United States Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for...

Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for Potential

Wilderness, and Other Undeveloped Lands Report

Starr Aspen Project

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Malheur National Forest

Blue Mountain Ranger District

Sasha Fertig________________ _01/30/2015_

Author/Prepared By: Date

Starr Aspen Project – Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness, and Other Undeveloped Lands Report

of 36

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................. 6

Management Direction .............................................................................................................................. 7

Wilderness ............................................................................................................................................. 7

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) ........................................................................................................ 7

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) ....................................................................................................... 8

Other undeveloped lands ....................................................................................................................... 8

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................... 8

Wilderness................................................................................................................................................. 8

Inventoried Roadless Areas ...................................................................................................................... 8

Potential Wilderness Areas ....................................................................................................................... 9

Relationship to the Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-

Whitman National Forests .................................................................................................................. 10

Other inventories of potential wilderness ........................................................................................... 10

Other Undeveloped Lands ...................................................................................................................... 10

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................................... 12

Issues Addressed and Indicators for Assessing Effects .......................................................................... 12

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis ............................................................................ 13

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis .......................... 14

Alternative 1 – No Action ....................................................................................................................... 14

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 14

Wilderness ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness ................................... 14

Other Undeveloped Lands .............................................................................................................. 14

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................. 14

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness ................................... 14


Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 15

Direct and Indirect Effects .................................................................................................................. 15

Wilderness ....................................................................................................................................... 15

Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................................................................................ 15

Potential Wilderness Areas ............................................................................................................. 15

Changes in acres of PWAs .......................................................................................................... 15


of 36

Size and Manageability ............................................................................................................... 16

Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural ................................................................................... 16

Opportunities for Solitude and Remoteness ................................................................................ 16

Resource characteristics .............................................................................................................. 16


Changes in acres of other undeveloped lands ............................................................................. 18

Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.) .... 18

Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness) ............. 19

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................. 20

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas ......................................................... 20


Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ................ 20

References ................................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Potential Wilderness Inventory Methodology and Results ..................................................................... 23

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 23

Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 23

Panel by Panel Description ................................................................................................................. 24

Panel 1 (Figure 1): .......................................................................................................................... 24

Panel 2 (Figure 2): .......................................................................................................................... 24

Panel 3 (Figure 3): .......................................................................................................................... 24

Panel 4 (Figure 4): .......................................................................................................................... 25

Panel 5 (Figure 5): .......................................................................................................................... 26

List of Tables

Table 1. Wilderness and Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur National

Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, and Starr Aspen project planning area ........................................... 5

Table 2. Summary of inventory process of potential wilderness areas and other undeveloped lands in the

Starr Aspen project area ................................................................................................................................ 9

Table 3. Inventory of land areas within Starr Aspen project planning area ................................................ 11

Table 4. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Starr Aspen project planning area .......... 11

Table 5. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects ............................................................... 13

Table 6. Changes in other undeveloped lands in Starr Aspen project planning area by alternative ........... 18

Table 7. Potential wilderness area acreage summary.................................................................................. 24

Table 8. Starr Aspen potential wilderness area inventory........................................................................... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1. Panel 1 of the potential wilderness area inventory ...................................................................... 27



of 36





of 36

Introduction This report discloses the affected environment and environmental consequences for McClellan Mountain

inventoried roadless area (IRA), potential wilderness areas (PWAs), and other remaining undeveloped

lands. These three resource topics (IRA, PWA, and other undeveloped lands) are grouped and discussed

together because they share a set of terminology and interrelated history.

Background The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) covers approximately 27.2 million acres

within the states of Oregon and Washington. This represents approximately 27 percent of the total acreage

of both states combined. These 27.2 million acres are allocated and managed based on the land allocations

designated within the respective National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans. However, two

types of land designations are overriding and common among all units within the region (indeed the

nation); these are the management of wilderness areas and the management of inventoried roadless areas.

In Region 6, there are approximately 4 million acres of inventoried roadless areas (15 percent) and

approximately 5 million acres of wilderness (18 percent).

The Malheur National Forest is one of 16 administrative units that manage National Forest System lands

within the Pacific Northwest Region. The Malheur National Forest covers approximately 1.7 million

acres in the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon. The Malheur National Forest contains approximately

83,000 acres of wilderness (5 percent) and approximately 189,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (11

percent) (Table 1). The Forest consists of three Ranger Districts, one of which is the Blue Mountain

Ranger District.

The Blue Mountain Ranger District is about 707,000 acres in size and contains 37,000 acres of wilderness

(5 percent) and 95,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas (13percent). The Starr Aspen project planning

area is located in the southern portion of the Blue Mountain Ranger District. The Starr Aspen project

planning area includes no wilderness areas, 150 acres of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) (<1 percent of

the project planning area), 386 acres analyzed for potential wilderness (2.2 percent of the project planning

area), and 2,101 acres of other undeveloped lands (12 percent of the project planning area) (Table 1).

Table 1. Wilderness and inventoried roadless areas in the Pacific Northwest Region, Malheur National Forest, Blue Mountain Ranger District, and Starr Aspen project planning area

Unit Acres Percentage

Pacific Northwest Region 27.2 million 27%1

Wilderness 5 million 18%

Inventoried roadless areas 4 million 15%

Malheur National Forest 1.7 million 6%2

Wilderness 83,000 5%

Inventoried roadless areas 189,000 11%

Blue Mountain Ranger District 707,000 42%3

Wilderness 37,000 5%

Inventoried roadless areas 95,000 13%

Starr Aspen project planning area 17,500 2.5%4

Wilderness 0 0%

Inventoried roadless areas 150 <1%

Areas analyzed for potential wilderness 386 2.2%5


of 36

Unit Acres Percentage

Other undeveloped lands 2,101 12%6

1 Portion (acres) of both Oregon and Washington that are National Forest System lands.

2 Portion (acres) of USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region that is managed by

the Malheur National Forest. 3 Portion (acres) of the Malheur National Forest that is managed by the Blue Mountain

Ranger District. 4 Portion (acres) of the Blue Mountain Ranger District within the boundary of the Starr

Aspen project planning area. 5 Areas meeting inventory criteria for potential wilderness; these acres substantially

overlap Inventoried roadless areas. 6 This number reflects the inventory of other undeveloped lands.

Regulatory Framework This report discloses impacts to a number of resources sensitive to the construction of new forest roads or

from our system of existing roads. A road definition, and the criteria and methods for inventorying a road

conform to agency policy. Definitions and inventory criteria do not change project to project or Forest to

Forest; they are common agency-wide. It would not be reasonable for a single individual or group to

assert their own definition of a road or how to inventory a road system and then ask the Forest Service to

disclose the impacts of “their road system” on resources present such as elk habitat, fish habitat, or

potential wilderness areas. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to consider one version of inventoried forest

roads to analyze impacts to elk and fish habitat and then apply a second version of roads in another

analysis (PWA, undeveloped lands) within the same EA. Inventories of resources and facilities in support

of the Starr Aspen Project have been predicated on agency policy and procedures. The situations

described above confound our ability to conduct a clear and meaningful effects analysis for the “roadless”

issue in the Starr Aspen project planning area.

