Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

desired condition within the matrix/General Forest allocation is a regulated forest where 

plantations exist in age and size class proportions that deliver a continual supply of wood 

products and other benefits. Additionally, stands in matrix/General Forest should be fashioned to grow trees at rates that allow for continual and sizeable increases in diameter increment during each decade of tree growth. While the tree species present on any site must be 

representative of the natural diversity in the local area, precedence would be given to tree 

species of commercial value. 

The following direction on page IV-43, paragraph 6-14, of the Siskiyou LRMP provides this 

specific instruction (among numerous other standards and guidelines) for timber management:

“Stand treatment in managed commercial forests shall provide for 

species diversity. ... Thinning, commercial and pre-commercial, 

should retain a diversity of species based on site potential. Vegetation management activities and hardwood management prescriptions 

should allow for all natural species to function. None should be 

eliminated from the site.” 

 

Riparian Reserve Treatment Aims and Outcomes: Within streamside forests identified as 

Riparian Reserves, the aim is to sustain terrestrial vegetative conditions that improve the 

overall health and function of aquatic ecosystems. Primarily, the outcome of vegetation 

management in these areas is to grow large trees for streamside shade and in-stream down 

wood recruitment. Silvicultural activities within Riparian Reserves are permitted to control 

tree density, re-establish and manage plantations and to acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (USDA/USDI 1994b, p. C31 and C-32). 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

In this chapter, resource specialists describe environmental consequences (effects) that are forecasted to occur should the Proposed Action be implemented. This chapter is organized by resource (soil, scenery, wildlife, etc.), with the effects upon physical resources reported first 

followed by discussions on the impacts to social and biological resources. For each resource, the 

discipline specialist always presents the ‘direct effects,’ ‘indirect effects’ or both kinds of impacts that would result from project implementation. Direct effects are those impacts that would 

happen at the same time and in the same place as the action or activity. In contrast, indirect 

effects are those consequences that arise either later in time or farther away in place but are still 

reasonably certain to occur. 

When relevant to understanding the additive consequences of a series of unconnected actions, 

‘cumulative effects’ are also reported. A cumulative effect results when incremental (direct or 

indirect) impacts of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions act collectively to 

impart a larger impact than would be evident from the impacts recognized from just those con63
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

nected activitions under consideration. However, just as a wound that has healed on the body 

may not have any relevant connection with a subsequent injury that occurs years later, so to a 

previous environmental impact caused by a former event (when viewed with the current circumstance) may not result in an additive effect because the former impacts are no longer apparent. 

Mostly, specific effects related to the no action alternative are not explicitly detailed in the effects predictions that follow. However, No Action is sometimes used as a basis for comparing 

effects emanating from the Proposed Action and so provides a contrast to the action alternative. 

Even if not overtly described in this EA, though, the impacts related to taking no action often can 

be easily inferred by supposing the inverse of the effect(s) described for the Proposed Action. 

Within the timeframe of proposal implementation (approximately 15 years), natural changes to 

various resources (such as trees or soil) would be either small (for example, the increase in suitability of a forest stand as a particular kind of wildlife habitat) or completely nonexistent (for 

example, a change in the innate erosion potential of a soil). Therefore, in the absence of human 

intervention within proposed treatment stands, ecological succession within a forest stand would 

progress apace with natural and predictable patterns of change, while those impacts related to 

equipment use or tree cutting would not occur at all. For the most part, then, effects related to no 

action are identical to the continuation of those conditions now present and described in the existing environment. Consequently, natural effects related to an absence of action are not typically described in this EA. Nonetheless, determinations of no effect and related reasonings are 

often displayed in specialist reports as an affirmation that an entire suite of plants, animals or 

other resource entities were considered and evaluated during the effects analysis. 

A. Air

Don Bellville, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Planner, has prepared an assessment that forecasts impacts 

from smoke emissions to local air quality, should the Butcherknife/Slate proposal be implemented. His information, titled Fires/Fuels/Smoke Analysis, was completed on November 24, 

2008. The entire report is included in the Analysis File for this EA. What follows are the effects 

described in the Fires/Fuels/Smoke Analysis. 

1. Measurement of Smoke (Particulate) Emissions 

As a decomposition process, fire reduces vegetative materials into basic components including carbon, volatile organic compounds, gases, particulates and nutrients. Some of these 

combustion products can be harmful to human health and welfare (Hardy et al. 2001). The 

presence of substances in the atmosphere in amounts that adversely affect humans, animals, 

vegetation or materials is defined as air pollution (Environmental Protection Agency 2007). 

Air pollutants are classified into two major categories: primary and secondary. Primary pollutants are those emitted directly into the air. Under certain conditions, primary pollutants 

can undergo chemical reactions within the atmosphere to produce new substances which are 

secondary pollutants. Smoke from fires is considered a primary pollutant. 

64
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The major pollutant of concern in smoke, whether from wildland fire or prescribed fire, is 

fine particulate matter. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for this fine particulate matter known as: 

PM10 This is particulate matter of mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) 

less than or equal to 10 micrometers. These particles of small matter are 

suspended in the atmosphere and can penetrate deeply into the lung, which 

may in turn cause respiratory problems. Emissions of PM10 (fugitive dust) 

are typically created by power plants, commercial boilers, metallurgical 

industries, mineral industries, forest/residential fires and motor vehicles. 

PM2.5 This is particulate matter of MMAD less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

and is a measure of fine particles that come from fuel combustion, agricultural burning, woodstoves, etc. Often called respirable particles, fine particles easily penetrate to the lungs and cause health damage 

(Environmental Protection Agency 2006a). 

The established annual average NAAQS for PM10 particles was revoked on December 17, 

2006 because of a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term exposure to coarse 

particle pollution. However, the primary 24 hour standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter, which is not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years. There are 

no secondary standards (Environmental Protection Agency 2006a). 

For PM2.5, the primary annual average standard is 15.0 micrograms (μg) per cubic meter (m3

) 

which requires that the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations 

from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

. The 24 

hour standard is 35 μg/m3 which requires that the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-

hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 

μg/m3. The secondary standards are the same as the primary standards (Environmental Protection Agency 2006a). 

Studies indicate that over 90 percent of smoke particles emitted during burning of wildland 

fuels is PM10 and about 80 to 90 percent of the PM10 is PM2.5 (Ottmar 2001). Recent studies 

(Dockery et al. 1993, Hardy et al. 2001 - p. 23) of the effects of particulate matter indicate 

that it is the finer particles, especially PM2.5, that is largely responsible for health effects of 

concern and for regional haze. 

Another provision of the Clean Air Act that relates to wildland fire and prescribed burning 

activities is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The goal of PSD is to prevent 

deterioration of areas that are currently cleaner than the minimum NAAQS from being polluted to the maximum ceiling established, or “the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility (Environmental Protection Agency 2006b). 

PSD provisions established three air quality classes. Class I areas include National Forest 

Wilderness Areas and National Memorial Parks over 5,000 acres, National Parks over 6,000 

acres and International Parks all of which must have been in existence prior to August 7, 

1977 plus any later expansions of these areas. No area within this project is classified as 

65
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

such. Class II applies to all other lands. No Class III areas were designated (Environmental 

Protection Agency 2006b). 

The Oregon Smoke Management Plan (2008) is the key link between fire management practices and the Clean Air Act. The objective of the Plan is to “prevent smoke resulting from 

burning on forest lands from being carried into or accumulating in designated areas...or other 

areas sensitive to smoke, and to provide maximum opportunity for essential forest land burning while minimizing emissions; to coordinate with other state smoke management programs; to conform with state and federal air quality and visibility requirements; to protect 

public health; and to encourage the reduction of emissions [Oregon Smoke Management Plan 

2008].” The closest Designated Areas to this project are Grants Pass (12 miles NNE), Medford (22 miles ENE) and the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (12 miles NW). 

The city of Grants Pass was identified by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) as a Non-Attainment Area (Moderate Classification) for PM10 in the past. However, 

during the last several years, this area has been in compliance. The Rogue Valley has met 

and will continue to meet PM10 emission standard through at least the year 2015 according to 

the Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area (Oregon DEQ 2007). The Environmental Protection Agency recently implemented additional standards relating to PM2.5 (Environmental Protection Agency 2006a) and the Oregon DEQ will make formal determinations 

of attainment status for PM2.5 in the future. 

The primary air quality concerns for this project are PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Smoke from 

the combustion of wildland fuels is the primary source of particulates from management activities. Prescribed burning methods being considered are broadcast and understory burning 

and pile burning. These treatments can have offsite impacts. 

Computer modeling using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) estimated smoke (particulate) emissions. This model used the results of the stand examinations completed in this area 

in 2008. This analysis assumes the following: 

1. Harvest would be in 2009, pile burn in 2009, underburn in 2011 (serpentine and nonserpentine areas), underburn in 2015 (non-serpentine areas and small meadow serpentine area 

only). 

2. Pile burning consumption= 90%.

3. Serpentine underburns will produce emissions comparable to 2nd underburn (2015) of 

non-serpentine areas. 

4. Year 2009 pile burning emission production (From computer modeling using Forest 

Vegetation Simulator (FVS)): 

PM2.5 

-0.38 tons/acre of PM2.5 

PM10 

-0.44 tons/acre of PM10 

5. Underburning emissions production (From computer modeling using Forest Vegetation 

Simulator (FVS)): 

PM2.5 

66
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

-0.07 tons/acre in 2011 

-0.07 tons/acre in 2015 

PM10 

-0.08 tons/acre in 2011 

-0.08 tons/acre in 2015 

2. Effects of Alternative 1, No Action 

Direct Effects from Smoke Emissions: There would be no emissions of particulates or 

smoke. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects from Smoke Emissions: None 

3. Effects of Alternative 2, Proposed Action 

Direct Effects from Smoke Emissions: Table 16 displays projected total smoke emissions 

from pile and underburning over the life of this project. 

Table 16: Projected total smoke emissions from pile and underburning. 

