity, and improved long-term availability of snags and downed logs. Cold forests would have the same outcomes as Current Management except for improved science for snag and green tree retention management. For rock outcrops, this alternative is expected to result in lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to Current Management, reducing negative impacts to microclimate.

For all Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH), does not lessen protections, and does not have a significantly adverse effect.

3.7.4.4.3 Invasive Plants The Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative would have the potential to cause both negative and positive effects regarding invasive plants. The ecological factors influencing the abundance and distribution of invasive plants are numerous, interactive, and play roles at scales smaller than that of this analysis. The following are brief summaries of highly-relevant factors and related effects of this alternative. Factors are categorized as negative (˗), neutral (0), or positive (+) based on the summarized effect of the alternative.

1. Climate change (+) a. Increasing the resiliency of forests to drought and disturbance is recommended to ameliorate the increased abundance and distribution of invasive plant species expected as a result of climate change (Halofsky and Peterson 2017). b. This alternative would enhance managers’ ability to adapt treatments to promote open-structure, drought-tolerant forests and reduce uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance. 2. Wildfire (+) a. Wildfire can catalyze rapid change of forests to non-forested or alternative disturbance regime states (Kerns et al. 2020). Severe wildfires typically USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

increase the diversity and abundance of nonnative species (Harrod and Reichard 2002, Keeley et al. 2003, Reilly et al. 2020). b. This alternative would enhance managers’ ability to adapt treatments to encourage fire-tolerant species and reduce uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance. 3. Thinning and timber harvest (˗) a. Thinning for fuels reduction and other types of timber harvest can increase nonnative plant invasion as a result of ground disturbance, operations such as equipment movement, and canopy opening (Charbonneau and Fahrig 2004, Keeley 2006, LeDoux and Martin 2013, Averett et al. 2016, Willms et al. 2017). b. This alternative would not alter the acreage of timber harvest or fuels- reduction activities, and thus the acreage of resulting ground disturbance and equipment movement. It would, however, create the opportunity to thin to a lower basal area and increase canopy opening.

These factors would act in concert with each other, other ecological factors, and ongoing prevention and control practices to affect invasive plants in the planning area. Given the myriad influences, the net effect of this alternative on the distribution and abundance of invasive plants would be small. This alternative would not change the regulatory framework guiding project-level analyses or prevention and control measures, resulting in little change from the Current Management Alternative.

3.7.4.4.4 Culturally-significant botanical resources Under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline, ecological effects to culturally-significant plants and fungi would vary among habitat types (Table 38). These effects are described in the above section Region 6 Sensitive Species and for brevity are not fully repeated here. In summary, tree growth and regeneration in forests would continue to outpace natural and managed thinning, but where treatments do occur, managers’ ability to encourage open-structure and spatially-heterogeneous forests would be enhanced. Treatments would be more effective at reducing uncharacteristic mortality from disturbance. As a result, taxa that need late-open or mid-open structure, gaps and openings, and low-severity wildfire, such as huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), yellow bell (Fritillaria pudica), and chokecherry (Purnus virginiana), would benefit more under this Alternative than under Current Management. Taxa favored by late-closed and mid-closed forest structures or high-severity wildfire, such as chanterelles (Cantherellus spp.) and morels (Morchella spp.), would be maintained through natural forest succession in untreated areas and in treated areas by the HRV objectives emphasized in the Eastside Screens. The area of timber harvest and harvesting practices that affect ground disturbance would not change. Improved snag and green tree retention science and management would likely enhance the long-term availability of snags and downed logs and the saprophytic taxa that decompose forest floor material. As described above, existing standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments that require assessing effects at the project level and providing for gathering rights retained by tribes, as described in treaties, would not change.The adaptive management

133 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

strategy, one component of this alternative, includes a statement encouraging engagement of tribal natural and cultural resource staff in local implementation monitoring to incorporate consideration of treaty rights and culturally-significant plants and fungi. This provision is not a guarantee of collaboration or funding, but it would serve as a reminder for Forest Service personnel to reach out to Tribes/Tribal Confederations regarding projects that include the harvest of old and/or large trees. While the exact outcome of this provision across the planning area is very difficult to predict or measure, it would make it more likely that collaboration between Forests and Tribes occurs.

3.7.4.5 Old Tree Standard Alternative

3.7.4.5.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species: Spalding’s Catchfly Effects to Spalding’s catchfly under the Old Tree Standard are the same as under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline: both adverse and beneficial effects are possible but highly unlikely; they are thus insignificant and discountable. See details in the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative.

3.7.4.5.2 Region 6 Sensitive Species Outcomes for many habitat types of Sensitive Species would be improved under the Old Tree Standard Alternative than under the Current Management Alternative (Table 38). They would be very similar to those under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative. Forested (both Cool moist and Warm dry) and rock outcrop habitats would experience slightly improved outcomes under this alternative than under Current Management. Outcomes would be the same as under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative except that old trees, which are particularly important to species in cool moist forest habitats, would have their protection and maintenance maximized under this alternative. Cold forests would have the same outcomes as Current Management except for improved science for snag and green tree retention management. Wildfire outcomes would be unchanged in this forest type. For all Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH), does not lessen protections, and does not have a significantly adverse effect.

3.7.4.5.3 Invasive Plants Effects to invasive plants under this alternative would be very similar to those under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative. Management would continue to be guided by standards and guidelines in current Forest Plans and Amendments, and, due to the myriad factors contribute to invasive plants in the planning area, the net effect of this alternative on the distribution and abundance of invasive plants would be small.

3.7.4.5.4 Culturally-significant botanical resources Under the Old Tree Standard, ecological effects to culturally-significant plants and fungi would vary among habitat types (Table 38). These effects are described in the above section Region 6 Sensitive Species and for brevity are not fully repeated here. In sum, outcomes would be the same as under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative, except that old trees, which are particularly important to ectomycorrhizal species in cool USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

moist forest habitats, would have their protection and maintenance maximized under this alternative. As described above, existing standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments that require assessing effects at the project level and providing for gathering rights retained by tribes, as described in treaties, would not change.

3.7.4.6 Adaptive Management Alternative

3.7.4.6.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species: Spalding’s Catchfly Effects to Spalding’s catchfly under the Adaptive Management Alternative are the same as under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline: both adverse and beneficial effects are possible but highly unlikely; they are thus insignificant and discountable. See details in the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative.

3.7.4.6.2 Region 6 Sensitive Species Outcomes for many habitat types of Sensitive Species under the Adaptive Management Alternative would be improved compared to the Current Management Alternative (Table 38). This alternative provides for more site-specific management and the potential for both greater habitat improvements and more harvesting of large and old trees than the other action alternatives. In Warm dry forests, the potential to reduce the dominance of fire-intolerant species and reduce canopy cover would the greatest under this alternative. As a result, the potential to increase late-open structure, increase spatial heterogeneity within stands, and control conifer encroachment into openings and dry meadows would also be the greatest. Conversely, outcomes for old, fire-tolerant trees would depend on project-specific goals and there would be slightly less confidence in lowering wildfire mortality. These project- specific goals, however, would still adhere to the objectives of the Eastside Screens to increase late structure and work toward HRV. Cool moist forests would similarly have the most potential to increase spatial heterogeneity and achieve historical structure, but old trees could theoretically be harvested and there would be slightly less confidence in lowering wildfire mortality. Cold forests would have the same outcomes as Current Management except for improved science for snag and green tree retention management. Wildfire outcomes would be unchanged in this forest type. For rock outcrops, this alternative would result in slightly less confidence in lowering wildfire mortality than the other action alternatives. For for all Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH), does not lessen protections, and does not have a significantly adverse effect.

3.7.4.6.3 Invasive Plants Effects to invasive plants under the Adaptive Management Alternative would be very similar to those under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative. The net effect of this alternative on the distribution and abundance of invasive plants would be small. See Environmental Effects of the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative for details.

135 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

3.7.4.6.4 Culturally-significant botanical resources Under the Adaptive Management Alternative, ecological effects to culturally-significant plants and fungi would vary among habitat types (Table 38). These effects are described in the above section Region 6 Sensitive Species and for brevity are not fully repeated here. In sum, the potential to reduce the dominance of shade-tolerant tree species and reduce canopy cover would the greatest under this alternative. As a result, the potential to increase late-open structure, increase spatial heterogeneity within stands, and control conifer encroachment into forest openings would also be the greatest. Conversely, outcomes for old, fire-tolerant trees would depend on project-specific goals and there would be slightly less confidence in lowering wildfire mortality. These project-specific goals, however, would still adhere to the objectives of the Eastside Screens to increase late structure and work toward HRV. Taxa that need late-open or mid-open structure, gaps and openings, and low-severity wildfire would benefit more under this Alternative than under Current Management. Taxa favored by late-closed and mid-closed forest structures, or high-severity wildfire, would be maintained through natural forest succession in untreated areas and in treated areas by the HRV objectives emphasized in the Eastside Screens. The area of timber harvest and harvesting practices that affect ground disturbance would not change. Improved snag and green tree retention science and management would likely enhance the long-term availability of snags and downed logs and the saprophytic taxa that decompose forest floor material. As described above, existing standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments that require assessing effects at the project level and providing for gathering rights retained by tribes, as described in treaties, would not change. The adaptive management strategy, one component of this alternative, includes a statement encouraging engagement of tribal natural and cultural resource staff in local implementation monitoring to incorporate consideration of treaty rights and culturally-significant plants and fungi. This provision is not a guarantee of collaboration or funding, but it would serve as a reminder for Forest Service personnel to reach out to Tribes/Tribal Confederations regarding projects that include the harvest of old and/or large trees. While the exact outcome of this provision across the planning area is very difficult to predict or measure, it would make it more likely that collaboration between Forests and Tribes occurs.

3.7.4.7 Standard with Exceptions Alternative

3.7.4.7.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Plant Species: Spalding’s Catchfly Effects to Spalding’s catchfly under the Standard with Exceptions Alternative are the same as under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline: both adverse and beneficial effects are possible but highly unlikely; they are thus insignificant and discountable. See details in the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative.

3.7.4.7.2 Region 6 Sensitive Species Outcomes for many habitat types of Sensitive Species under the Standard with Exceptions Alternative would be very similar to those of the Current Management Alternative (Table 38). In forested habitats, there would be slightly more opportunity than under Current Management to remove grand fir or white fir and promote fire-tolerant species. Outcomes USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

for wildfire mortality would be similar, however, as the potential to affect stand density or the abundance of fire-intolerant species would be low due to the ability to thin only large trees with canopies within large and fire-tolerant tree canopies (see details in Vegetation section). Dry and moist forests would also see late-open structure increasing at a low rate and mid-open continue to decrease, as with Current Management. The potential to increase spatial heterogeneity within stands and manage conifer encroachment into forest openings or dry meadows would be very limited, much like Current Management. Old trees, however, would be more protected than under Current Management. For all Region 6 Sensitive Species and unlisted potential species of conservation concern, this alternative may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH), does not lessen protections, and does not have a significantly adverse effect.

3.7.4.7.3 Invasive plants Effects to invasive plants under the Standard with Exceptions would be very similar to those under the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative. The net effect of this alternative on the distribution and abundance of invasive plants would be small. See Environmental Effects of the Old Tree and Large Tree Guideline Alternative for details.

3.7.4.7.4 Culturally-significant botanical resources Under the Standard with Exceptions, ecological effects to culturally-significant plants and fungi would vary among habitat types (Table 38). These effects are described in the above section Region 6 Sensitive Species and for brevity are not fully repeated here. In sum, there would be slightly more opportunity than under Current Management to remove grand fir or white fir and promote fire-tolerant species. Outcomes for wildfire mortality would be similar, however. The potential to increase spatial heterogeneity within stands and manage conifer encroachment into forest openings or dry meadows would be slightly more than Current Management, but only at small scales (within the crowns of competing trees). Old trees, however, would be more protected than under Current Management. As a result, taxa favored by late-closed and mid-closed forest structures, or high-severity wildfire would be readily maintained while those that need late-open or mid-open structure, gaps and openings, and low-severity wildfire would benefit less from this alternative than the other action alternatives. The area of timber harvest and harvesting practices that affect ground disturbance would not change. Improved snag and green tree retention science and management would likely enhance the long-term availability of snags and downed logs and the saprophytic taxa that decompose forest floor material. As described above, existing standards and guidelines in Forest Plans and Amendments that require assessing effects at the project level and providing for gathering rights retained by tribes, as described in treaties, would not change.

Table 37. Effects of the Alternatives to habitat types of Sensitive Species, unlisted potential Species of Conservation Concern, and culturally-significant plants and fungi. Habitats occur both inside and outside late-structure forests. Effects are categorized as negative (˗), neutral (0), or positive (+). Predicted changes of forest structure and disturbance regimes are based on the Vegetation and Disturbance effects analyses of this EA. Effects outlined apply to habitat types and not to individual

137 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens species. Protections for individual species, which occur at the project level, would not lessen under any alternative. Habitat types: Warm dry forest, Juniper

Characteristics: • Dry and xeric forest with PNV zones primarily ponderosa pine, white fir/grand fir, Douglas fir, and juniper • Tends to have more open-canopy structure • Historically low- or moderate-severity fire regimes • Includes unique features such as openings and downed wood • Includes dry meadows and shrub-steppe that occur in a matrix with or adjacent to forested areas

Threats: • Disturbance from timber harvest • Loss of open-canopy structure with canopy infilling by shade-tolerant species • Conifer encroachment on meadows, shrub-steppe, and openings • Uncharacteristic disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease • Loss of habitat niches with homogenization of spatial structure • Loss of downed wood

Common to all (0) No change in harvest acreage or practices (BMPs) affecting alternatives ground disturbance (0) No change to downed log guidance in Eastside Screens (0) No change to surveys and protections enacted at project level (0) No change in objective to achieve Historical Range of Variation (HRV) for all structure classes (0) Increase in closed canopies because tree growth and regeneration outpace natural and managed thinning

Current (˗) Treatments have limited ability to reduce fire-intolerant species Management and promote late structure (+) Late-open forest structure increasing at low rate (˗) Mid-open structure continues to decrease (˗) Increasing spatial homogenization within stands due to treatments being limited to thinning from below (˗) Unable to remove trees >21” dbh that are encroaching on open areas (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches than historical forests (˗) Outdated snag management science

Old & Large Tree (+) Old, fire-tolerant trees and late structure promoted within Guideline (Proposed) treated areas (+) Late-open structure increasing at moderate to high rate (0) Mid-open structure decreasing slightly slower than Current Management USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

(+) Increase in spatial heterogeneity within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Able to remove young trees >21” dbh that are encroaching on open areas (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in treated stands compared to Current Management (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Old Tree Standard (+) Old, fire-tolerant trees preserved within treated areas (+) Late-open increasing at moderate to high rate (0) Mid-open structure decreasing slightly slower than Current Management (+) Increase in spatial heterogeneity within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Able to remove young trees >21” dbh that are encroaching on open areas (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to Current Management (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Adaptive (0) Within treatment areas, old fire-tolerant trees could be management promoted or continue to decrease depending on project-specific goals (+) Late-open increasing at moderate to high rate; most potential of all alternatives (0) Mid-open structure decreasing slightly slower than Current Management (+) More effective reduction of mid-closed structure (+) Most potential to increase spatial heterogeneity within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Able to remove trees >21” dbh that are encroaching on open areas (+) Highest site-specific vegetation management (0) Less confidence in lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to other action alternatives (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Standard with (0) Slightly more potential to reduce fire-intolerant species and Exceptions promote late structure in treated areas than Current Management (+) Late-open forest structure increasing at low rate (˗) Mid-open structure continue to decrease (0) Slight increase in spatial heterogeneity within stands due to ability to remove large trees with crowns growing within canopies of desirable early-seral species

139 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

(+) Able to remove trees >21” dbh that are encroaching on open areas (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches than historical forests (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Habitat type: Cool moist forest

Characteristics: • Moist and wet forest with PNV zones primarily white fir/grand fir • Tends to have more closed-canopy structure • Includes unique features such as openings and downed wood • Historically mostly moderate- or high-severity fire regime

Threats include: • Disturbance from timber harvest • Uncharacteristic disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease • Loss of habitat niches with homogenization of spatial structure • Loss of downed wood • Loss of old trees with ectomycorrhizal associations

All alternatives (0) No change in harvest acreage or practices (BMPs) affecting ground disturbance (0) No change to downed log guidance in Eastside Screens (0) No change to surveys and protections enacted at project level (0) No change in objective to achieve HRV for all structure classes (0) Increase in closed canopies because tree growth and regeneration outpace natural and managed thinning

Current (˗) Continued decline of old trees; large but fire-intolerant trees Management increasing (0) Old and young trees >21” dbh protected (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches than historical forests (˗) Increasing spatial homogenization within stands due to treatments being limited to thinning from below (˗) Outdated snag and green tree retention management science

Old & Large Tree (+) Greater protection and maintenance of old trees than Current Guideline (Proposed) Management (+) Increase in spatial heterogeneity and openings within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to current management USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

(+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Old Tree Standard (+) Maximized protection and maintenance of old trees (+) Increase in spatial heterogeneity and openings within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to current management (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Adaptive (˗) Depending on project-specific goals, old trees could be management harvested (+) Most potential to increase spatial heterogeneity and openings within stands due to more variety of thinning methods (+) Highest site-specific vegetation management (0) Less confidence in lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to other action alternatives (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Standard with (+) Maximized protection and maintenance of old trees Exceptions (0) Slight increase in spatial heterogeneity and openings within stands due to ability to remove large trees with crowns growing within canopies of desirable early-seral species (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches than historical forests (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based on recent science

Habitat type: Cold forest

Characteristics: • Cold and mostly dry forest with PNV zones primarily subalpine fir/ Engelmann spruce, mountain hemlock, and lodgepole pine • Includes unique features such as openings and downed wood • Large trees not as common • High-severity fire regime

Threats include: • Disturbance from timber harvest • Uncharacteristic disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease • Loss of old trees that harbor lichen or epiphytes on bark or in branches

All alternatives (0) No change in harvest acreage or practices (BMPs) affecting ground disturbance

141 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

(0) No change to surveys and protections enacted at project level (0) No change in objective to achieve HRV for all structure classes (0) No differences in species composition or structure outcomes expected among alternatives (0) No difference in old tree abundance among alternatives (0) Wildfire leads to greater homogeneity and larger patch sizes compared to historical forests, due to Forest Service policy and culture of suppressing most wildfires

Current (˗) Outdated snag and green tree retention management science Management

All action (+) Improved snag and green tree retention management based alternatives on recent science

Habitat type: Cliffs, outcrops

Characteristics: • Rock outcrops in all forest types • Crevices in cliffs Threats include: • Disturbance from timber harvest • Uncharacteristic disturbance from wildfire, insects, and disease

All alternatives (0) No change in harvest acreage or practices affecting ground disturbance (0) No change to surveys and protections enacted at project level

Current (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches Management than historical forests

Old & Large Tree (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared Guideline (Proposed) to current management

Old Tree Standard (+) Lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed stands compared to current management

Adaptive (0) Less confidence in lower levels of wildfire mortality in managed management stands compared to other action alternatives

Standard with (˗) Wildfire leads to higher levels of mortality in larger patches Exceptions than historical forests

3.7.4.8 Summary of effects to rare plant and fungal species Table 39 summarizes the effects to rare plant and fungal species. Effects calls for all alternatives are the same. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Table 38. Summary of effects to rare plant and fungal species as a result of the proposed alternatives. Effects call for Status Species Habitat Rationale all alternatives MacFarlane’s Threatened Canyon grasslands No effect No activity in or near habitat four o’clock Mostly grasslands, May affect, not Spalding’s Both + and – are possible, but Threatened occasionally open likely to catchfly highly unlikely pine adversely affect • Virtually no activity in habitat Proposed + Whitebark • HRV emphasis of Eastside Subalpine No effect R6 Sensitive pine Screens consistent with restoration strategy May impact • Project-level surveys and individuals or analyses would still occur habitat • Forest Plan and Amendments standards and guidelines still in Many, including place R6 Sensitive 228 open and closed No lessening of forest protections • Many habitats unaffected by amendment

• Forest habitat may slightly No substantial improve with improved adverse effects restoration opportunities

4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are the consequences of past and foreseeable activities on Federal and non-Federal lands that, in conjunction with effects from management activities likely to occur on the forest, may intensify, negate, improve, or otherwise affect the environment. Cumulative effects were considered for Forest Service lands in eastern Oregon and the portion of the Umatilla NF in Washington, in addition to private lands and other public lands within the same counties as the analysis area. The temporal window for our cumulative effects analysis is 20 years into the past and 20 years into the future. Past vegetation growth, previous management, disturbances like wildfire and insect outbreaks, and annual weather patterns have contributed to current forest conditions as described in each resource section. Past and ongoing fire suppression creates a more homogenous landscape with contiguous fuels that are conducive to large wildfires. In addition, the incursion of invasive plants, particularly cheatgrass, creates a more continuous fuel surface, leading to faster rates of wildfire spread. Large wildfires continue to simplify and create additional homogeneity within the planning area in age class structure both spatially and through time. For the past twenty years, Forest Service management within the analysis area has been focused on restoring historical forest structure (i.e. late and old forest characteristics) with timber production as an outcome of that restoration work. Prescribed fire has been limited with more prescribed fire used in some areas (e.g. Fremont-Winema National Forest) than others, as described in the

143 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

disturbance and vegetation management sections. Wildland fire use has likewise been limited, as discussed in the disturbance section. These combined influences have led to a landscape with an uncharacteristically high density of trees and tree species composition continuing to move toward species less tolerant of fire and other disturbances, as described in the disturbance and vegetation sections of the analysis. The impact of past project-level amendments related to the 21-inch standard has contributed to these current conditions as well. Project monitoring of areas where project level amendments related to the 21-inch standard have been implemented demonstrate positive change but not a change in the overall trajectory of local forests away from fire- tolerant species composition and forests resistant to disturbance, as documented in the analysis of the current management alternative. Should one of the action alternatives be selected, no future amendments would be needed to remove grand fir/ white fir trees between 21 and 30 inches as the alternatives address this issue directly, and effects are analyzed in the EA. Cumulative Effects on Wildfire Behavior As described in the vegetation and disturbance sections, the implementation of the proposed action, Old Tree Standard and Adaptive Management Alternatives would shift tree species composition and forest density on national forest lands in a way that creates stands more resistant to disturbances like wildfire, including under conditions anticipated with a changing climate. Managers would be able to create more heterogenous landscapes which could also support resistance to disturbances (e.g. the ability to live through a wildfire) (see Disturbance and Vegetation sections). We expect prescribed fire and wildland fire use levels to remain the same into the future though the alternatives create the potential for increased use should social and cultural issues be addressed. An important challenge for increased wildland fire use is State and private landowners’ commitment to full fire suppression. Despite changed forest conditions, we expect fire to continue to move from private lands to public lands and vice versa, not necessarily because of how those various lands are managed but because that is the nature of wildfire and other disturbances. The most effective way to protect lands from wildfire is to manage those lands in a way to creates resistance to it – i.e. change the way a wildfire would interact with the landscape. However, large private landowners in the project area tend toward commodity management and conditions that are less resilient to wildfire compared to federal lands (Charnley et al. 2017). We note that State interest in impacts from wildfire and collective interest in cooperative conservation and all lands management creates a lot of opportunity to address challenges related to managing wildfires across ownerships, but benefits or outcomes of this work are not reasonably secure or foreseeable. In summary, for all action alternatives we expect local effects on fire behavior with increased potential to address fire behavior at the larger landscape scale should social, cultural, and cross boundary fire management issues be addressed. Cumulative Effects on Wildlife and Plants As discussed in the vegetation analysis, we expect roughly the same level of harvest acreage to occur into the future though the location and type of management may change. Effects to wildlife and plants from the action alternatives are discussed in the wildlife and USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

botany sections of the analysis. Within the broader landscape, Forest Service lands will continue to provide the majority of habitat for species associated with late and old forest structure. Adjacent federal lands west of the project area, including portions of the Deschutes and Fremont-Winema National Forests, are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) which also emphasizes the conservation and restoration of old forest habitats. Reasonably foreseeable trends in timber harvest on non-federal forest lands will likely reflect a continuation of current management. Private, State and other lands will likely continue to be managed with harvest objectives that generally do not allow for the development of LOS habitat as these lands tend to be managed more intensively than federal lands (Palmer et al. 2018, Charnley et al. 2017). Objectives for these lands usually result in shorter timber harvest rotation periods (Davis et al. 2020, 2015). Considering the context of adjacent private and public lands management, the alternatives would not have additional or different effects on wildlife and plant habitats because Forest Service lands would continue to play the same role they now play relative to other ownerships. Recreation, roads management, grazing, and other forest management activities that influence wildlife habitat and viability (Wisdom et al. 2000, Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017, Singleton et al. 2019) will continue, and the cumulative effects of these activities would not change the impact of the proposed action or any of the alternatives. As such, the wildlife viability assessment (see wildlife effects section) evaluated the influence of the proposed action and each alternative on wildlife viability outcomes, given the past and foreseeable effects of these actions. Likewise, in the foreseeable future, recreation, roads management, grazing, invasive species management, and other forest management activities that influence plant habitat and viability will continue. The development and implementation of recovery plans for rare plants and fungi will also continue. The cumulative effects of these activities, both beneficial and adverse, when considered in combination with the effects from the action alternatives, would not change the impact of the alternatives. Cumulative Effects on Carbon Storage The vegetation analysis summarizes that there is little to no direct impact of the action alternatives on carbon storage. This, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future actions on neighboring lands discussed above does not change the impact of the action alternatives on carbon storage. With little to no difference in carbon storage under direct effects and little to no change in the foreseeable future carbon storage for non-Forest Service lands, there is little to no cumulative effects for carbon storage. Cumulative Social and Economic Effects The available volume for forest products and jobs and income supported by the harvest of timber and milling operations would increase as described in the social and economic section of the analysis. Cumulative effects for forest products are limited to long term changes to volume availability as highlighted in the Social and Economic section. It is possible the volume available due to increased management flexibility under the proposed action leads to mid and long-term changes in small industry and proprietor practices within the forest products sector around the six forest area, but we cannot be reasonably certain of this.