To resolve this confusion the Forest Service uses its discretion to rely on agency policy, agency

definitions of terms, and agency procedures for the inventory of resources and facilities. Inventory criteria

and procedures for potential wilderness areas are found in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, chapter 71.

This analysis identifies areas with the potential to be analyzed at a Forest Plan level for potential

wilderness, and does not evaluate an area’s wilderness potential.

During public involvement for this project, and in past similar projects, a wide range of terms have been

used by respondents, the courts, and the Forest Service when referring to these topics. These terms

include roadless, inventoried roadless area, un-roaded, un-inventoried roadless, potential wilderness area,

undeveloped lands, and roadless expanse. The terms and definitions as stated below will be used in this

site-specific analysis. The four resource topics are based on current law, regulation, agency policy, and

the Malheur Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur Forest Plan), as amended.

From the mid-1970s through 2001 the Forest Service maintained a roadless area inventory of

undeveloped lands that we used and updated for RARE, RARE II, and in support of Land and Resource

Management Planning completed in 1990. All during that time we called these polygons “roadless areas”

or “inventoried roadless areas” (IRA). With completion of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR)

in 2001 these lands ceased being just an inventory, and IRAs became more of a designation, with fixed

boundaries and prohibitions set by Forest Service regulation (36 CFR 294). Confusion ensued because

two Forest Service maps used the same name; IRA. One map had fixed boundaries set by the RACR and

another map had changeable boundaries based on inventory criteria.

To address this situation, the Forest Service created a new term for their inventory of undeveloped lands

called “potential wilderness areas” (PWA) to make a clear distinction between the IRA term used by the

2001 RACR. This terminology addition was made policy by changing the 2006 handbook for wilderness


of 36

evaluation (FSH 1909.12 chapter 70) and is reflected in the 2008 Forest Service NEPA regulations (36

CFR 220). In the regulations, potential effects to “inventoried roadless areas” and ‘potential wilderness

areas’ are factors in determining whether a CE, EA, or EIS is the appropriate NEPA document for a

particular project. The term “other undeveloped lands” is presented and used in this document to provide

a consideration for the balance of those remaining lands that did not meet the inventory criteria for

potential wilderness, were not designated an IRA under the RACR, and do not contain roads and evidence

of timber harvest (see definitions below).

In the early 2000s Oregon Wild, a local interest group, conducted their own inventory across Oregon,

including the Malheur National Forest, using inventory criteria they developed for their purposes. The

Sierra Club, a national interest group, has recently produced an inventory using inventory criteria they

developed for their purposes. Polygons on both maps are referred to as ‘inventoried roadless areas’ or

“roadless areas” or “unroaded,” or “un-inventoried roadless areas.” Confusion ensued again on this issue

because there are conflicts between the Forest Service maps and maps presented by two interested groups.

Each map appears to be based on different definitions and inventory criteria.

The terms and definitions as stated below will be used in this site-specific analysis. The four resource

topics are based on current law, regulation, agency policy, and the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended.

Management Direction

Wilderness Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence without permanent improvements

or human habitation as defined under the 1964 Wilderness Act. It is protected and managed

so as to preserve its natural conditions which (1) generally appear to have been affected

primarily by forces of nature with the imprint human actively substantially unnoticeable; (2)

has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and confined type of recreation; (3)

has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size to make practical its preservation, enjoyment,

and use in an unimpaired condition, and (4) may contain features of scientific, educational,

scenic, or historical value as well as ecologic and geologic interest (Malheur Forest Plan,

page VIII-38).

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) These areas were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule in a set of

inventoried roadless area maps, contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000, which are held at

the National headquarters office of the Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision

of those maps (36 CFR 294.11). These areas were set aside through administrative

rulemaking and have provisions, within the context of multiple use management, for the

protection of inventoried roadless areas. Most IRA boundaries are substantially identical to

those identified as “Roadless Areas,” referred to in the 1982 planning rule (36 CFR 219.17)

and identified by the Forest Plan, FEIS, Appendix C; however some localized, minor

differences in boundaries may exist.

All roadless area acres were allocated to various management area strategies as disclosed in

the Malheur Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix C and described in the Record of Decision (page

14-17) for the FEIS. Some management area strategies were intended to retain the

undeveloped roadless character of the roadless area and some management area strategies

were intended to develop the lands with timber harvest and road building activities; thus

forgoing roadless character.


of 36

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA) Areas of potential wilderness identified using inventory procedures found in Forest Service

Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, chapter 71 are called potential wilderness areas. The inventory is

conducted by the Forest Service with the purpose of identifying potential wilderness areas in

the National Forest System. The National Forest System Land and Resource Management

Planning Rule (currently the 1982 Rule, 36 CFR §219.17) directs that roadless areas be

evaluated and considered for wilderness recommendation during the forest planning process.

Potential wilderness areas (PWAs) are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or

impart any particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation

of potential wilderness (chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative

recommendations for wilderness designation (chapter 73). The inventory of PWAs does not

change the administrative boundary of any inventoried roadless area (IRA). Forest Plan

management allocations for these unroaded areas do not change because of their analysis for

potential wilderness. These management area allocations are classified as non-wilderness and

focus on big game habitat and timber production.

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap, and/or are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas.

PWAs may also be contiguous with designated wilderness. PWAs overlap inventoried

roadless areas only where those acres of land are consistent with the inventory criteria (FSH

1909.12 chapter 71) and may extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with

inventory criteria.

Other undeveloped lands An outcome of the PWA inventory process found at FSH 1909.12, chapter 71 was the

identification of polygons of other undeveloped lands. These polygons did not meet inventory

criteria as potential wilderness areas and they are not inventoried roadless areas or a

designated wilderness area. Each individual polygon of land has no recent history of harvest

activity and does not contain forest roads. They are stand-alone polygons of varying acreages

all less than 5,000 acres within the project planning area (Table 4).

There are no forest-wide or management area standards specific to other undeveloped lands

in the Malheur Forest Plan; however, there are management areas that emphasize a non-

motorized condition or prohibit harvest of timber. All lands, including other undeveloped

lands, are managed consistent with forest-wide standards and guidelines and by designated

Forest Plan management area allocations.

Affected Environment

Wilderness There are no wilderness areas within or immediately adjacent to the Starr Aspen project planning area.

The nearest wilderness to the project planning area is the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, located about

5 miles to the east.

Inventoried Roadless Areas Approximately 150 acres of the 21,200-acre McClellan Mountain IRA is located within the northern part

of the Starr Aspen project planning area. However, the nearest aspen stand proposed for treatment is

located approximately 0.4 miles to the south of this IRA.


of 36

The McClellan Mountain IRA is identified and mapped in Appendix C of the Malheur Forest Plan and are

also identified in the set of maps for IRAs in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS,

Volume 2, dated November 2000. There are no meaningful differences between the boundaries of the

McClellan Mountain roadless area identified in Appendix C of the Forest Plan and the 2001 McClellan

Mountain IRA boundary; therefore, impacts to these two topics will be discussed together.