FUEL TREATMENT PM2.5 (tons) PM10 (tons)

Pile Burning (2009) 

(2,134 ac) 811 939 

Underburning (2011) (all serpentine areas) 

(1,934 ac) 136 155 

Underburning (2011) (non-serpentine areas) 

(2,712 ac) 190 217 

Underburning (2015) (small serpentine meadow area) 

(122 ac) 9 10 

Underburning (2015) (non-serpentine areas) 

(2,093 ac) 147 168 

TOTAL 1,293 TONS 1,489 TONS 

All internal combustion engines including skidders, yarders, road maintenance equipment, 

mechanical chippers, mechanical timber harvesters, chainsaws, etc. produce some incidental 

emissions (primarily smoke) associated with their use. Such equipment produces emissions 

that primarily affect the immediate area because of their limited numbers, engine design, limited fuel consumption per hour, fuel chemistry and exhaust design. 

Some portion of the slash material that would be created by this project is likely to be removed as biomass (probably chips), which will likely be used in co-generation power plants. 

This directly reduces the total fuel loading that would be burned without the use of some sort 

of pollution control device such as would be used in a co-generation plant. This reduces the 

smoke emissions of PM2.5 (tons) and PM10 (tons) proportional to the proportion of total fuel 

removed as biomass and the acres affected. 

We are required to manage all smoke emissions according to the requirements of the Oregon 

Smoke Management Plan by implementing projects when conditions are favorable for: 

67
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• low smoke emissions (dry fuels), 

• low duration of emission and, or 

• smoke traveling away from populated areas. 

Factors that influence the type and amount of emissions, their longevity in atmosphere, and 

their potential to affect populated areas include such things as: 

• wind speed and direction (low level), 

• wind speed and direction (upper level), 

• atmospheric instability (i.e. the tendency for smoke to rise in the atmosphere), 

• relative humidity (lower is better), 

• fuel moisture (lower is better), 

• fire intensity (higher is better), etc. (Note: Fire behavior (broadcast or underburn) 

can be adjusted within certain limits to limit emissions by way of changes in fire 

intensity.) 

 

We will appropriately consider and utilize these factors when implementing these projects in 

order to keep any emissions away from the Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) of 

Grants Pass, Medford and the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class 1 airshed). For other populated 

areas, we will attempt either keep smoke from these areas or limit the amount or longevity 

utilizing the same types of mechanisms. 

 

It is my professional opinion that prescribed burning smoke will not result in any unacceptable impacts to the Smoke Sensitive Receptor Areas (SSRA) of Grants Pass or Medford 

based on: 

• our successful, past experience in conducting many prescribed burns in similar areas affecting similar acreages, 

• our consistent use of the various smoke avoidance, reduction, or minimizing 

mechanisms 

• our consistent coordination with the Oregon State Smoke Management office and 

the weather service, 

• the estimated tons of particulates to be created, and 

• the general prevailing wind direction. 

The same conclusion is true for the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class 1 airshed) because of these 

factors and the distance (10 miles) to this area. Any smoke impacts are expected to affect a 

limited, local area and to be of short duration. 

Indirect Effects from Smoke Emissions: None 

Cumulative Effects from Smoke Emissions: The average, annual burning program for the 

Wild Rivers Ranger District is approximately 1,000 acres. I estimate that an average of 500 

acres/year of this occurs within the watersheds affected by this project. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a proposed project called Cheney/Slate that has similar 

activities to those in this project. The BLM estimated that approximately 500 acres per year 

68
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

of similar timber sale and hazardous fuel reduction projects would occur on BLMadministered lands within these affected watersheds. 

One can assume that these existing, ongoing projects probably produce similar emissions to 

those in the table if adjusted for the acreage difference between these projects. In addition, 

we might also assume that these current projects have not had biomass removed because of 

few local users of such material. 

The other Forest Service and BLM prescribed burning projects would likely generate similar 

emissions to those calculated by the FVS analysis for the Butcherknife/Slate project (because 

of similar prescribed burning activities in these other projects). Therefore, I used the weight 

average emission factors for the Butcherknife/Slate project to estimate the total emissions 

from these other projects. Table 17 displays the estimated cumulative smoke emissions from 

combined Forest Service and BLM projects. 

Table 17: Estimated emissions for other on-going Forest Service and BLM projects 

based on average emissions from Butcherknife/Slate project (FVS analysis). 

Fuel Treatments Acres 

PM2.5 

(tons) 

Emission 

Factor 

Acres 

x 

Emission 

Factor 

PM10 

(tons) 

Emission 

Factor 

Acres 

x 

Emission 

Factor 

Pile Burn (2009) 2,134 0.38 810.92 0.44 938.96 

Underburning (2011) 1,934 0.07 135.38 0.08 938.96 

Underburning (2011) 2,712 0.07 189.84 0.08 154.72 

Underburning (2015) 122 0.07 8.54 0.08 216.96 

Underburning (2015) 2,093 0.07 146.51 0.08 9.76 

TOTAL 8995 n/a 1291.19 n/a 1487.84 

Weighted Average 

Emission Factor by 

Acres 

n/a 0.14 n/a 0.17 n/a 

Displayed in Table 18 is the total, cumulative, tons of smoke emissions for the Butcherknife/Slate project and the other on-going Forest Service and BLM projects. This table assumes that the other Forest Service and BLM project treatment acres would continue for 10 

years. 

Table 18: Estimated emissions (tons) from the proposed action and other on-going 

Forest Service and BLM projects over a 10 year period of time (see above table). 

Forest Service (500 

acres/year) BLM (500 acres/year) Project 

PM2.5 tons PM10 tons PM2.5 tons PM10 tons

Butcherknife/Slate 

Project 1,293 1,489 0 0 

Other Projects 

(assuming 10 year 

total timeframe) 

700 850 700 850 

TOTAL 1,993 tons 2,339 tons 700 tons 850 tons 

GRAND TOTAL 5,882 TONS or 588 TONS/YR. 

69
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Again, it is my professional opinion that prescribed burning smoke will not result in any unacceptable impacts to the SSRA of Grants Pass or Medford based on: 

• our successful, past experience in conducting many prescribed burns in similar areas affecting similar acreages, 

• our consistent use of the various smoke avoidance, reduction, or minimizing 

mechanisms 

• our consistent coordination with the Oregon State Smoke Management office and 

the weather service, 

• the estimated tons of particulates to be created, and 

• the general prevailing wind direction. 

The same conclusion is true for the Kalmiopsis Wilderness (Class 1 airshed) because of these 

factors and the distance (10 miles) to this area. Any smoke impacts are expected to affect a 

limited, local area and to be of short duration. 

B. Fuels and Fire 

Don Bellville, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Planner, has prepared an assessment that forecasts impacts 

to fuels and fire, should the Butcherknife/Slate proposal be implemented. His information, titled 

Fires/Fuels/Smoke Analysis, was completed on November 24, 2008. The entire report is included in the Analysis File for this EA. What follows are the effects described in the 

Fires/Fuels/Smoke Analysis. 

1. Fire Risk, Fuel Hazard and Fire Behavior 

The effects on fire and fuels are presented as the effects on fire risk, fuel hazard and fire behavior. Fire risk is defined as the probability of a fire ignition and fire detection. Fuel hazard 

is defined in terms of fuel loading (type, amount, size, horizontal and vertical distribution, 

etc) and topography of an area. Fuel hazard (and ladder fuel) is evaluated in order to determine the potential for a significant fire to result after an ignition occurs (Siskiyou National 

Forest 1998). Fire behavior is the expected physical characteristics of the rate of spread of a 

wildfire and the flamelengths associated with that wildfire under specified conditions. 

2. Alternative 1: Fire Risk 

Direct Effects: There would be no changes regarding fire risk if no project is implemented. 

Neither lightening occurrence nor human use would be affected.

Indirect and Cumulative Effects: None identified 

3. Alternative 2: Fire Risk 

70
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Direct Effects: There would be no change in lightening occurrence. However, there will be 

an increase in the number of people and equipment using these areas to thin, remove timber 

products, build/obliterate roads, conduct inspections, and chip and haul wood products. 

More people and equipment generally result in increased risk of fire starts. However, because of contractual or burn plan requirements, the potential for a fire to actually occur is expected to be low. Fire detection would be at a higher level than no action due to more people 

being present in the woods. 

Indirect Effects: None identified.

Cumulative Effects: The Forest Service and BLM have ongoing timber management and 

hazardous fuel reduction programs in these watersheds.

This burning includes both underburning and pile burning. The Proposed Action would add 

to the potential risk of human caused fire ignitions (risk) over and above that which already 

exists because of these on-going activities. Since the types of on-going treatments are similar 

or identical to those proposed, the increased risk would be proportional to the acres treated. 

4. Alternative 1: Fuel Hazard 

Direct Effects: Over the next 10 years, the amount of down dead fuel should be relatively 

constant as would the density of standing vegetation. Current stands fuel models include FM 

1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10. Expected tree mortality from fire increases as the size of the tree decreases and the average flame length increases. High mortality rates are predicted on most 

tree sizes and flame lengths. Refer to the specialist report for more details. 

Ladder Fuels. Ladder fuels are combustible fuels that provide a fuel ‘ladder’ (connection) 

between a ground fire and tree crowns. Such fuels are typically smaller trees, shrubs, brush, 

and dead or live tree branches. The greater the distance between surface fuels and the average bottom of tree crowns, the longer the required flame length to ignite the crown. Therefore, the objective in reducing ladder fuel is to increase the relative separation between the 

crown and the ground. 

Many of these overstocked stands have areas with significant ladder fuel and most stands 

have a continuous overstory canopy cover. Such stands are at a significant risk of loss during 

high fire danger conditions. Under such conditions and coupled with high winds, a surface 

fire within these stands might develop into a crown fire that would cause significant conifer 

mortality both inside and outside the stand. 

 

In the short run, the No Action alternative would maintain the current condition of significant 

fuel ladders within some of these managed stands. As a result, under the right set of conditions, it would be relatively easy for a ground wildfire to access treetops and potentially become a crown fire. 

71
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Crown Fire Potential. The initiation of a crown fire is a function of flame length and critical 

parameters of the tree crown layer- height above the ground and moisture content. For example, crowns with 75 percent moisture (typical of late fall) and a base height of ten feet 

would ignite if flames from a surface fire exceed five feet (Russel et al. 1999). In stands such 

as dense natural stands and plantations, crown fires are likely, given the right weather and 

slope conditions. Any area burned by a crown fire would result in significant tree mortality. 