145 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

The adaptive management framework has the potential to serve as a foundation for addressing additional socially controversial management issues and building trust between different interests into the future (Hessburg et al. 2020). This could enhance social durability of management solutions as discussed in the social and economic section of the analysis.

5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

5.1 TRIBES Starting in March 2020, the Forest Supervisors for the six National Forests in the planning area have been discussing the project with local tribes individually. This interaction is expected to continue throughout the process, including into implementation at the project level. The tribes were also invited to attend the public and governmental workshops. One tribe has responded to the team leader about the amendment. Tribes Contacted • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation • Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs • Burns Paiute Tribe • Klamath Tribes • Nez Perce Tribe • Fort Bidwell Tribe The Nez Perce Tribe requested Cooperating Agency status on July 7, 2020. The Forest Service accepted the Nez Perce Tribe’s offer and Nez Perce staff attended and participated in interdisciplinary team meetings and meeting with team members about specific topics.

5.2 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The interdisciplinary team completed an extensive pre-NEPA public and internal engagement process. The process included: Outreach to more than 40 key counties, states, tribal governments, interest groups, and other nongovernmental entities to inform them of the project. Direct outreach was followed by invitations from 10 groups to virtually present and discuss the project at their regular meetings. The Forest Service hosted three virtual workshops: • A Science Forum where ten scientists from the PNW Research Station, universities, and non-profit groups shared science related to eastern Oregon forest management. • An Intergovernmental Technical Workshop co-sponsored by the Eastern Oregon County Association, and • A Partner Technical Workshop. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Both technical workshops included a discussion of the need for change and small breakout groups led by interdiscinplinary team members and line officers to gather feedback on what the project should address or consider. In addition to the public engagements, the team conducted an engagement focused on feedback from the Forest Service employees responsible for implementing the forest plans. The team continued to receive feedback after the public engagements, and this feedback factored into the development of the alternatives and the structure and focus of the analysis. On August 13, 2020 the preliminary EA was released for a 30-day scoping and public comment period, which was subsequently extended to 60-days and ended on October 13, 2020. The team engaged in additional outreach and webinars to present key components of the analysis. During the comment period, the Forest Service received approximately 3,300 letters of which 336 were unique. The rest were either duplicates or form letters. The interdisciplinary team carefully considered each letter. As a result of comments received, the team analyzed a new alternative and completed additional resource reviews and analyses.Meeting recordings and all materials from the early engagement events are posted on our project website: https://go.usa.gov/xvV4X. See section 1.7 for a summary of changes between draft EA and final EA in response to public comments and feedback.

5.3 OTHER AGENCIES The team coordinated with ODFW, WDFD (for UMA portion in WA), and the USFWS. In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, USFWS identified the listed and proposed threatened or endangered species and their critical habitats that may be present on each Forest in the planning area. A biological assessment was prepared to assess the amendment’s effects on the identified species and their critical habitats. The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence that this project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect any listed species on December 15th, 2020. No incidental take was issued by USFWS associated with the amendment. Therefore, the revised land management plan is fully compliant with the requirements of this act.

The team coordinated with NOAA/NMFS (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service) to ensure that formal consultation for anadromous fish was not warranted for this project. They concurred.

The team leader presented and discussed the project with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Topics included monitoring, water quality, and PACFISH/INFISH.

147 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

6 GLOSSARY adaptive management A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or re-evaluated. 36 CFR 220.3 aquatic Growing or living in or frequenting water basal area The cross-sectional area of a tree in square feet of the stem 4.5 feet above the ground; (per acre) the sum of the basal areas of the trees on an acre; used as a measure of forest density. candidate species Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), but for which development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. canopy cover The downward vertical projection from the outside profile of the canopy (crown) of a plant measured in percentage of land area covered. cohort An age class of trees arising after a common natural or artificial disturbance. collaboration or collaborative process - A structured manner in which a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources while working together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a common purpose. cover type Cover types describe naturally occurring species combinations and are named after the predominant species that are present on the site (Eyre 1980). density The quantity of trees per unit of area. diameter at breast height (dbh) Tree diameter measured 4.5 feet above the ground. disturbance Any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, watershed, community, or species population structure and/or function and changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment. CFR 219.19 disturbance regime Description of the characteristic types of disturbance on a given landscape; the frequency, severity, and size distribution of these characteristic disturbance types; and their interactions. CFR 219.19 ecoregion Areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources) are generally similar in the mosaic of biotic, USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

abiotic, terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystem components, which include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology, with humans considered as part of the biota. endangered species The classification provided to an animal or plant in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. external morphological Relating to the form or structure of the external features of a tree, such as bark or branching patterns, and excluding internal structures, such as tree rings. federally listed species Any species of fish, wildlife or plant which has been determined to be endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. fire tolerant Tree species with physiological traits that reduce the relative liklihood of mortality from fire. In this analysis area, fire tolerant species include ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Relatively fire intolerant speices have a higher liklihood of mortality from fire and have physiological traits that make them more vulnerable to fire than other speices. Species with less fire tolerance in this analysis area include grand fir and white fir. forest land Land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having had such tree cover and not currently developed for nonforest uses. Lands developed for nonforest use include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential or administrative areas, improved roads of any width and adjoining road clearing, and power line clearings of any width. 36 CFR 219.19 forest structure A measure of tree size and canopy cover of forest stands. Categories within this document include Late Open, Late Closed, Mid Open, Mid Closed and Early. guideline A constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. (§ 219.15(d)(3)). Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. 36 CFR 219.7 historical range of variability (HRV) The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over specified scales of time, usually pre-European settlement, and space that are appropriate for a given management application (FSH 1909.12.5). landscape A defined area irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries, such as a spatial mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landforms,

149 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

and plant communities, repeated in similar form throughout such a defined area (36 CFR 219.19). large tree For this analysis, a large trees is greater than or equal to 21 inches dbh. late and old structure (LOS) Term used in the eastside screen interim wildlife standard which refers to the structural stages where large trees are common, i.e. Multi-stratum with Large Trees, and Single-stratum with Large Trees. management area A land area identified within the planning area that has the same set of applicable plan components. A management area does not have to be spatially contiguous. 36 CFR 219.19 mechanical treatment Any activity where vegetation is manipulated with heavy equipment such as a masticator, harvester, forwarder or removed by skyline mechanisms. monitoring A systematic process of collecting information to evaluate effects of actions or changes in conditions or relationships. 36 CFR 219.19 multi-stratum, with large trees A structural stage in a forest where several to many cohorts and strata (or layers) of trees are present and large trees are common. The overstory canopy is broken or discontinuous. Two or more canopy layers are present. Two or more cohorts of trees are present. Medium and large sized trees dominate the overstory. Trees of all sizes may be present. Horizontal and vertical stand structure and tree sizes are diverse. National Forest Management Act of 1976 – The National Forest Management Act is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. old tree For this analysis, an old tree is greater than or equal to 150 years of age. potential natural vegetation Describes the expected state of mature vegetation in the absence of disturbance. proposed species Any species of fish, wildlife or plant that is proposed to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. resilience (ecological) The amount of change a system can undergo and retain the same structure, function and feedbacks (Suding and Hobbs 2008). resistance (ecological) The ability of a tree to withstand burning without mortal damage or a stand to withstand wildfire with limited mortality (Platt 2014). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 sensitive species Those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: 1) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density; or 2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. shade tolerant A plant's relative ability to thrive physiologically in low light conditions. single stratum, with large trees A structural stage of a forest where a single stratum (or layer) of large trees is present and large trees are common. An understory may be absent or consist of sparse or clumpy seedlings or saplings. Young trees are absent or few in the understory. Park-like conditions may exist. snag A standing dead tree. species The term 'species' includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. species composition The absolute count or relative proportion of species present in a stand. stand (forest) A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit. standard A mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. 36 CFR 219.7 stand density index (SDI) A measure of the stocking of a stand based on the number of trees per unit area and diameter at breast height of the tree of average basal area (quadratic mean diameter - QMD). SDI is a relative measure of stand density because it varies based on site productivity. It is also known as Reineke's Stand Density Index after its founder. single-stratum A forest stand with one cohort or layer present. succession (forest) The process of change in the species and structure of an ecological community over time. terrestrial Living or growing on land or in the ground; not aquatic, arboreal, or epiphytic. threatened species Any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

151 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens timber harvest The removal of trees for wood fiber use and other multiple use purposes. 36 CFR 219.19 viability outcome Viability outcomes are based on (Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017, Gaines et al. 2017) and were calculated for current and historical conditions to assess changes in habitat conditions. The term “suitable environment” refers to a combination of source habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and demographic performance of a surrogate species. See Appendix E for additional description of the viability outcomes used. viable population A population of a species that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressor. 36 CFR 219.19

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

7 LITERATURE CITED Abatzoglou, J.T., and A.P. Williams. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 113: 11770-11775

Abella, S.R. and Springer, J.D. 2015. Effects of tree cutting and fire on understory vegetation in mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 335: 281- 299.

Agee, J.K. and Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest ecology and management, 211(1-2): 83-96.

Agee J. 1999. Fire Effects on Landscape Fragmentation in Interior West Forests. Pages 43-60 in Rochelle J, Lehmann L, Wisniewski J, editors. Forest Wildlife and Fragmentation: Management Implications. Koninklijke Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands.

Agee J. 1998. The landscape pattern of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science 72: 24-34.

Agee, J. K. 1997. The severe weather wildfire: too hot to handle? Northwest Science 71(2): 153-156.

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Agne, M. C., P. A. Beedlow, D. C. Shaw, D. R. Woodruff, E. H. Lee, S. P. Cline, and R. L. Comeleo. 2018. Interactions of predominant insects and diseases with climate change in Douglas-fir forests of western Oregon and Washington, U.S.A. Forest Ecology and Management 409:317–332.

Aho, P.E. 1966. Defect estimation for grand fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, and western larch in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; Portland, OR. 26 p. Aho, P.E. 1977. Decay of grand fir in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Research Paper PNW-229. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; Portland, OR. 18 p. Alexander, M.E. and F.G. Hawksworth. 1976. Fire and Dwarf Mistletoes in North American Coniferous Forests. Journal of Forestry, 74: 446-449.

Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., & McDowell, N. G. 2015. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere, 6(8): 129 (155 p). doi:10.1890/ES15-00203.1

Allen, C. D., Savage, M., Falk, D. A., Suckling, K. F., Swetnam, T. W., Schulke, T., Stacey, P. B., Morgan, P., Hoffman, M., Klingel, J. T., 2002. Ecological

153 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecological Applications, Ecological Applications 12, 1418–1433.

Anderegg, W.R., Hicke, J.A., Fisher, R.A., Allen, C.D., Aukema, J., Bentz, B., Hood, S., Lichstein, J.W., Macalady, A.K., McDowell, N. and Pan, Y. 2015. Tree mortality from drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytologist, 208(3): 674-683.

Anderegg, W.R.L.; Kane, J.M.; Anderegg, L.D.L. 2012. Consequences of widespread tree mortality triggered by drought and temperature stress. Nature - Climate Change, 3: 30-36. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1635

Anderson‐Teixeira Kristina J., Miller Adam D., Mohan Jacqueline E., Hudiburg Tara W., Duval Benjamin D., & DeLucia Evan H. 2013. Altered dynamics of forest recovery under a changing climate. Global Change Biology, 19(7): 2001–2021.

Angeler, D.G.; Allen, C.R. 2016. Quantifying resilience. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 617-624.

Arkle R, Pilliod D, Welty J. 2012. Pattern and process of prescribed fires influence effectiveness at reducing wildfire severity in dry coniferous forests. Forest Ecology and Management 276: 174-84.

Arner, S.L., Woudenberg, S., Waters, S., Vissage, J., MacLean, C., Thompson, M. and Hansen, M. 2001. National algorithms for determining stocking class, stand size class, and forest type for Forest Inventory and Analysis plots. Internal Rep. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 10p.

Arno, S.F.; Östlund, L.; Keane, R.E. 2008. Living artifacts: The ancient ponderosa pines of the West. Montana: The Magazine of Western History, 58(spring): 55-62.

Aubry, K.B., G.M. Koehler, and J.R. Squires. 2000. Ecology of Canada lynx in southern boreal forests. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United State. University of Colorado Press. (p. 373-396).

Aubry, K.B., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broad-scale habitat relations of wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2147-2159.

Averett, J.P., McCune, B., Parks, C.G., Naylor, B.J., DelCurto, T. and Mata-Gonzalez, R. 2016. Non-native plant invasion along elevation and canopy closure gradients in a middle Rocky Mountain ecosystem. PloS one, 11(1): e0147826.

Baker, W. L. 2017. Restoring and managing low‐severity fire in dry‐forest landscapes of the western USA. PLoS ONE 12: e0172288.

Baker, W. L., and Hanson, C. T. 2017. Improving the use of early timber inventories in reconstructing historical dry forests and fire in the western United States. Ecosphere 8( 9):e01935. 10.1002/ecs2.1935 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Baker, W.L. and Williams, M.A. 2018. Land surveys show regional variability of historical fire regimes and dry forest structure of the western United States. Ecological Applications 28: 284-290.

Baker, W. L. 2012. Implications of spatially extensive historical data from surveys for restoring dry forests of Oregon's eastern Cascades. Ecosphere 3(3):23.

Baker, M.D., and M.J. Lacki. 2006. Day-roosting habitat of female long-legged Myotis in pondersa pine forests. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70(1): 207-215.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. in Ruggiero, et al. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, GTR-RM-254. (p. 99-17).

Barrett S, Havlina D, Jones J, Hann W, Frame C, Hamilton D, Schon K, DeMeo T., Hutter L,Menakis J. 2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class Guidebook. Version 3.0 [Homepage of the Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class website, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior and The Nature Conservancy]. Available on-line at www.frcc.gov

Barrett S, Arno S, Menakis J. 1997. Fire episodes in the Inland Northwest (1540-1940) based on fire history data. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. General Technical Report INT-GTR-370. Ogden, UT. 18 pages.

Barker, K.J., M.S. Mitchell, K.M. Proffitt, and J.D. DeVoe. 2019. Land management alters traditional nutritional benefits of migration for elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 83(1): 167-174. Bate, L.J., M.J. Wisdom, and B.C. Wales. 2007. Snag densities in relation to human access and associated management factors in forests of northeastern Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 278-291. Battles, J.J., Robards, T., Das, A., Waring, K., Gilless, J.K., Biging, G. and Schurr, F., 2008. Climate change impacts on forest growth and tree mortality: a data-driven modeling study in the mixed-conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, California. Climatic Change, 87(1): 193-213.

Beatty, J.S.; Filip, G.M.; Mathiasen, R.L. 1997. Larch dwarf mistletoe. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 169. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Washington, D.C. 7 p. Belote, R. T., Larson, A. J., & Dietz, M. S. 2015. Tree survival scales to community-level effects following mixed-severity fire in a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management, 353: 221-231. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.033

Bentz, B.J.; Régnière, J.; Fettig, C.J.; Hansen, E.M.; Hayes, J.L.; Hicke, J.A.; Kelsey, R.G.; Negrón, J.F.; Seybold, S.J. 2010. Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: Direct and indirect effects. BioScience, 60(8): 602-613. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6

155 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Belote, R.T., Larson, A.J., Dietz, M.S., 2015. Tree survival scales to community-level effects following mixed-severity fire in a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 353: 221–231.

Bergman, R., Puettman, M.E., Taylor, A., Skog, K.E. 2014. The carbon impacts of wood products. Forest Products Journal 64: 220-231.

Binkley, D., Sisk, T., Chambers, C., Springer, J., & Block, W. 2007. The role of old- growth forests in frequent-fire landscapes. Ecology and Society, 12(2): 18 (17 p).

Blakey, R.V., R.B. Siegel, E.B. Webb, C.P. Dillingham, M. Johnson, and D.C. Kesler. 2020. Multi-scale habitat selection by northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in a fire-prone forest. Biological Conservation https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108348.

Boag, A.E., Ducey, M.J., Palace, M.W. and Hartter, J. 2020. Topography and fire legacies drive variable post-fire juvenile conifer regeneration in eastern Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 474, p.118312.

Bond WJ, Keeley JE. 2005. Fire as a global ‘herbivore’: the ecology and evolution of flammable ecosystems. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20(7): 387-394.

Bork J. 1984. Fire history in the three vegetation types on the east side of the Oregon Cascades. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University: Corvallis, Oregon.

Bottero, A., D'Amato, A.W., Palik, B.J., Bradford, J.B., Fraver, S., Battaglia, M.A. and Asherin, L.A. 2017. Density‐dependent vulnerability of forest ecosystems to drought. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(6): 1605-1614.

Boyd, R., 1999. Indians, Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press.

Bradford, J.B. and Bell, D.M. 2017. A window of opportunity for climate‐change adaptation: easing tree mortality by reducing forest basal area. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(1): 11-17.

Bradley, C. M., Hanson, C. T., and DellaSala, D. A. 2016. Does increased forest protection correspond to higher fire severity in frequent‐fire forests of the western United States? Ecosphere 7(10): e01492. 10.1002/ecs2.1492

Breshears, D.D., Cobb, N.S., Rich, P.M., Price, K.P., Allen, C.D., Balice, R.G., Romme, W.H., Kastens, J.H., Floyd, M.L., Belnap, J. and Anderson, J.J. 2005. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(42): 15144-15148.

Brohman, R.J., Bryant, L.D., Tart, D., Williams, C.K., Brewer, C.K., DiBenedetto, J.P., Schwind, B., Crowe, E., Girard, M.M., Gordon, H. and Sleavin, K. 2005. Existing vegetation classification and mapping technical guide: version 1.0. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Brown T., Hall, B., Westerling, A. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate change on wildland fire danger in the western United States: an applications perspective. Climatic Change 62: 365-88.

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2): 472-481.

Bull, E.L., and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-265.

Bull, E.L., and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 335- 345. DOI: 10.2307/3809431.

Bull, E.L. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin (Vol. 391). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Buotte, P. C., S. Levis, B. E. Law, T. W. Hudiburg, D. E. Rupp, and J. J. Kent. 2018. Near-future forest vulnerability to drought and fire varies across the western United States. Global Change Biology 25:290–303.

Burns, M. and Cheng, A.S. 2007. Framing the need for active management for wildfire mitigation and forest restoration. Society & natural resources, 20(3): 245-259.

Byler, J.W.; Hagle, S.K. 2000. Succession functions of forest pathogens and insects: Ecoregion Sections M332a and M333d in northern Idaho and western Montana. Summary. Report No. 00-09. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection; Missoula, MT. 37 p.

Caligiuri, P., Dean, A., Ferriel, J., Fisher, M., Gregg, M., Gritzner, J., Turner, L. 2020. Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project: A Decade of Learning, 10-Year Monitoring Report. Retrieved from Bend, OR:

Cansler, C.A. and McKenzie, D. 2014. Climate, fire size, and biophysical setting control fire severity and spatial pattern in the northern Cascade Range, USA. Ecological Applications, 24(5): 1037-1056.

Carroll, C., R.F. Noss, and P.C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11(4): 961- 980.

Carroll, C., M.K. Phillips, C.A. Lopez-Gonzales, and N.H. Schumaker. 2006. Defining recovery goals and strategies for endangered species using spatially-explicit population models: the wolf as a case study. BioScience 56: 25-37.

Carter, M.C.; Foster, C.D. 2004. Prescribed burning and productivity in southern pine forests: a review. Forest Ecol. Manag., 191: 93–109.

157 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Case, M. J., & Lawler, J. J. 2016. Relative vulnerability to climate change of trees in western North America. Climatic Change, 136(2): 367-379.

Cassell, B. A., Scheller, R. M., Lucash, M. S., Hurteau, M. D., & Loudermilk, E. L. 2019. Widespread severe wildfires under climate change lead to increased forest homogeneity in dry mixed-conifer forests. Ecosphere, 10(11): e02934 (p. 02920).

Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., Cosens, B. A. 2014. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society 19(3): 56.

Chambers, C., Alm, V., Siders, M., & Rabe, M. 2002. Use of Artificial Roosts by Forest- Dwelling Bats in Northern Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 30(4): 1085-1091. Retrieved November 30, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784277 Chambers, S., S.R. Fain, B. Fazio, and M. Amaral. 2012. An account of the taxonomy of North American wolves from morphological and genetic analyses. North American Fauna. 77: 1-67

Chapin, F.S., Trainor, S.F., Huntington, O., Lovecraft, A.L., Zavaleta, E., Natcher, D.C., McGuire, A.D., Nelson, J.L., Ray, L., Calef, M., Fresco, N., Huntington, H., Rupp, T.S., DeWilde, L., Naylor, R.L. 2008. Increasing Wildfire in Alaska's Boreal Forest: Pathways to Potential Solutions of a Wicked Problem, BioScience 58 (6): 531–540.

Charbonneau, N.C. and Fahrig, L. 2004. Influence of canopy cover and amount of open habitat in the surrounding landscape on proportion of alien plant species in forest sites. Ecoscience, 11(3): 278-281.

Charnley, S., Spies, T., Barros, A., White, E., & Olsen, K. 2017. Diversity in forest management to reduce wildfire losses: Implications for resilience. Ecology and Society, 22(1). Retrieved December 11, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270063.

Chmura, D. J., Anderson, P. D., Howe, G. T., Harrington, C. A., Halofsky, J. E., Peterson, D. L., St. Clair, B. J. 2011. Forest responses to climate change in the northwestern United States: ecophysiological foundations for adaptive management. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(7): 1121-1142. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.040

Churchill, D.J., Larson, A.J., Dahlgreen, M.C., Franklin, J.F., Hessburg, P.F. and Lutz, J.A., 2013. Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. Forest Ecology and Management, 291: 442-457.

Churchill, D.J., G.C. Carnwath, A.J. Larson, and S.A. Jeronimo. 2017. Historical forest structure, composition, and spatial pattern in dry conifer forests of the western Blue Mountains, Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-956. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Cochrane, M. A., C. J. Moran, M. C. Wimberly, A. D. Baer, M. A. Finney, K. L. Beckendorf, J. Eidenshink, and Z. Zhu. 2012. Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21:357.

Cochran, P. H. 1998. Examples of mortality and reduced annual increments of white fir induced by drought, insects, and disease at different stand densities (Vol. 525). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Converse, S.J., White, G.C., Farris, K.L. and Zack, S. 2006. Small mammals and forest fuel reduction: national‐scale responses to fire and fire surrogates. Ecological Applications, 16(5): 1717-1729.

Coop, J.D., DeLory, T.J., Downing, W.M., Haire, S.L., Krawchuk, M.A., Miller, C., Parisien, M.A. and Walker, R.B. 2019. Contributions of fire refugia to resilient ponderosa pine and dry mixed‐conifer forest landscapes. Ecosphere, 10(7): e02809.

Cook, J.G., L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 2005. Thermal cover needs of large ungulates: a review of hypothesis tests. in Wisdom, M.J. Tech. Ed. The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. (p. 185-196).