Overall resource management addressed by the Malheur Forest Plan is comprised of management goals,

objectives, Forest-wide standards and guidelines (Forest Plan, p. 4-1 to 4-45), and management area

allocations (Forest Plan, p. 4-46 to 4-139). The roadless area issue is primarily addressed in the Forest

Plan through management area allocations (Forest Plan ROD, p. 16 and 3-14).

Potential Wilderness Areas The Starr Aspen project planning area and the adjacent areas were inventoried for potential wilderness

utilizing the criteria in FSH 1909.12, section 71. Areas qualify for placement on the PWA inventory if

they meet the statutory definition of wilderness.

Two areas of potential wilderness associated with the McClellan Mountain IRA were identified by the

PWA Inventory in the appendix of this report (see Table 8 and Figure 5). The area of potential wilderness

associated with the McClellan Mountain IRA includes approximately 107 acres.

Table 2. Summary of inventory process of potential wilderness areas and other undeveloped lands in the Starr Aspen project area

Inventory process step Acres

Total acres inventoried for PWAs within the Starr Aspen project planning area 17,500

Total acres of lands within the project planning area with evidence of:

Past harvest 12,200

Forest roads (including areas within 300 feet of a forest road) 9,400

Total acres (without overlap between past harvest and Forest roads) 15,014

Total undeveloped land 2,486

McClellan Mountain PWA 386

McClellan Mountain PWA that overlaps with the McClellan Mountain IRA1 107

Other undeveloped lands 2,100 1 Approximately 43 acres of the McClellan Mountain IRA within the project planning area did not meet inventory

criteria as a PWA because these acres had substantially recognizable tree stumps, contained forest roads, or were within 300 feet of a forest road.

Lands with values and features that often characterize inventoried roadless areas are increasingly

important within developed landscapes in order to provide clean drinking water and function as biological

strongholds for populations of threatened and endangered species. They provide areas that are important

for biological diversity and dispersed outdoor recreation. They also serve as bulwarks against the spread

of non-native invasive species and provide reference areas for study and research (36 CFR 294, page

3245).

Within PWAs human influences have had less impact on the natural appearance or long-term ecological

processes compared to managed lands. The current condition of soil, water quality, air quality; plant and

animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; noxious weeds, recreation;

and cultural resources are described elsewhere in chapter 3 of the EA. Disturbance by insects and fire has


of 36

been and most likely would continue to be the factors with the most potential to impact the nature of the

area. Opportunities for primitive recreation are limited to hiking, mostly cross-country, and hunting.

Livestock grazing has occurred within most areas for at least the past 100 years. There has been active

fire suppression for approximately that same length of time. Other activities in the past would also include

dispersed recreation, hunting, and camping.

Past railroad logging and mining throughout the area has altered the landscape from an undisturbed

forested ecosystem to a landscape of varying degrees of human influence with remnant structures and

ground disturbance. Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) imagery shows extensive ground disturbance

from these two activities in the PWAs and surrounding areas. Railroad grades are still visible on the

ground through LIDAR in IRAs, PWAs, and other undeveloped lands. It is likely that many of the areas

indicated as undeveloped saw timber harvest between 1910 and 1920 and are not completely without

human influences.

Ongoing firewood gathering and removal of danger trees along forest roads that border areas of potential

wilderness changes the vegetation, leaves stumps, and presents a managed appearance within a developed

transportation corridor. Over the past several decades, fire exclusion has altered natural ecological

processes. Suppression of fire in these areas has helped create the stand composition and structure that is

now present. In the dry upland forest, stands once dominated by open park-like stands of ponderosa pine

have closed in with shade tolerant species such as Douglas-fir and grand fir. The amount of this situation

across this landscape is uncharacteristic of historical conditions and un-natural.

Motorized all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use on designated trails and motorized use on existing forest service

system roads surround both PWAs and are apparent. Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of

adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance are limited by the size and shape of the PWAs.

Nearby, non-conforming sights and sounds of roads and activities may be heard and seen from within the

McClellan Mountain PWA.

Outdoor education or specialized scientific studies were identified as possible opportunities within the

two PWAs. No other special features or unique qualities (geological, air quality, wildlife, threatened and

endangered habitat, biological, ecological, cultural, or scientific) were identified (EA, chapter 3 and

project file).

Relationship to the Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests The Draft Revised Land Management Plan for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National

Forests identified 23,145 acres of the McClellan Mountain area as an area of preliminary administratively

recommended wilderness area (PARWA). However, it is important to note that the areas analyzed for

potential wilderness in this document may have different acreages as to what is in the Draft Revised Land

Management Plan for the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests. Updated and

available information was used in this analysis to determine the boundaries of the areas analyzed for

potential wilderness within the Starr Aspen project planning area.

Other inventories of potential wilderness Other inventories of potential wilderness may exist that were developed by organizations other than the

Forest Service. The Forest Service uses the criteria in FSH 1909.12, section 71 to identify areas of

potential wilderness.

Other Undeveloped Lands These acres of land have no history of harvest activity, do not contain forest roads, and are not designated

as a wilderness area, identified as an IRA, or included in the PWA inventory as assessed for this project.


of 36

They are areas that have no obvious previous activity and are “leftover” areas from other analysis. For

example, but not limited to, these areas may have been too steep, in between roads and harvest areas, or

too wet. These areas may have values associated with them such as scenery, cultural resource values, and

unfragmented habitat because of the lack of evidence of harvest or roads. These acres have no previous

roads or harvest activities located in them. Isolated polygons of other undeveloped lands were identified

as an outcome of the PWA inventory process. These polygons did not meet inventory criteria for the

PWA inventory and they are not included in IRAs or Wilderness.

Table 3 displays the acres of other undeveloped lands within the Starr Aspen project planning area. In the

17,500 acre Starr Aspen project planning area, approximately 2,100 acres have been identified as isolated

polygons of other undeveloped lands, approximately 386 acres have been identified as potential

wilderness areas (PWA), the remaining 15,014 acres are developed and managed (contain evidence of

past harvest, mining, and/or forest roads), and 160 acres are privately owned and were not included in this

analysis. Individual polygons of other undeveloped lands less than an acre were eliminated from further

study because no special or unique resource values were identified and the description of effects to

individual pieces of land less than one acre are better disclosed as part of the other resource effects

sections in the EA.

Table 3. Inventory of land areas within Starr Aspen project planning area

Inventory process step Acres

Acres of NFS lands within the project planning area inventoried for PWAs 17,500

Lands within the project planning area with evidence of past harvest, mining, and or forest roads (including land within 300 feet of a forest road)

15,014

PWAs within the project planning area boundary 386

Other undeveloped lands (remaining acres with no evidence of past harvest and forest roads that did not meet PWA criteria)

2,100

Table 4 displays the number, size class, and approximate acres represented. Approximately 49 percent of

the polygons are in the 1- to 5-acre size class. For perspective, one square mile is about 640 acres and the

closest designated wilderness area (Strawberry Mountain) is approximately 68,700 acres. The residual

shape of each undeveloped polygon is the result of boundaries created by past harvest, mining and road

building. The largest polygon of other undeveloped lands is approximately 590 acres.