In the near future, the large serpentine savannah area along the W/NW edge of the project 

area would likely slow a wildfire coming from this direction because of the lack of overstory 

canopy closure and the scattered, low-moderate amount and density of the surface and ladder 

fuels within this area. Similarly, portions of the narrow serpentine savannah that is oriented 

NNE through the center of the project area would not sustain a crown fire. However, this 

area is so narrow that it would not slow a crown or surface fire advance for a significant period as spot fires could be easily ignited beyond this narrow strip. In addition, there are some 

managed and natural stands scattered throughout the project area that could slow a surface 

fire because of the absence of significant surface and ladder fuels within them. 

In the short term, the No Action alternative would maintain the current condition of high 

crown closure (high crown bulk density). Ladder fuels in many stands could provide a link 

for a surface fire to reach the crowns. In other stands, the lack of ladder fuel and significant 

surface fuel would not provide a mechanism for a surface fire to reach the crowns. However, 

even in stands without significant surface and ladder fuel, a crown fire could be sustained 

through the overstory crowns during high fire danger and wind conditions because of the 

dense, generally continuous, canopies. Such a fire might originate either at a nearby location 

or within this area but could still overrun this area. Considering that the prevailing winds are 

from the NW, such fires would tend to spread towards the private lands east of this project 

area. 

Indirect Effects: In the short and long term, the amount of down dead fuel will increase as 

competition-induced mortality increases and these dead stems fall increasing surface fuel 

hazard and small openings, which will increase the amount of light reaching the forest floor 

resulting in more understory vegetation (hardwoods/conifers) and, therefore, development of 

additional ladder fuel. Tree mortality from a surface wildfire will tend to increase over time 

as both down fuel and understory vegetation increase. The potential for crown fire initiation 

from a surface fire within the stand will increase with increasing down fuel loading and understory vegetation due to resulting increases in fire intensity and flame lengths. Once initiated, crown fire spread is likely given appropriate weather and slope conditions. 

Another long-term effect of the No Action alternative would be reduced crown height differences between adjacent managed and natural stands within this area. This would potentially 

provide an easier opportunity for crown fires to move from managed stand to natural stand or 

vice versa. 

 

Cumulative Effects: No effect, beyond the direct/indirect effects, is expected. 

5. Alternative 2: Fuel Hazard 

72
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Direct Effects: Following are the assumptions needed to determine direct effects of implementation of the Proposed Action alternative: 

A. Manual and mechanical understory treatments such as understory thinning/slashing, 

hand piling, etc will occur either within the contract period (stewardship contract) or 

within approximately 1-2 years after contractual acceptance of the harvest unit. 

B. Biomass removal will typically occur during the harvest contract and will involve the 

removal of the treetop attached to the last log or the entire tree (including branches 

and top). The top/branches will be chipped at the landing or hauled to a suitable 

chipping location. 

C. Landing pile burning will occur after 1-2 field seasons of pile drying 

D. Handpile burning will occur after at least 3 summer months of pile drying. 

E. Construction of firelines will usually occur within 1 year- prior to an underburn 

F. Slashing to prepare site for underburning will occur at least 3 summer months prior to 

initiating an underburn. 

G. The 1st underburn will occur within 1-2 years following pile burning when weather 

and fuel moisture conditions are suitable. 

Existing stands that are mechanical and fire treated will be either a Fuel Model 8 or 9, and 

are generally not considered as fuel hazards. This is because expected flame lengths and 

rates of spread under 90th percentile weather and fuel conditions (e.g. only 10% of days with 

‘worse’ conditions) and typical site topography would not result in fire behavior that could 

not be controlled by direct fire suppression efforts. In addition, certain other stands that are 

classified as FM1 may also not be considered as fuel hazard areas even though rates of 

spread and expected flame lengths would not be amenable to direct suppression actions 

(would need indirect suppression). This is because such areas primarily consist of light grass 

fuels, which may have excessive flame lengths and rates of spread but have no longevity (e.g. 

‘woof...puff’). In the case of stands where the existing Fuel Model is 1, 8, and 9, both the 

pretreatment and post treatment fuel conditions are the same. The post treatment differences 

in these stands would be with reduced stand density and diverse species composition such as 

large oaks and pines. 

In addition, other fuel and vegetation conditions are reduced ladder fuel, reduced crown fire 

potential, reduced density of vegetation with increased growth and vigor and maintained tree 

species (oak and pine) through reducing competition in these stands. In the short term, after 

harvest and without removal and prior to fuel treatment, the harvested stand would result in a 

Fuel Model 11 or 12 (Anderson 1982). With biomass removal and without fuel treatment, 

Fuel Model 11 will likely characterize the treated area. For such a FM 11 stand after harvest 

and before fuel treatment, expected flame lengths would be greater than those that might be 

expected prior to harvest for any existing FM 8 or 9 stand but less than a FM 10 stands. For 

a FM 12 stand, after harvest and before fuel treatment, expected flame lengths would be 

greater than those prior to harvest for all such stands (Andrews 1986). 

With a fire burning under expected post-treatment conditions (Fuel Models 8 or 9), it would 

be possible to suppress with hand fire crews since both FL and ROS are significantly lower 

and within the capabilities of hand crews to suppress. In addition, in those stands that de73
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

velop a grass understory (FM1), FL and ROS would be such that indirect attack would be 

most appropriate. Because of the light fuels (grass) that would burn, the fire would tend to 

be a ‘woof....puff’- e.g. little residual burning. 

In the long term, the amount of down dead fuel would decrease even more as any remaining 

slash following fuel treatment decomposes. In the same period of time, the amount of live 

fuel would regrow as brush and hardwoods resprout and tree crowns grow taller and wider. 

This gradual regrowth in live fuel would result in a gradual recovery in fire hazard but only 

in the highest fire danger situations. These stands should continue to act as FM 5, 8, and 9 

during this time. In addition, the leave trees in these stands will significantly increase in diameter and will become less susceptible to low intensity, cambium-killing wildfire (Andrews 

1986). Depending on the initial leave tree spacing, crown closure would occur in 15 to 20 

years. 

Ladder Fuels. In the short term, ladder fuels would be significantly reduced because of the 

separation of crowns and boles by the proposed ‘thinning from below’ as well as any subsequent understory thinning for the less than 7” DBH material. Therefore, the risk of within 

stand crown fire ignition and spread or tree torching would be reduced. Pruning would further reduce the risk even more. Pruning typically treats the lower 8, 12 or 16 feet of the tree 

bole. Ten feet of crown to ground separation would likely prevent a 5-foot flame from accessing the tree’s crown. (Alexander 1988) 

Over the long term, the amount of ladder fuel would regrow as hardwoods and brush resprout 

and new conifers become established (‘ingrowth’). This ‘ingrowth’ is a primary consideration in determining thinning spacing as well as underburning timing. 

The species, size, amount, etc. of hardwood/brush regrowth is considered when determining 

the time to implement an underburn. Typically, such burns are implemented within 1-2 years 

after harvest and then again approximately 5 years after the 1st underburn. The objective is to 

‘rob’ these resprouts of their viability by limiting the amount of time in which they can create 

and store nutrients to sustain their growth and burning after these species expend significant 

resources in growing or putting on leaves. 

Crown Fire Potential. In the short term, crown fire potential would be reduced because tree 

crown separation would reduce crown bulk density in the treated stand. Following thinning 

and fuel treatment, significantly higher fire intensities and rates of spread would be needed to 

sustain a crown fire. (Russel et al. 1999) 

However, a confounding effect of thinning in relation to flame length, rates of spread, and 

crown fire potential is that ‘within’ stand wind speeds tend to be higher in thinned versus unthinned stands because of increased openings. In general, increased wind speeds result in increased flame lengths and rates of spread. For example, a 50 mph (20 ft wind speed) would 

create a 5 mph mid-flame wind speed in a closed stand. However, it would only take a 16-25 

mph (20 ft wind speed) to create a similar mid-flame wind speed in a thinned stand. Therefore, if ladder fuels remain following thinning, they would be treated to reduce this potential 

(Russel et al. 1999). 

74
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Over the long term, crown fire potential would recover as leave tree crowns re-close and ladder fuels regrow. However, it is not expected that crowns would re-close for 10- 20 years 

depending on the thinning prescription. In addition, the removal of ladder fuels at the time of 

thinning would have increased the vertical separation between the leave tree crowns and the 

ground. Even though shrub and hardwood ladder fuels would probably regrow as aggressively as the leave tree conifers due to resprouting, it is still expected that there would be less 

ladder fuel and crown fire potential over the long-term than would have existed without thinning and fuel treatment. 

Indirect Effects: These thinning and fuel treatments could provide a short-term, indirect 

benefit to surrounding stands in the event that a wildfire starts in a treated area and moves 

toward untreated adjacent stands due to generally lower wildfire intensity and easier control. 

Flame lengths will likely be less than 4’ permitting direct attack by hand crews. In addition, 

ladder fuel will be reduced adjacent to the edges of the treated stand. As a result, fire moving 

to adjacent stands and becoming a crown fire is less likely. 

 

There would be beneficial short-term, indirect effect on wildfire spread and crown fire potential because of associated timber sale activities. Temporary road construction, reconstruction 

and maintenance will improve wildfire suppression access (and speed of access). In addition, 

these roads will provide additional fire suppression and control locations regardless of fuel 

loading, ladder fuel or crown fire potential. Improved access and additional control-line locations provide more options in suppressing a wildfire regardless of fire behavior. 

Cumulative Effects: The Forest Service is currently implementing a NEPA approved fuel 

hazard reduction project within the Lower Applegate watershed in Waters, Round Prairie, 

and Newt Gulch Creeks called Waters #2 and Round Prairie Creek Hazardous Fuel Reduction CE, approved February 5, 2007. That project has identical treatments to those proposed 

in this project with the exception of commercial harvest, mechanical treatment and road construction/maintenance, which was done previously. The SW corner of this project area abuts 

the NE corner of the Butcherknife/Slate project area. See map in the specialist report. For 

purposes of this analysis, an average of 500 acres of understory treatments will be implemented per year (note: some acres will be treated more than once). 

The BLM is in the process of completing a project called Cheney/Slate which is also in the 

Lower Applegate Watershed. This project proposes to commercially treat 2,490 acres. 