Copeland, J.P. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Id.

Copeland, J.P., K.S. McKelvey, K.B. Aubry, A. Landa, J. Persson, R.M. Inman, J. Krebs, E. Lofroth, H. Golden, J.R. Squires, A. Magoun, M.K. Schwartz, J. Wilmot, C.L. Copeland, R.E. Yates, L. Kojola, and R. May. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution? Canadian Journal of Zoology 88: 233-246.

Coops, N. C., & Waring, R. H. 2011. Estimating the vulnerability of fifteen tree species under changing climate in northwest North America. Ecological Modelling, 222(13): 2119-2129. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel. 2011.03.033

Corlett, R.T., 2015. The Anthropocene concept in ecology and conservation. Trends in ecology & evolution, 30(1): 36-41.

D’Amato, A.W., Bradford, J.B., Fraver, S., & Palik, B.J. 2011. Forest management for mitigation and adaptation to climate change: Insights from long-term silviculture experiments. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(5): 803–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.014

Davis, R. J., D. M. Bell, M. J. Gregory, and Yang. 2020. (In preparation.) Northwest Forest Plan–the first quarter-century: status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

159 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Davis, K.T., Dobrowski, S.Z., Higuera, P.E., Holden, Z.A., Veblen, T.T., Rother, M.T., Parks, S.A., Sala, A. and Maneta, M.P. 2019. Wildfires and climate change push low-elevation forests across a critical climate threshold for tree regeneration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(13): 6193- 6198.

Davis, R., Yang, Z., Yost, A., Belongie, C. and Cohen, W. 2017. The normal fire environment—Modeling environmental suitability for large forest wildfires using past, present, and future climate normals. Forest Ecology and Management, 390: 173-186.

Davis, R.J., Ohmann, J.L., Kennedy, R.E., Cohen, W.B., Gregory, M.J., Yang, Z., Roberts, H.M., Gray, A.N. and Spies, T.A. 2015. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 20 years (1994-2013): status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-911. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p. (p. 911).

Daw, S.K., and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and post-fledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1): 59-65.

DeMeo, T., Haugo, R., Ringo, C., Kertis, J., Acker, S., Simpson, M. and Stern, M. 2018. Expanding our understanding of forest structural restoration needs in the Pacific Northwest. Northwest Science, 92(1): 18-35.

DeMeo, T., M. Laughlin, C. Ringo, and M. Simpson. 2020. Forest Structural White Paper: In support of the Screen Team Analysis. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region Portland, OR.

Dennison, P.E., S.C. Brewer, J.D. Arnold, and M.A. Moritz. 2014. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984-2011. Geophysical Research Letters. 41: 2928- 2933.

Devine, W., Aubry, C., Bower, A., Miller, J., & Maggiulli, N. A. 2012. Climate change and forest trees in the Pacific Northwest: A vulnerability assessment and recommended actions for national forests. Retrieved from Olympia, WA: http://ecoshare.info/projects/ccft/

Dixon, G. E. 2015. Essential FVS: a user's guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Domke, G.M., C.H. Perry, B.F. Walters, L.E. Nave, C.W. Woodall, and C.W. Swanston. 2017. Toward inventory-based estimates of soil organic carbon in forests of the United States. Ecological Applications 27: 1223–1235.

Donato, D.C., Harvey, B.J. and Turner, M.G. 2016. Regeneration of montane forests 24 years after the 1988 Yellowstone fires: A fire‐catalyzed shift in lower treelines? Ecosphere, 7(8): e01410. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Downing, W.M., Krawchuk, M.A., Meigs, G.W., Haire, S.L., Coop, J.D., Walker, R.B., Whitman, E., Chong, G. and Miller, C. 2019. Influence of fire refugia spatial pattern on post-fire forest recovery in Oregon’s Blue Mountains. Landscape Ecology, 34(4): 771-792.

Dunn, C.J., 1, O'Connor, C.D., Abrams, J., Thompson, M.P., Calkin, D.E., Johnston, J.D., Stratton, R., and Gilbertson-Day, J. 2020. Wildfire risk science facilitates adaptation of fire-prone social-ecological systems to the new fire reality. Environmental Research Letters 15(2). 025001

Dwyer, J.M., Fensham, R., Buckley, Y.M. 2010. Restoration thinning accelerates structural development and carbon sequestration in an endangered Australian ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 681–691.

Endress, B.A.; Quaempts, E.J.; Steinmetz, S. 2019. First Foods Upland Vision. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources.

Endress, B.A., M.J. Wisdom, M. Vavra, C.G. Parks, B.L. Dick, B.J. Naylor, and J.M. Boyd. 2012. Effects of ungulate herbivory on aspen, cottonwood, and willow development under forest fuels treatment regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 276: 33-40.

Everett, R. L., R. Schellhaas, D. Keenum, D. Spurbeck, and P. Ohlson. 2000. Fire history in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests on the east slope of the Washington Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 129:207–225.

Everett, R.L. 1994. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment: Executive summary (Vol. 1). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-330. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Everett, R.L. 1994. Restoration of stressed sites and processes (Vol. 4). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-330. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

FAOSTAT 2013. FAOSTAT database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/

Ferrell, G.T. 1973. Stand and tree characteristics influencing density of fir engraver beetle attack scars in white fir. Research Paper PSW-097. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; Berkeley, CA. 8 p.

Fettig, C.J., Mortenson, L.A., Bulaon, B.M. and Foulk, P.B. 2019. Tree mortality following drought in the central and southern Sierra Nevada, California, US. Forest Ecology and Management, 432, pp.164-178.

161 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Fettig, C.J., Klepzig, K.D., Billings, R.F., Munson, A.S., Nebeker, T.E., Negrón, J.F. and Nowak, J.T. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest ecology and management, 238(1-3): 24-53.

Filip, G.; Chadwick, K.; Zambino, P.; Omdal, D.; Ramsey-Kroll, A.; Schmitt, C.; Maffei, H.; Saavedra, A.; Rall, W.; Parks, C. 2011. Seven- to 14-year effects of artificially inoculating living conifers to promote stem decay and subsequent wildlife use in Oregon and Washington forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Health Protection; Portland, OR. 24 p. Filip, G.M.; Goheen, D.J; Kimmey, J.W. 2009. Rust-red stringy rot caused by the Indian paint fungus. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 93 (revised). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Portland, OR. 12 p. Filip, G. M., Maffei, H., & Chadwick, K. L. 2007. Forest health decline in a central Oregon mixed-conifer forest revisited after wildfire: A 25-year case study. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 22(4), 278-284.

Filip, G.M.; Aho, P.E.; Wiitala, M.R. 1984. Strategies for reduction of decay in the interior Douglas-fir and grand fir forest types. Pages 73-80 in: Silvicultural management strategies for pests of the interior Douglas-fir and grand fir forest types; symposium proceedings; February 14-16, 1984; Spokane, Washington. Baumgartner, D.M.; Mitchell, R.; compilers and editors. Washington State University, Cooperative Extension; Pullman, Washington. 199 p. Filip, G. M., and D. J. Goheen. 1984. Root Diseases Cause Severe Mortality in White and Grand Fir Stands of the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 30:138–142.

Finney, M., McHugh, C., Grenfell, I. 2005. Stand and landscape-level effects of prescribed fire on two Arizona wildfires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1714-22.

Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Perrings, C. 1996. Biological diversity, ecosystems, and the human scale. Ecological Applications 6(4): 1018-24.

Frame, P.F., H.D. Cluff, and D.S. Hik. 2007. Response of wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 316-320.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, N.K.; Johnson, D.L. 2018. Ecological Forest Management. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Franklin, J.F., K.N. Johnson, D.J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013. Restoration of dry forests in eastern Oregon: a field guide. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 202 p.

Franklin, J. F., R. J. Mitchell, and B. J. Palik. 2007. Natural disturbance and stand development principles for ecological forestry. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Franklin, J. F., and J. K. Agee. 2003. Forging a science-based national forest fire policy. Issues in Science and Technology 20:59–66.

Franklin, J. F., and C. T. Dyrness. 1988. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Fried, J. S., Potts, L. D., Loreno, S. M., Christensen, G. A., & Barbour, J. 2015. Inventory-Based Landscape-Scale Simulation of Management Effectiveness and Economic Feasibility with BioSum. Journal of Forestry, 115(4): 249-257.

Fry, D.L., Stephens, S.L., Collins, B.M., North, M.P., Franco-Vizcaíno, E. and Gill, S.J. 2014. Contrasting spatial patterns in active-fire and fire-suppressed Mediterranean climate old-growth mixed conifer forests. PLoS One, 9(2): e88985.

Fulé, P.Z., Swetnam, T.W., Brown, P.M., Falk, D.A., Peterson, D.L., Allen, C.D., Aplet, G.H., Battaglia, M.A., Binkley, D., Farris, C., Keane, R.E., Margolis, E.Q., Grissino‐Mayer, H., Miller, C., Sieg, C.H., Skinner, C., Stephens, S.L. and Taylor, A. (2014), Correspondence. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23: 825- 830. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12136

Gaines, W.L., Haggard, M., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Lyons, A.L. and Harrod, R.J. 2007. Short‐ term response of land birds to ponderosa pine restoration. Restoration Ecology, 15(4): 670-678.

Gaines, W.L., Haggard, M., Begley, J., Lehmkuhl, J. and Lyons, A. 2010. Short-term effects of thinning and burning restoration treatments on avian community composition, density, and nest survival in the eastern Cascades dry forests, Washington. Forest Science, 56(1): 88-99.

Gaines, W.L. 2017. Wildlife viability report: Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision Team. Unpublished Report.

Gaines, W.L., B.C. Wales, L.H. Suring, J.S. Begley, K. Mellen-McLean, and S. Mohoric. 2017. Terrestrial species viability assessments for national forests in northeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW- GTR-907.

Gersonde, R.F. and O’Hara, K.L. 2005. Comparative tree growth efficiency in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 219(1): 95-108.

Gillette, N. E., D. L. Wood, S. J. Hines, J. B. Runyon, and J. F. Negrón. 2014. The Once and Future Forest: Consequences of Mountain Pine Beetle Treatment Decisions. Forest Science 60:527–538.

Goheen, D. J., and E. Hanson. 1993. Effects of Pathogens and Bark Beetles on Forests. Pages 175–196 in Beetle-pathogen interactions in conifer forests. Academic Press. London.

163 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Goheen, E.M.; and Willhite, E.A. 2006. Field guide to the common diseases and insect pests of Oregon and Washington conifers. Publication No. R6-NR-FID-PR-01-06. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Portland, OR. 327 p.

Gordo, O. and Sanz, J.J. 2010. Impact of climate change on plant phenology in Mediterranean ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 16(3): 1082-1106.

Gordon, J., Sessions, J., Bailey, J., et al. 2013. An assessment of Indian forests and forest management in the United States. Executive summary. Portland, OR: Intertribal Timber Council.

Gustavsson, L., Madlener, R., Hoen, H.-F., Jungmeier, G., Karjalainen, T., Klöhn, S., and Spelter, H. 2006. The Role of Wood Material for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(5–6): 1097–1127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8

Haggard, M.E., and W.L. Gaines. 2001. Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a cavity-nesting bird community in eastern Cascades, Washington. Northwest Science 75(4): 387-396.

Hagle, S., J. Schwandt, T. Johnson, S. Kegley, C. Bell Randall, J. Taylor, I. Lockman, N. Sturdevant, and M. Marsden. 2000. Succession Functions of Forest Pathogens and Insects : Ecosections M332a and M333d in Northern Idaho and Western Montana : Volume 2 : Results and Conclusions. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Northern Region.

Hagmann, R. K., Merschel, A. G., & Reilly, M. J. 2019. Historical patterns of fire severity and forest structure and composition in a landscape structured by frequent large fires: Pumice Plateau ecoregion, Oregon, USA. Landscape Ecology, 34(3), 551-568. doi:10.1007/s10980-019-00791-1

Hagmann, R.K., Stevens, J.T., Lydersen, J.M., Collins, B.M., Battles, J.J., Hessburg, P.F., Levine, C.R., Merschel, A.G., Stephens, S.L., Taylor, A.H. and Franklin, J.F. 2018. Improving the use of early timber inventories in reconstructing historical dry forests and fire in the western United States: Comment. Ecosphere, 9(7).

Hagmann, R.K., Franklin, J.F. and Johnson, K.N. 2014. Historical conditions in mixed- conifer forests on the eastern slopes of the northern Oregon Cascade Range, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 330: 158-170.

Hagmann, R.K., Franklin, J.F. and Johnson, K.N. 2013. Historical structure and composition of ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests in south-central Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management, 304: 492-504.

Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, and B.J. Harvey. 2020. Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Fire Ecology 16:4. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho. Eds. 2019. PNW-GTR-974 Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in south-central Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Halofsky, J.E., and D.L. Peterson. Eds. 2017. PNW-GTR-939 Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Blue Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Halofsky, J.S., Halofsky, J.E., Burcsu, T. and Hemstrom, M.A. 2014. Dry forest resilience varies under simulated climate‐management scenarios in a central Oregon, USA landscape. Ecological Applications, 24(8): 1908-1925.

Hamilton, L.C., Hartter, J., Keim, B.D., Boag, A.E., Palace, M.W., Stevens, F.R. and Ducey, M.J. 2016. Wildfire, climate, and perceptions in Northeast Oregon. Regional environmental change, 16(6): 1819-1832.

Hankin, L.E., Higuera, P.E., Davis, K.T. and Dobrowski, S.Z. 2019. Impacts of growing‐ season climate on tree growth and post‐fire regeneration in ponderosa pine and Douglas‐fir forests. Ecosphere, 10(4): e02679.

Hann, W. J., et al. 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. Pages 337– 1055 in T. M. Quigley and S. J. Arbelbide, editors. An assessment of ecosystem components of the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great basins. General technical report PNW-GTR-405. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific North-west Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Harrod, R. J., D. W. Peterson, N. A. Povak, and E. K. Dodson. 2009. Thinning and prescribed fire effects on overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 258:712–721.

Harrod, R.J. 2001. The effect of invasive and noxious plants on land management in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science, 75: 85-90.

Harrod, R.J. and Reichard, S. 2000. Fire and invasive species within the temperate and boreal coniferous forests of western North America. In: Proceedings of the Invasive Species Workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Fire Conference (pp. 95-101).

Harvey, A.E., Geist, J.M., McDonald, G.L., Jurgensen, M.F., Cochran, P.H., Zabowski, D. and Meurisse, R.T. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on soil properties, processes, and productivity. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-323. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Harvey, B.J., Donato, D.C. and Turner, M.G., 2016. High and dry: Post‐fire tree seedling establishment in subalpine forests decreases with post‐fire drought and large stand‐replacing burn patches. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 25(6): 655-669.

165 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Haugo, R.D., B.S. Kellogg, C.A. Cansler, C.A. Kolden, K.B. Kemp, J.C. Robertson, K.L. Metlen, N.M. Vaillant, and C.M. Restaino. 2019. The missing fire: quantifying human exclusion of wildfire in the Pacific Northwest forests, USA. Ecosphere 10(4): e02702. 10.1002/ecs2.2702. Haugo, R., Zanger, C., DeMeo, T., Ringo, C., Shlisky, A., Blankenship, K., Simpson, M., Mellen-McLean, K., Kertis, J. and Stern, M. 2015. A new approach to evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 335: 37-50.

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. General Technical Report RM-48. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; Fort Collins, CO. 7 p. Hawksworth, F.G.; Wiens, D. 1996. Dwarf mistletoes: Biology, pathology, and systematics. Agriculture Handbook No. 709. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Washington, D.C. 410 p. Haynes, R.W., Graham, R.T. and Quigley, T.M. 1996. A framework for ecosystem management in the Interior Columbia Basin including portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p.

Healey, S.P., W.B. Cohen, T.A. Spies, M. Moeur, D. Pflugmacher, M.G. Whitley, and M. Lefsky. 2008. The relative impacts of harvest and fire upon landscape-level dynamics of older forests: lessons from the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecosystems 11: 1106-1119.

Hemstrom, M.A. 2001. Vegetative patterns, disturbances, and forest health in eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science 75: 91-109.

Henjum, M.G., Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W. 1994. Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: National forests east of the Cascade Crest, Oregon, and Washington. Wildlife Society technical review (USA).

Hennon, PE.; Mulvey, RL. 2014. Managing heart rot in live trees for wildlife habitat in young-growth forests of coastal Alaska. General Technical Report PNW-890. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR. 23 p. Hepting, G.H.; Roth, E.R. 1950. The fruiting of heart-rot fungi on felled trees. Journal of Forestry, 48: 332-333. Herrfahrdt-Pahle, E., Pahl-Wostl, C. 2012. Continuity and change in social-ecological systems: the role of institutional resilience. Ecology and Society 17(2): 8.

Hessburg, P. F., Charnley, S., Wendel, K. L., White, E. M., Singleton, Peter H., Peterson, D. W., Halofsky, J. E., Gray, A. N., Spies, T. A., Flitcroft, R. L., White, R. 2020. The 1994 Eastside Screens large-tree harvest limit: review of science relevant to forest planning 25 years later. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-990. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 114 p. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Hessburg, P.F., Miller, C.L., Povak, N.A., Taylor, A.H., Higuera, P.E., Prichard, S.J., North, M.P., Collins, B.M., Hurteau, M.D., Larson, A.J. and Allen, C.D. 2019. Climate, environment, and disturbance history govern resilience of western North American forests. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 7, p.239.

Hessburg, P.F., Spies, T.A., Perry, D.A., Skinner, C.N., Taylor, A.H., Brown, P.M., Stephens, S.L., Larson, A.J., Churchill, D.J., Povak, N.A. and Singleton, P.H. 2016. Tamm review: management of mixed-severity fire regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management, 366: 221-250.

Hessburg, P.F., Churchill, D.J., Larson, A.J., Haugo, R.D., Miller, C., Spies, T.A., North, M.P., Povak, N.A., Belote, R.T., Singleton, P.H. and Gaines, W.L. 2015. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landscape Ecology, 30(10): 1805-1835.

Hessburg, P.F., Reynolds, K.M., Salter, R.B., Dickinson, J.D., Gaines, W.L. and Harrod, R.J. 2013. Landscape evaluation for restoration planning on the Okanogan- Wenatchee National Forest, USA. Sustainability, 5(3): 805-840.

Hessburg, P. F., Agee, J. K., and Franklin, J. F. 2005. Dry forests and wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1-2), 117-139.

Hessburg, P., Agee, J. 2003. An environmental narrative on Inland Northwest United States forests, 1800-2000. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 23-59.

Hessburg, P., Smith, B., Salter, R., Ottmar, R., Alvarado, E. 2000. Recent changes (1930s-1990s) in spatial patterns of interior northwest forests, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 136: 53-83.

Hessburg, P.F., Smith, B.G., Kreiter, S.D., Miller, C.A., Salter, R.B., McNicoll, C.H. and Hann, W.J. 1999. Historical and current forest and range landscapes in the interior Columbia River basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Part 1: Linking vegetation patterns and landscape vulnerability to potential insect and pathogen disturbances. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-458. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 357 p.(Quigley, Thomas, M., ed., Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Hessburg, P. F., R. G. Mitchell, and G. M. Filip. 1994. Historical and current roles of insects and pathogens in eastern Oregon and Washington forested landscapes. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-327. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

Heyerdahl, E.K., Loehman, R.A. and Falk, D.A. 2019. A multi-century history of fire regimes along a transect of mixed-conifer forests in central Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 49(1): 76-86.

167 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Heyerdahl E, Morgan P, Riser JPII. 2008. Multi-season climate synchronized historical fires in dry forests (1650-1900), Northern Rockies, USA. Ecology 89(3): 705-16.

Heyerdahl E, Brubaker L, Agee J. 2001. Spatial controls of historical fire regimes: a multiscale example from the Interior West. Ecology 83(3): 660-78.

Heyerdahl, E. K., L. B. Brubaker, and J. K. Agee. 2001. Spatial Controls of Historical Fire Regimes: A Multiscale Example from the Interior West, USA. Ecology 82:660–678.

Hiller, T.L. 2011. Oregon furbearer program report, 2010-2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Or. http://www/dfw/state/or.us/resource/hunting/small_game/docs/2011_furbearer_re port.pdf. Hoffman, J.T. 2004. Management guide for dwarf mistletoe. 14 p. in: Forest insect and disease management guide for the northern and central Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection; Boise, ID, and Missoula, MT. In cooperation with the Idaho Department of Lands and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. (Non-standard pagination.) Hoffmann, A.A. and Sgró, C.M. 2011. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature [Internet] 470: 479–485.

Hollenbeck, J.P., L.J. Bate, V.A. Saab, and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2013. Snag distribution in relation to human access in ponderosa pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(2): 256-266.

Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1973.4: 1-23.

Hood, S. M., J. M. Varner, P. van Mantgem, and C. A. Cansler. 2018. Fire and tree death: understanding and improving modeling of fire-induced tree mortality. Environmental Research Letters 13.

Hood, S., and D. Lutes. 2017. Predicting Post-Fire Tree Mortality for 12 Western US Conifers Using the First Order Fire Effects Model. Fire Ecology 13:66–84.

Hood, S.M., S. Smith, and D. Cluck. 2010. Predicting tree mortality for five California conifers following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management 260: 750–762.

Hornocker, M.G., and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59: 1286-1301.

Houghton, R.A., House, J.I., Pongratz, J., van der Werf, G.R., DeFries, R.S., Hansen, M.C., Ramankutty, N. 2012. Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences, 9(12): 5125–5142. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-5125- 2012 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Howard, J. L., and K. C. Aleksoff. 2000. Abies grandis. Fire effects information system. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Hull, I.T., Shipley, L.A., Berry, S.L., Loggers, C. and Johnson, T.R., 2020. Effects of fuel reduction timber harvests on forage resources for deer in northeastern Washington. Forest Ecology and Management, 458: 117757.

Spies, T., and Turner, M. 1999. Dynamic forest mosaics. In: Hunter, M.L. and Hunter Jr, M.L. (eds.). Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Hurteau, M. and North, M. 2009. Fuel treatment effects on tree-based forest carbon storage and emissions under modeled wildfire scenarios, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7: 409-414.

Hunt, R.S.; Etheridge, D.E. 1995. True heart-rots of the Pacific region. Forest Pest Leaflet 55. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre; Victoria, B.C. Co-published by the BC Ministry of Forests. 8 p. Ibañez, C., Delker, C., Martinez, C., Bürstenbinder, K., Janitza, P., Lippmann, R., Ludwig, W., Sun, H., James, G.V., Klecker, M. and Grossjohann, A. 2018. Brassinosteroids dominate hormonal regulation of plant thermomorphogenesis via BZR1. Current Biology, 28(2): 303-310.

Ince, P.J., Spelter, H., Skog, K.E., Kramp, A., Dykstra, D.P. 2008. Market impacts of hypothetical fuel treatment thinning programs on federal lands in the western United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(6): 363-372.

Inman, R.M., K.H. Inman, A.J. McCue, M.L. Packila, G.C. White, and B.C. Aber. 2007a. Wolverine space use in Greater Yellowstone. Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater Yellowstone Wolverine Program, Cumulative Report.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team (ILBT). 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19, Missoula, MT.

IPCC. 2000. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry, Summary for Policy Makers, 2000. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. 20 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/land-use-land-use- change-and-forestry/

IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

169 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

Irwin, L. L., Riggs, R. A., & Verschuyl, J. P. 2018. Reconciling wildlife conservation to forest restoration in moist mixed-conifer forests of the inland northwest: A synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 424: 288-311. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.05.007

Jackson, M.B.; Hayes, C.J.; Taylor, J.E.; Ferguson, B.A. 2016. Effects of thinning and overstory removal on western larch and western larch dwarf mistletoe. Forest Science, 62(2): 190-199. Jennings, M.D., Faber-Langendoen, D., Loucks, O.L., Peet, R.K. and Roberts, D. 2009. Standards for associations and alliances of the US National Vegetation Classification. Ecological Monographs, 79(2): 173-199.

Jimenez, M.D., E.E. Bangs, D.K. Boyd, D.S. Smith, S.A. Becker, D.E. Ausband, S.P. Woodruff, E.H. Bradley, J.Holyan, K. Laudon. 2017. Wolf dispersal in the Rocky Mountains, western United States: 1993-2008. Journal of Wildlife Management 81(4): 581-592.

Johnson, C.G., Clausnitzer, R.R., Mehringer, P.J. and Oliver, C.D. 1994. Biotic and abiotic processes in eastside ecosystems: the effects of management on plant and community ecology and on stand and landscape vegetation dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-322. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 66 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.).