Table 4. Size class and acres of other undeveloped lands in the Starr Aspen project planning area

Number of Polygons Size Class Approximate Acres

54 1 to 5 acres 153 acres





1 >500 acres 590 acres

109 Total 2,100 acres


of 36

The majority of the 2,101 acres of other undeveloped lands are allocated to Forest Plan Management

Areas 1 and 2 General Forest and Range, with some acres in Dedicated Old Growth, Visual Corridors,

and Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. See chapter 1 of the EA for brief descriptions of goals, and

standards and guidelines associated with each Forest Plan management area allocation located within

Starr Aspen project planning area.

Other undeveloped lands include soils, water, fish and wildlife habitat, etc. that have not been directly

impacted by past harvest, mining, and road building, or the impacts are not readily evident. Indirect

impacts have and continue to occur from today’s fragmentation of vegetation. The current condition of

soil, water and air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species; noxious weeds, recreation; and cultural resources within the project planning area,

including other undeveloped lands are described elsewhere in chapter 3 of the EA.

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within the other

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to be the

factors with the most potential to impact the area. Opportunities for primitive recreation are limited to

hiking, mostly cross-country, and hunting. Ongoing firewood gathering and removal of danger trees along

forest roads that border each polygon changes the vegetation, leaves stumps, and presents a managed

appearance within a developed transportation corridor.

Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance

are limited by the size and shape of the polygon. Distance and topographic screening are also factors. The

optimum shape and location to retain solitude and a sense of isolation from noise and sights of other

humans and their activities would be at the center of a circle. Areas greater than or equal to 5,000 acres or

about 8 square miles may have sufficient size to offer a sense of solitude yet this may vary by individual.

Long narrow shapes provide less distance from noise at their midpoint. Nearby, non-conforming sights

and sounds of roads and timber harvest can be heard and often seen from within 109 polygons of other

undeveloped lands because they are all less than one square mile in size and none are a perfect circle in

shape.

The existing condition of all remaining 15,014 acres of land within and affected by the project presents a

landscape that has been managed and is generally developed in nature; these lands contain evidence of

past harvest and forest roads. Past management actions and current conditions within the 15,014 acres

reflect the multiple-use intent and decisions made in the Malheur Forest Plan (1990 as amended), and

reflects consistency with Forest Plan Management Area allocations.

Environmental Consequences

Issues Addressed and Indicators for Assessing Effects The following indicators will be used to describe the effects of proposed treatments to the identified

PWAs and other undeveloped lands in the Starr Aspen project planning area.

Specifically, the definition of wilderness from section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act was used to

identify qualities of wilderness related to wilderness character that will be used to compare the effects of

the alternatives. In addition, the resource values that often characterize IRAs (36 CFR 294) are also used

to analyze the effects to PWAs.

Other undeveloped areas have intrinsic ecological and social values because they do not contain roads and

evidence of past timber harvest. These values are used as indicators of comparison to display effects

between alternatives. Values and features that often characterize an inventoried roadless area (36 CFR

294) were specifically avoided as indicators of comparison to reduce confusion as described in the

introduction to this section. That is, other undeveloped lands are not IRAs or PWAs and therefore are

described using different indicators of comparison.


of 36

Table 5. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects

Objective Indicator Justification

Maintaining values and features that characterize IRAs/PWAs

Changes in acres of IRAs/PWAs

Size and manageability

Untrammeled, undeveloped, and natural

Outstanding opportunities for solitude and remoteness

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air

Sources of public drinking water

Diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

Primitive, semi-primitive, non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

Reference landscapes;

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality natural integrity and apparent naturalness, solitude and remoteness

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

Other locally identified unique characteristics or special features

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 CFR 294)

Section 2(c) of the 1964 Wilderness Act

Maintaining values and features that characterize other undeveloped lands

Change in acres of other undeveloped lands

Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soil, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, solitude, remoteness)

Methodology The effects to areas identified for potential wilderness and other undeveloped lands were based on maps

and polygons created using agency inventory procedures and are considered and disclosed in the appendix

of this report, Potential Wilderness Inventory Methodology and Results for the Starr Aspen Project.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The scale of analysis is the Starr Aspen project planning area, and the McClellan Mountain areas of

potential wilderness (which includes the McClellan Mountain IRA).

The spatial contexts for this analysis are unit boundaries and other activity areas. The temporal context for

the effect analysis is long-term, 5 to 50 years. Aspen stand restoration, fuels treatments, and stream,

meadow and wetlands restoration would have a long-term effect and may result in more or less areas to be

analyzed for potential wilderness and as other undeveloped lands.


of 36

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Past actions in or near the project planning area include timber management, wildland fuels management,

fire suppression, mining, dispersed camping, firewood cutting, and road and facilities construction and

maintenance. All activities have affected current forest composition, structure, and overall management

infrastructure and developed lands of the area. Therefore, these activities are still reflected (with

individual variances) in the current condition of the area’s natural resource and human environment

values.

Starr HFRA Project Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness, and Other

Undeveloped Lands Specialist Report identified that all acres within the McClellan Mountain IRAs would

remain in the inventory following implementation of all alternatives. Within the areas analyzed for

potential wilderness, the proposed action alternative removed approximately 10 acres from the eligible

inventory in the areas that meet the requirements for inclusion in the McClellan Mountain PWA. In

addition, the Starr HFRA Project included timber harvest and associated activities that changed

approximately 1,500 acres of other undeveloped land to developed land.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Wilderness

The no action alternative would have no effect on the wilderness character, including solitude, because no

activities would occur adjacent or within any designated wilderness.

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness

There would be no direct effects to the McClellan Mountain IRA and PWA, because no activities would

occur within this area. The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes

and ongoing management activities.

Other Undeveloped Lands

There would be no direct effects to undeveloped lands because no activities would occur in these areas.

The affected environment would remain unchanged, except by natural processes and ongoing

management activities. All polygons of other undeveloped lands would continue to not meet inventory

criteria as potential wilderness areas and would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area or a

designated wilderness area.

Cumulative Effects

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Areas Analyzed for Potential Wilderness

Past timber harvest activities in the region have impacted the composition and structure of many areas

within the project planning area. Stumps from logging and railroad grades are still evident in many cases

and can impact a visitor’s perception of solitude and remoteness, although these impacts can diminish

over time. Wildfire exclusion and suppression efforts have also impacted stand composition in these

areas, creating the conditions present today with increased ladder fuels and high forest density. These

conditions have increased the potential for a large wildfire to occur. Although a large wildfire would not

remove an area from being eligible as a PWA, it would impact the apparent naturalness, solitude, and

remoteness of the area.


of 36

Implementation of the Starr HFRA Project is ongoing in the Starr Aspen project planning area, and

impacts 10 acres of area analyzed for potential wilderness. However, since no activities would occur

under alternative 1 there would be no cumulative effects to this activity.