In addition, the BLM also proposes an additional 5,751 acres of non-riparian, noncommercial, understory treatment and 1,869 acres of riparian, non-commercial, understory 

treatment. Refer to the maps in the fire/fuels specialist report. No adverse fuels cumulative 

effects from the Butcherknife/Slate activities are anticipated. 

C. Slope Stability and Soils 

75
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Joel T. King, Soil Scientist, has prepared an assessment that forecasts impacts resulting from 

proposed activities upon local slope stability and soils, should the Butcherknife/Slate proposal be 

implemented. His information was completed on December 18, 2008 and the entire report is 

included in the Analysis File for this EA. Impacts to soils are generally discussed from the perspective of the stand scale. 

1. Effects on Slope Stability 

Landslides and surface erosion are both active processes and are leading sources of sediment 

to the Applegate drainage and its tributary streams. The majority of this sediment and debris 

migrates down slope during major storm events, such as during the 1974 and 1997 floods. 

The potential for effects to geologic stability as a result of the implementation of ecosystem 

management activities was analyzed. There are no management activities proposed within 

areas mapped as landslides, which are also classified as Riparian Reserves. Additionally, 

geologic stability associated with the current and past use in the Study Area serves as a good 

model for the expected response of the Action Alternatives. Much of the Study Area contains relatively stable slopes with a few exceptions occurring within the mixed serpentine/peridotite areas. 

a. Effects of Alternative 1, No Action: 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: With Alternative 1, there would be no potential 

for affecting slope stability beyond current conditions since no management activities would 

be implemented. With a few minor exceptions, the analysis area has not resulted in accelerated landslide activity with past ecosystem management activities. 

Since no management actions would take place with Alternative 1, the risk for cumulative effects would not change or increase due to this option. Past management activities have been 

few and scattered across the landscape in the last 10 years. Most of the other management 

actions have been hazard tree removal, minor (non-commercial) thinning, wildlife habitat 

improvement and fuels treatments along road corridors. No effect on slope stability has occurred. 

b. Effects of Alternative 2, Proposed Action: 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Proposed ecosystem management treatments such as density 

management and small group selection would have a very low potential for adverse effects 

on slope stability for the Proposed Action. No new permanent road construction also favors 

slope stability. In addition, limiting the use of road stubbies to existing road templates or 

sideslopes <35% also results in a very low potential for adverse effects on slope stability. 

The overall landslide risk is considered to be low to moderate. 

Fine sediment from landslides or potential landslides is a concern, because it has the potential 

to be delivered to streams, which may adversely affect fisheries habitat and water quality. 

Alternative 2 would harvest the some acres using a tractor for the logging system. Ground 

76
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

based logging is more of an impact to erodable soils in the watershed, which may produce 

larger volumes of sediment to streams. 

If improperly drained, temporary roads can concentrate surface water into unstable and potentially unstable areas, which may accelerate landslides and surface erosion. Temporary 

road construction prisms, cut, and fill slopes may cause slope failures and erosion if they are 

not properly constructed and adequately drained. Where skyline/cable logging systems are 

proposed with Alternative 2, temporary road stubbie construction is needed to allow equipment access to landing locations. Alternative 2 would construct the most new system roads 

(approximately 3 miles). 

Most of these roads are short spurs that would extend an existing system road. Direct and indirect effects of these new roads and silvicultural management of these units are considered 

to be very minor in regard to slope stability, since all of the proposed treatment is contained 

within stable locations. However, mitigation measures would be necessary to avoid surface 

run-off/drainage into any unstable locations from any new roads. Road decommissioning of 

approximately 0.33 miles would be completed. 

Cumulative Effects: Given the overall watershed low risks for adverse cumulative watershed effects (this Chapter and with mitigation measures for temporary road construction 

shown in Chapter III), the Action Alternative is considered a low potential risk for adverse 

cumulative effects, i.e., sediment production from mass wasting events. 

2. Effects on Soils and Productivity 

The potential for adverse effects on soil quality and productivity because of the implementation of ecosystem management activities was analyzed for each alternative considered in detail. The direct effects are impacts on large woody materials, detrimental soil compaction, 

detrimental displacement of soils, detrimental soil puddling, detrimentally burned soils, soil 

rehabilitation, and soil productivity. Also measured is the land taken out of vegetative production as landings, etc. 

An analysis conducted on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest between 1995 and 1997 

compared tractor loggings systems with a harvester – forwarder system as well as skyline 

logging (McIver 1998). This Analysis concluded that for tractor logging systems, approximately half of the detrimental soils disturbance was due to compaction and half due to displacement. For the harvester – forwarder system, approximately one-third of the detrimental 

disturbance was due to compaction and two-thirds due to displacement. For the skyline system, nearly all of the detrimental disturbance was due to displacement. 

a. Effects of Alternative 1, No Action: 

The following discussion covers the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and is 

the basis for a comparison of the effects in the subsequent sub-section. 

77
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Direct Effects: The No Action Alternative would not change the current levels of large 

woody material. Under this alternative, the amounts of large wood would continue to increase due to growth and mortality, at unnatural rates, due to past fire exclusion. The possibility of future wildfires with increased severity would provide a future flux of dead large 

woody material. The No Action Alternative would not improve site productivity through 

immediate coarse wood recruitment to sites that are deficient of coarse wood from past management. 

Since the No Action Alternative would contribute no new disturbances to the landscape, this 

alternative would also not create any additional areas of detrimental soil impacts. Erosion 

from road surfaces, if not checked by routine road maintenance, may increase over time. Future wildfires could occur with increased severity due to dense stands and organic matter accumulations. Potential wildfires could produce areas of detrimental soil conditions at a rate 

higher than historical wildfire behavior. It is not uncommon to have 40%-50% of the burned 

area to be detrimental to soils in an area that has missed several fire cycles. 

With this alternative, passive restoration of detrimentally compacted and displaced areas 

from past management activities would occur, and these areas would continue to recover 

through the action of root growth and frost heaving. The No Action Alternative would not 

accelerate the rate of rehabilitation in areas of detrimental compaction or disturbance. No 

additional acres would be taken out of vegetative production. 

With Alternative 1, there would be no potential for accelerating losses in soil productivity or 

losing additional land to permanent landings since no management activities would be implemented. If the No Action Alternative were selected, there would be no additional impacts 

on soil productivity and with time, natural restoration processes would occur. On the other 

hand, the No Action Alternative would not allow restoration and rehabilitation that could be 

implemented, for example, reducing the number of road miles per square mile (road density) 

in the Analysis Area. 

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects include the impacts on soil productivity (physical, biological, and chemical properties), the effects on hydrology, and the indirect effects on 

plant/animal habitats that would not occur. Nutrients would continue to be input into the system by rainfall and plants/animals. Hydrologic conditions would continue to recover from 

past actions as vegetation grows and recovers (see Hydrology Section, this Chapter). The indirect effects on habitats would be a continued accumulation of large wood and organic matter. The increasing potential for severe wildfires could impact soil productivity, hydrology 

and plant/animal habitats. As much as 40-50% of a severe wildfire’s area could adversely affect soil productivity, increasing runoff and erosion, and setting back vegetative conditions to 

an early seral condition. 

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects include the additive effects on large woody 

materials, detrimental soil compaction, detrimental soil puddling, detrimental displacement 

of soils, detrimentally burned soils, soil rehabilitation, and area taken out of production. Under Alternative 1, the Analysis Area would continue to have many areas where past management activities have removed most of the large woody material. These areas would still 

78
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

be deficit in ten years. In the Analysis Area, there are 165 acres of previously harvested land 

within proposed units that have various degrees of detrimental soil compaction and displacement; some of the Analysis Area has been detrimentally affected by past timber harvest 

and road construction. 

Due to lack of road maintenance, amounts of erosion would continue as the road system deteriorates. In the long-term, overall rates of erosion would continue to decrease unless a wildfire would occur. The continued accumulation of organic matter would eventually increase 

the likelihood of a severe (stand replacing) wildfire occurrence. For the next ten years, with 

no outbreaks of wildfire, no cumulative effects on erosion within the watersheds and 

plant/wildlife habitats would occur due to any detrimental impacts created by management 

actions on the soils resources. 

No soils would be detrimentally burned unless a severe wildfire occurred. Soil productivity 

conditions of the Analysis Area would increase slightly over time due to passive recovery 

from detrimental compaction and displacement, and due to natural weathering and increase 

in organic matter levels. 

b. Effects of Alternative 2, Proposed Action: 

Though the potential effect mechanisms on soils and site productivity are similar for each of 

the Action Alternatives, each alternative has differing levels of effects. The following discussion covers the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and is the basis for a 

comparison of the effects in the subsequent sub-section. 

Direct Effects: Direct soil quality effects include effects on large woody materials, detrimental soil compaction, detrimental soil puddling, detrimental displacement of soils, detrimentally burned soils, soil rehabilitation, and soil productivity. (i.e., area taken out of 

vegetative production due to roads, landings, etc.). Implementation of the Action Alternatives would affect the current levels of large woody material. The amount of large wood 

would continue to increase due to growth and mortality, at an accelerated rate. This would be 

as a result of density management activities. Under the Action Alternatives, some smaller 

diameter wood would be harvested, and the amount of large wood remaining would be retained of prescribed amounts. The Action Alternatives would improve current conditions 

through immediate coarse wood recruitment to sites that are deficient of coarse wood from 

past management. 

Tractor logging has the greatest potential to cause soil compaction. Disturbance from skyline 

yarding primarily has the potential for detrimental soil displacement. Erosion associated 

with skid trails and skyline corridors would be effectively mitigated by the placement of 

cross drains (waterbars), drainage dips, placement of slash, and erosion control seeding (or 

any vegetative cover on exposed soil). These measures have been used for many decades 

and there has been considerable monitoring of their effectiveness. Erosion from road surfaces would be checked by routine road maintenance by the timber sale operator, but only on 

approved haul routes during sale operations. Maintenance of roads with designed drainage 

79
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

systems would have the least amount of sedimentation because surface flow over the road 

surface would be minimized. 

The risk of future wildfires with increased severity due to dense stands and organic matter 

accumulations would be less than No Action due to the amount of density management 

(which lowers tree density), and activities that would reduce resultant activity fuels. Fewer 

areas of detrimental soil displacement due to detrimental burning from wildfires are expected 

if a wildfire were to occur. In areas where fuels are treated, it is common to have only 20% 

of the soils in a wildfire-burned area to be in a detrimental condition (approximately half the 

effect that would be expected in untreated areas). 