Johnson, David H, and Thomas A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife-habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Corallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Johnston, J.D., S.M. Greenler, B.A. Miller, M.J. Reilly, C.J. Dunn, A.A. Lindsay. [In review]. Novel simulation model shows that current diameter limits on cutting prevent restoration of dry mixed conifer forests. Ecosphere.

Johnston, J.D., Dunn, C.J. and Vernon, M.J. 2019. Tree traits influence response to fire severity in the western Oregon Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 433: 690-698.

Johnston, J.D., Dunn, C.J., Vernon, M.J., Bailey, J.D., Morrissette, B.A. and Morici, K.E. 2018. Restoring historical forest conditions in a diverse inland Pacific Northwest landscape. Ecosphere, 9(8): e02400.

Johnston, J.D. 2017. Forest succession along a productivity gradient following fire exclusion. Forest Ecology and Management, 392: 45-57. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Johnston, J.D., Bailey, J.D. and Dunn, C.J. 2016. Influence of fire disturbance and biophysical heterogeneity on pre‐settlement ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. Ecosphere, 7(11): e01581.

Johnstone, J.F., Allen, C.D., Franklin, J.F., Frelich, L.E., Harvey, B.J., Higuera, P.E., Mack, M.C., Meentemeyer, R.K., Metz, M.R., Perry, G.L. and Schoennagel, T. 2016. Changing disturbance regimes, ecological memory, and forest resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(7): 369-378.

Joyce, L.A., Running, S.W., Breshears, D.D., Dale, V.H., Malmsheimer, R.W., Sampson, R.N., Sohngen, B., Woodall, C.W. 2014. Chapter 7: Forests. In: Melillo, Jerry; Richmond, Terese (T.C.); Yohe, Gary, eds. Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program: 176–194. http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/sectors/forests

Kalies, E.L. and Kent, L.L.Y. 2016. Tamm review: are fuel treatments effective at achieving ecological and social objectives? A systematic review. Forest Ecology and Management, 375: 84-95.

Kane, V. R., C. A. Cansler, N. A. Povak, J. T. Kane, R. J. McGaughey, J. A. Lutz, D. J. Churchill, M. P. North. 2015. Mixed-severity fire effects within the Rim fire: Relative importance of local climate, fire weather, topography, and forest structure. Forest Ecology and Management 358: 62-79.

Keane, R.E., Tomback, D.F., Aubry, C.A., Bower, A.D., Campbell, E.M., Cripps, C.L., Jenkins, M.B., Mahalovich, M.F., Manning, M., McKinney, S.T. and Murray, M.P. 2012. A range-wide restoration strategy for whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-279. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 108 p. (p. 279).

Keane, R.E., Arno, S.F. and Brown, J.K. 1990, Simulating Cumulative Fire Effects in Ponderosa Pine/Douglas‐Fir Forests. Ecology, 71: 189-203. doi:10.2307/1940259

Keeley, J.E., 2006. Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. Conservation Biology, 20(2): 375-384.

Keeley, J.E., Lubin, D. and Fotheringham, C.J. 2003. Fire and grazing impacts on plant diversity and alien plant invasions in the southern Sierra Nevada. Ecological applications, 13(5), pp.1355-1374.

Kelly, L.T. and Brotons, L. 2017. Using fire to promote biodiversity. Science, 355(6331), pp.1264-1265.

Kemp, K.B., Higuera, P.E. and Morgan, P. 2016. Fire legacies impact conifer regeneration across environmental gradients in the US northern Rockies. Landscape Ecology, 31(3), pp.619-636.

171 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Kemp, K.B., Higuera, P.E., Morgan, P. and Abatzoglou, J.T. 2019. Climate will increasingly determine post‐fire tree regeneration success in low‐elevation forests, Northern Rockies, USA. Ecosphere, 10(1): e02568.

Kerns, B.K., Tortorelli, C., Day, M.A., Nietupski, T., Barros, A.M., Kim, J.B. and Krawchuk, M.A. 2020. Invasive grasses: A new perfect storm for forested ecosystems? Forest Ecology and Management, 463: 117985.

Kerns, B.K., Powell, D.C., Mellmann-Brown, S., Carnwath, G. and Kim, J.B. 2018. Effects of projected climate change on vegetation in the Blue Mountains ecoregion, USA. Climate Services, 10: 33-43.

Keyser, A.R. and Westerling, A.L. 2019. Predicting increasing high severity area burned for three forested regions in the western United States using extreme value theory. Forest Ecology and Management, 432: 694-706.

Keyser, C. E. 2019. South Central Oregon and Northeast California (SO) Variant Overview - Forest Vegetation Simulator. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Keyser, C. E., and G. E. Dixon. 2019. Blue Mountains (BM) variant overview – Forest Vegetation Simulator. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO.

Keyser, A., and A. L. Westerling. 2017. Climate drives inter-annual variability in probability of high severity fire occurrence in the western United States. Environmental Research Letters 12.

Khanduri, V.P., Sharma, C.M. and Singh, S.P. 2008. The effects of climate change on plant phenology. The Environmentalist, 28(2): 143-147.

Kolb, T. E., C. J. Fettig, M. P. Ayres, B. J. Bentz, J. A. Hicke, R. Mathiasen, J. E. Stewart, and A. S. Weed. 2016. Observed and anticipated impacts of drought on forest insects and diseases in the United States. Forest Ecology and Management 380:321–334.

Kolb, T.E., Agee, J.K., Fule, P.Z., McDowell, N.G., Pearson, K., Sala, A. and Waring, R.H. 2007. Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(3): 141-157.

Kolb, T.E., Holmberg, K.M., Wagner, M.R. and Stone, J.E. 1998. Regulation of ponderosa pine foliar physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatments. Tree Physiology, 18(6): 375-381.

Kolden, C.A., Abatzoglou, J.T., Lutz, J.A., Cansler, C.A., Kane, J.T., Van Wagtendonk, J.W. and Key, C.H. 2015. Climate contributors to forest mosaics: ecological persistence following wildfire. Northwest Science, 89(3): 219-238. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Korb, J.E., Fornwalt, P.J. and Stevens-Rumann, C.S. 2019. What drives ponderosa pine regeneration following wildfire in the western United States? Forest Ecology and Management, 454: 117663.

Kozlowski, T. T. 1969. Tree Physiology and Forest Pests. Journal of Forestry 67:118–123.

Kurz, W.A., Dymond, C.C., Stinson, G., Rampley, G.J., Neilson, E.T., Carroll, A.L., and Safranyik, L. 2008. Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature, 452(7190): 987–990.

LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Fire Regime Groups layer. 2010. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey. [Online]. Available: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ [2020, June].

Langham, G.M., J.G. Schuetz, T. Distler, C.U. Soykan, and C. Wilsey. 2015. Conservation status of North American birds in the face of future climate change. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0135350.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135350.

Langille, H. D., F. G. Plummer, A. Dodwell, T. F. Rixon, and J. B. Leiberg. 1903. Forest conditions in the Cascade Range Forest Reserve, Oregon. US Geological Survey.

Latif, Q.S., V.A. Saab, K. Mellen-McLean, and J.G. Dudley. 2015. Evaluating habitat suitability models for nesting white-headed woodpeckers in unburned forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 79(2): 263-273.

Latta, G., Temesgen, H., Adams, D., & Barrett, T. 2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(4): 720-729. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.003

Larson, A.J. and Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 267: 74-92.

Lawler, J.J. and Mathias, M.R. 2007. Climate change and the future of biodiversity in Washington. Washington Biodiversity Council.

Lawson, KJ, C.L. Lausen, K.A. Mancuso, L.A. Volkmann, T.J. Gooliaff, J. Hutchen, K.J. Teichman, A.J. Kelly, and K.E. Hodges. 2019. Bat activity and richness in beetle- killed forests in southern British Columbia, Journal of Mammalogy, Volume 100, Issue 2, 24 April 2019, (p. 510–517), https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyz034 LeDoux, C.B. and Martin, D.K., 2013. Proposed BMPs for invasive plant mitigation during timber harvesting operations. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-118. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 118 p. (p.1-12).

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Gaines, W.; Peterson, D.; Bailey, J.; Youngblood, A. 2015. Silviculture and monitoring guidelines for integrating restoration of dry mixedconifer forest and spotted owl habitat management in the eastern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. 173 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Rep. PNW-GTR-915. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 158 p.

Lehmkuhl, J.F., Lyons, A.L., Bracken, E., Leingang, J., Gaines, W.L., Dodson, E.K. and Singleton, P.H. 2013. Forage composition, productivity, and utilization in the eastern Washington Cascade Range. Northwest Science, 87(4): 267-291.

Lehmkuhl, J.F. 2005. Wildlife adaptations and management in eastside interior forests with mixed-severity fire regimes. Proceedings of the symposium on mixed- severity fire regimes: ecology and management. The Association for Fire Ecology, Misc. Publication No. 3: 177-186.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Everett, R.L.; Huff, M.H.; Ottmar, R.D. 1994. Historical and current forest landscapes of eastern Oregon and Washington Part I: Vegetation pattern and insect and disease hazards. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-328. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 88 p. (Everett, Richard L.; team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., science team leader and tech. ed., Volume III: assessment.)

Lentile, L. B., Smith, F. W., Sheppard, W. D. 2006 Influence of topography and forest structure on patterns of mixed severity fire in ponderosa pine forests of the South Dakota Black Hills, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15, 557-566.

Lesmeister, D.B.; Davis, R.J.; Singleton, P.H.; Wiens, J.D. 2018. Northern spotted owl habitat and populations: status and threats. In: Spies, T.A.; Stine, P.A.; Gravenmier, R.; Long, J.W.; Reilly, M.J., tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966, Chapter 4. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, (p. 245–298).

Levine, C. R., Cogbill, C. V., Collins, B. M., Larson, A. J., Lutz, J. A., North, M. P., Restaino, C. M., Safford, H. D., Stephens, S. L., and Battles, J. J.. 2019. Estimating historical forest density from land‐survey data: a response to Baker and Williams (2018). Ecological Applications 29(8): e01968. 10.1002/eap.1968

Lindenmayer, D. B., W. F. Laurance, J. F. Franklin, G. E. Likens, S. C. Banks, W. Blanchard, P. Gibbons, K. Ikin, D. Blair, L. McBurney, A. D. Manning, and J. A. R. Stein. 2014. New Policies for Old Trees: Averting a Global Crisis in a Keystone Ecological Structure. Conservation Letters 7:61–69.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Laurance, W.F. and Franklin, J.F. 2012. Global decline in large old trees. Science, 338(6112): 1305-1306.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Hunter, M.L., Burton, P.J. and Gibbons, P. 2009. Effects of logging on fire regimes in moist forests. Conservation Letters 2: 271-277.

Lindsay, Amanda A.; Johnston, James D. 2020. Using historical reconstructions of moist mixed conifer forests to inform forest management on the Malheur National USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Forest. In: Pile, Lauren S., Deal, Robert L., Dey, Daniel C., Gwaze, David, Kabrick, John M., Palik, Brian, Schuler, Thomas M., comps. The 2019 National Silviculture Workshop: a focus on forest management-research partnerships. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-193. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: (p. 23-33).

Lippke, B., Oneil, E., Harrison, R., Skog, K., Gustavsson, L., Sathre, R. 2011 Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns, Carbon Management, 2:3: 303-333.

Littell, J.S., McKenzie, D., Wan, H.Y. and Cushman, S.A. 2018. Climate change and future wildfire in the western United States: an ecological approach to nonstationarity. Earth's Future, 6(8): 1097-1111.

Littell, J.S., McKenzie, D., Peterson, D.L. and Westerling, A.L. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecological Applications, 19(4): 1003-1021.

Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter S, Folke C, Alberti M, Redman C, Schneider S, Ostrom E, Pell A, Lubchenco J, Taylor W, Ouyang Z, Deadman P, Kratz T, Provencher W. 2007. Coupled natural and human systems. Ambio 36(8): 639-649.

Livingston, R.L. 2004. Management guide for pine engraver. 6 p. in: Forest insect and disease management guide for the northern and central Rocky Mountains. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection; Boise, ID, and Missoula, MT. In cooperation with the Idaho Department of Lands and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation.

Lorenz, T.J., K.T. Vierling, T.R. Johnson, and P.C. Fischer. 2015. The role of wood hardness in limiting nest site selection in avian cavity excavators. Ecological Applications. 25: 1016-1033. Lowell, E.C.; Rapp, V.A.; Haynes, R.W.; Cray, C. 2010. Effects of fire, insect, and pathogen damage on wood quality of dead and dying western conifers. General Technical Report PNW-816. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR. 73 p. Lutz, J.A., Van Wagtendonk, J.W. and Franklin, J.F. 2009. Twentieth-century decline of large-diameter trees in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(11): 2296-2307.

Lydersen, J. and North, M. 2012. Topographic variation in active-fire forest structure under current climate conditions. Ecosystems, 15: 1134-1146.

Lydersen, J.M., Collins, B.M., Brooks, M.L., Matchett, J.R., Shive, K.L., Povak, N.A., Kane, V.R. and Smith, D.F. 2017. Evidence of fuels management and fire weather influencing fire severity in an extreme fire event. Ecological Applications, 27(7): 2013-2030.

175 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Lyons, A.L., Gaines, W.L., Lehmkuhl, J.F. and Harrod, R.J., 2008. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on foraging tree selection by cavity-nesting birds in dry forests of central Washington. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(8-9): 3203-3211.

Ma, S., Concilio, A., Oakley, B., North, M., Chen, J. 2010. Spatial variability in microclimate in a mixed-conifer forest before and after thinning and burning treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 259 (5): 904-915.

Magoun, A.J., P. Valkenburg, C.D. Long, and J.K. Long. 2013. Monitoring wolverines in northeast Oregon, January 2011-December 2012. Final Report. The Wolverine Foundation, Inc. Kuna, Idaho. http://ww.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy. Mallams, K.M.; Chadwick, K.L.; Angwin, P.A. 2010. Decays of white, grand, and red firs. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 52 (revised). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Portland, OR. 12 p. Marcot, B.G., Pope, K.L., Slauson, K., Welsh, H.H., Wheeler, C.A., Reilly, M.J. and Zielinski, W.J. 2018. Other species and biodiversity of older forests. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 371-459.

Martin, K. 2010 October 5. Range of Variation Direction for Forest Vegetation Project Planning. USDA Forest Service. Umatilla National Forest. Pendleton, OR.

Martinson, E.J. and Omi, P.N. 2013. Fuel treatments and fire severity: a meta- analysis. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-103WWW. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 38 p.

Martinson E, Omi P. 2003. Performance of fuel treatments subjected to wildfires. Pages 7-13 in Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: conference proceedings; 2002 16-18 April; Fort Collins, CO. Omi P, Joyce L, eds. Proceedings RMRS-P- 29. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

McCaffrey, S., Toman, E., Stidham, M. and Shindler, B. 2013. Social science research related to wildfire management: an overview of recent findings and future research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 22(1): 15-24.

McComb, W.C.; Ohmann, J.L. 1995. Snag Dynamics Projection Model (SDPM): a model of snag recruitment, decay, and fall for Pacific Northwest forests. Unpublished report on file. McDowell, N.G. and Allen, C.D. 2015. Darcy's law predicts widespread forest mortality under climate warming. Nature Climate Change, 5(7): 669-672.

McDowell, N., W. T. Pockman, C. D. Allen, D. D. Breshears, N. Cobb, T. Kolb, J. Plaut, J. Sperry, A. West, D. G. Williams, and E. A. Yepez. 2008. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytologist 178:719–739. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

McKenzie, D., Gedalof, Z. e., Peterson, D. L., & Mote, P. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 890-902.

McKinley, D.C., Ryan, M.G., Birdsey, R.A., Giardina, C.P., Harmon, M.E., Heath, L.S., Houghton, R.A., Jackson, R.B., Morrison, J.F., Murray, B.C., Pataki, D.E., Skog, K.E. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecological Applications. 21(6): 1902-1924.

McMahon, S.M., Arellano, G. and Davies, S.J., 2019. The importance and challenges of detecting changes in forest mortality rates. Ecosphere, 10(2), p.e02615.

Mech, L.D., M.E. Nelson, and R.E. McRoberts. 1991. Effects of maternal and grandmaternal nutrition on deer mass and vulnerability to wolf predation. Journal of Mammalogy 72(1): 146-151. Mech, L. D., and L. Boitani. 2003. Wolf social ecology. Pages 1-34 in L. D. Mech and L. Boitani (eds.). Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe., eds. 2014. Highlights of climate change impacts in the United States: the third National Climate Assessment. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC. 148 p. Mellen, K.; Ager, A. 2002. A coarse wood dynamics model for the Western Cascades. In: Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. November 2-4, 1999; Reno, NV. General Technical Report PSW- 181. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station; Albany, CA. (p. 503-516). Mellen-McLean, K., B. Wales, and B. Bresson. 2013. A conservation assessment for white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington, Portland, OR. Mellen-McLean, K.; Marcot, B.G.; Ohmann, J.L.; Waddell, K.; Willhite, E.A.; Acker, S.A.; Livingston, S.A.; Hostetler, B.B.; Webb, B.S.; Garcia, B.A. 2017. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 3.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, OR. https://apps.fs.usda.gov/r6_DecAID Merriam, K.E., Keeley, J.E. and Beyers, J.L., 2006. Fuel breaks affect nonnative species abundance in Californian plant communities. Ecological Applications, 16(2): 515- 527.

Merschel, A., Vora, R.S. and Spies, T., 2019. Conserving dry old-growth forest in Central Oregon, USA. Journal of Forestry, 117(2), pp.128-135.

Merschel, A. G., Heyerdahl, E. K., Spies, T. A., Loehman, R. A., 2018. Influence of landscape structure, topography, and forest type on spatial variation in historical

177 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

fire regimes, Central Oregon, USA. Landscape Ecology, Landscape Ecology 33, 1195–1209.

Merschel, A.G., Spies, T.A. and Heyerdahl, E.K., 2014. Mixed‐conifer forests of central Oregon: effects of logging and fire exclusion vary with environment. Ecological Applications, 24(7), pp.1670-1688.

Mildrexler, D., Yang, Z. Q., Cohen, W. B., & Bell, D. M. 2016. A forest vulnerability index based on drought and high temperatures. Remote Sensing of Environment, 173, 314-325.

Millar, C.I. and Stephenson, N.L., 2015. Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science, 349(6250): 823-826.

Millar, C., Stephenson, N. & Stephens, S. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145-51.

Minore, D. 1979. Comparative autecological characteristics of Northwestern tree species: a literature review. General Technical Report PNW-87. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; Portland, Oregon. 72 p. Mladenoff, D. J., T. A. Sickley, R. G. Haught, and A. P. Wydeven. 1995. A Regional Landscape Analysis and Prediction of Favorable Gray Wolf Habitat in the Northern Great Lakes Region. Conservation Biology 9: 279-294.

Moon, K., T. J. Duff, and K. G. Tolhurst. 2019. Sub-canopy forest winds: understanding wind profiles for fire behaviour simulation. Fire Safety Journal 105:320–329.

Moriarty, K.M., C.W. Epps, M.G. Betts, D.J. Hance, J.D. Bailey, and W.J. Zielinski. 2015. Experimental evidence that simplified forest structure interacts with snow cover to influence functional connectivity for Pacific martens. Landscape Ecology. DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0216-2.

Moriarty, K.M., C.W. Epps, and W.J. Zielinski. 2016. Forest thinning changes movement patterns and habitat use by Pacific marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 80(4): 621-633.

Moritz, M. A., E. Batllori, R. A. Bradstock, A. M. Gill, J. Handmer, P. F. Hessburg, J. Leonard, S. McCaffrey, D. C. Odion, T. Schoennagel, and A. D. Syphard. 2014. Learning to coexist with wildfire. Nature 515:58–66.

Mote, P.W. and Salathé, E.P., 2010. Future climate in the Pacific Northwest. Climatic change, 102(1-2): 29-50.

Mote P., Parson, E., Hamlet, A., Keeton, W., Lettenmaier, D., Mantua, N., Miles, E., Peterson, D., Peterson, D., Slaughter, R., Snover, A. 2003. Preparing for climatic change: the water, salmon and forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change 61: 45-88. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Mulligan, E.M. 2015. Survival rates and cause-specific mortality for mule deer in south- central Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.

Nelson, M. L., C. K. Brewer, and S. J. Solem. 2015. Existing vegetation classification and mapping technical guide, version 2.0. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, Washington, DC.

North, M.P., Stephens, S.L., Collins, B.M., Agee, J.K., Aplet, G., Franklin, J.F. and Fule, P.Z., 2015. Reform forest fire management. Science, 349(6254): 1280-1281.

North, M., Collins, B.M. and Stephens, S., 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry, 110(7): 392-401.

Noss, R. F., J. F. Franklin, W. L. Baker, T. Schoennagel, and P. B. Moyle. 2006. Managing fire-prone forests in the western United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:481–487.

Oakleaf, J.K., D.L. Murray, J.R. Oakleaf, E.E. Bangs, C.M. Mack, D.W. Smith, J.A. Fontaine, M.D. Jimenez, T.J. Meier, and C.C. Niemeyer. 2006. Habitat selection by recolonizing wolves in the northwestern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management. 70: 554-563.

Odion, D. C., C. T. Hanson, A. Arsenault, W. L. Baker, D. A. DellaSala, R. L. Hutto, W. Klenner, M. A. Moritz, R. L. Sherriff, T. T. Veblen, and M. A. Williams. 2014. Examining Historical and Current Mixed-Severity Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed-Conifer Forests of Western North America. PLoS ONE 9(2): e87852.

Odion D, Frost E, Strittholt J, Jiang H, DellaSalla D, Moritz M. 2004. Patterns of fire severity and forest conditions in the western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927-36.

O'Hara, K.L., Latham, P.A., Hessburg, P. and Smith, B.G., 1996. A structural classification for inland northwest forest vegetation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11: 97-102.

Ohmann, J.L. and Spies, T.A., 1998. Regional gradient analysis and spatial pattern of woody plant communities of Oregon forests. Ecological Monographs. 68(2): 151- 182.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003a. Oregon’s mule deer management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003b. Oregon’s elk management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2011. Oregon mule deer initiative. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.

179 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2019. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR.

Owen, S.M., Sieg, C.H., Meador, A.J.S., Fulé, P.Z., Iniguez, J.M., Baggett, L.S., Fornwalt, P.J. and Battaglia, M.A. 2017. Spatial patterns of ponderosa pine regeneration in high-severity burn patches. Forest Ecology and Management. 405: 134-149.

Pan Y., Birdsey R.A., Fang J., Houghton R., Kauppi P.E., Kurz W.A., Phillips O.L., Shvidenko A., Lewis S.L., Canadell J.G., Ciais P., Jackson R.B., Pacala S.W., McGuire A.D., Piao S., Rautiainen A., Sitch S., Hayes D. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the World’s forests. Science. 333:988–993

Parish, R.; Antos, J.A.; Ott, P.K.; Di Lucca, C.M. 2010. Snag longevity of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar from permanent sample plots in coastal British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 259: 633-640. Parks, S. A., Abatzoglou, J. T. 2020. Warmer and Drier Fire Seasons Contribute to Increases in Area Burned at High Severity in Western US Forests From 1985 to 2017. Geophysical Research Letters, Geophysical Research Letters 47. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gl089858

Parks, S.A., Dobrowski, S.Z., Shaw, J.D. and Miller, C. 2019. Living on the edge: trailing edge forests at risk of fire‐facilitated conversion to non‐forest. Ecosphere, 10(3), p.e02651.

Parks, S.A., Holsinger, L.M., Panunto, M.H., Jolly, W.M., Dobrowski, S.Z. and Dillon, G.K. 2018. High-severity fire: evaluating its key drivers and mapping its probability across western US forests. Environmental Research Letters. 13(4): 044037.

Parks, S.A., Miller, C., Nelson, C.R. and Holden, Z.A., 2014. Previous fires moderate burn severity of subsequent wildland fires in two large western US wilderness areas. Ecosystems. 17(1): 29-42.

Parks, C. G.; Bull, E. L. 1997. American marten use of rust and dwarf mistletoe brooms in northeastern Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 12: 131-133. Parks, C.G.; Bull, E.L.; Torgersen, T.R. 1997. Field guide for the identification of snags and logs in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW- 390. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station; Portland, OR. 40 p. Parks, C.G.; Bull, E.L.; Filip, G.M.; Gilbertson, R.L.; Dorworth, E. 1990. Creating wildlife trees with inoculation with decay fungi. Pages 78-80 In: Proc. of the 38th Annual West. Int. For. Disease Work Conf., Redding, CA. Hoffman, J. and L.H. Spiegel (compl.), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Pest Management, Boise, ID. 157p. Perry, D.A., Hessburg, P.F., Skinner, C.N., Spies, T.A., Stephens, S.L., Taylor, A.H., Franklin, J.F., McComb, B. and Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed severity USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 262(5): 703-717.