All acres identified by alternative within the McClellan Mountain PWA would be available for

consideration in an evaluation of potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12, chapter 72) and preliminary

administrative recommendations for wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, chapter 73) during forest plan

revision.


The effects from past activities that include timber harvesting, fire suppression, road activities, mining,

firewood cutting, and dispersed camping that have created developed lands within the project planning

area would continue. Taking no action would not change the acres of undeveloped lands. Past and current

management activities outside of the project would likely continue. Current actions that are taking place

are mining claims, dispersed camping, plantation maintenance, firewood cutting, and Starr HFRA Project

implementation. Future wildfire management would cumulatively change composition and structure of

vegetation, which could affect some forest visitor’s sense of naturalness and remoteness. These actions

would maintain the acreages of the current undeveloped lands across the project planning area. Apparent

naturalness and solitude and remoteness would be cumulatively impacted by dispersed camping and

motorized ATV and vehicle use on roads.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Wilderness

There are no designated wilderness areas within the Starr Aspen project planning area; therefore there

would be no direct or indirect impacts to designated wilderness areas from this project.

The Starr Aspen project activities would have no effect on the wilderness character, including solitude,

because of the distance to the nearest treatment unit (over 4.5 miles). No activities would occur adjacent

or within any designated wilderness.

All burning activities must comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards and would be conducted

under the rules and regulations of the Oregon Smoke Management Plan administered by the Oregon

Department of Forestry. Rules and regulations limit the amount and timing of all burning activities. Such

activities would be conducted only when prevailing and predicted wind patterns would not result in

measurable impacts to either the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness or the North Fork John Day

Wilderness class I airsheds.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Due to the distance to the McClellan Mountain IRA, the Starr Aspen Project would have no direct effects

to this IRA. No project activities would occur within the IRA and project activities would be too far away

to be detected by anyone within this IRAs. The nearest aspen stand treatment area (unit A383) is located

0.6 miles to the south and does not include commercial removal of conifers.

Potential Wilderness Areas

Changes in acres of PWAs

Aspen stand, stream, and wetland restoration activities would occur in the McClellan Mountain PWA as

part of alternative 2. Aspen stand and wetland restoration activities would impact approximately 3 acres


of 36

of the PWA and LWD/CWD placement would occur along approximately 0.3 miles of stream within the

PWA. As described below, these activities would slightly alter the affected area in the short term until the

disturbance softens and becomes more natural appearing as time weathers the actions. In the long term,

these areas would blend in with the surrounding landscape with more of the native vegetation and

structure that were present historically.

Size and Manageability

Project activities may decrease the PWA by 3 acres in the short term. However, this would not affect the

eligibility of the McClellan Mountain PWA because the size of the area would still be greater than 5,000

acres (at 23,142 acres). A change of <0.1 percent of the total PWA.

Untrammeled, Undeveloped, and Natural

Clearing conifers up to 150 feet around aspen treatment unit A383 would increase the number of stumps

in that area. However, in the long term the aspen stand would expand into this area. LWD/CWD

placements in the wetland and stream in the area would appear slightly altered in the short term until the

disturbance softens and becomes more natural appearing as time weathers the actions. In the long term,

these areas would blend in with the surrounding landscape with more of the native vegetation and

structure that were present historically.

Opportunities for Solitude and Remoteness

Under alternative 2 aspen stand restoration activities in unit A383 would be to cut and leave conifers on-

site, treat slash, and fence the aspen stand. Conifers would be felled within the aspen stand, and some may

be moved with equipment (as described in the EA chapter 2) to be placed up to 500 feet upstream and

downstream from the aspen stand. The sounds, smells, and possible sighting of mechanical activities and

fuels treatment activities would reduce the sense of solitude and remoteness in the short term, during

project activities. Other sights and sounds of ongoing and previously approved activities in areas adjacent

to the boundary of the PWAs would continue to have short-term effects on opportunities for solitude and

remoteness. In the long term there would be no change to the current availability of solitude or primitive

recreation (see EA chapter 3, Recreation section).

Resource characteristics

In determining the effects to the resource values in the project planning area’s PWA, the area will be

analyzed using the nine resource characteristics provided in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule:

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air

Soils – Placing LWD/CWD in streams and wetlands would compact, puddle, and displace soil. However,

these impacts would be limited by the LWD being dispersed rather than concentrated toward a landing

and the number of logs transported at a time would be much lower, decreasing the ground pressure of

equipment (relative to normal logging).

Water – There would be no effects to stream temperature under alternative 2. There would, however, be a

minimal, short-term increase in fine sediment delivery to streams and turbidity from haul of logs and road

maintenance.

Air – There would be short-term impacts to communities and residences down wind and in drainages

adjacent to prescribed burning. There would also be short-term impacts along Highway 395. All

prescribed burning would comply with applicable federal, state and local air quality regulations.

Sources of public drinking water

There are no public drinking water sources identified in the Starr Aspen project planning area.


of 36

Diversity of Plan and Animal Communities, TES Species, and Species Dependent on Large, Undisturbed Areas of Land

Plants – Since known and potential locations for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant

species and uncommon/important plant communities would be excluded from the proposed silvicultural

or fuels treatment units, there would be no direct or indirect effects from alternative 2. The potential

spread of invasive plants would be minimized under alternative 2 with the implementation of PDCs and

mitigation measures (see preliminary EA appendix C).

Wildlife – Due to the lack of threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) wildlife species documented or

suspected in the project planning area, and the small proportion of the landscape actually being proposed

for enhancement, adverse impacts from proposed activities related to the Starr Aspen Project are not

expected. Further, TES species documented in the project planning area generally do not use small aspen

stands for major parts of their life cycles. Riparian areas are well distributed throughout the project

planning area and would provide refuge habitat during implementation if species were to be temporarily

dispersed.

Rocky Mountain elk could potentially be impacted by proposed activities, primarily from disturbance

from increased human activity during implementation. In the mid- to long-term, aspen would be expected

to become a more resilient and viable component to the landscape increasing browse and cover for elk.

High quality riparian areas as a result of meadow and riparian enhancement treatments would be expected

to benefit elk populations utilizing the area in the long-term.

More resilient and vigorous aspen stands and riparian habitat areas, and increasing available aspen habitat

across the project planning area would likely increase species diversity as vegetation diversity increases

from the proposed actions of alternative 2. Alternative 2 would also create more and higher quality habitat

for landbird species (including neotropical migratory birds) that prefer, or rely on aspen stands and

riparian areas for nesting or foraging.

Fisheries – The effects of alternative 2 may be adverse to individual redband trout and Columbia spotted

frogs and some habitats in the short-term during implementation but is not expected to be meaningfully

measurable nor contribute towards a listing of the population. These include soil disturbance associated

with removal of conifers in aspen units, placement of conifers within creeks, and operation of equipment

within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs). Soil disturbance is expected to recover in 2 to 5

years. Riparian hardwood and aspen response to conifer removal and fencing is expected to be <5 years.

This is expected, especially with fencing, to improve conditions over their current state.