With the Action Alternatives, passive restoration of detrimentally compacted and displaced 

areas from past management activities would continue recovery through the action of root 

growth, large woody material recruitment, the addition of biomass, and frost heaving. In 

other areas, the use of old skid trails would set back the recovery rates. Additional acres 

would be taken out of vegetative production due to construction of landings. 

 

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects include the effects on soil productivity (physical, biological, and chemical properties), the effects on hydrology, and the indirect effects on 

plant/animal habitats. Management activity would impact soil productivity on acres irretrievably taken out of production. Any acres detrimentally disturbed would have reduced 

productivity. Nutrients would continue to be input into the system by rainfall and 

plants/animals. Hydrologic conditions would continue to recover from past actions as vegetation grows and recovers. 

The indirect effects on wildlife habitats would be a continued accumulation of large wood 

and organic matter, and at an accelerated growth rate in the density management units. The 

potential for severe wildfires is decreased and would not impact soil productivity, hydrology 

and plant/animal habitats as much as a wildfire that could occur under No Action. 

Cumulative Effects: The Analysis Area would continue to have areas where past management activities have removed most of the large woody material. Treated areas would have 

dead and down wood created and left on site, within the range of natural variability, contributing to an overall improving trend. 

The rates of erosion would increase temporarily within the limits designed by the mitigation 

measures, unless a wildfire would occur. The reduction in organic matter from density management would decrease the likelihood of a severe wildfire occurrence. Erosion would decrease as the road system is maintained. For the next ten years, with no outbreaks of 

wildfire, no adverse cumulative effects from erosion within the affected sub-watersheds and 

plant/wildlife habitats would occur due to any detrimental impacts on the soils resources. 

This consequence is due to the success of the mitigation measures. Based upon past observations, waterbars, grass seeding exposed areas, pre-designating skid trails, landings, and predesignating skyline corridors and skid trails, and utilizing skyline logging systems on steep 

areas, instead of tractor, effectively limits the amount of detrimentally impacted areas. Over80
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

all, soil/site productivity of the lands within the Analysis Area would increase slightly over 

time, due to passive recovery from detrimental compaction and displacement, and due to 

natural weathering, root expansion and colonization, and increased levels of organic matter. 

3. Summary of Effects: 

Below is a summary (Table 19) of risks to soil quality and productivity within the units and 

for associated temporary road construction (stubbies). 

Table 19. Summary of Soil Productivity Effects 

INDICATOR Alternative 2 

Total acres mechanically treated 2,712 

Total predicted additional acres impacted 70 

Total predicted additional acres impacted by new 

temporary road construction (stubbies) 8 

Total predicted additional acres impacted by ground 

based skid trails 44.5 

Total cumulative acres impacted by ground based skid 

trails 144 

Total additional acres impacted by skyline based yarding 17.5 

Total cumulative acres impacted by skyline yarding 90 

Total cumulative acres predicted in detrimental condition 

following treatment 242 

D. Water 

Maureen Joplin, Hydrologist, has prepared an assessment that forecasts impacts to water yields, 

water quality and stream system morphology for the Butcherknife/Slate proposal. Her information, titled Hydrologic Report for the Butcherknife/Slate Creek Project, was completed on September 1, 2008. The entire report is included in the Analysis File for this EA. What follows are 

the effects described in the Hydrologic Report. 

1. No Action Direct Effects 

There are no direct effects since management activities would not occur. The existing condition of the watersheds would be left to passive recovery that could be set back by natural disturbance events, primarily wildfire. Project subwatersheds are currently in a condition that 

would promote stand-replacing wildfire. 

2. No Action Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Beneficial effects described under the Proposed Action would be at high risk under the no action alternative. Passive watershed recovery would be likely to occur more slowly than under the proposed action since overstocked stands would gradually thin themselves through 

81
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

competition and mortality. Fine fuels would be naturally generated and would often occur as 

ladder fuel. Under these conditions, wildfire is likely to be severe enough to set vegetative 

recovery back through removal of vegetation and through soil damage due to erosion and hydrophobicity (USDA Forest Service 2004a). 

3. Proposed Action Direct Effects 

Direct effects resulting in higher peak flows/increased erosion could be caused through the 

following mechanisms: 

• reduction in forest canopy that intercepts rain resulting in increased moisture at the 

ground level 

• increase in road density resulting in increased collection, concentration, and flow 

speed of storm water 

• reduction in understory cover and ground litter that assist in moisture retention and 

flow reduction 

Direct effects would be greatest immediately after treatment activities, but would be expected 

to disappear rapidly as vegetative recovery proceeds. The proposed action design would 

prevent detectable changes to peak flow and limit effects to the short term primarily through 

limiting annual project implementation and avoiding the wet season. The proposed action 

spreads management activity over a 15 year time span. All treatment combined amounts to 

less than 4% of the Lower Deer Creek subwatershed. 

At this level changes in peak flow at the sixth field watershed level would be undetectable 

even if completed in a single year (Grant et al. 2008). The bulk of the proposed treatment 

occurs in the Slate Creek subwatershed. Combined treatments (prescribed burning, thinning, 

and harvest) amount to 14% of the subwatershed area. Grant et al. (2008) have estimated 

that rain dominated watersheds can tolerate harvest activities that affect up to 15% of the watershed before peak flow changes are detectable. 

The proposed action proposes commercial harvest amounting to less than 6% of the Slate 

Creek subwatershed. Thresholds provided by Grant et al. (2008) indicate that peak flow increases resulting from the project would not be detectable. Treatment activities such as understory thinning, and fuel management would have minor short term effects (localized 

surface erosion) lasting less than a year since understory vegetation and litter would recover 

and grow vigorously during the following spring. 

Thinning from below is a treatment that causes little soil disturbance and is designed to retain 

protective forest canopy. Prescribed burning is implemented to achieve a “cool” burn with 

mosaic pattern that mimimizes soil disturbance. These activities would not cause sufficient 

surface or vegetative disturbance to cause detectable or durable watershed effects. 

Long term effects would be caused by activities that eliminate surface vegetation such as 

road construction, road reconstruction, and landing development. Road and landing erosion 

control practices and restoration would remove all or most of this impact since it would be 

82
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

implemented prior to the following winter. Erosion control mitigation and avoidance of riparian reserves would prevent new/reconstructed road work from contributing to the drainage 

network. Existing roads and trails that occur within the riparian reserve may be reutilized for 

the project; however, their long term drainage and infiltration characteristics would be improved through subsequent restoration. 

In summary, treatments included in the proposed action may contribute to peak flow increases in the short term, but not at detectable levels. Implementation of the proposed action 

over 15 years is unlikely to affect peak flow levels to even a minor degree. No long term or 

cumulative effects to peak flow are indicated. Erosion that could produce sediment reaching 

project streams would be minor and short-lived. A potential long term beneficial effect 

would be the improvement of road drainage and surface condition that would reduce roadgenerated runoff and sediment from existing levels. 

4. Proposed Action Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Water yields in the project area are relatively low, averaging 85 cfs/square mile at the two 

year peak flow recurrence interval. Although peak flow increases are not anticipated, it is 

possible that seasonal flow variations may occur due to the effects that thinning may have on 

evapotranspiration and soil moisture levels (Jones and Post 2004). Thinning may reduce 

evapotranspiration by reducing the number of small trees and brush that utilize soil moisture, 

and, may increase soil moisture by allowing rain to reach the ground rather than evaporating 

from leaf surfaces. The resulting increases in soil moisture may prolong streamflow into the 

dry season. Research on flow variations has been limited to regeneration harvests; therefore 

quantification of this effect for thinning projects at the watershed scale is uncertain. The 

proposed action affects a small percentage of the subwatershed that extends over a 15 year 

period, so it likely that the seasonal effect on water yield would not be detectable at the 6th

field scale. 

 

The proposed action would reduce fuel loads and thin overstocked stands in both upland and 

riparian reserve areas. Indirect effects are primarily beneficial because the project area is located in watersheds that experience hot, dry summers and retain water poorly. Fuel reduction 

would reduce the risk of wildfire that is severe enough to remove all surface vegetation 

(USDA Forest Service 2004a). 

Hot wildfires open streams to solar warming, especially where forest cover is eliminated. 

Reduction or elimination of forest and understory cover generally results in a substantial increase in surface erosion over the following winter. Understory vegetation typically recovers 

rapidly; however an intense wildfire would likely result in a flush of sediment into the stream 

network during the first winter. Prevention of severe fire behavior and its effects is a major 

beneficial effect of the proposed action. 

Thinning of dense stands generates a longer term, but no less beneficial effect, in that it promotes the growth of large trees that will provide stream shade and large wood that traps 

sediment and moisture in streams and on slopes. The long term cumulative effect would be 

greater watershed stability, resilience to disturbance, and water retention resulting from less 

83
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

flammable forest and greater sediment trapping ability. The cumulative effect of this management strategy is expected to be gradual reversal of the effects on water flow and retention 

resulting from historic regeneration harvest practices. 

E. Cultural Resources 

David Knutson, Archaeology Technician, has prepared a forecast of impacts for cultural resources potentially influenced by the Butcherknife/Slate Hazardous Fuel Reduction proposal. 

His information, titled Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Heritage Report, was completed in 

November 2008. The contents of this report are not available for public review but are summarized on the Project Review of Heritage Resources Form, which is included in the Analysis File 

for this EA. What follows is a summary of the effects described in the Heritage Report and 

Project Review of Heritage Resources Form. 

Effects of No Action and the Proposed Action: No documented significant heritage sites 

would be affected by non-implementation or implementation of this project. In terms of section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the 36 CFR Part 800 regulations, the 

Butcherknife/Slate Fuel Reduction Project will be a “no historic properties” undertaking. 

F. Rare and Invasive Plants 

Maureen Jules, Botanist, has prepared a forecast of impacts for rare and invasive plants as would 

occur from implementation of the Butcherknife/Slate proposal. Her information, titled Biological Evaluation (B.E.) For Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, 

Lichens and Fungi, was completed on August 28, 2008. The entire report is included in the 

Analysis File for this EA. What follows are the effects described in the Biological Evaluation. 