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2009. Reproduction and den site selection by wolves in a disturbed landscape. Northwest Science. 83(3): 211-224.

Peterson, G.D. 2002. Contagious disturbance, ecological memory, and the emergence of landscape pattern. Ecosystems. 5(4): 329-338.

Peterson, D. L., and K. C. Ryan. 1986. Modeling postfire conifer mortality for long-range planning. Environmental Management 10:797–808.

Pilliod, D.S., E.L. Bull, J.L. Hayes, and B.C. Wales. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the western United States: a synthesis. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-GTR-173.

Pharis, R. P. 1966. Comparative Drought Resistance of Five Conifers and Foliage Moisture Content as a Viability Index. Ecology 47:211–221.

Platt, E.K. 2014. Managing for Landscape Resilience in the Frequent-Fire Forests of Central Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.

Powell, D.C. 2014a. Active management of dry forests in the Blue Mountains: Silvicultural considerations. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 204 p.

Powell, D. C. 2014b. Active management of moist forests in the Blue Mountains: Silvicultural considerations. Pendleton, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest. 400 p.

Powell, D.C. 2007. Potential vegetation hierarchy for the Blue Mountains section of northeastern Oregon, southeastern Washington, and west-central Idaho (Vol. 709). US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Powell, D.C. 1994. Effects of the 1980s western spruce budworm outbreak on the Malheur National Forest in northeastern Oregon. Technical Publication R6-FI&D- TP-12-94. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Forest Insects and Diseases Group; Portland, OR. 176 p.

Prestemon, J.P, Abt, K.L., Barbour, R.J. 2012. Quantifying the net economic benefits of mechanical wildfire hazard treatments on timberlands of the western United States. Forest Policy and Economics 21: 44-53.

Prichard, S.J., Povak, N.A., Kennedy, M.C. and Peterson, D.W. 2020. Fuel treatment effectiveness in the context of landform, vegetation, and large, wind‐driven wildfires. Ecological Applications. p. e02104.

181 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Prichard, S.J., Stevens-Rumann, C.S. and Hessburg, P.F. 2017. Tamm review: shifting global fire regimes: lessons from reburns and research needs. Forest Ecology and Management. 396: 217-233.

Prichard, S.J. and Kennedy, M.C. 2014. Fuel treatments and landform modify landscape patterns of burn severity in an extreme fire event. Ecological Applications, 24: 571-590.

Prichard, S.J., Peterson, D.L. and Jacobson, K. 2010. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 40(8): 1615-1626.

Pugnaire, F.I., Morillo, J.A., Peñuelas, J., Reich, P.B., Bardgett, R.D., Gaxiola, A., Wardle, D.A. and Van Der Putten, W.H. 2019. Climate change effects on plant- soil feedbacks and consequences for biodiversity and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Science Advances. 5(11): 1834.

Pureswaran, D. S.; Roques, A. & Battisti, A. 2018. Forest Insects and Climate Change, Current Forestry Reports, Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 2018, 4: 35-50

Quigley, T.M. and Arbelbide, S.J. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 4 vol. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: Scientific Assessment), 405 p.

Quigley, T.M.; Haynes, R.W; Graham, R.T. 1996. Integrated scientific assessment for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-382. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 310 p.

Raffa, K.F., Aukema, B.H., Bentz, B.J., Carroll, A.L., Hicke, J.A., Turner, M.G. and Romme, W.H. 2008. Cross-scale drivers of natural disturbances prone to anthropogenic amplification: the dynamics of bark beetle eruptions. Bioscience. 58(6): 501-517.

Reilly, M.J., McCord, M.G., Brandt, S.M., Linowksi, K.P., Butz, R.J. and Jules, E.S. 2020. Repeated, high-severity wildfire catalyzes invasion of non-native plant species in forests of the Klamath Mountains, northern California, USA. Biological Invasions: 1-8.

Reilly, M. J., C. J. Dunn, G. W. Meigs, T. A. Spies, R. E. Kennedy, J. D. Bailey, and K. Briggs. 2017. Contemporary patterns of fire extent and severity in forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA (1985-2010). Ecosphere 8. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Rhodes, J.J., Baker, W.L. 2008. Fire Probability, Fuel Treatment Effectiveness and Ecological Tradeoffs in Western U.S. Public Forests. The Open Forest Science Journal 1: 1-7. [Journal discontinued.]

Riling, J., Geier-Hayes, K., & Jain, T. 2019. Decoupling the Diameter-Age Debate: The Boise National Forest's Legacy Tree Guide. Forest Science. 65(4), 519-527. doi:10.1093/forsci/fxz004

Ritchie, M.W., Wing, B.M. and Hamilton, T.A. 2008. Stability of the large tree component in treated and untreated late-seral interior ponderosa pine stands. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38(5): 919-923.

Roccaforte J.P., Fule P.Z., Chancellor W.W., Laughlin D.C. 2012 Woody debris and tree regeneration dynamics following severe wildfires in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 42: 593–604.

Rollins, M.G., 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 18(3): 235-249.

Root, T.L., Price, J.T., Hall, K.R., Schneider, S.H., Rosenzweig, C. and Pounds, J.A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. 421(6918): 57-60.

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest Forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. In: Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife- habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 580-623.

Roth, L.F. 1953. Pine dwarf mistletoe on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon, Res. Note 91, 3 p.

Russell, R.E., Royle, J.A., Saab, V.A., Lehmkuhl, J.F., Block, W.M. and Sauer, J.R. 2009. Modeling the effects of environmental disturbance on wildlife communities: avian responses to prescribed fire. Ecological Applications. 19(5): 1253-1263.

Saab, V.A., and J. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, RMRS-RP-11.

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 151-159.

Safford, H.D., Stevens, J.T., Merriam, K., Meyer, M.D. and Latimer, A.M. 2012. Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pine and mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 274: 17-28.

183 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Schmidt, K.M. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Schoennagel, T., Balch, J.K., Brenkert-Smith, H., Dennison, P.E., Harvey, B.J., Krawchuk, M., Mietkiewicz, N., Morgan, P., Moritz, M.A., Rasker, R., Turner, M.G., Whitlock, C. 2017. Adapt to wildfire as climate changes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114 (18) 4582- 4590; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617464114

Schreiber, Barry. 1987. Diurnal bird use of snags on clearcuts in central coastal Oregon. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR. Shafritz J.M., Ott, J.S., Jang, Y.S. 2005. Classics of Organization Theory. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, pg. 194.

Shaw, D.C.; Oester, P.T.; Filip, G.M. 2009. Managing Insects and Diseases of Oregon Conifers. Oregon State University Extension EM8980. Oregon State University; Corvallis, OR. 98 p. Shigo, A.L. 1984. Compartmentalization: A conceptual framework for understanding how trees grow and defend themselves. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 22: 189-214. Shinn, D. A. 1980. Historical perspectives on range burning in the inland Pacific Northwest. Rangeland Ecology & Management/Journal of Range Management Archives 33:415–423.

Shore, T. L., L. Safranyik, B. C. Hawkes, and S. W. Taylor. 2006. Effects of the Mountain Pine Beetle on Lodgepole Pine Stand Structure and Dynamics. in The Mountain Pine Beetle: A Synthesis of Biology, Management, and Impacts on Lodgepole Pine. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, British Columbia.

Shuffield C. 2010. Overstory composition and stand structure shifts within inter-mixed ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine stands of the south-central Oregon pumice zone. Master’s thesis. Oregon State University: Corvallis, Oregon.

Singleton, P.H., M.J. Case, K. Keown, A. Markus, K. Mellen-McLean, S. Mohren, and L. Turner. 2019. Climate change, wildlife, and wildlife habitats in south-central Oregon. Pages 297-362 in USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-974.

Simpson, M., Zalunardo, D., Eglitis, A., Wood, D., Roy, D., & Johnson, S. 1994. Viable Ecosystem Management Guide, Ochoco National Forest. Prineville, OR: USDA Forest Service

Skinner, C. N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, USA. Landscape Ecology 10:219–228. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Skog, K.E., McKinley, D.C., Birdsey, R.A., Hines, S.J., Woodall, C.W., Reinhardt, E.D., Vose, J.M. 2014. Chapter 7: Managing Carbon. In: Climate Change and United States Forests, Advances in Global Change Research. 57(2014): 151-182.

Sloan, J.P. 1998. Interruption of the natural fire cycle in a grand fir forest of central Idaho: changes in stand structure and composition. In: Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings (Vol. 20, pp. 250-257).

Soeriaatmadja, R. E. 1965. Fire history of the ponderosa pine forests of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation, Oregon. Ph.D. disseration. Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR.

Sohn, J. A., Saha, S., & Bauhus, J. 2016. Potential of forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 380: 261-273.

Spies, T.A., Hessburg, P.F., Skinner, C.N., Puettmann, K.J., Reilly, M.J., Davis, R.J., Kertis, J.A., Long, J.W. and Shaw, D.C. 2018. Old growth, disturbance, forest succession, and management in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. In: Spies, TA; Stine, PA; Gravenmier, R.; Long, JW; Reilly, MJ, tech. coords. 2018. Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966: 95-243, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

Spies, T.A., White, E.M., Kline, J.D., Fischer, A.P., Ager, A., Bailey, J.D., Bolte, J., Koch, J., Platt, E., Olsen, C.S., Jacobs, D., Shindler, B., Steen-Adams, M.M., Hammer, R. 2014. Examining fire-prone forest landscapes as coupled human and natural systems. Ecology and Society 19(3): 9. http://dx.doi.org//10.5751/ES-06584- 190309.

Spies, T.A., Giesen, T.W., Swanson, F.J., Franklin, J.F., Lach, D., Johnson, K.N. 2010. Climate change adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic perspectives. Landscape Ecology 25: 1185-1199.

Spies T., Hemstrom, M., Youngblood, A., Hummel, S. 2006. Conserving Old-Growth Forest Diversity in Disturbance-Prone Landscapes. Conservation Biology 20(2): 351-62.

Smith P., M. Bustamante, H. Ahammad, H. Clark, H. Dong, E. A. Elsiddig, H. Haberl, R. Harper, J. House, M. Jafari, O. Masera, C. Mbow, N. H. Ravindranath, C. W. Rice, C. Robledo Abad, A. Romanovskaya, F. Sperling, and F. Tubiello. 2014. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 121 pp. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf

185 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Sohn, J. A., Saha, S., & Bauhus, J. 2016. Potential of forest thinning to mitigate drought stress: A meta-analysis. Forest Ecology and Management. 380: 261-273.

Steele, R., 1994. The role of succession in forest health. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 2(1-2): 183-190.

Steele, R., Arno, S.F. and Geier-Hayes, K., 1986. Wildfire patterns change in central Idaho's ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir forest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 1(1): 16-18.

Stephens, S.L., Westerling, A.L., Hurteau, M.D., Peery, M.Z., Schultz, C.A. and Thompson, S. 2020. Fire and climate change: conserving seasonally dry forests is still possible. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 18(6): 354–360.

Stephens, S.L., Collins, B.M., Fettig, C.J., Finney, M.A., Hoffman, C.M., Knapp, E.E., North, M.P., Safford, H. and Wayman, R.B., 2018. Drought, tree mortality, and wildfire in forests adapted to frequent fire. BioScience, 68(2): 77-88.

Stephens, S.L., Burrows, N., Buyantuyev, A., Gray R.W., Keane, R.W., Kubian, R., Liu, S., Seijo, F., Shu, L., Tolhurst, K.G., van Wagtendonk, J.W. 2014. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: characteristics and challenges. Frontier in Ecology and Environment 12(2): 115-122.

Stephens, S. L., Agee, J. K., Fulé, P. Z., North, M. P., Romme, W. H., Swetnam, T. W., & Turner, M. G. 2013. Managing Forests and Fire in Changing Climates. Science 342: 41–42.

Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Haase, S., Harrington, M., Keeley, J.E., Knapp, E.E., McIver, J.D., Metlen, K. and Skinner, C.N. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire severity in western US forests. Ecological Applications, 19(2): 305-320.

Stevens, J.T., Safford, H.D., North, M.P., Fried, J.S., Gray, A.N., Brown, P.M., et al. 2016. Average Stand Age from Forest Inventory Plots Does Not Describe Historical Fire Regimes in Ponderosa Pine and Mixed-Conifer Forests of Western North America. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0147688.

Stidham, M. and Simon-Brown, V., 2011. Stakeholder perspectives on converting forest biomass to energy in Oregon, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35(1): 203-213.

Stine, P., Hessburg, P., Spies, T., Kramer, M., Fettig, C.J., Hansen, A., Lehmkuhl, J., O'Hara, K., Polivka, K., Singleton, P. and Charnley, S. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixed-conifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 254 p.

Stockdale, C.A., McLoughlin, N., Flannigan, M. and Macdonald, S.E. 2019. Could restoration of a landscape to a pre‐European historical vegetation condition reduce burn probability? Ecosphere, 10(2): e02584. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Sturrock, R.N., Frankel, S.J., Brown, A.V., Hennon, P.E., Kliejunas, J.T., Lewis, K.J., Worrall, J.J. and Woods, A.J. 2011. Climate change and diseases of forest trees. Plant Pathology, 60: 133-149.

Swetnam, T. W., and A. M. Lynch. 1989. A Tree-Ring Reconstruction of Western Spruce Budworm History in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Forest Science 35:962–986.

Taylor, A. H., V. Trouet, C. N. Skinner, and S. Stephens. 2016. Socioecological transitions trigger fire regime shifts and modulate fire–climate interactions in the Sierra Nevada, USA, 1600–2015 CE. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:13684–13689.

Tepley, A.J., Hood, S.M., Keyes, C.R. and Sala, A. 2020. Forest restoration treatments in a ponderosa pine forest enhance physiological activity and growth under climatic stress. Ecological Applications. doi: 10.1002/EAP. 2188.

Thiel, R.P., S. Merrill, and L.D. Mech. 1998. Tolerance by denning wolves, Canis lupus, to human disturbance. Canadian Field Naturalist 122(2): 340-342.

Tingley, M.W., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Wilkerson, R.L., Howell, C.A. and Siegel, R.B. 2016. Pyrodiversity promotes avian diversity over the decade following forest fire. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1840): 20161703.

USDA Forest Service. 2019. Region 6 Sensitive Species List. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Future of America’s Forests and Rangelands: Update to the 2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment. General Technical Report WO-GTR- 94. Washington, D.C. 250 p.

USDA. Forest Service (USFS). 2005. Pacfish/Infish amendment, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Standards for mapping of vegetation in the Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR: Regional Office direction, report on file, 22 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Inland Native Fish Strategy Interim Strategies for Managing Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and portions of Nevada (INFISH). USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Interim Old Growth Definition for Douglas-fir Series, grand fir/white fir series, interior Douglas fir Series, lodgepole pine series, pacific silver fir series, ponderosa pine series, Port-Orford-Cedar and tanoak (redwood) series, sublapine fir series, western hemlock series. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Decision Notice/Decision Record, FONSI, EA Appendices for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and

187 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

US EPA. 2015. US Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2013. Executive Summary. EPA 430-R15-004 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 27 pp. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/us-ghg-inventory- 2015-chapter-executive-summary.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Recovery outline for Canada lynx. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Mt.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Recovery Plan for Silene spaldingii (Spalding’s Catchfly). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xiii + 187 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Revised designated critical habitat for the Canada lynx in the coterminous United States.

Vaillant, N.M., Noonan-Wright, E.K., Reiner, A.L., Ewell, C.M., Rau, B.M., Fites- Kaufman, J.A. and Dailey, S.N. 2015. Fuel accumulation and forest structure change following hazardous fuel reduction treatments throughout California. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(3): 361-371.

van Mantgem, P.J., Nesmith, J.C., Keifer, M., Knapp, E.E., Flint, A. and Flint, L. 2013. Climatic stress increases forest fire severity across the western United States. Ecology letters, 16(9): 1151-1156.

van Mantgem, P.J., Stephenson, N.L., Byrne, J.C., Daniels, L.D., Franklin, J.F., Fulé, P.Z., Harmon, M.E., Larson, A.J., Smith, J.M., Taylor, A.H. and Veblen, T.T. 2009. Widespread increase of tree mortality rates in the western United States. Science, 323(5913): 521-524.

Van Pelt, R. 2008. Identifying old trees and forests in eastern Washington. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA.

Vernon, M. J., Sherriff, R. L., van Mantgem, P., & Kane, J. M. 2018. Thinning, tree- growth, and resistance to multi-year drought in a mixed-conifer forest of northern California. Forest Ecology and Management, 422, 190-198. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.043

Voelker, S.L.; Merschel, A.G.; Meinzer, F.C.; Ulrich, D.E.M.; Spies, T.A.; Still, C.J. 2019. Fire deficits have increased drought sensitivity in dry conifer forests: Fire frequency and tree‐ring carbon isotope evidence from Central Oregon. Global Change Biology, 25(4): 1247-1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14543

Vonhof, M. J., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1997. Use of tree stumps as roosts by the western long-eared bat. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(3): 674-684. Vose, J.M., Peterson, D.L., Patel-Weynand, T., eds. 2012. Effects of climate variability and change on forest ecosystems: A comprehensive science synthesis for the U.S. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

forest sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 265 p.

Vosick, D., Ostergren, D.M. and Murfitt, L. 2007. Old-growth policy. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Wagener, W.W.; Davidson, R.W. 1954. Heart rots in living trees. Botanical Review, 20: 61-134

Wales, B.C., K. Mellen-Mclean, W.L. Gaines, and L. Suring. 2011. Focal species assessment of current condition and the proposed action (alternative B) for the Blue Mountains forest plan revisions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision Team. Unpublished report, on file.

Wales, B. C., L. H. Suring, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2007. Modeling potential outcomes of fire and fuel management scenarios on the structure of forested habitats in northeast Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:223–236.

Walker, R.B., Coop, J.D., Parks, S.A. and Trader, L. 2018. Fire regimes approaching historic norms reduce wildfire‐facilitated conversion from forest to non‐ forest. Ecosphere, 9(4): e02182.

Waltz, A.E.M., Stoddard, M.T., Kalies, E.L., Springer, J.D., Huffman, D.W., Meador, A.S. 2014. Effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the Wallow Fire, AZ. Forest Ecology and Management 334: 43-52.

Wang, Y., Wei, X., del Campo, A.D., Winkler, R., Wu, J., Li, Q. and Liu, W. 2019. Juvenile thinning can effectively mitigate the effects of drought on tree growth and water consumption in a young Pinus contorta stand in the interior of British Columbia, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 454: 117667.

Wargo, P.M. 1995. Disturbance in forest ecosystems caused by pathogens and insects. Pages 20-25 in: Forest health through silviculture; proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop; May 8-11, 1995; Mescalero, NM. General Technical Report RM-267. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; Fort Collins, CO. 246 p

Waring, R.H. and Law, B.E. 2001. The ponderosa pine ecosystem and environmental stress: past, present and future. Tree Physiology 21(5): 273-274.

Wear, D.N., Huggett, R., Li, R., Perryman, B. & Liu, S. Forecasts of forest conditions in regions of the United States under future scenarios: A technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-170 (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 2013

Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa-pine region of the pacific slope. Journal of Forestry 41:7–15.

189 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Welch, K.R., Safford, H.D. and Young, T.P. 2016. Predicting conifer establishment post wildfire in mixed conifer forests of the North American Mediterranean‐climate zone. Ecosphere 7(12): e01609.

Wellstead, A.M., Howlett, M., Rayner, J. 2013. The neglect of governance in forest sector vulnerability assessments: structural-functionalism and “black box” problems in climate change adaptation planning. Ecology and Society 18(3): 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05685-180323.

Whitlock C, Shafer S, Marlon J. 2003. The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 5-21.

Westerling, A.L. 2016. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371(1696): 20150178.

Westerling, A.L., Hidalgo, H.G., Cayan, D.R. and Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789): 940-943.

Westerling, A.L., Gershunov, A., Brown, T.J., Cayan, D.R. and Dettinger, M.D. 2003. Climate and wildfire in the western United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84(5), pp.595-604.

Wickman, B. E., R. R. Mason, and H. G. Paul. 1992. Thinning and nitrogen fertilization in a grand fir stand infested with western spruce budworm. Part II: tree growth response. Forest Science 38: 252-264.

Wickman, B.E., Mason, R.R. and Swetnam, T.W. 1994. Searching for long-term patterns of forest insect outbreaks. Individuals, populations, and patterns in ecology. Intercept, Andover, UK, p. 251-261.

Wiedinbyer, C. and Hurteau, M.D. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions in the western United States. Environmental Science and Technology 44: 1926-1932.

Williams, M.A. and Baker, W.L. 2012. Spatially extensive reconstructions show variable‐ severity fire and heterogeneous structure in historical western United States dry forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 21: 1042-1052.

Willms, J., Bartuszevige, A., Schwilk, D.W. and Kennedy, P.L. 2017. The effects of thinning and burning on understory vegetation in North America: a meta- analysis. Forest Ecology and Management 392: 184-194.

Winthers, E., Fallon, D., Haglund, J., DeMeo, T., Nowacki, G., Tart, D., Ferwerda, M., Robertson, G., Gallegos, A., Rorick, A. and Cleland, D.T. 2005. Terrestrial ecological unit inventory technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-68. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. 245 p. (p. 68). USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Wisdom, M.J., Holthausen, R.S. and Wales, B.C., others. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR.

Wisdom, M.J., and L.J. Bate. 2008. Snag density varies with the intensity of timber harvest and human access. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 2085-2093.

Wotton, B. M., & Flannigan, M. D. 1993. Length of the fire season in a changing climate. The Forestry Chronicle, 69(2): 5.

Wright, C. S., Agee, J. K., 2004. Fire and Vegetation History in the Eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Ecological Applications 14, 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5349

Wright, E. 1934. Survival of heart rots in down timber in California. Journal of Forestry, 32: 752-753. Yates, E. 2007. MacFarlane’s four-o’clock in Hells Canyon of the Snake River. Kalmiopsis, Journal of the Native Plant Society of Oregon, 14: 1-7.

You, J., Qin, X., Ranjitkar, S., Lougheed, S.C., Wang, M., Zhou, W., Ouyang, D., Zhou, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, W. and Wang, Y. 2018. Response to climate change of montane herbaceous plants in the genus Rhodiola predicted by ecological niche modelling. Scientific Reports, 8(1): 1-12.

Young, D.J., Stevens, J.T., Earles, J.M., Moore, J., Ellis, A., Jirka, A.L. and Latimer, A.M. 2017. Long‐term climate and competition explain forest mortality patterns under extreme drought. Ecology Letters, 20(1): 78-86.

Zeglen, S. 1997. Tree wounding and partial-cut harvesting: A literature review for British Columbia. Pest Management Report No. 14. British Columbia Ministry of Forests; Victoria, B.C. 40 p. Zhang, J., Finley, K.A., Johnson, N.G. and Ritchie, M.W. 2019. Lowering stand density enhances resiliency of ponderosa pine forests to disturbances and climate change. Forest Science, 65(4): 496-507.