Water tables and floodplain connectivity within the RHCAs is expected to increase as a result of

LWD/CWD placement in the long-term (>10 years). Recovery of the riparian hardwoods, reconnection of

floodplains, and elevated water tables is expected to provide suitable beaver habitat for eventual

recolonization. Aquatic conservation measures associated with these activities would minimize the extent

and duration of the proposed action’s impacts so that they would not be meaningfully measurable nor

contribute to a listing of redband trout or Columbia spotted frog. The restoration activities of alternative 2

would provide a long-term benefit for the continued persistence of redband trout and Columbia spotted

frog within the project planning area.

Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation

The primary recreational uses in this area are likely hunting and other dispersed recreation activities.

Aspen stand, stream, and wetland restoration activities in A383 would have a short-term effect on scenic

values and dispersed recreation experiences in the area. The opportunity to enjoy primitive and remote

recreational experiences would remain in the long term (see EA chapter 3, Visuals and Recreation

sections).


of 36

Natural appear landscapes with high scenic quality and reference landscapes

There would be some visual effects to the landscape. Stumps would be visible in aspen restoration

treatment unit A383. LWD/CWD placements in the wetland and stream in the area would appear slightly

altered in the short term until the disturbance softens and becomes more natural appearing as time

weathers the actions. In the long term, these areas would blend in with the surrounding landscape with

more of the native vegetation and structure that were present historically (see EA chapter 3, Visuals

section).

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

All traditional cultural properties and sacred sites would be avoided under alternative 2 (see EA chapter 3,

Heritage section).

Other locally identified unique characteristics

There are no locally identified unique characteristics for this area.


Changes in acres of other undeveloped lands

All acres of other undeveloped lands would continue to not meet inventory criteria as potential wilderness

areas and would continue to not be an inventoried roadless area or a designated wilderness area. Table 6

is a summary showing the changes in acres for other undeveloped lands. Acres changed from

undeveloped to developed acres include aspen stand, stream, wetland, and meadow restoration treatments.

Aspen stand restoration would occur on and impact approximately 160 acres of other undeveloped lands,

and LWD/CWD placement would occur on approximately 4.2 miles of stream within other undeveloped

lands.

Table 6. Changes in other undeveloped lands in Starr Aspen project planning area by alternative

Activity within other undeveloped lands No-action alternative

Proposed action

Acres changed (includes commercial harvest) 0 160

Other undeveloped acres after implementation 2,486 2,326

Percent of project planning area1 remaining undeveloped or within PWA after

implementation 14.2% 13.3%

Developed acres after implementation 15,014 15,174 1 17,500 NFS acres within the project planning area is 100%/

Intrinsic physical and biological resources (soils, water, wildlife, recreation, fisheries, etc.)

For other undeveloped lands within the Starr Aspen project planning area where proposed activities

would occur, the impacts to soils; water quality; air quality; forage; plant and animal communities; habitat

for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources are

essentially the same as disclosed for areas of proposed project activity as described in other resource

sections in EA chapter 3 and other resource reports and are not reiterated here. These lands would

continue to not meet inventory criteria for potential wilderness areas.


of 36

Intrinsic social values (apparent naturalness, degree of solitude, sense of remoteness)

Human influences have had limited impact to long-term ecological processes within these other

undeveloped lands. Disturbance by insects and fire has been and most likely would continue to be the

factors with the most potential to impact these areas. Aspen stand restoration treatments would increase

the number of stumps, which would likely be the most apparent visual change resulting from

implementation. The lands would appear managed and developed. The sights, sounds, and changes in

vegetation from project activities use would further decrease the natural integrity and sense of naturalness

within treatment units and along roads. Stand structure would change, therefore diversity of plant and

animal communities may shift from current patterns but ecological diversity would remain (EA chapter 3,

Forest Vegetation section). Impacts to natural integrity and sense of naturalness would likely be evident

until stumps and vegetation canopies are no longer substantially recognizable (about 75 to 100 years). The

sounds of timber harvest and road building machinery from active units would reduce a sense of

naturalness and solitude during project operations but would not persist in the long-term. Other impacts,

such as tree marking paint and logging slash would be visible in the short-term (about 5 to 10 years).

Impacts such as skid trails and tree stumps would be evident much longer.

For a few years, burned areas would display a blackened color following burning (EA chapter 3, Fire and

Fuels section).

Proposed stream, meadow, and wetland restoration activities (i.e., LWD/CWD placements) in other

undeveloped lands would appear slightly altered in the short-term until the disturbance softens and

becomes more natural appearing as time weathers the actions. The sights and sounds of machinery from

the activity would reduce a sense of naturalness and solitude during project operations but would not

persist in the long-term. Impacts such as tree stumps and large woody debris would be evident much

longer. In the long-term, these areas would blend in with the surrounding landscape with more of the

native vegetation and structure that were present historically.

Opportunities for a feeling of solitude, the spirit of adventure and awareness, serenity, and self-reliance

are limited by the size and shape of the polygon. Distance and topographic screening are also factors. The

optimum shape and location to retain solitude and a sense of isolation from noise and sights of other

humans and their activities would be at the center of a circle. Areas greater than or equal to 5,000 acres or

about 8 square miles may have sufficient size to offer a sense of solitude yet this may vary by individual.

Long narrow shapes provide less distance from noise at their midpoint. Nearby, non-conforming sights

and sounds of project activities can be heard and often seen from within the polygons of other

undeveloped areas because they are all less than 1 square mile in size and none is a perfect circle in shape.

The existing condition of all remaining acres with evidence of past harvest and forest roads of land within

and affected by the Starr Aspen Project presents a landscape that has been managed and is generally

developed in nature. Past management actions and current conditions within these areas reflect the

multiple-use intent and decisions made in the Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, and reflect consistency

with Malheur Forest Plan management area allocations.

Other undeveloped lands with no proposed activities would still be classified as other undeveloped lands

and would retain their intrinsic social values as described in the affected environment. They would remain

free of developments such as stumps. All acres of other undeveloped lands within the project planning

area would still not be considered PWAs, inventoried roadless areas, or a designated wilderness area.

These undeveloped lands would remain as small, scattered areas detached from each other by terrain,

roads, and harvest activities.


of 36

Cumulative Effects

Inventoried Roadless Areas and Potential Wilderness Areas

Past timber harvest activities in the region have impacted the composition and structure of many areas

within the project planning area. Stumps from logging and railroad grades are still evident in many cases

and can impact a visitor’s perception of solitude and remoteness, although these impacts can diminish

over time. Wildfire exclusion and suppression efforts have also impacted stand composition, creating

conditions experienced today with increased ladder fuels and high forest density. These conditions have

increased the potential for a large wildfire to occur. Although a large wildfire would not remove an area

from being eligible as a PWA, it would impact the apparent naturalness, solitude, and remoteness of the

area.

The Starr HFRA Project impacted 10 acres and the Starr Aspen Project would impact 3 acres of the

23,145-acre McClellan Mountain PWA, <1 percent of the total PWA. No reasonably foreseeable future

actions were identified that would change the condition of this area. Thus, following implementation,

23,132 acres of the McClellan Mountain PWA would be available for consideration in an evaluation of

potential wilderness (FSH 1909.12, chapter 72) and preliminary administrative recommendations for

wilderness designation (FSH 1909.12, chapter 73) during forest plan revision.