1. Effects of No Action on Rare Plants: 

No direct, indirect or cumulative impacts are clearly identifiable from the no action alternative 

for any TES vascular plant, lichen, bryophyte or fungus species. An intense stand-replacing fire 

across the analysis area may have an especially detrimental effect to sensitive fungi (if present), 

but it can not be determined if the no action alternative would directly result in such an event. 

2. Effects of the Proposed Action on Rare Plants: 

a. Vascular Plants 

One endangered and five sensitive vascular plant species were found to occupy the analysis area. 

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri) – Endangered: The proposed project area is 

within the range of F. gentneri (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a). The following 

information is a summary from the Recovery Plan for Fritillaria gentneri (USDI Fish and 

84
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Wildlife Service 2003b). F. gentneri is documented from 16 different habitat types (elevation range 1004-5064 feet) in Jackson and Josephine Counties of Oregon. The species 

is most often found in Oregon white oak woodlands and Oregon white oak/dry Douglas 

fir ecotone/edge habitats and there is a significant association between occurrence and the 

Vannoy soil series. In 2003, only 1% of known sites were documented on lands managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service. Although not well documented, the mid-successional nature 

of occurrences suggests that the loss of openings and subsequent encroachment of habitat 

by dense shrubs and trees will lead to the loss and extirpation of F. gentneri and its associated understory species. 

Surveys for this species were conducted by Forest Service botanists during the springs of 

2002, 2003 and 2008. In preparation for the 2008 surveys, a GIS analysis was used to 

identify all soils in the Vannoy series. In total 83 acres of Vannoy soils were identified 

and intensively surveyed within the project area; oak woodlands and edge habitats were 

also concentrated on during field surveys. No F. gentneri occurrences were identified 

anywhere within the project area. Furthermore, a primary objective of the proposed action is to reduce conifer density and release white oaks and black oaks from competing 

vegetation. Lack of canopy gaps and light reaching the understory in dry Douglas fir and 

loss of oak woodland habitat types are thought to be a primary threat to F. gentneri

(Friedman personal communication 2008, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b). Thus, 

the proposed density reduction may improve habitat conditions for this species throughout the project area. No critical habitat has been identified for this species (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2003b) hence unoccupied habitat can undergo management activities with a no effect determination (Mousseux personal communication 2008). Thus, the 

project is expected to have no effect to this federally listed species. 

saw-tooth sedge (Carex serratodens) – Sensitive: C. serratodens range is restricted to 

Douglas, Jackson and Josephine Counties of Oregon and the Sierra Nevada and Coast 

Ranges of California. It occurs in moist meadows and rocky places near streams and 

seepages often associated with serpentine soils (Mullens and Showalter 2007). There is 

one known site along Anderson Creek in the far southern portion of the project area. No 

activities are planned within the block of forest surrounding this section of Anderson 

Creek so this population will remain unaffected. Additional populations which might go 

undetected are most likely to occur along streams and will be protected by riparian management guidelines. The proposed action does include 2 miles of fish habitat improvement along Slate Creek where approximately 1,000 non-contiguous feet of streamside 

could potentially be disturbed. Thus, there is a chance individuals, if present, might be 

disturbed by fish habitat improvement activities. However the effects would be localized 

and short term; limited to areas of log placement where vegetation will recover rapidly. 

Thus, the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to the species.

85
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

clustered lady’s slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum) – Sensitive: C. fasciculatum is 

widely distributed across 8 western states in the U.S., but has narrow and complex habitat 

requirements. Because of its affiliation with mycorrhizal fungi and a pollinator which 

preys on fungal gnats, habitat characteristics include overstory shade, and a rich organic 

layer that supports microflora. 

Threats include activities that alter the moisture or temperature regime, actions that disturb the soil and litter layer, or decrease vegetation cover (Seevers et al. 2005). Seven 

populations were located during field surveys. All 7 sites will be buffered to exclude all 

management activities including fire unless an administrative Analysis is set up to monitor impacts of fire. Protection of known C. fasciculatum sites aligns with management 

recommendations for the species: “Maintain/secure known sites from prescribed burns 

except in Adaptive Management Areas where research should be conducted to determine 

the role of fire in C. fasciculatum habitat (Seevers and Lang 1998, Seevers et al. 2005). 

Although only 7 populations were located, additional habitat exists and there is a relatively high probability that some populations were not detected. Hence, the proposed activities may negatively impact some C. fasciculatum individuals and/or habitat. Due to 

this species’ widespread distribution and high number of known occurrences both locally 

and across its range, impacts to undiscovered individuals or populations in the Butcherknife/Slate analysis area will not lead to federal listing. Thus, the proposed action may 

impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to the species.

Oregon fireweed (Epilobium oreganum) – Sensitive: E. oreganum is a narrow endemic; its range is restricted to serpentine wetlands and streamsides at low elevations in 

northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. In Oregon, known occurrences are restricted to Josephine County from a Cedar Log Research Natural Area (RNA) fen (included in the proposed project area) south to Oregon Mountain road (Wildwood 

Consulting 2007). E. oreganum occurs within the far north end of the project area within 

the RNA. The current proposed action includes a broadcast burn treatment which encompasses the E. oreganum population within Cedar Log RNA. 

A 1997 prescribed fire occurred at this same site and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) of 

Oregon monitored E. oregonum’s response for three years following the fire. After 3 

years, TNC recorded a ten-fold increase of E. oreganum stems in the burned plots and 

only a two-fold increase in their unburned control plots (Borgias and Biegel 1998, Borgias et al. 2004). Although monitoring was limited to one fire and a single E. oreganum 

population, their work suggests that E. oreganum may benefit from fire (Wildwood Consulting 2007). Although some individual plants and stems may be harmed or killed by 

fire, an overall net benefit to the population may occur over time. Thus, the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to the species; may have a net 

beneficial impact over time. 

86
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Mendocino gentian (Gentiana setigera) – Sensitive: G. setigera is a narrow endemic; 

its range is restricted to serpentine wetlands in far northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. In Oregon, most of the 52 recorded occurrences fall within Wild Rivers 

Ranger District on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (Wildwood Consulting 

2007). During field surveys, one new population of G. setigera was found in a newly 

discovered Darlingtonia fen near Ramsey Creek. A broadcast burn is proposed for this 

site. The following excerpt is a summary of what is currently known about fire in regards 

to G. setigera. This excerpt is from the Draft Conservation Stategy prepared by Wildwood Consulting (2007). 

“Large numbers of serpentine wetlands burned during the ~500,000 acre Biscuit 

Fire in 2002, and burn severity varied greatly among the wetlands (E. Frost and E. 

Jules, personal observation). In 2002, the Biscuit Fire burned a number of serpentine wetlands and rare plant populations that had been sampled previously by 

Frost et al.. (2002). In an attempt to capitalize on this baseline data, a post-fire 

Analysis conducted in 2004 compared overall species composition and abundance 

of the five rare taxa in burned versus unburned wetlands (Cramer et al.. 2005). 

Results suggest that, for the 26 sites sampled, fire had little or no significant adverse effect on individual rare species, but did influence several structural attributes of the habitat (e.g., reduced litter and shrub cover) and the relative abundance 

of some of the more common species associated with this community. For example, Darlingtonia californica showed a trend of reduced cover in 35 burned fens 

while several graminoid species appeared to be more abundant in burned fens. 

Overall, it was difficult to detect trends in rare species population due to the lack 

of permanent plot locations (Cramer et al. 2005).” 

As this summary suggests, extensive data lack regarding the specific response of G. 

setigera to fire. Nonetheless, the best available information suggests that G. setigera is 

unlikely to have a significant adverse response to fire. In the proposed action it is undetermined whether the broadcast burn will occur in the spring or fall. Historically this 

habitat would likely only have burned in the summer or fall. However, if a spring burn is 

prescribed, the surrounding habitat for this plant will likely be so wet that it won’t ignite 

during spring burn conditions and so G. setigera would likely be unaffected by a spring 

burn. Although some individual plants and stems may be harmed or killed by a fall burn, 

the population is not expected to significantly decline as a result of the prescribed fire. 

Thus, the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to the species. 

stipuled trefoil (Lotus stipularis) – Sensitive: L. stipularis is a perennial legume which 

is restricted in distribution to Josephine County, Oregon and the state of California where 

it occurs throughout. Habitat ranges from open forest, streamsides, ditches, chapparal, 

roads, roadsides and logged areas at lower elevations (Mullens and Showalter 2007). The 

Josephine County occurrences are limited to the Waters Creek, Butcherknife Creek and 

Slate Creek watersheds and an area north of the Rogue River (south and west of Roseburg). 

87
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Fifteen populations occur throughout the proposed project area along ridges mostly at old 

landings and roadsides; populations stop at the forest edge. Little is known about specific requirements for this species, but based on habitat, it is likely a disturbance dependant species and habitat will increase following implementation of the proposed activities. 

To protect the L. stipularis, only certain activities will be restricted, i.e., road/landing 

construction and slash piling. Other disturbances such as vehicle trampling and fire may 

damage individual plants, but won’t destroy entire populations. Thus, the proposed action 

may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to the species; may have a net beneficial 

impact over time.

b. Lichens: 

No sensitive lichens were found during field surveys and no effect is expected. 

c. Bryophytes: 

No sensitive bryophytes were found during field surveys and no effect is expected. 

d. Fungi: 

Field surveys were not conducted for fungi due to the unreliable above-ground presence 

of fruiting bodies from year to year. The mycelium (the non-fruiting portion of the fungus) is generally underground and remains undetected until it develops visible reproductive structures (fruiting bodies such as mushrooms, truffles, corals, puffballs, cups), or the 

substrate is disturbed, exposing the usually white mycelial mats (Cushman and Huff 

2007). Even with above-ground fruiting bodies present, their correlation with the extent 

and abundance of the fungal organisms underground is unknown (Straatsma and KrisaiGreilhuber 2003 cited in Cushman and Huff 2007). Fungal colonies can range in size 

from microscopic to many acres and can persist for years or decades (Smith et al. 1992, 

De la Bastide et al. 1994 and Bonello 1998 cited in Cushman and Huff 2007). 

No sensitive fungi are known to occur within the planning area, but habitat is present. 