191 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

8 APPENDIX A-BOTANY SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST

Taxa Blue East type Latin Name Common Name Habitat type Mountains Cascades 1 BR Anastrophyllum minutum Liverwort Subalpine wet y y Barbilophozia 2 BR lycopodioides Liverwort Subalpine wet y y Blepharostoma 3 BR arachnoideum Liverwort Cool moist forest n y 4 BR Brachydontium olympicum Moss Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry n y Cliffs, outcrops;Cold forest;Cool moist forest;Subalpine wet;Warm 5 BR Bryum calobryoides Moss Dry forest y n 6 BR Calliergon richardsonii Moss Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y y 7 BR Campylium stellatum Moss Subalpine wet y y 8 BR Cephaloziella spinigera Liverwort Moist/wet meadows n y 9 BR Conostomum tetragonum Moss Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry n y 10 BR Encalypta brevipes Moss Cliffs, outcrops y y Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands;Moderate 11 BR Entosthodon fascicularis Moss riparian;Moist/wet meadows y y Gymnomitrion 12 BR concinnatum Liverwort Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine wet n y USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

13 BR Haplomitrium hookeri Liverwort Cliffs, outcrops;Moist/wet meadows n y Cold forest;Moist/wet 14 BR Harpanthus flotovianus Liverwort meadows;Subalpine wet y y Aquatic;Moist/wet 15 BR Jungermannia polaris Liverwort meadows;Subalpine wet y y 16 BR Lophozia gillmanii Liverwort Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y y 17 BR Marsupella sparsifolia Liverwort Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine wet n y Cliffs, outcrops;Moist/wet 18 BR Nardia japonica Liverwort meadows;Subalpine wet n y Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine 19 BR Peltolepis quadrata Liverwort dry;Subalpine wet y n Polytrichastrum sexangulare var. 20 BR vulcanicum Moss Subalpine dry n y 21 BR Polytrichum strictum Moss Cold forest;Subalpine wet y n Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 22 BR Preissia quadrata Liverwort meadows;Subalpine wet y y 23 BR Pseudocalliergon trifarium Moss Moist/wet meadows y y Cliffs, outcrops;Cold forest;Cool 24 BR Ptilidium pulcherrimum Liverwort moist forest y n Low elevation riparian;Moderate 25 BR Racomitrium depressum Moss riparian;Subalpine wet n y 26 BR Rivulariella gemmipara Liverwort Aquatic;Subalpine wet n y

193 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Schistidium Cliffs, outcrops; Moderate riparian; 27 BR cinclidodonteum Moss Subalpine wet y y 28 BR Schofieldia monticola Liverwort Subalpine wet n y 29 BR Scouleria marginata Moss Moderate riparian y n 30 BR Splachnum sphaericum Moss Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y y 31 BR Tetraphis geniculata Moss Cool moist forest y n Cliffs, outcrops;Cold forest;Cool moist forest;Moderate 32 BR Tortula mucronifolia Moss riparian;Warm dry forest y y 33 BR Trematodon asanoi Moss Subalpine wet n y 34 BR Tritomaria exsecta Liverwort Cold forest y y 35 FU Albatrellus avellaneus Fungus Cold forest;Cool moist forest y n 36 FU Gastroboletus vividus Fungus Cool moist forest n y 37 FU Helvella crassitunicata Fungus Cool moist forest n y 38 FU Phaeoclavulina abietina Fungus Cold forest;Cool moist forest y n 39 FU Pseudorhizina californica Fungus Cool moist forest y y 40 FU Rhizopogon alexsmithii Fungus Cool moist forest n y Dermatocarpon 41 LI meiophyllizum Lichen Aquatic;Subalpine wet y n 42 LI Texosporium sancti-jacobi Lichen Big sage;Dry grasslands y y 43 LI Tholurna dissimilis Lichen Subalpine dry n y USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

44 VA Achnatherum hendersonii Henderson's ricegrass Dry grasslands;Lithosols y y Big sage;Dry grasslands;Subalpine 45 VA Achnatherum nevadense Nevada needlegrass dry y n 46 VA Achnatherum richardsonii Richardson's ricegrass Dry grasslands;Warm Dry forest y n 47 VA Achnatherum wallowaense Wallowa ricegrass Lithosols y y 48 VA Adiantum jordanii California maiden-hair Cliffs, outcrops;Cool moist forest n y 49 VA Agoseris elata Tall agoseris Dry grasslands;Warm Dry forest n y Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands;Warm 50 VA Allium campanulatum Sierra onion Dry forest y n Cliffs, outcrops;Dry 51 VA Allium dictuon Blue mountain onion grasslands;Lithosols y n 52 VA Allium geyeri var. geyeri Geyer's onion Dry grasslands;Lithosols y n Aquatic;Low elevation 53 VA Ammannia robusta Ammannia riparian;Vernal pools y n 54 VA Antennaria corymbosa Meadow pussy-toes Cold forest;Moist/wet meadows y n Low elevation grasslands;Warm Dry 55 VA Arabis crucisetosa Cross-haired rockcress forest y n 56 VA Arnica viscosa Shasta arnica Subalpine dry n y 57 VA Asplenium septentrionale Grass-fern Cliffs, outcrops n y 58 VA Asplenium viride Green spleenwort Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine wet y n Low elevation grasslands;Warm Dry 59 VA Astragalus arrectus Palouse milk-vetch forest y n

195 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

60 VA Astragalus arthurii Arthur's milk-vetch Low elevation grasslands y n Astragalus cusickii var. Cliffs, outcrops;Low elevation 61 VA cusickii Cusick's milk-vetch grasslands y n Astragalus diaphanus var. Low elevation riparian;Moderate 62 VA diurnus South fork john day milk-vetch riparian y y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 63 VA Astragalus lemmonii Lemmon's milk-vetch meadows n y Astragalus misellus var. 64 VA misellus Pauper milk-vetch Dry grasslands;Lithosols y n 65 VA Astragalus peckii Peck's milk-vetch Juniper;Lithosols;Warm Dry forest n y 66 VA Astragalus tegetarioides Bastard kentrophyta Lithosols y y Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands;Warm 67 VA Boechera atrorubens Sickle-pod rockcress Dry forest y n 68 VA Boechera hastatula Hells canyon rockcress Cliffs, outcrops y n 69 VA Boechera paddoensis Mt. Adams rockcress Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry y n 70 VA Bolandra oregana Oregon bolandra Low elevation riparian y n Cold forest;Moderate 71 VA Botrychium ascendens Upward-lobed moonwort riparian;Moist/wet meadows y y

72 VA Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort Dry grasslands;Moist/wet meadows y n Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 73 VA Botrychium crenulatum Crenulate moonwort meadows;Subalpine wet y y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 74 VA Botrychium hesperium Western moonwort meadows y n USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Cold forest;Moderate 75 VA Botrychium lineare Slender moonwort riparian;Moist/wet meadows y n Cold forest;Moist/wet 76 VA Botrychium lunaria Moonwort meadows;Subalpine wet y y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 77 VA Botrychium montanum Mountain grape-fern meadows y y Cold forest;Moderate 78 VA Botrychium paradoxum Twin-spiked moonwart riparian;Moist/wet meadows y y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 79 VA Botrychium pedunculosum Stalked moonwort meadows y n Cold forest;Subalpine dry;Warm Dry 80 VA Botrychium pumicola Pumice grape-fern fores n y 81 VA Bupleurum americanum Bupleurum Subalpine dry y n 82 VA Calamagrostis breweri Brewer's reedgrass Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet n y 83 VA Calochortus greenei Greene's mariposa-lily Dry grasslands n y Calochortus longebarbatus 84 VA var. peckii Peck's mariposa-lily Moist/wet meadows y y Calochortus macrocarpus Low elevation grasslands;Warm Dry 85 VA var. maculosus Green-band mariposa-lily forest y n Big sage;Moist/wet meadows;Warm 86 VA Calyptridium roseum Rosy pussypaws Dry forest y n 87 VA Camissonia pusilla Washoe suncup Big sage n y 88 VA Carex atrosquama Blackened sedge Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y n 89 VA Carex capillaris Hairlike sedge Subalpine wet y n

197 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

90 VA Carex capitata Capitate sedge Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y y 91 VA Carex comosa Bristly sedge Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet n y 92 VA Carex concinna Low northern sedge Moderate riparian;Subalpine wet y n Cool moist forest;Juniper;Moderate 93 VA Carex cordillerana Cordilleran sedge riparian;Warm Dry forest y y 94 VA Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge Subalpine wet y y 95 VA Carex gynocrates Yellow bog sedge Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y n 96 VA Carex idahoa Idaho sedge Moist/wet meadows y y 97 VA Carex lasiocarpa Slender sedge Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y y 98 VA Carex livida Pale sedge Moist/wet meadows n y 99 VA Carex media Intermediate sedge Cold forest;Subalpine wet y n 100 VA Carex micropoda Pyrenaean sedge Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y n 101 VA Carex nardina Spikenard sedge Subalpine dry y n 102 VA Carex pelocarpa New sedge Subalpine dry y n Low elevation riparian;Moderate 103 VA Carex retrorsa Retrorse sedge riparian y y 104 VA Carex saxatilis Russet sedge Subalpine wet y y Carex scirpoidea ssp. 105 VA stenochlaena Alaskan single-spiked sedge Subalpine wet y n 106 VA Carex subnigricans Dark alpine sedge Subalpine wet y n 107 VA Carex tahoensis Tahoe sedge Subalpine dry y n USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

108 VA Carex vernacula Native sedge Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y y 109 VA Castilleja chlorotica Green-tinged paintbrush Big sage;Warm Dry forest n y 110 VA Castilleja collegiorum Collegial paintbrush Moist/wet meadows n y Big sage;Dry grasslands;Subalpine 111 VA Castilleja flava var. rustica Rural paintbrush dry y n 112 VA Castilleja fraterna Fraternal paintbrush Subalpine dry y n 113 VA Castilleja rubida Purple alpine paintbrush Subalpine dry y n 114 VA Castilleja viscidula Sticky paintbrush Subalpine dry y n 115 VA Chaenactis xantiana Desert chaenactis Big sage;Dry grasslands y n 116 VA Cheilanthes feei Fee's lip-fern Cliffs, outcrops y y 117 VA Cheilanthes intertexta Coastal lipfern Cliffs, outcrops;Cool moist forest n y 118 VA Collomia mazama Mt. Mazama collomia Cold forest;Subalpine dry n y 119 VA Comastoma tenellum Slender gentian Subalpine wet y n Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands;Low elevation grasslands;Warm Dry 120 VA Cryptantha grandiflora Clearwater cryptantha forest y n Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands;Warm 121 VA Cryptantha simulans Pine woods cryptantha Dry forest y y 122 VA Cryptogramma stelleri Steller's rockbrake Cliffs, outcrops y n 123 VA Cymopterus nivalis Snowline spring-parsley Subalpine dry y n 124 VA Cyperus acuminatus Short-pointed cyperus Low elevation riparian;Vernal pools n y

199 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Cyperus lupulinus ssp. 125 VA lupulinus Great Plains flatsedge Moist/wet meadows y y 126 VA Cypripedium fasciculatum Clustered lady's-slipper Cool moist forest;Moderate riparian y n Cold forest;Cool moist Diphasiastrum forest;Moderate riparian;Warm Dry 127 VA complanatum Ground cedar forest y y 128 VA Diplacus cusickii Cusick's monkeyflower Big sage;Dry grasslands;Lithosols y n 129 VA Diplacus tricolor Three-colored monkeyflower Moist/wet meadows;Vernal pools n y Dracocephalum 130 VA parviflorum American dragonhead Moderate riparian;Warm Dry forest y n 131 VA Elatine brachysperma Short seeded waterwort Moist/wet meadows y y Low elevation riparian;Moderate 132 VA Eleocharis bolanderi Bolander's spikerush riparian;Warm Dry forest y y Low elevation grasslands;Low 133 VA Eremothera pygmaea Dwarf evening-primrose elevation riparian y y 134 VA Erigeron davisii Engelmann's daisy Dry grasslands y n Dry grasslands;Lithosols;Warm Dry 135 VA Erigeron disparipilus White cushion erigeron forest y n 136 VA Eriogonum cusickii Cusick's buckwheat Dry grasslands;Lithosols y y 137 VA Eriogonum prociduum Prostrate buckwheat Big sage;Lithosols n y 138 VA Eriogonum salicornioides Playa buckwheat Alkali y n Eriogonum umbellatum 139 VA var. glaberrimum Green buckwheat Big sage;Cold forest n y USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Membrane-leaved 140 VA Erythranthe hymenophylla monkeyflower Low elevation riparian y n Low elevation riparian;Moderate 141 VA Erythranthe inflatula Disappearing monkeyflower riparian y y Low elevation grasslands;Low 142 VA Erythranthe patula Stalk-leaved monkeyflower elevation riparian y n 143 VA Eucephalus gormanii Gorman's aster Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry n y Galium serpenticum ssp. 144 VA warnerense Warner mt. bedstraw Subalpine dry n y Gentiana newberryi var. 145 VA newberryi Newberry's gentian Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet n y 146 VA Gentiana prostrata Moss gentian Subalpine wet y n Geum rossii var. 147 VA turbinatum Slender-stemmed avens Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry y n 148 VA Githopsis specularioides Common blue-cup Moderate riparian;Warm Dry forest y n 149 VA Gratiola heterosepala Boggs lake hedge-hyssop Moist/wet meadows;Vernal pools n y Hackelia diffusa var. Cliffs, outcrops;Dry 150 VA diffusa Diffuse stickseed grasslands;Lithosols y n Low elevation riparian;Moist/wet 151 VA Heliotropium curassavicum Salt heliotrope meadows;Vernal pools y y 152 VA Ipomopsis tenuituba Rydberg's gilia Subalpine dry y y Cool moist forest;Dry grasslands;Lithosols;Warm Dry 153 VA Isoetes minima Midget quillwort forest y n

201 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

154 VA Ivesia shockleyi Shockley's ivesia Cold forest;Subalpine dry n y Juncus hemiendytus var. Low elevation riparian;Moist/wet 155 VA abjectus Least rush meadows;Vernal pools n y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 156 VA Juncus howellii Howell's rush meadows y n 157 VA Juncus tiehmii Tiehm's rush Vernal pools n y Juncus triglumis var. 158 VA albescens Three-flowered rush Subalpine wet y n 159 VA Kobresia myosuroides Bellard's kobresia Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y n 160 VA Kobresia simpliciuscula Simple kobresia Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y n 161 VA Lipocarpha aristulata Aristulate lipocarpha Low elevation riparian y y Cold forest;Cool moist 162 VA Listera borealis Northern twayblade forest;Moderate riparian y n 163 VA Lobelia dortmanna Water lobelia Aquatic;Moist/wet meadows n y 164 VA Lomatium erythrocarpum Red-fruited lomatium Subalpine dry y n 165 VA Lomatium greenmanii Greenman's desert-parsley Subalpine dry y n 166 VA Lomatium ochocense Ochoco lomatium Lithosols n y 167 VA Lomatium pastorale Meadow lomatium Lithosols y n 168 VA Lomatium rollinsii Rollins' lomatium Low elevation grasslands y n 169 VA Lomatium tarantuloides Spider biscuitroot Lithosols y n 170 VA Luina serpentina Colonial luina Cliffs, outcrops;Warm Dry forest y n USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Lupinus lepidus var. 171 VA cusickii Cusick's lupine Big sage y n 172 VA Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss Moist/wet meadows n y Low elevation riparian;Moist/wet 173 VA Muhlenbergia minutissima Annual dropseed meadows y y Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 174 VA Ophioglossum pusillum Adder's-tongue meadows;Subalpine wet y y 175 VA Pellaea bridgesii Bridges' cliff-brake Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry y n Penstemon deustus var. 176 VA variabilis Variable hot-rock penstemon Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands y n 177 VA Penstemon glaucinus Blue-leaved penstemon Cold forest n y 178 VA Penstemon peckii Peck's penstemon Warm Dry forest n y Cliffs, outcrops;Dry 179 VA Penstemon pennellianus Blue Mountain penstemon grasslands;Lithosols y n Cliffs, outcrops;Dry 180 VA Penstemon wilcoxii Wilcox's penstemon grasslands;Lithosols y n Moist/wet meadows;Warm Dry 181 VA Perideridia erythrorhiza Red-rooted yampah forest n y Cool moist forest;Moderate 182 VA Phacelia minutissima Dwarf phacelia riparian;Warm Dry forest y n Big sage;Moist/wet meadows;Vernal 183 VA Phacelia tetramera Dwarf phacelia pools y n 184 VA Phemeranthus spinescens Spinescent fameflower Lithosols n y 185 VA Phlox hendersonii Henderson's phlox Subalpine dry y n

203 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

186 VA Phlox multiflora Many-flowered phlox Cliffs, outcrops;Dry grasslands y n 187 VA Phlox solivagus Lonely phlox Cliffs, outcrops;Subalpine dry y n 188 VA Pilularia americana American pillwort Vernal pools y y 189 VA Pinus albicaulis Whitebark pine Subalpine dry y y 190 VA Pinus flexilis Limber pine Cold forest y n Dry grasslands;Lithosols;Subalpine 191 VA Piptatheropsis exigua Little ricegrass dry y n 192 VA Plagiobothrys salsus Desert allocarya Alkali;Moist/wet meadows n y 193 VA Platanthera obtusata Small northern bog-orchid Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y n Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 194 VA Pleuropogon oregonus Oregon semaphoregrass meadows y y 195 VA Pogogyne floribunda Profuse-flowereed mesa mint Vernal pools n y Aquatic;Moderate 196 VA Potamogeton diversifolius Rafinesque's pondweed riparian;Moist/wet meadows y y Potentilla versicolor var. 197 VA darrachii Darrach's cinquefoil Subalpine dry y n Pyrrocoma racemosa var. 198 VA paniculata Panicled goldenweed Low elevation riparian n y 199 VA Pyrrocoma scaberula Rough pyrrocoma Dry grasslands y n Cold forest;Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 200 VA Ranunculus populago Mountain buttercup meadows;Subalpine wet y n USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Ribes cereum var. 201 VA colubrinum Wax currant Warm Dry forest y n Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. Low elevation riparian;Warm Dry 202 VA irriguum Idaho gooseberry forest y n 203 VA Ribes wolfii Wolf's currant Cold forest;Cool moist forest y n Low elevation riparian;Moderate 204 VA Rorippa columbiae Columbia cress riparian y y Low elevation riparian;Moderate 205 VA Rotala ramosior Lowland toothcup riparian;Moist/wet meadows y y 206 VA Rubus bartonianus Bartonberry Cliffs, outcrops y n 207 VA Salix farriae Farr's willow Subalpine wet y n 208 VA Salix nivalis Snow willow Subalpine wet y n 209 VA Salix wolfii Wolf's willow Subalpine wet y y Saxifraga adscendens ssp. 210 VA oregonensis Wedge-leaf saxifrage Subalpine dry;Subalpine wet y n Scheuchzeria palustris ssp. 211 VA americana Scheuchzeria Aquatic;Moist/wet meadows n y Schoenoplectus Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 212 VA subterminalis Water clubrush meadows n y 213 VA Scirpus pendulus Drooping bulrush Moist/wet meadows n y 214 VA Sesuvium verrucosum Verrucose sea-purslane Alkali;Vernal pools n y 215 VA Silene scouleri ssp. scouleri Scouler's catchfly Dry grasslands y n 216 VA Spartina pectinata prairie cordgrass Low elevation riparian y n

205 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 217 VA Spiranthes porrifolia Western ladies-tresses meadows y n 218 VA Stanleya confertiflora Biennial stanleya Dry grasslands y n Cliffs, outcrops;Low elevation 219 VA Suksdorfia violacea Violet suksdorfia riparian y n 220 VA Swertia perennis Swertia Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y n 221 VA Thalictrum alpinum Alpine meadowrue Subalpine wet y n Juniper;Low elevation riparian;Moderate riparian;Warm 222 VA Thelypodium eucosmum Arrow-leaf thelypody Dry forest y y 223 VA Townsendia montana Mountain townsendia Subalpine dry y n 224 VA Townsendia parryi Parry's townsendia Subalpine dry y n Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 225 VA Trifolium douglasii Douglas' clover meadows;Warm Dry forest y n 226 VA Triglochin palustris Slender bog arrowgrass Moist/wet meadows;Subalpine wet y n Cold forest;Moderate riparian;Moist/wet 227 VA Trollius albiflorus American globeflower meadows;Subalpine wet y n 228 VA Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort Aquatic;Subalpine wet y y 229 VA Utricularia ochroleuca Northern bladderwort Aquatic;Subalpine wet y y

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

9 APPENDIX B-ALTERNATIVES CROSSWALK No other standard of the Eastside Screens is being proposed for amendment outside of the 1995 Interim Wildlife Standard and there are no proposed changes to Scenario B of the 1995 Interim Wildlife Standard. 1995 Interim Wildlife Standard a. The interim wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow based on the Historical Range of Variability (HRV) for each biophysical environment within a given watershed. For the purposes of this standard, late and old structural stages (LOS) can be either “Multi-strata with Large Trees,” or “Single Strata with Large Trees,” as described in Table l of the Ecosystem Standard. These LOS stages can occur separately or in some cases, both may occur within a given biophysical environment. b. LOS stages are calculated separately in the interim ecosystem standard. Use Scenario A whenever any one type of LOS is below HRV. If both types occur within a single biophysical environment and one is above HRV and one below, use Scenario A. Only use Scenario B when both LOS stages within a particular biophysical environment are at or above HRV. c. The following sale types were exempted from consideration of HRV through the interim ecosystem standard, but must still meet the intent of the wildlife standards by following the direction provided in Scenario A, 1) through 4), as applicable to the type of sale being proposed, and regardless of whether the stand is LOS or not: 1. precommercial thinning sales, 2. sales of material sold as fiber, 3. sales of dead material less than sawlog size (7-inch dbh) with incidental green volume, 4. salvage sales with incidental green volume located outside currently mapped old growth, 5. commercial thinning and/or understory removal sales located outside currently mapped old growth.

The interim wildlife standard only altered portions of current Forest Plans. All additional Forest Plan wildlife standards and guidelines not altered in this direction still apply.

207 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

d. Scenario A Scenario A table illustrating the difference between current language and proposed amendment language by Alternative.

Current Language (Current Old Tree Standard Old and Large Trees Adaptive Standard with Management Alternative) Guideline (Proposed Action) Management Exceptions

d. If either one or both of the No change No change No change No change late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS OF LOS from that biophysical environment. DO NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.

d.1 Some timber sale activities Clarified in assumptions Clarified in assumptions in Clarified in Under this Alternative, can occur within LOS stages in Alts. Alts. assumptions in we assume that there that are within or above Same assumptions as in Alts. will be no change in For this alternative, we HRV in a manner to proposed action. the common practice maintain or enhance LOS assume that subpart d.1 Same of Forests applying is not to be interpreted assumptions as in with-in that biophysical sub-part d.2(a) (the 21-

environment. It is allowable as having a 21-inch live proposed action. inch standard) to this to manipulate one type of tree harvest prohibition scenario. LOS to move stands into the as long activities LOS stage that is deficit if accomplish either 1) the this meets historical maintenance or conditions. improvement of LOS conditions or 2) the manipulation of multi- USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Under the Current strata LOS to single Management Alternative, strata LOS consistent we assume that there will with the Historical be no change in the Ranges of Variation. common practice of Forests applying sub-part d.2(a) (the 21-inch standard) to this scenario. d.2 Outside of LOS, many types Outside of LOS, many Outside of LOS, many types Outside of LOS, No change of timber sale activities are types of timber harvest of timber harvest activities many types of allowed. The intent is still to activities are allowed. are allowed. The intent is still timber harvest maintain and/or enhance The intent is still to to maintain and/or enhance activities are LOS components in stands maintain and/or LOS components in stands allowed. The subject to timber harvest as enhance LOS subject to timber harvest as intent is still to much as possible, by components in stands much as possible, by maintain and/or adhering to the following subject to timber adhering to the following enhance LOS standards: harvest as much as plan components: components in possible, by adhering to stands subject to the following plan timber harvest as components: much as possible.

d.2.a Maintain all remnant late Trees estimated to be Managers should retain and Adaptive Management activities and old seral and/or old (≥ 150 years) shall generally emphasize Management within and outside old structural live trees > 21- not be removed. Forests recruitment of old trees and included forest stands shall inch dbh that currently exist may use best available large trees, including clumps retain and recruit old within stands proposed for scientific information to of old trees. Management trees (≥150 years, harvest activities estimate the age of old activities should first regardless of dbh) and trees based on external prioritize old trees for large trees (≥21 inches morphological retention and recruitment. If dbh). If either one or characteristics. there are not enough old both of the late and old Management activities trees to develop LOS structural (LOS) stages

209 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

should retain and conditions, large trees falls BELOW HRV in a emphasize the should be retained, favoring particular biophysical recruitment of large fire tolerant species where environment within a trees of the appropriate appropriate. Old trees are watershed, then there (dependent on the site) defined as having external should be NO NET LOSS species composition and morphological characteristics of LOS from that spatial arrangement that suggest an age ≥ 150 biophysical within stands and across years. Large trees are environment. Projects the landscape. defined as grand fir or white shall be designed to fir ≥ 30 inches dbh or trees of manipulate vegetative any other species ≥ 21 inches structure that does not dbh. Old trees will be meet late and old identified through best structural (LOS) available science. conditions in a manner Management activities that moves it towards should consider appropriate these conditions as species composition for appropriate to meet biophysical environment, HRV. Specifically, topographical position, stand projects shall focus on density, historical diameter removal of small and distributions, and spatial medium trees, leaving arrangements within stands sufficient stock for the and across the landscape in replacement of LOS, order to develop stands that before contemplating are resistant and resilient to removal of large trees. disturbance. Exceptions: No trees Adaptive Management 21 inches dbh or included. estimated to be ≥150 years≥ old shall be removed except for the following reasons: USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Outside of RHCAs where tree(s) need to be removed to favor hardwood species, such as aspen or cottonwood, or other special plant habitats like meadows.