For other undeveloped lands in which project activities would occur, the cumulative effects to soil, water

quality, air quality; plant and animal communities; habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive

species; recreation; noxious weeds; and cultural resources are disclosed in previous sections of this

chapter and are not reiterated here.

Aspen stand restoration treatments would increase the numbers of stumps. For a few years burned areas

would display a blackened color. Outside of the treated areas, the conditions described in the affected

environment would remain unchanged except by natural processes and ongoing management activities

such as grazing and hunting.

Apparent naturalness, solitude, and remoteness would be cumulatively impacted by grazing, dispersed

camping, and motorized vehicle use on open system roads and trails. Effects associated with recreational

use, including noxious weed spread, hunting, fishing, erosion, litter, and evidence of fire rings, are

expected to remain cumulatively minor. Ongoing removal of danger trees along forest roads changes the

vegetation but does not change the overall sense of naturalness or sense of solitude along an existing

developed transportation corridor. Overall, cumulative effects from these activities on apparent

naturalness, solitude, and remoteness is very small (not measurable/indistinguishable) in proportion to the

changes anticipated from the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives disclosed above.

Other undeveloped lands with no activities from the proposed action (2,326 acres) would retain their

intrinsic physical, biological, and social values as described in the affected environment. They would

remain free of developments such as forest roads or timber harvest stumps. All acres of other

undeveloped lands within the project planning area would still not be a potential wilderness area,

inventoried roadless area, or a designated wilderness area. Adjacent Forest lands have been previously

harvested or contain roads, so they do not currently contribute to undeveloped areas.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The outcome of all project activities within the McClellan Mountain PWA is consistent with the intent of

the land allocation decisions made in the Malheur Forest Plan.


of 36

Environmental effects to resources in other undeveloped lands due to the implementation of proposed

project activities would be consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Plan management area

standards and guidelines (see previous sections of this chapter for Findings of Consistency for each

resource).


of 36

References USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA

Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day,

Oregon. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Record of

Decision. USDA Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online

at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning





of 36

Appendix

Potential Wilderness Inventory Methodology and Results

Background This document describes the process and rationale used to inventory for and identify potential wilderness

areas within the Starr Aspen Project, Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest. The

inventory is based on, and consistent with criteria found at Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12

chapter 71.

Each step of the inventory process is visually documented in a map (see panel discussion below). These

maps can be found later in this appendix. The Forest Service used professional judgment and local

knowledge regarding unique, site-specific conditions of each area being considered for placement on the

inventory of potential wilderness.

Potential Wilderness Areas (PWA): Areas of potential wilderness identified using inventory

procedures found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 chapter 71 are called potential

wilderness areas. The inventory is conducted with the express purpose of identifying all lands that

meet the criteria for being evaluated for wilderness suitability.

Potential wilderness areas are not a land designation decision, they do not imply or impart any

particular level of management direction or protection, they are not an evaluation of potential

wilderness (chapter 72), and lastly they are not preliminary administrative recommendations for

wilderness designation (chapter 73). The inventory of Potential Wilderness does not change the

administrative boundary of any Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) nor any congressionally

established Wilderness.

Typically, PWAs substantially overlap, and/or are contiguous with inventoried roadless areas and

PWAs may be contiguous with wilderness. PWAs overlap inventoried roadless areas only where

those acres of land are consistent with the inventory criteria (FSH 1909.12 chapter 71) and may

extend beyond IRA and wilderness boundaries consistent with inventory criteria.

Methodology

The inventory process was conducted through a sequence of GIS analyses and application of professional

judgment. Each map panel (Figure 1 – Figure 5) documents the outcome of the application of specific

inventory criteria. The inventory criteria were applied in a different order than appears in chapter 71 but

all criteria were considered and accounted for as described below under the Panel 1 - 5 headings. Table 7

was used to account for and display all polygons as described in Figure 4.

In general, the scope of this potential wilderness inventory analysis was limited to acreage contained

within the project planning area boundary. However, the Forest Service’s inventory crossed the project

planning area boundary to include acres immediately adjacent to the boundary that do not contain forest

roads and substantially recognizable stumps.


of 36

Panel by Panel Description

Table 7. Potential wilderness area acreage summary

Panel Acres

Panel 1: Total acres inventoried 17,500

Panel 2: acres removed from inventory 12,200

Panel 3: acres removed from inventory 9,400

Panel 4: acres of other undeveloped land 2,100

Panel 5: acres of Potential Wilderness Areas within the Starr Aspen project planning area 386

Panel 1 (Figure 1):

This panel displays the Starr Aspen project planning boundary in heavy blue. The McClellan Mountain

IRA is represented in black simple-hatching and borders the project planning area to the north. Open

roads are shown in black and red. The planning area is approximately 17,500 acres. Private land is

outlined in green. There is approximately 160 acres of private land within the Starr Aspen project

planning area.

Panel 2 (Figure 2):

The entire project planning area was overlain with the district's GIS historic harvest layer displayed in

blue. This layer includes acres where our records indicate past timber harvest occurred over the past 60

years. Past timber harvest methods ranged from clear-cut units to thinning units. In these cases, past

timber harvest resulted in features such as stumps, skid trails, etc. which are evident; therefore, all acres

(approximately 12,200 acres) depicted in blue do not meet FSH 1909.12 chapter 71.11(9) inventory

criteria and will be removed from the inventory in Figure 4.

Panel 3 (Figure 3):

The entire planning area was overlain with the district's GIS forest roads layer. Forest roads have

associated permitted uses. Many of these permitted uses have removed trees and created visible stumps in

the corridor. These permitted uses are expected to continue into the future.

During initial road construction trees were felled within a clearing limit to provide for safe and efficient

construction and future operational safety of road users. Clearing distances away from the edge of a road

varied by many factors including tree height, topographic slope, and other factors. Past clearing of trees

along forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.

Road maintenance occurs to varying degrees along each road according to an assigned maintenance level

and available funding. Road maintenance includes the periodic clearing of brush and the falling of danger

trees that present a hazard to forest visitors, employees, and contractors as defined by the Region 6

Danger Tree Policy (2007). The distance of the hazard removal away from a road varies by tree height,

topographic slope, and other factors. Past removal of danger trees along forest roads created stumps that

are evident and recognizable.

Harvest of trees for personal-use firewood is permitted within 300 feet of open forest roads consistent

with project NEPA decisions and travel and access management plan decisions. Past firewood gathering

along open forest roads created stumps that are evident and recognizable.


of 36

Based on local knowledge and professional judgment regarding the evidence of recognizable stumps, skid

trails, etc. which occur to varying degrees adjacent to forest roads as described above and to facilitate

easy on-the-ground identification of a boundary along a semi-permanent, human-made feature; the

boundary was set as 300 feet each side of the forest road.