The species suspected to occur are associated with forest floor litter, down woody material, host tree/shrub species, or a combination thereof. While these associations are 

known, details about the requirements for forest floor litter or down woody material for 

most fungal species are not well understood, and host specificity is not often known beyond the broad categories of conifers, hardwoods, or plant families within these categories (Cushman and Huff 2007). Hence, for the purpose of this B.E., the entire Douglas-fir 

mixed hardwood vegetation type is considered habitat for each fungal species suspected 

to occur within the area (this constitutes approximately 3900 of the 5834 acres within the 

planning area). Effects are displayed in Table 20. 

88
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Table 20. Effects to sensitive fungi within the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area. 

Activity 

An estimate 

of habitat 

impacted 

Potential direct effects to 

sensitive fungi 

Potential indirect and 

cumulative effects to 

sensitive fungi 

Broadcast 

burn 

2712 acres 

(4524 acres are 

planned for 

understory burn, 

but only 2712 

constitutes fungi 

habitat) 

Low intensity fire likely only 

affects the upper 5 cm of litter 

and its inhabitants. The majority 

of fungal species diversity 

resides in the mineral soil. 

Potential impacts include 

damage to the mycelial network, 

damage to host plants and 

changes in species diversity 

following fire. Degree of impact 

depends on the fire intensity and 

spatial extent of impact. 

The more intensely a fire burns, 

the greater the indirect impacts to 

overstory shade and quantity of 

litter, organic matter and large 

woody debris. Specific 

requirements for shade, litter, 

organic matter and woody debris 

aren’t known for each sensitive 

fungal species. High levels are 

probably more important to 

saprobic vs. mycorrhizal fungi. 

Loss of organics likely limits 

moisture retention capability for 

most fungal species. 

Pile 

burning 

1291 acres 

(actual burn piles 

would only 

occur upon a 

small portion of 

these acres) 

Concentrated burning can result 

in high burn intensity and 

greater changes in fungal 

diversity. Direct impacts 

include damage to the mycelial 

network occurring in the litter to 

depths w/in the mineral soil. 

Because the majority of fungal 

diversity resides in the mineral 

soil, more species have the 

potential to be negatively 

affected by pile burning than 

broadcast burn, however effects 

of piles are more localized. 

Loss of litter, organic matter and 

overstory shade will impact site, 

over the long-term resulting in 

reduced moisture retention and 

reduced likelihood of 

recolonization by non-weedy 

fungi. 

Road, and 

landing 

construction 

3 miles of 

temporary road 

construction & 6 

miles of 

reconstruction. 

Also, ~45 acres 

of landing 

construction 

Extent of impact typically 

localized. Direct impacts 

include damage to mycelial 

network, loss of host plants and 

loss of organic materials needed 

by fungi. 

Soil compaction typically results 

in reduced host root growth, 

reduced root tip availability for 

mycorrhizal fungi, and reduced 

organics needed by saprobic fungi. 

Over the long-term resulting in 

reduced moisture retention and 

reduced likelihood of colonization 

by non-weedy fungi. 

Machine 

chipping/ 

masticatio

n 

200 acres May damage mycelial networks. May damage or destroy duff and 

substrate layers on which fungi 

depend. Deposition of chipped 

material may result in an excessive 

increase in organic matter 

potentially altering duff and 

substrate chemistry (Cushman and 

Huff 2007). 

89
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Thinning 2712 acres Host trees and shrubs may be 

removed which could impact 

mycelial networks of 

mycorrhizal fungi. 

Solar radiation may increase 

resulting in a loss of moisture 

retention capability, thus altering 

fungal diversity. Changes in light 

reaching the understory may result 

seral stage changes which might 

affect fungal diversity and 

composition. 

A number of project design criteria inherent to the proposed action will minimize the 

above mentioned direct and indirect impacts to sensitive fungi (if present). For example, 

low intensity vs. high intensity broadcast burns are planned for the project area. In addition, many of the prescribed fires will likely be spring burns which are recommended for 

maintaining fungal diversity because they tend to be less intense (Cushman and Huff 

2007). Old previously compacted roadbeds will be reopened in lieu of new temporary 

road construction, thus limiting the actual net increase of effects associated with roads. 

Most landings created will consist of a series of road widenings vs. construction of large 

landings away from roads. Small widened areas along currently existing roads will confine these disturbances to areas which are already partially compacted and disturbed. 

Chipping and mastication will occur in early to mid-seral forest stands which probably do 

not provide prime habitat for sensitive fungi to start with. Proposed thinning prescriptions retain old and large trees and promote tree and shrub species diversity. Maintaining 

a diverse array of host species of varying size and age classes will tend to promote fungal 

diversity. Additionally, 1310 acres (22% of the planning area) will remain untreated. 

For the most part, untreated areas tend to be composed of mature to old growth forest 

habitat and represent the highest potential for sensitive fungi occurrence. Thus the proposed action will retain refugia for Sensitive fungi throughout the project area. Hence, 

although the proposed action may impact individuals or habitat, it will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or, cause a loss of viability to any sensitive 

fungal species. 

3. Invasive Plant Effects: 

The following invasive plants are documented in the Butcherknife/Slate analysis area: 

meadow knapweed (Centaurea debeauxii), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan 

blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), cutleaf blackberry (Rubus laciniatus), diffuse knapweed 

(Centaurea diffusa), St. Johnswort/Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum), Dyer’s woad 

(Isatis tinctoria), everlasting peavine (Lathyrus latifolius) and rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla 

juncea). None of these species have been successfully eradicated locally, but careful mapping and control of select species has occurred over the last decade. Of the 9 above-named 

species, only 4 are presently targets for active control efforts by Wild Rivers Ranger District 

(meadow knapweed, diffuse knapweed, Scotch broom and Dyer’s woad). The other 4 species are either too well established (ie, St. Johnswort) or ineffective to control without herbicides (ie, Himalayan, cutleaf blackberry rush skeletonweed and everlasting peavine). The 

Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest is not currently authorized for 

herbicide use. 

90
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Most documented infestations are currently restricted to the roadsides and similarly disturbed 

habitats such as old landings; no invasive plants are documented within the interior of old 

plantations or unmanaged stands (with the exception of Himalayan and cutleaf blackberry 

which are prevalent at the lowest elevations and close to boundaries with private land). Well 

enforced and well implemented mitigations, including equipment washing and avoiding 

spread from known sites, would greatly minimize the risk of invasive plant introduction and 

establishment within the currently uninfested habitats. Likewise, well implemented road 

work mitigations such as blading into vs. through known sites, use of weed free gravel and 

coordinated disposal sites would minimize the risk of spread along roadsides during road 

maintenance, construction and reconstruction. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects from No Action: A wide variety of mechanisms 

unrelated to the proposed project activities are expected to introduce and spread invasive species throughout the analysis area. I.e., many roads are used regularly by the public (often 

coming from highly weed infested valleys) during both dry and wet season conditions (seeds 

are most readily transported on muddy tires). Thus, weed seed is expected to spread readily 

as it is transported on vehicles and deposited along roads. Additionally, a certain level of off 

road vehicle use is expected and is a common cause of invasive plant introduction and spread 

beyond the road prism. Finally, introduction and spread of invasive species by animals, 

wind, water and gravity may also occur. Nonetheless, because the proposed action would result in a net increase of freshly maintained roads, new temporary roads, skid trails and landings, risk of invasion is greater under the proposed action vs. the no action alternative. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action: Overall, implementation of the proposed activities will result in a net increase in highly disturbed habitats, such as 

newly maintained roads, new temporary roads, skid trails and landings. The result of creating more highly disturbed habitats is a measurable increase in vulnerability to invasion and 

establishment by invasive plant species. Vulnerability would lessen over time following native grass seeding by the Forest Service, and natural revegetation processes. However, monitoring is the activity most critical to preventing invasion. Monitoring allows workers to 

identify and remove infestations while they are small and easily treated. If infestations are 

left undetected and untreated it is likely they would become established, build a soil seed 

bank and become increasingly difficult to control. In turn, establishment of invasive plants 

across an increasingly large area may disrupt herbivore/plant ecological relationships, alter 

mychorrhizal fungi/plant interactions, alter fire behavior, create cascading effects on plant 

and wildlife, and damage ecosystem function through alteration of soil and hydrologic properties (USDA Forest Service 2005). 

G. Vegetation 

Joel T. King, Forester, has prepared an assessment that forecasts impacts resulting from proposed 

activities upon vegetation, should the Butcherknife/Slate proposal be implemented. His information was completed on October 7, 2008, and the entire report is included in the Analysis File for 

this EA. 

91
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

There are a number of issues associated with other resources or values where vegetation conditions play a key role. Vegetation analysis will focus on two issues: seral stage conditions and 

long-term forest health. 

1. Seral Stage Effects: 

A diversity of seral stages is necessary to maintain essential ecosystem processes. Stand condition or stand age distributions that are in some sense balanced on local or landscape scales 

provide a range of seral stages and stand conditions and a variety of wildlife habitats and are 

an essential part of long-term sustainability of both commodity and non-commodity values 

(Curtis et al. 1998). 

Direct and Indirect Effects: The seral stage mix and stand conditions in forest stands 

would not change from implementation of the Action Alternative. The density management 

harvest types generally have little effect on the seral stage, but instead reduce the number of 

trees just enough to provide for optimal growth of residual trees. 

The prescribed fire on the serpentine/peridotite and meadow areas would improve the quality 

of early seral habitat in these areas. The restoration of these areas would assist the recovery 

of these areas from the effects of fire suppression. 

The Action Alternative would not change the current amount of late seral conditions within 

the Study Area. It would, however, accelerate the development of large trees in early and 

mid seral stages. 

There are a number of issues associated with other resources or values that may result as an 

indirect effect where vegetation conditions play a role. For example, vegetation activities 

may affect wildlife. These issues are addressed in other sections of this EA relating to the resource or value associated with the issue such as wildlife, soils or economics. 

Cumulative Effects: All cumulative actions assume that no other (reasonably foreseeable) 

vegetation management or other actions with a measurable adverse effect would occur, other 

than that being proposed under Butcherknife/Slate, for the next ten (10) years on the lands in 

this watershed administered by the Forest Service. If vegetation management is proposed in 

the future, there is no reasonable way to predict what methodology or consequences those future actions would be at this time. Any proposed action beyond the 10-year timeframe would 

have to consider (presumably under a NEPA process) the current conditions at that time, created by actions at this time. 