When appropriate stand density and species composition – that which favors the maintenance & recruitment of LOS – cannot be attained by removing only trees < 21 inches dbh, young (<150 years old) grand and white fir that are 21 inches dbh with their crown growing ≥ within the canopy of desirable fire resistant species (ponderosa pine, western larch and Douglas-fir) may be removed. Such trees could be removed or turned into snags in areas where snag

211 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

desired conditions are not being met.

For personal use pursuant to Tribal Treaty gathering rights.

d.2.b Manipulate vegetative No change No change No change No change structure that does not meet late and old structural (LOS) conditions (as described in Table 1of the Ecosystem Standard), in a manner that moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV.

d.2.c Maintain open, park-like No change No change No change No change stand conditions where this condition occurred historically. Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. (While understory removal is allowed, some amount of seedlings, saplings, and poles need to be maintained for the development of future stands.) USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

d.3 Maintain connectivity and No change No change No change No change reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to the following standards … (See Appendix C for a complete reproduction of this standard.) d.4. Adhere to the following No change No change No change No change specific wildlife prescriptions. These standards are set at MINIMUM levels of consideration. Follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines when they EXCEED the following prescriptive levels

d.a Intent: Most (if not all) Intent: Retain existing Same as Old Tree Standard Same as Old Tree Same as Old Tree Snags, wildlife species rely on snags and green trees to Standard Standard Green moderate to high levels of provide for recruitment Trees, snags and down logs for of future snags and Down nesting, roosting, denning down wood, in order to Logs: and feeding. Large down support life history logs are a common and requirements for a important component of diverse array of wildlife. most old and late structural forests. Past management practices have greatly reduced the number of large snags and down logs in managed stands.

213 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

4.a.1 All sale activities (including For all sale activities Same as Old Tree Standard Same as Old Tree Same as Old Tree intermediate and (including intermediate Standard Standard regeneration harvest in and regeneration both even-age and uneven- harvest in both even-age age systems, and salvage) and uneven-age will maintain snags and systems, and salvage): green replacement trees of Standard: Maintain all >21 inches dbh (or whatever is the snags > 20 inches (or representative dbh of the whatever is the representative DBH of overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 100% the overstory layer if it is potential population levels less than 20 inches) OR complete a snag analysis of primary cavity excavators. This should be using the best available determined using the best science on species ecological requirements available science on species requirements as applied as applied through through current snag current snag tools, models, or other models or other documented procedures. documented procedures NOTE: for Scenario A, the to maintain or increase diverse snag live remnant trees (< 21- inch dbh) left can be composition, size, considered for part of the structure, and distribution (i.e. groups green replacement tree or clusters) for a diverse requirement composition of wildlife species and ecological site conditions.

Guideline: If snags meeting the objectives USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

of the standard must be felled for operational safety, then the following should be considered:

Protect snags from operations by grouping or clustering in skips or leave areas.

Assess snags in the project area both prior and while layout is occurring, considering wildlife, layout and other expertise.

Identify landings in advance away from groups or clusters of snags or leave areas whenever possible.

Contain equipment and vehicles to identified landings and skid trails whenever possible.

GREEN TREE RETENTION FOR SNAG RECRUITMENT:

Standard: Retain green trees to meet future

215 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

snag and down wood recruitment for a diverse composition of wildlife species using best available science. Retain partially hollow or hollow trees that could become snags and down wood whenever possible.

Guidelines: Use natural decay processes and agents to recruit future snags from green trees.

Strive for diverse composition and size class of tree species including true firs and hardwoods.

Strive for tree species that are tolerant, resistant, or immune to root disease, especially if root disease is known to occur nearby or on site.

Prioritize and retain deformed, damaged, or broken topped trees.

Consider retaining groups of trees. USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Consider retaining tall old and larger trees on ridgelines with sloughing bark.

Consider retaining more true firs on north facing slopes.

Consider retaining trees with mechanical wounds if possible, for future development of decayed wood.

Consider diverse techniques outside of girdling and inoculation for future snag creation.

4.a.2 Pre-activity (currently No change No change No change No change existing) down logs may be removed only when they exceed the quantities listed below. When pre-activity levels of down logs are below the quantities listed, do not remove downed logging debris that fits within the listed categories. It is not the intention of this direction to leave standing trees for future logs in addition to the required snag numbers, nor to fall

217 Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

merchantable material to meet the down log requirements. The snag numbers are designed to meet future down log needs in combination with natural mortality. Exceptions to meeting the down log requirement can be made where fire protection needs for life and property cannot be accomplished with this quantity of debris left on site. The down log criteria are not intended to preclude the use of prescribed burning as an activity fuels modification treatment. Fire prescription parameters will ensure that consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1½ inch per side) of diameter reduction in the featured large logs (sizes below). Tools such as … Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

10 APPENDIX C-1995 EASTSIDE SCREENS

REVISED

INTERIM MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ESTABLISHING RIPARIAN, ECOSYSTEM AND WILDLIFE STANDARDS FOR TIMBER SALES

REGIONAL FORESTER’S FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT #2

6/12/95

Revised Interim Direction Page 219 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

REGIONAL FORESTER'S EASTSIDE FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE 2, as adopted 1. All timber sales, except as identified below, will be designed to incorporate the interim ripar- ian, ecosystem and wildlife standards. 2. The following types of sales will not be subject to the interim standards: personal use fire- wood sales; post and hole sales; sales to protect health and safety; and sales to modify vege- tation within recreation special use areas. NEPA and required consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act must be completed. 3. Five other types of sales will not be subject to the interim ecosystem standard, but must apply the interim riparian and wildlife standards: precommercial thinning sales; sales of material sold as fiber; sales of dead material less than 7-inch dbh, with incidental green volume (ref. RO 2430 ltr, 8/16/93); salvage sales, with incidental green volume, located outside currently mapped old growth (ref. RO 2430 ltr. 8/16/93); and commercial thinning and understory re- moval sales located outside currently mapped old growth. 4. Interim riparian standard: Timber sales (green and salvage) will not be planned or located within riparian areas as described below: a. Perennial and intermittent fish-bearing streams: consists of the stream and the area on ei- ther side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. b. Perennial nonfish-bearing streams: consists of the stream and the area on either side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. c. Intermittent non-fish bearing streams: consists of the stream channel from the edges of the stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the riparian vege- tation, or to the extent of landslides or landslide-prone area, or to a distance of 100 feet slope distance (200 feet, including both sides of the channel), whichever is greatest. See FSM 2526 9/80 R-6 Supp 42 for definitions of Perennial and Intermittent stream. d. Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, seeps and springs, bogs and wetlands consist of the body of wa- ter or wetland and/or seeps/spring source and the area to the outer edges of the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of the seasonally saturated soil, or to the extent of moderately and highly unstable areas, or to a distance equal to the height of one site- potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance from the edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. 5. Interim ecosystem standard: a. Characterize the proposed timber sale and its associated watershed for patterns of stand structure by biophysical environment and compare to the Historic Range of Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Variability(HRV). The HRV should be based on conditions in the pre-settlement era; however 1900s photography may be acceptable. HRV should be developed for large landscapes across which forest types, environmental settings, and disturbance regimes (fire and in- sects/disease) are relatively uniform. Each component watershed should not be expected to reflect the average conditions for the larger landscape, but the sum of conditions across watersheds within the area for which HRV is developed should reflect ranges of conditions determined in the HRV evaluation. Note: LOS, a term used in the interim wildlife standard, refers to the structural stages where large trees are common, i.e. Multi-stratum with Large Trees, and Single-stratum with Large Trees. See Table 1. b. Ecosystem characterization steps to determine HRV: 1) Describe the dominant historical disturbance regime, i.e. the disturbance types and their magnitudes and frequencies. 2) Characterize the landscape pattern and abundance of structural stages (Table 1) maintained by the disturbance regime. Consider biophysical environmental setting (Table 2) across the large landscape to make this determination. 3) Describe spatial pattern and distribution of structural stages under the HRV disturbance regime, and 4) Map the current pattern of structural stages and calculate their abundance by bio- physical environmental setting. c. Characterize the difference in percent composition of structural stages between HRV and current conditions (Table 3). Identify structural conditions and biophysical environment combinations that are outside HRV conditions to determine potential treatment areas.

Revised Interim Direction Page 221 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Table 1. Structural stages for use with HRV analysis. Structural stage is not necessarily associated with stand age or to seral (species composition) development.

Structural Stage Definition Description

Stand Growing space is reoccupied One canopy stratum (may be broken or continuous), one Initiation following a stand replacing dis- dominant cohort2 of seedlings or saplings. Grass, forbs, turbance, typically by seral spe- or shrubs may also be present with early seral trees.3 cies.

Stem Exclusion: Occurrence of new tree stems One discontinuous canopy stratum. One cohort of Open Canopy is excluded (moisture limited). trees. New tree stems excluded by competition. Trees may be poles or of small or medium diameter. Crowns are open grown. Canopy Understory shrubs, grasses, or forbs may be present. is discontinuous. This structure can be maintained by frequent underburning or management.

Stem Exclusion: Occurrence of new tree stems Canopy layer is closed and continuous. One or more can- Closed Canopy is excluded (light or moisture opy strata may be present. Lower canopy strata, if pre- lim- ited). Crowns are closed sent, is the same age class as the upper stratum. Trees and abrading. may be poles or of small or medium diameter. Understory shrubs, grasses, or forbs may be present.

Understory A second cohort of trees is The overstory canopy is discontinuous. Two or more can- Reinitiation established under an older, opy layers are present. Two or more cohorts of trees are typically seral, overstory. present. Overstory trees may be poles or of small or Mortality in the overstory medium diameter. Understory trees are seedlings, sap- creates growing space for new lings or poles. trees in the understory. Large trees are uncommon.

Multi- Several cohorts of trees are es- The overstory canopy is discontinuous. Two or more can- stratum, tablished. Large overstory trees opy layers are present. Large trees are uncommon in the without large are uncommon. Pole, small, overstory. Horizontal and vertical stand structure and trees and medium sized trees tree sizes are diverse. The stand may be a mix of dominate. seedlings, saplings, poles, or small or medium diameter trees.

Multi-stratum, Several to many cohorts and The overstory canopy is broken or discontinuous. Two or with large strata of trees are present. more canopy layers are present. Two or more cohorts of trees Large trees are common. trees are present. Medium and large sized trees dominate the overstory. Trees of all sizes may be present. Horizon- tal and vertical stand structure and tree sizes are diverse.

Single stratum, with A single stratum of large trees is The single dominant canopy stratum consists of medium large trees present. Large trees are sized or large trees. One or more cohorts of trees may common. Young trees are be present. An understory may be absent or consist of absent or few in the understory. sparse or clumpy seedlings or saplings. Grasses, forbs, or Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Park-like condi- tions may exist. shrubs may be present in the understory.

1 Adapted from an unpublished report by K. O'Hara, Assistant Professor of Silviculture, University of Montana, un- der contract to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Project for the Eastside EIS. Modifications developed by Miles Hemstrom, USFS Regional Office, Portland, Oregon, with input from Paul Hessburg, USFS/PNW Research Station, Wenatchee Lab, Wenatchee, Washington.

2 A cohort is a class of trees arising after a common natural or artificial disturbance.

3 “Trees” refers to live trees, not snags or other dead trees.

Revised Interim Direction Page 223 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Table 2. Example biophysical environments matrix. Analysis areas may have more or fewer kinds of biophysical environments and characteristics of each environment may differ from those shown. This table is only provided as an example. The biophysical environments listed are not comprehensive. Each landscape area may have these or different environments.

Dominant Average Typical Typical Biophysical Disturbance Disturbance Disturbance Landform Elevation Typical Environment4 Factors Regime5 Patch Setting Range Aspects

Hot, Dry: Fire, insects, Low

Warm, Dry: Fire, insects, Moderat <5 acres Side slopes 3000-5000 S, SW and disease e PSME, ABGR feet

Cool, Mesic: Fire, insects, High 80-120 acres Various 3000-5000 Various and disease PSME, ABGR, feet ABLA2, PIEN

Cool, Wet: Insects and High >250 acres Bottom 3000-5000 NE, N, disease, fire lands ABGR, ABLA2, feet NW, Flat TSME

4 Temperature and moisture regime, characteristic late seral species, first two letters of genus and species.

5 Agee (1990). "The historical role of fire in Pacific Northwest forests", Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests, Oregon State University Press.

Low severity regime: 1-25 year return interval, 0% to 20% mortality of large trees. Moderate severity regime: 26-100 year return interval, 26% to 70% mortality of large trees. High severity regime: >100 year return interval, >70% mortality of large trees. Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Table 3. Example biophysical environment by structural stage matrix. This is only an example. The number and kind of biophysical environments and the historic and current distribution of structural conditions vary by landscape. H% is the es- timated range of the percent extent of each condition from HRV assessment. C% is the estimated percent extent of each condition at present in the watershed under examination. D% is a range indicating the difference between H% and C%; D% = C%-H%. Negative values indicate a reduction from historical conditions. This table is only provided as an example. The bio- physical environments listed are not comprehensive. Each landscape area may have these or different environments.

Stem Exclusion: Stem Exclusion: Understory Multi-stratum, Multi-stratum, Single-stratum, Open Canopy Closed Canopy Reinitiation without large trees with large trees with large trees Stand Initiation

Envt H% C% D% H% C% D% H% C% D% H% C% D% H% C% D% H% C% D% H% C% D%

Hot, 5 to 15 0 to 5 to 20 0 to NA NA NA NA NA NA 5 to 30 20 2 to 20 5 to 20 15 -5 Dry 15 10 20 15 10 to 25 15 18 to 70 to -55

Warm, 1 to 4 to - 5 to 0 to 1 to 0 to 1 to 0 to 5 to 0 to 5 to 15 to 15 to -10 to 5 20 10 10 25 35 5 Dry 15 10 20 15 10 9 10 9 25 20 20 30 55 -50

Cool, 1 to 1 to 5 to 0 to 5 to 0 to 50 to 15 to 5- 19 to 2 NA NA NA 5 5 65 24 NA NA NA Mesic 5 -3 25 -20 25 -20 70 -5 25 -1

Cool, 1 to 0 to 1 to 2 to 5 to 5 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 16 to 1 NA NA NA 3 10 40 46 NA NA NA Wet 10 -10 10 -7 25 -15 50 -10 60 -14

Appendix B Revised Interim Direction Page 6 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

6. Interim wildlife standard: a. The interim wildlife standard has two possible scenarios to follow based on the Historical Range of Variability (HRV) for each biophysical environment within a given watershed. For the purposes of this standard, late and old structural stages (LOS) can be either “Multi-strata with Large Trees,” or “Single Strata with Large Trees,” as described in Ta- ble l of the Ecosystem Standard. These LOS stages can occur separately or in some cases, both may occur within a given biophysical environment. b. LOS stages are calculated separately in the interim ecosystem standard. Use Scenario A whenever any one type of LOS is below HRV. If both types occur within a single bio- physical environment and one is above HRV and one below, use Scenario A. Only use Scenario B when both LOS stages within a particular biophysical environment are at or above HRV. c. The following sale types were exempted from consideration of HRV through the interim ecosystem standard, but must still meet the intent of the wildlife standards by following the direction provided in Scenario A, 1) through 4), as applicable to the type of sale being proposed, and regardless of whether the stand is LOS or not: 1. precommercial thinning sales, 2. sales of material sold as fiber, 3. sales of dead material less than sawlog size (7-inch dbh) with incidental green vol- ume, 4. salvage sales with incidental green volume located outside currently mapped old growth, 5. commercial thinning and/or understory removal sales located outside currently mapped old growth. The interim wildlife standard only altered portions of current Forest Plans. All additional Forest Plan wildlife standards and guidelines not altered in this direction still apply. d. Scenario A If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a par- ticular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS OF LOS from that biophysical environment. DO NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV. 1) Some timber sale activities can occur within LOS stages that are within or above HRV in a manner to maintain or enhance LOS with-in that biophysical environment. It is allowable to manipulate one type of LOS to move stands into the LOS stage that is deficit if this meets historical conditions. 2) Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance LOS components in stands subject to Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following standards: a) Maintain all remnant late and old seral and/or structural live trees ≥ 21-inch dbh that currently exist within stands proposed for harvest activities. b) Manipulate vegetative structure that does not meet late and old structural (LOS) conditions (as described in Table 1of the Ecosystem Standard), in a manner that moves it towards these conditions as appropriate to meet HRV. c) Maintain open, park-like stand conditions where this condition occurred histori- cally. Manipulate vegetation in a manner to encourage the development and maintenance of large diameter, open canopy structure. (While understory re- moval is allowed, some amount of seedlings, saplings, and poles need to be main- tained for the development of future stands). 3) Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to the following standards: INTENT STATEMENT: While data is still being collected, it is the best understanding of wildlife science, today, that wildlife species associated with late and old structural condi- tions, especially those sensitive to “edge,” rely on the connectivity of these habitats to al- low free movement and interaction of adults and dispersal of young. Connectivity corri- dors do not necessarily meet the same description of “suitable” habitat for breeding, but allow free movement between suitable breeding habitats. Until a full conservation as- sessment is completed that describes in more detail the movement patterns and needs of various species and communities of species in eastside ecosystems, it is important to in- sure that blocks of habitat maintain a high degree of connectivity between them, and that blocks of habitat do not become fragmented in the short-term. a) Maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between LOS stands and be- tween all Forest Plan designated “old growth/MR” habitats by maintaining stands between them that serve the purpose of connection as described below: (1) Network pattern – LOS stands and MR/Old Growth habitats need to be con- nected with each other inside the watershed as well as to like stands in adja- cent watersheds in a contiguous network pattern by at least 2 different direc- tions. (2) Connectivity Corridor Stand Description – Stands in which medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closures are within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 ft. wide at their narrow- est point. The only exception to stand width is when it is impossible to meet 400 ft with current vegetative structure, AND these “narrower stands” are the only connections available (use them as last resorts). In the case of lodgepole pine, consider medium to large trees as appropriate

Page 227 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

diameters for this stand type. If stands meeting this description are not available in order to provide at least 2 different connections for a particular LOS stand or MR/Old Growth habitat, leave the next best stands for connections. Again, each LOS and MR/Old Growth habitat must be connected at least 2 different ways. (3) Length of Connection Corridors – The length of corridors between LOS stands and MR habitats depends on the distance between such stands. Length of corridors should be as short as possible. (4) Harvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted if all the criteria in (2) above can be met, and if some amount of understory (if any occurs) is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Some understory removal, stocking control, or salvage may be possible activities, depending on the site. b) To reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, or at least not increase it from current levels, stands that do not currently meet LOS that are located within, or sur- rounded by, blocks of LOS stands should not be considered for even-aged re- generation, or group selection at this time. Non-regeneration or single tree se- lection (UEAM) activities in these areas should only proceed if the prescription moves the stand towards LOS conditions as soon as possible. 4) Adhere to the following specific wildlife prescriptions. These standards are set at MINIMUM levels of consideration. Follow Forest Plan standards and guidelines when they EXCEED the following prescriptive levels: a) Snags, Green Tree Replacements and Down Logs: INTENT STATEMENT – Most (if not all) wildlife species rely on moderate to high levels of snags and down logs for nesting, roosting, denning and feeding. Large down logs are a common and important component of most old and late structural forests. Past management practices have greatly reduced the number of large snags and down logs in managed stands. (1) All sale activities (including intermediate and regeneration harvest in both even-age and uneven-age systems, and salvage) will maintain snags and green replacement trees of ≥ 21 inches dbh (or whatever is the representative dbh of the overstory layer if it is less than 21 inches), at 100% potential population levels of primary cavity excavators. This should be determined using the best available science on species requirements as applied through current snag models or other documented procedures. NOTE: for Scenario A, the live remnant trees (≥ 21-inch dbh) left can be considered for part of the green replace- ment tree requirement. (2) Pre-activity (currently existing) down logs may be removed only Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

when they exceed the quantities listed below. When pre-activity levels of down logs are below the quantities listed, do not remove downed logging debris that fits within the listed categories. It is not the intention of this direction to leave standing trees for future logs in addition to the required snag numbers, nor to fall merchantable material to meet the down log requirements. The snag numbers are designed to meet future down log needs in combination with natural mortality. Exceptions to meeting the down log requirement can be made where fire protection needs for life and property cannot be accom- plished with this quantity of debris left on site. The down log criteria are not intended to preclude the use of prescribed burn- ing as an activity fuels modification treatment. Fire prescription parameters will ensure that consumption will not exceed 3 inches total (1½ inch per side) of diameter reduction in the featured large logs (sizes below). Tools such as the CONSUME and FOFEM computer models, fire behavior nomograms, and local fire effects documentation can aid in diameter reduction estimates. Leave logs in current lengths; do not cut them into pieces. Longer logs may count for multiple “pieces” without cutting them. Cutting them may destroy some habitat uses and also cause them to decay more rapidly. It is also not expected that the “pieces” left will be scattered equally across all acres.

PIECES DIAMETER PIECE LENGTH AND SPECIES PER ACRE SMALL END TOTAL LINEAL LENGTH Ponderosa Pine 3-6 12" >6 ft. 20-40 ft. Mixed Conifer 15-20 12" >6 ft. 100-140 ft. Lodgepole Pine 15-20 8" >8 ft. 120-160 ft.

b) GOSHAWKS: INTENT STATEMENT: Goshawks are known to use interior forest habitats of ma- ture/old growth structure. Habitat uses, nesting stand characteristics, and key habitat structural components in eastern Oregon/Washington are currently being studied. Until further information is known and management plans approved to insure species viability, the following standards are to be met as a minimum. Forest Plan standards and guidelines that EXCEED the levels described below should be used instead of, or in addition to, the following:

Page 229 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

(1) Protect every known active and historically used goshawk nest-site from dis- turbance. “Historical” refers to known nesting activity occurring at the site in the last 5 years. Seasonal restrictions on activities near nest sites will be re- quired for activity types that may disturb or harass pair while bonding and nesting. (2) 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical nest tree(s) will be deferred from harvest. (3) A 400-acre “Post Fledging Area” (PFA) will be established around every known active nest site. While harvest activities can occur within this area, retain the LOS stands and enhance younger stands towards LOS condition, as possible. e. Scenario B Within a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, if the single, existing late and old structural (LOS) stage is WITHIN OR ABOVE HRV, OR if both types of LOS stages occur and BOTH are WITHIN OR ABOVE HRV, then timber harvest can occur within these stages as long as LOS conditions do not fall below HRV. Enhance LOS structural conditions and attributes as possible, consistent with other multiple use objectives. The intent of the following direction is to maintain options by impacting large and/or contiguous stands of LOS as little as possible, while meeting other multiple use objectives. 1) Harvest activities, (any and all types being considered), can occur in the following stand types in order of priority: a) Activities should occur within stands other than LOS as a first priority. b) Second priority for harvest activities is within smaller, isolated LOS stands <100 acres in size, and/or at the edges (first 300 ft) of large blocks of LOS stands (≥ 100 acres). c) Some harvesting can occur, but only as a last priority, within the interior of large LOS stands (≥ 100 acres); REGENERATION AND GROUP SELECTION AC- TIVITIES ARE NOT ALLOWED. REFER TO NON- FRAGMENTATION STANDARDS, 3), BELOW. 2) Maintain connectivity as directed in Scenario A, 3) 3) Non-fragmentation standards – Within the interior of large LOS stands  100 acres, (beyond 300 ft from edge), harvest activities are limited to non- fragmenting prescriptions such as thinning, single-tree selection (UEAM), salvage, understory removal, and other non-regeneration activities. Group selection (UEAM) is only allowed when openings created either mimic the natural forest pattern, and do not exceed ½ acre in size. 4) Adhere to wildlife prescriptions provided in SCENARIO A, 4) a) for snags, green tree replacements, and down logs; and 5) for goshawks with the following exception for goshawk post fledging areas in 5) c): Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

A 400-acre “Post Fledging Area” (PFA) will be established around every active nest site. While harvesting activities can occur within this area, up to 60% of the area should be retained in an LOS condition, (i.e., if 35% of the area is now in LOS stands then it all needs to be retained; if 75% of the area is now in LOS stands then some can be harvested, as long as this late and old stand structure does not drop below 60% of the area).