This boundary is fully consistent with and supported by the following inventory criteria:

FSH 1909.12 at 71.1(3); potential wilderness areas do not contain forest roads therefore all acres that

are a forest road will be removed from the inventory in Panel 3.

FSH 1909.12 at 71.1(9): acres with evidence of past logging and roads will be removed from the

inventory in Panel 4.

FSH 1909.12, at 71; locate potential wilderness area boundaries at semi-permanent, human-made

features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification of a boundary.

Therefore, highlighted acres (in grey) along roads (approximately 9,400 acres) in Figure 3 will be

removed from the inventory in Figure 4.

Panel 4 (Figure 4):

Individual polygons less than 1 acre in size were eliminated from further study. The removal of these

polygons resulted in 111 individual polygons, ranging in size from 1 acre to approximately 590 acres,

covering 2,486 acres.

Panel 4 displays all 111 polygons, each with its own unique, numeric identifier. These polygons do not

have substantially recognizable stumps, do not contain forest roads, and each polygon boundary is greater

than or equal to 300 feet from a forest road.

The acres of the McClellan Mountain IRA and each polygon were considered individually and compared

to inventory criteria found at FSH 1909.12 at 71.1 (1, 2a, 2b, 2c). This process and the results are

documented in Table 8 below and displayed in Figure 5. Acres of any polygon need only meet one of the

four found at FSH 1909.12 71.1 criteria 1, 2a, 2b, or 2c to be retained and displayed in Figure 5.

One-hundred and nine (109) polygons are not contiguous with the McClellan Mountain IRA due to the

presence of forest roads and/or past timber harvest activity (Table 8). Each individual polygon is a part of

a larger ecosystem and not a separate, self-contained ecosystem, such as found on an island surrounded by

water. These polygons cannot be separately preserved due to a physical terrain or a natural condition in

part because of their small size and in part because they are each part of a larger overall continuous

ecosystem condition distributed throughout the project planning area. Based on the discussion above,

local knowledge, and professional judgment none of these individual polygons met inventory criteria and

therefore will be removed from the inventory in Figure 5.

Two (2) polygons are contiguous with the McClellan Mountain IRA. These polygon acres generally met

criteria 71.1 (2c).

The McClellan Mountain IRA was examined as an independent unit, separate from the polygons

discussed above. The IRA was examined with the same techniques as each of the individual polygons.

Approximately 107 acres of the McClellan Mountain IRA within the project planning area met potential

wilderness area criteria. Approximately 43 acres of the McClellan Mountain IRA did not meet potential

wilderness area inventory criteria primarily because these acres had evidence of substantially

recognizable stumps, contained forest roads, and were within 300 feet of a forest road. This inventory

does not change the administrative boundary for the IRAs.

Acres that met criteria 71.1 (1, 2a, 2b, 2c) were brought forward and displayed in Figure 5. All other acres

were removed from the inventory of potential wilderness areas.


of 36

Panel 5 (Figure 5):

This panel displays the Forest Service’s completed inventory of potential wilderness areas in green within

the Starr Aspen project planning area.

The following inventory for the Starr Aspen project planning area was created using the inventory criteria

found in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12 chapter 71.1. Each polygon from Figure 4 (described

above) was examined against the following criteria statement from FSH 1909.12 chapter 71.1:

(1) Area is more than 5,000 acres in size

(2) Area contains less than 5,000 acres, but can meet one or more of the following criteria:

2a. Area can be preserved due to physical terrain and natural conditions.

2b. Areas are self-contained ecosystems, such as an island, that can be effectively

managed as a separate unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

2c. Areas are contiguous to existing wilderness, primitive areas, Administration-endorsed

wilderness, or potential wilderness in other Federal ownership, regardless of their size.

The Forest Service relied on local knowledge and judgment regarding unique, site specific conditions of

each area being considered for placement on the inventory of potential wilderness. Delineation of areas

for potential wilderness inventory; locate boundaries at prominent natural or semi-permanent human-

made features to facilitate easy on-the-ground identification.


of 36

Figure 1. Panel 1 of the potential wilderness area inventory


of 36


Table 8. Starr Aspen potential wilderness area inventory

Polygon ID Acres FSH 1909.12

71.1 (1) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c.) Comments

0 2 No No No No

1 3 No No No No

2 5 No No No No

3 5 No No No No

4 9 No No No No

5 50 No No No No

6 1 No No No No

7 1 No No No No

8 5 No No No No

9 27 No No No No

10 3 No No No No

11 18 No No No No

12 21 No No No No

13 2 No No No No

14 5 No No No No

15 2 No No No No

16 380 No No No Yes Added to inventory

17 6 No No No Yes Added to inventory

18 4 No No No No

19 4 No No No No

20 10 No No No No

21 4 No No No No

22 1 No No No No

23 1 No No No No

24 3 No No No No


of 36


71.1 (1) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c.) Comments

25 33 No No No No

26 20 No No No No

27 5 No No No No

28 100 No No No No

29 4 No No No No

30 21 No No No No

31 3 No No No No

32 21 No No No No

33 30 No No No No

34 4 No No No No

35 5 No No No No

36 2 No No No No

37 26 No No No No

38 1 No No No No

39 3 No No No No

40 6 No No No No

41 13 No No No No

42 15 No No No No

43 37 No No No No

44 9 No No No No

45 8 No No No No

46 14 No No No No

47 29 No No No No

48 130 No No No No

49 2 No No No No

50 44 No No No No


of 36


71.1 (1) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c.) Comments

51 16 No No No No

52 15 No No No No

53 2 No No No No

54 10 No No No No

55 8 No No No No

56 65 No No No No

57 3 No No No No

58 2 No No No No

59 1 No No No No

60 3 No No No No

61 2 No No No No

62 62 No No No No

63 2 No No No No

64 1 No No No No

65 13 No No No No

66 5 No No No No

67 4 No No No No

68 2 No No No No

69 4 No No No No

70 5 No No No No

71 10 No No No No

72 14 No No No No

73 56 No No No No

74 7 No No No No

75 2 No No No No

76 7 No No No No


of 36


71.1 (1) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c.) Comments

77 2 No No No No

78 20 No No No No

79 15 No No No No

80 3 No No No No

81 3 No No No No

82 1 No No No No

83 41 No No No No

84 21 No No No No

85 1 No No No No

86 28 No No No No

87 4 No No No No

88 16 No No No No

89 5 No No No No

90 1 No No No No

91 43 No No No No

92 8 No No No No

93 14 No No No No

94 8 No No No No

95 590 No No No No

96 36 No No No No

97 5 No No No No

98 9 No No No No

99 3 No No No No

100 3 No No No No

101 7 No No No No

102 10 No No No No


of 36


71.1 (1) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2a.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2b.) FSH 1909.12

71.1 (2c.) Comments

103 11 No No No No

104 1 No No No No

105 2 No No No No

106 47 No No No No

107 1 No No No No

108 14 No No No No

109 27 No No No No

110 8 No No No No

Total acres analyzed

2,486

United States Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for...

Documents

Transcript of United States Inventoried Roadless Areas, Areas Analyzed for...