Page 231 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

11 APPENDIX D-WILDLIFE EFFECTS TABLE

NAME and ESU or DPS DESCRIPTION LOS/Forest Johnson and O"Neil Habitat Johnson and O'Neil Structure (if applicable) Column1 Associated types Classes THREATS Column2 Column3 Column4 Column5 Column6

X=LOS Timber Conifer Invasive Scientific Name Common Name Associate Harvest Encroachment Grazing Roads Recreation Species

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy finch Alpine Grassland and shrublands X X X X

Sierra nevada Vulpes vulpes necator red fox Alpine Grassland and shrublands X X X

Leucosticte Wallowa rosy tephrocotis wallowa finch Alpine Grassland and shrublands X X X X

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx X Subalpine/Montane mixed-conifer forest Sapling/pole closed/medium tree/large tree X X

Corynorhinus Townsend's big- townsendii eared bat Unique Habitat Unique Habitats X X

Montane mixed-conifer, Lodgepole pine medium and large tree-single and multistory- Strix nebulosa Great gray owl X forest and woodlands moderate and closed X X

Little Brown Montane mixed-conifer, East-side mixed- medium and large tree-single and multistory- Myotis lucifugus myotis X conifer moderate and closed

Northern Montane mixed-conifer, East-side mixed- medium and large tree-single and multistory- Accipiter gentilis goshawk X conifer moderate and closed X X X

Canis lupus Gray wolf Habitat Generalist Habitat Generalist X X

Gulo gulo Wolverine Habitat Generalist Habitat Generalist X X

Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

medium and large tree-single and multistory- Progne subis Purple martin X Ponderosa pine forest and woodlasnds open X X

White-headed medium and large tree-single and multistory- Picoides albolarvatus woodpecker X Ponderosa pine forest and woodlands open X X X X

medium and large tree-single and multistory- Pekania pennanti Fisher X East-side mixed conifer forest moderate and closed X X

East-side mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine medium and large tree-single and multistory- Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis X forest and woodlands open X X

Lewis's Melanerpes lewis woodpecker Postfire Postfire <10 years following disturbance X X

Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Cypseloides niger Black swift riparian wetlands X

Histrionicus Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside large tree-single and multistory-moderate and histrionicus Harlequin duck X riparian wetlands closed X X X

Parkesia Northern Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside noveboracensis waterthrush riparian wetlands X

Rocky mountain Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Ascaphus montanus tailed frog X riparian wetlands X X X

Western pond Actinemys marmorata turtle Open water X X X

Haliaeetus Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside large tree-single and multistory-moderate and leucocephalus Bald eagle X riparian wetlands, open water closed X X X

Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside large tree-single and multistory-moderate and Bucephala albeola Bufflehead X riparian wetlands, open water closed X X X

Page 233

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Columbia Rana luteiventris spotted frog Open water X X X

Oreortyx pictus Mountain quail Eastside riparian-wetlands X X X

Oregon spotted Rana pretiosa frog Open water X X X

Upland Bartramia longicauda sandpiper Eastside grasslands X X X

Anser albifrons elgasi Tule goose Open water X

Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail Open water

Pelecanus American white erythrorhynchos pelican Open water X X

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Herbaceous wetland X X

Podiceps auritus Horned grebe Herbaceous wetland, Open water X X X

Red-necked Podiceps grisegena grebe Herbaceous wetland, Open water X X X

Tricolored Agelaius tricolor blackbird Herbaceous wetland

Tympanuchus Columbian phasianellus sharp-tailed columbianus grouse Eastside shrubland/grasslands X X X X

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep Eastside shrubland/grasslands X X X

Ammodramus Grasshopper savannarum sparrow Eastside grasslands X

Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Centrocercus Greater sage- urophasianus grouse Eastside shrublands X X X X

Green-tailed Pipilo chlorurus towhee Eastside shrublands X X

Oreamnos americanus Mountain goat Eastside shrubland/grasslands X X

Northern leopard Lithobates pipiens frog Eastside shrubland/grasslands

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat Eastside shrubland/grasslands X X

Sorex preblei Preble's shrew Eastside shrubland/grasslands

Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit Eastside shrublands/Shrub-steppe X X X

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat Eastside shrubland/grasslands X X

Giant palouse Ponderosa pine forest and woodland; Shrub- Driloleirus americanus earthworm steppe medium and large tree-single story-open X X

Harney Basin Colligyrus depressus duskysnail Eastside riparian-wetlands X X

Cryptomastix Columbia Gorge hendersoni oregonian Eastside riparian-wetlands X X X

Cryptomastix populi Poplar oregonian Basalt talus X

Fisherola nuttalli Shortface lanx Open water X X

Columbia Fluminicola fuscus pebblesnail Open water X X

Page 235

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Modoc Fluminicola modoci pebblesnail Open water X X

Fluminicola Turban turbiniformis pebblesnail Open water X X

Helicodiscus salmonaceus Salmon coil Shrub-steppe X

Great basin Helisoma newberryi ramshorn Open water X X

Lanx alta Highcap lanx Open water X X

Umatilla Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Megomphix lutarius megomphix riparian wetlands X X X

Oreohelix strigosa Blue delicata mountainsnail Ponderosa pine forest and woodland X X X X

Dalles Oreohelix variabilis mountainsnail Basalt talus X X X

Polygyrella Ponderosa pine forest and woodland; Eastside medium and large tree-single or multi story- polygyrella Humped coin mixed conifer forest open X X X

Crater Lake Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Pristiloma crateris tightcoil riparian wetlands X X X

Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Pristiloma idahoense Thinlip tightcoil riparian wetlands X X X

Ponderosa pine forest and woodland; Eastside Pristiloma wascoense Shiny tightcoil mixed conifer forest X X X

Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Pristine Montane coniferous wetlands, eastside Pristinicola hemphilli springsnail riparian wetlands X X X X

Pyrgulopsis Archimedes archimedis springsnail Open water X

medium and large tree-single and multistory- Radiodiscus abietum Fir pinwheel X Eastside mixed conifer moderate and closed X X X

Vertigo andrusiana Pacific vertigo Meadow X

Vespericola medium and large tree-single and multistory- depressus Dalles hesperian X Eastside mixed conifer moderate and closed X X

Siskiyou Vespericola sierranus hesperian Eastside riparian-wetlands X X X

Vorticifex effusus diagonalis Lined ramshorn Open water X

Vorticifex klamathensis Klamath klamathensis ramshorn Open water X

Morrisoni bumble Bombus morrisoni bee Meadow; Subalpine parkland X X X

Western bumble Bombus occidentalis bee Meadow; Subalpine parkland X X X

Suckley cuckoo Bombus suckleyi bumble bee Meadow; Subalpine parkland X X X

Herbaceuous wetlands; Montane coniferous Boloria bellona Meadow fritillary wetlands X X

Page 237

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

Silver-bordered Herbaceuous wetlands; Montane coniferous Boloria selene fritillary wetlands X

Callophrys gryneus Barry's Western juniper and Mountain Mahogany chalcosiva hairstreak Woodlands X

Johnson's Ponderosa pine forest and woodland; Eastside medium and large tree-single and multistory- Callophrys johnsoni hairstreak X mixed conifer forest moderate and closed X

Colias christina Sullivan's sullivani sulphur Sagebrush-steppe X X X

Colias occidentalis Intermountain pseudochristina sulphur X Ponderosa pine forest and woodland medium and large tree-single story-open X X

Gillette's Euphydryas gillettii checkerspot Subalpine parkland X X

Lycaena cupreus Lustrous copper Alpine grassland and shrublands X

Ochlodes yuma Yuma skipper Open water X X X

Leona's little blue Philotiella leona butterfly Lodgepole pine forest and woodlands Grass/forb-open and closed X X X

Plebejus podarce Gray-blue klamathensis butterfly Alpine grassland and shrublands X X

Polites mardon Mardon skipper Meadow X X X

Great basin Alpine grassland and shrublands; Eastside Speyeria egleis fritillary grasslands X X

Herbaceuous wetlands; Montane coniferous Aeshna sitchensis Zigzag darner wetlands X X

Gomphus lynnae Columbia clubtail Open water X X X

Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens

Siskiyou short- horned Chloealtis aspasma grasshopper Eastside mixed conifer Grass/forb-open and closed X X X

Page 239

USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6

12 APPENDIX E – DESCRIPTION OF THE VIABILITY OUTCOMES The viability outcomes are based on (Wales et al. 2011, Gaines 2017, Gaines et al. 2017) and were calculated for current and historical conditions to assess changes in habitat conditions. The term “suitable environment” refers to a combination of source habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and demographic performance of a surrogate species. The five viability outcomes that were used:

1. Outcome A—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the species throughout the assessment area. Habitat abundance is high relative to historical conditions. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intraspecific interactions for the surrogate species.

2. Outcome B—Suitable environments are broadly distributed across the historical range of the species. Suitable environments are of moderate to high abundance relative to historical conditions, but there may be gaps where suitable environments are absent or present in low abundance. However, any disjunctive areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Species with this outcome are likely well distributed throughout most of the assessment area.

3. Outcome C—Suitable environments moderately distributed across the historical range of the species. Suitable environments exist at moderate abundance relative to historical conditions. Gaps where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance are large enough such that some subpopulations may be isolated, limiting opportunity for intraspecific interactions especially for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in the species’ range in the assessment area may have resulted. Surrogate species with this outcome are likely well distributed in only a portion of the assessment area.

4. Outcome D—Suitable environments are low to moderately distributed across the historical range of the species. Suitable environments exist at low abundance relative to their historical conditions. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the suitable environmental patches for species with limited dispersal ability. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in species’ range in the assessment area may have resulted. These species may not be well distributed across the assessment area.

5. Outcome E—Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance relative to historical conditions. Suitable environments are not well distributed across the historical range of the species. For species with limited dispersal ability there may be little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the species’ range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the historical period. Surrogate species with this outcome are not well distributed throughout much of the assessment area.

Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens 13 APPENDIX F – RELATED PLAN COMPONENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

During the outreach efforts for this project and again during the public comment period, a need to compile and clarify the broad range of plan components in place across the analysis area become apparent. This document serves to outline those components but is not intended to compile all forest plan components across the analysis area. It specifically responds to topics brought up internally and by the public during the amendent process. The purpose is to provide information to the line officer and the public about existing protections that are not affected by amending the 21- inch standard of the Eastside Screens.

1.1 NARROW SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT

No other standard of the Eastside Screens is being proposed for amendment outside of the 1995 Interim Wildlife Standard and there are no proposed changes to Scenario B of the 1995 Interim Wildlife Standard. See Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment for additional detail.

2 PLAN COMPONENTS

2.1 OLD GROWTH AND FOREST STRUCTURE

2.1.1 Eastside Screens

Eastside Screens: Senario A (d). If either one or both of the late and old structural (LOS) stages falls BELOW HRV in a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, then there should be NO NET LOSS OF LOS from that biophysical environment. DO NOT allow timber sale harvest activities to occur within LOS stages that are BELOW HRV.

Note: This means that if a stand is moving in the wrong direction and losing the desired structural components (including large or old trees) when analyzed at the site specific/project level, no commercial harvest can be authorized.

Eastside Screens: Scenario B: Within a particular biophysical environment within a watershed, if the single, existing late and old structural (LOS) stage is WITHIN OR ABOVE HRV, OR if both types of LOS stages occur and BOTH are WITHIN OR ABOVE HRV, then timber harvest can occur within these stages as long as LOS conditions do not fall below HRV. Enhance LOS structural conditions and attributes as possible, consistent with other multiple use objectives. The intent of the following direction is to maintain options by impacting large and/or contiguous stands of LOS as little as possible, while meeting other multiple use objectives.

2.1.2 Individual Forest Plans

Each forest has management areas that prohibit commercial harvest or promote old growth such as Old Growth Management Areas, Wilderness Areas, Research Natural Areas, and specific wildlife habitat management areas. Other management areas have Visual Quality Objectives or Scenic Standards and Guidelines that require old growth or “park-like” stands. These management areas include Wild and Scenic River Management Areas, Scenic Corridors, and some recreation areas.

2.1.2.1 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forest Management Goals: Old Growth

Old-growth forest is provided to satisfy the management requirements (MR's) for pileated woodpecker, pine marten and three-toed woodpecker on available, capable Forest lands. The distribution of old-growth is expected to help satisfy needs of goshawk and Townsend's warbler, with many existing goshawk territories included in the old-growth allocation. Fourteen thousand acres of subalpine forest unsuited for timber management and 53,000 acres of uneconomic lodgepole pine augment this old-growth habitat for pine marten and three-toed woodpeckers. Old-growth habitat will total approximately 161,500 acres over the long term, including large reserves of old-growth in wilderness, the HCNRA, and unsuited lands. Page 241 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 Resolving Conflicts. Where conflicts develop between visual quality objectives and timber or range management objectives, these conflicts will be resolved in favor of meeting the visual objectives. Where conflicts occur between old-growth objectives and visual objectives, old growth will have priority.

In the Hells Canyon NRA:

Wildlife. Timber stringers will be managed as old-growth habitat.

Timber. Timber will be managed to maintain old-growth. Timber management, using selective harvest methods, may occur when desirable for wildlife habitat improvement, or to improve scenic or recreational values. All timber harvest will be part of the unregulated component of the timber base.

2.1.2.2 Umatilla National Forest

Timber. Timber management will not be used on a scheduled basis on 188,464 acres in order to meet the following direction:

Provide old growth to meet Management Requirements (MR's). Criteria have been provided in Regional direction and are shown in the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines.

Wildlife Habitat-Old Growth

1. Maintain (or develop where presently unavailable) old growth tree habitat distributed throughout the Forest in units within suitable and/or capable habitat for the pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and northern three-toed woodpecker as the Forest indicator species as follows (MR): a. Pileated woodpecker- maintain coniferous forest habitat units 300 contiguous acres in size in seral stages V or VI as reproduction areas (may be 50-acre minimum sized units no greater than one-quarter mile apart to total 300 acres) distributed throughout the Forest so that generally each 12,000 to 13,000 acre area of capable habitat contains at least one suitable habitat area. Capable habitat units may be utilized where no suitable habitat is available. An additional 300 acres of feeding habitat in close proximity to habitat units will be provided. b. Pine marten-maintain coniferous forest habitat units of 160 contiguous acres in size in seral stages V or VI with a crown closure of at least 50 percent distributed throughout the forest in suitable habitats so that there is at least one habitat area every 4,000 to 5,000 acres of capable habitat. c. Northern three-toed woodpecker-maintain coniferous forest habitat units 75 acres in size in seral stages V or VI distributed throughout the Forest suitable habitats so that there is a least one habitat area for every 2,000 to 2,500 acres of capable habitat.

2. Maintain sufficient amounts of old growth forest stands to provide habitat for all wildlife species that may be dependent on, or make heavy use of, this habitat type including. Northern goshawk, great gray owl, Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks, Townsends warbler, Hammond's flycatcher, Vaux's swift, white-headed woodpecker, brown creeper, and others.

3. A thorough, field verifiable inventory of existing old growth stands will be conducted and tracked through time during the plan implementation.

Standard in various locations throughout the plan: Identified old growth units within the management area will be retained as part of the dedicated old growth system.

2.1.2.3 Malheur National Forest

Objectives: Provide old growth units on lands managed for timber production to sustain populations of dependent species at 30% above minimum viable levels. Maintain a total of 121,208 acres of old growth Forest-wide to provide habitat for at least 166 pairs of pileated woodpeckers, 120 pairs of pine marten, and other old growth dependent species.

Roads- Locate and design roads to avoid old growth stands.

2.1.2.4 Ochoco National Forest Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens Goals for Old Growth. Provide stands of old growth throughout the Forest for wildlife habitat, ecosystem diversity, and aesthetic diversity.

Objectives for Old Growth. Old growth stands will be present in various areas of the Forest, even though total acres will be declining over time.

2.1.2.5 Deschutes National Forest

Forest Management Goals. Provide old-growth tree stands for (1) preservation of natural genetic pools, (2) habtat for plants and wildlife species associated with over- mature tree stands, (3) contributions to the diversity spectrum, (4) aesthetic appeal.

2.1.2.6 Fremont-Winema National Forest-Fremont LRMP

Management Area 3-Old Growth. Selected old-growth habitat will be managed to increase populations of old growth-dependent species. As in Management Area 14, the sites selected for management include stands of old-growth ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and mixed conlfers (primarily ponderosa pine and white fir). Goshawks, pine martens, pileated woodpeckers, and three-toed woodpeckers are the representative indicator species for old-growth habitat on the Fremont National Forest. This management area both expands the average size of old-growth habltat plots provided for in Management Area 14 and increases the overall number of plots allocated to old-growth habitat.

2.2 WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

2.2.1 Viability

2.2.1.1 NFMA Implementing Regulations

1982 Planning Rule: The forest plans that guide the management for the eastside forests were developed under the 1982 planning rule. They all have plan components that are in compliance with the rule that includes the requirement that “Fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.”

2.2.1.2 Wallowa-Whitman National Forest

Forest Management Goals:

To provide habitat for viable populations of all existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate wildlife species and to maintain or enhance the overall quality of wildlife habitat across the Forest.

To protect and manage habitat for the perpetuation and recovery of plants, animals, and invertebrates which are listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive.

2.2.1.3 Umatilla National Forest

Goal. MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE HABITATS FOR ALL THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE FOREST, AND MANAGE HABITATS FOR ALL SENSITIVE SPECIES TO PREVENT THEIR BECOMING THREATENED OR ENDANGERED.

1. Legal and biological requirements for the conservation of endangered, threatened and sensitive plants and animals will be met. All proposed projects that involve significant ground disturbance or have the potential to alter habitat of endangered, threatened or sensitive plant and animal species will be evaluated to determine if any of these species are present (FSM 2670 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals).

Page 243 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 2. Where endangered or threatened species are present, the required biological assessment process will be carried out according to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205); consultation requirements with USDl Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies will be met. Before the project can be carried out, protection or mitigation requirements shall be specified (36 CFR 219.27(a)(8)). Habitat for existing federally classified threatened and endangered species will be managed and monitored to achieve objectives of recovery plans.

3. When sensitive species are present, a biological evaluation will be prepared. There must be no impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of adverse effects on its population, habitat, and on the viability of the species as a whole. For sensitive plant species, it may be helpful to consult with local knowledgeable and interested botanical authorities. Habitat for sensitive plants and animals will be managed to ensure that the species do not become threatened or endangered through Forest Service actions. Species management guides will be prepared over the next 5 years and will be used as strategies for ensuring that sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered or result in a loss of species viability.

4. For endangered, threatened and sensitive species, determine and monitor the status of populations and habitats and the strategies implemented for protection. Maintain and update lists of threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants and animals periodically as new information is collected. Submit pertinent forest information to the Regional Office for updating Regional Forester's Sensitive Species lists, and to the appropriate agencies for inclusion in state-wide data bases.

5. The Forest and ranger districts will keep records and inventories of essential and critical habitats and their distribution. Inventories will include careful monitoring of the species and their habitats.

6. Collection of T/E/S plant species will only be allowed under permit. The issuance of permits must be preceded by the same degree of assessment required for other projects.

7. Maintain contacts with Federal, state, and other agencies, groups, and individuals concerned with the management of T/E/S species. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Wildlife will be consulted for technical information in development of species management guides and in determinations of viable population levels of sensitive species. Other contacts regarding sensitive species information will be with the Nature Conservancy's Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base and the Washington Natural Heritage Program in order to maintain or periodically update the Forest T/E/S species list and assist in achieving state goals for conservation of endemic species.

2.2.1.4 Malheur National Forest

Forest Goals. Provide a diversity of habitat sufficient to maintain viable populations of all species.

Desired Future Conditions. Old-growth habitat will exist on approximately 121,000 acres Forest-wide and will be found within designated old growth areas, semiprimitive areas, wilderness areas, and bald eagle winter roosts. In addition, there wjll be 25,000 acres of old growth replacement stands being managed of which some additional acres will be at or near old growth. Viable populations of mature/old growth dependent species will be maintained.

Objectives. Provide old growth units on lands managed for timber production to sustain populations of dependent species at 30% above minimum viable levels. Maintain a total of 121,208 acres of old growth Forest-wide to provide habitat for at least 166 pairs of pileated woodpeckers, 120 pairs of pine marten, and other old growth dependent species.

Standard outlined in multiple management areas. Provide necessary habitat to contribute to Forest-wide maintenance of viable populations of management indicator species and featured species. Develop strategies to promote a variety of species including those dependent upon old growth, riparian, and solitude.

2.2.1.5 Ochoco National Forest

Wildlife and Fish Goal. Identify existing populations of any threatened, endangered, or sensitive species and maintain or improve their habitats. Provide, manage and Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens improve fish andwildlife habitats to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines. Maintain viable populations of all threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species (see Standards and Guidelines for Wildlife and Fish).

2.2.1.6 Deschutes National Forest

Forest Management Goals. Provide habitat for viable populations of all vertebrate species currently found on the Forest and maintain or enhance the overall quality of wildllfe habitat.

Wildlife Standard. WL-72 Fallen trees and other woody debris will be retained in sufficient quantity, distribution, and physical characteristics to provide habitat for viable populations of dependent wildlife species over time.

2.2.1.7 Fremont-Winema National Forest-Fremont LRMP

Forest Management Goals. To provide sufficient habitat quantity, quality, and diversity to maintain self-sustaining populations of all vertebrate native fish and wildlife species.

To provide for increases in or maintain habitat quantity or quality of those species which 1) are officially listed as endangered or threatened at the state or federal level to insure population recovery and/or 2) are management indicator species.

To reintroduce extirpated species that will have a minimal effect on other resource programs in coordination with ODF&W.

Wildlife Management Standards and Guidelines

Each successional stage, including those in early succession (i.e., clearcuts), will carry the appropriate amount of habitat for the prescribed potential population of cavity-dependent species.

2.2.3 Connectivity

The connectivity requirements of the Eastside Screens remain unchanged:

1) Maintain connectivity and reduce fragmentation of LOS stands by adhering to the following standards:

INTENT STATEMENT: While data is still being collected, it is the best understanding of wildlife science, today, that wildlife species associated with late and old structural conditions, especially those sensitive to “edge,” rely on the connectivity of these habitats to allow free movement and interaction of adults and dispersal of young. Connectivity corridors do not necessarily meet the same description of “suitable” habitat for breeding, but allow free movement between suitable breeding habitats. Until a full conservation assessment is completed that describes in more detail the movement patterns and needs of various species and communities of species in eastside ecosystems, it is important to insure that blocks of habitat maintain a high degree of connectivity between them, and that blocks of habitat do not become fragmented in the short-term.

a) Maintain or enhance the current level of connectivity between LOS stands and between all Forest Plan designated “old growth/MR” habitats by maintaining stands between them that serve the purpose of connection as described below:

(1) Network pattern – LOS stands and MR/Old Growth habitats need to be connected with each other inside the watershed as well as to like stands in adjacent watersheds in a contiguous network pattern by at least 2 different directions.

(2) Connectivity Corridor Stand Description – Stands in which medium diameter or larger trees are common, and canopy closures are within the top one-third of site potential. Stand widths should be at least 400 ft. wide at their narrowest point. The only exception to stand width is when it is impossible to meet 400 ft with current

Page 245 USFS-Pacific Northwest Region-6 vegetative structure, AND these “narrower stands” are the only connections available (use them as last resorts). In the case of lodgepole pine, consider medium to large trees as appropriate diameters for this stand type.

If stands meeting this description are not available in order to provide at least 2 different connections for a particular LOS stand or MR/Old Growth habitat, leave the next best stands for connections. Again, each LOS and MR/Old Growth habitat must be connected at least 2 different ways.

(3) Length of Connection Corridors – The length of corridors between LOS stands and MR habitats depends on the distance between such stands. Length of corridors should be as short as possible.

(4) Harvesting within connectivity corridors is permitted if all the criteria in (2) above can be met, and if some amount of understory (if any occurs) is left in patches or scattered to assist in supporting stand density and cover. Some understory removal, stocking control, or salvage may be possible activities, depending on the site.

b) To reduce fragmentation of LOS stands, or at least not increase it from current levels, stands that do not currently meet LOS that are located within, or surrounded by, blocks of LOS stands should not be considered for even-aged regeneration, or group selection at this time. Non-regeneration or single tree selection (UEAM) activities in these areas should only proceed if the prescription moves the stand towards LOS conditions as soon as possible.

2.3 TIMBER HARVEST IN RIPARIAN HABITATS

Riparian habitat management in Region 6 is guided by PACFISH and INFISH and the associated Biological Opinion (PIBO). This amendment does not change any portion of those documents or the guidance therein. Information on PACFISH, INFISH and PIBO can be found at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev 2_027084