2. Effects on Forest Health 

Activities associated with the Proposed Action would not affect the current mix of seral 

stages and would affect the long-term health of forested stands. “Forest health” is a relative 

term. It depends not only on the capabilities of the ecosystem but also on human values and 

objectives. Whether or not a forest is unhealthy depends upon the cultural lens that influ92
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

ences how we think. “Forest health” can mean many different things to many different people, so it is imperative that the term is defined before any meaningful discussion can occur. 

In 1995, Jack Ward Thomas gave this useful definition: Ecosystem health incorporates resiliency and diversity of composition, structure, and function - - including the variety of genes, 

species, plant and animal communities, and the processes that connect them through time. 

So, active forest management to maintain forest health is rooted in the concept of land health 

and reflects a condition where biotic and abiotic influences do not threaten capability of attaining resource management objectives - - now or in the future. A healthy forest is one that 

is a fully functioning community of plants and animals and their physical environment. Such 

is more than “tree health” or even of “stand health.” In this concept, fire, insects, and disease 

(at appropriate levels) are components of healthy forests. These appropriate levels are defined by the human objectives of management and by the feasibility of management actions. 

The “objectives of management” for the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area are described by 

the Management Area Strategies associated with land allocations from the Siskiyou National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989b), as amended by 

the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994b). Two foundational objectives that relate directly to vegetation and forest health include managing for biological diversity and managing 

for sustainability. 

Activities associated with the Proposed Action, (location, extent, and type of treatments) may 

affect the long-term health of forested stands, insect populations and blister rust. Silvicultural systems can be used as a tool to modify forest stands in the Study Area to meet land 

management objectives. These objectives include, among others, (1) the improvement of 

overall forest health by stimulating natural processes that encourage more stable and resilient 

forest vegetation conditions including larger trees, (2) management and improvement of 

stand densities and species composition in overstocked natural and created sapling and pole 

stands, and (3) reducing fuel loads while providing a yield of commercial timber and other 

commodities, in concert with land management allocation and direction. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Stand manipulation techniques proposed under 

the Action Alternatives include density management of overstocked stands. Other associated 

projects include density management of small diameter stands for forest health and future 

stand development. 

The white oaks, black oaks, sugar pine, and ponderosa pine are experiencing high rates of 

mortality due to the ingrowth of Douglas-fir due to fire suppression. Without silvicultural 

treatments, many other stands could potentially be in this situation. In addition, a number of 

stands have insect and disease pathogens, as well as other diseases that threaten the capability 

of achieving management objectives for those stands. 

Careful design and implementation of protective measures can minimize potential tree or 

stand losses from disease agents. Variation in age and distribution patterns that maintain a 

mixture of species would provide a broad base of ecosystem resilience to changing environments and threats from insect and disease. 

93
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Forest management activities have direct effects on the vegetative composition and successional pattern of the forested landscape. The changes resulting from management at the 

stand level affect both the diversity of species, and can affect the mosaic of successional 

stages across the landscape. Management activities can be designed to emulate natural disturbances. The extent to which silvicultural systems regenerate stands, maintain stand structure and vigor or thin portions of the forest determines the potential for and frequency of 

future disturbances. 

Silvicultural systems can also be used to meet wildlife habitat objectives associated with biological diversity. Timber harvest and other vegetative manipulation impact short- and longterm habitat requirements of species that inhabit all portions of the forest. 

Alternative 1, No-Action: This alternative proposes no silvicultural management activities 

for the decade. Processes associated with naturally occurring succession, in the absence of 

fire, would continue. The current mix of seral stages would remain the same. Forest health is 

anticipated to continue to decline due to those areas that are overly dense, affecting growth. 

Mortality would continue in and around black oaks, white oaks, sugar pines, and ponderosa 

pines. A higher risk of stand replacement wild fire with resulting early seral stages would 

exist due to the high existing fuel loadings and high tree densities. 

Alternative 2, Proposed Action: The consequences on seral stage composition would be no 

change of areas especially in a late seral condition. The effect on forest health would be increased stand vigor, species diversity (especially oaks and pines) and structural diversity on 

approximately 2,712 acres, through the application of density management treatments. A 

lower risk of stand replacement wild fire with resulting early seral stages would exist due to 

the reduction of existing fuel loadings and tree densities over a large portion of the planning 

area. 

H. Fish 

An assessment that forecasts impacts to threatened and sensitive fishes have been prepared by 

Ian S. Reid, Fisheries Biologist, for the Butcherknife/Slate proposal. His report, titled Fish Biological Evaluation, which was completed on October 7, 2008, is included in the Analysis File for 

this EA. What follows are the findings made in the Fish Biological Evaluation. 

1. Impacts to Threatened and Sensitive Fish: 

One threatened fish species, coho salmon, is found inside the project area in Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks. A sensitive fish species, Chinook salmon, is found inside the action area in Slate Creek but downstream of the project area according to summer snorkel 

survey data. No proposed or endangered fishes are found in the analysis area. 

94
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

a. Coho salmon (Threatened) 

Coho salmon in the Rogue River basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), and were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act on 6 May 1997. Critical habitat was delineated 

by NOAA Fisheries on 5 May 1999, and includes all streams within the Project area that 

are accessible to the species. Abundance of the SONCC ESU has declined from an estimated 150,000 to 400,000 native fish to about 10,000 wild fish (Federal Register 1999) 

because of overharvesting, habitat degradation and loss, and hatchery interactions (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Within the Rogue River basin, recent population estimates of wild 

coho salmon have ranged from 1,261 fish in 1993 to 12,213 in 2001 (ODFW 2004). 

The Slate Creek subwatershed is an important area for threatened coho salmon spawning 

and rearing. Vogt (2004) estimated about 22 miles of coho salmon use in the Slate Creek 

subwatershed. The subwatershed produced an average of about 100 coho salmon smolts 

per mile (about 2,200 total smolts) of available habitat during a smolt production study 

between 1999 and 2004 (Vogt 2004). Based on land ownership and stream morphology 

patterns, it is likely about 15 to 30 percent of this annual production (330 to 660 smolts) 

is attributable to streams managed by the Forest Service in the Slate Creek subwatershed. 

b. Chinook salmon (Sensitive) 

Chinook salmon in the Rogue basin are part of the Southern Oregon Northern California 

Coastal (SONCC) ESU, and were not warranted for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act on 9 September 1999. Essential fish habitat for SONCC Chinook 

salmon is identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Most Rogue River basin Chinook 

salmon have a four to five year life cycle, spending three to four years in the ocean and 

less than a year in freshwater (Groot and Margolis 1998, Jacobs 2003). The Rogue River 

basin contains both fall and spring Chinook salmon runs, and the lower Applegate River 

watershed and Slate Creek subwatershed contain primarily fall Chinook salmon, which 

spawn in the fall, hatch in late winter, and enter the estuary by the following fall. 

Fall Chinook salmon is often the most abundant salmonid in the Rogue basin with recent 

annual estimates ranging from 150,000 to 291,000 wild adults (Jacobs 2003), although 

recent years have seen a sharp and significant decline in Chinook salmon runs along the 

Pacific Northwest coast. Slate Creek is an extremely important spawning tributary for 

Chinook salmon. In 2004, population estimates were about 159,000 juvenile Chinook 

salmon produced in the Slate Creek watershed (Vogt 2004), one of the highest densities 

observed in the Rogue River basin during a 5-year study. Vogt (2004) also estimated fall 

Chinook salmon use approximately 14 miles of spawning habitat in Slate Creek and its 

tributaries. It is unknown if Chinook salmon spawn within the project area, although they 

do spawn or rear on Forest Service land in Waters Creek, another large Slate Creek tributary outside the project area. 

95
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

c. Effects Discussion: 

While many uncertainties exist about effects of wildfire to fish (see Bisson et al. 2003), in 

general, direct or short-term physical effects from large scale wildfire can include reduction in ground and canopy cover and an increase in water temperature, erosion and sedimentation rates, and changes in pH and chemical concentrations (Rieman and Clayton 

1997, Benda et al. 2003). These physical effects can be manifested in fish individuals 

and populations by altered behavior, reduced fitness, and subsequent declines in population abundance and distribution. Conversely, wildfires can improve fish habitat and increase fish production through increased input of large wood, gravels, and nutrients 

(Dwire and Kauffman 2003, Minshall 2003, Spencer et al. 2003). 

In Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains, summer water temperature increased as much as 10° C 

in small streams that were intensely burned by the Silver Fire and lost canopy cover 

(Amaranthus 1990). However, Amaranthus (1990) found water temperatures did not increase at the mouth of large, fish-bearing streams downstream of the fire area, possibly 

due to increased base flows or groundwater recharge. In Glade Creek, seven-day average 

maximum temperatures increased 0.7° C the summer following the Quartz Fire, while no 

increase was observed in an adjacent unburned watershed (Reid unpub. data). In Glade 

Creek, Sedell (2003) found an increase in large wood and bank instability, and a decrease 

in deep pool frequency the year following the Quartz Fire. 

Effects of fire-caused physical changes to fish populations vary based on fire intensity; 

physical watershed parameters such as geology, drainage density, slope, land management, precipitation, and vegetation; and connectivity and abundance of fish subpopulations (Rieman and Clayton 1997, Dunham et al. 2003, Kershner et al. 2004). Fish 

population abundance and distribution can decrease in the first or second year following a 

large wildfire, then increase to pre-fire levels or greater in the following years because of 

improved spawning and rearing habitats (Howell 2003). These responses were observed 

during recent large wildfires in Oregon's Siskiyou Mountains with juvenile steelhead in 

Silver Creek (Haspiel 1990) and rainbow trout in Glade Creek (Chambers 2003, Reid and 

Chambers 2005). 

Direct: 

No Action Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, no treatment would be conducted and risk of landscape level wildfire would be high. A high severity wildfire in the 

project area could have measurable adverse effects on soils and watershed properties (see 

Hydrologic Report for the Butcherknife/Slate Creek Project) while a large wildfire in the 

project area that removes soil and riparian canopy cover is likely to increase stream temperature and fine sediment production in Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks. These 

streams are currently well-shaded with low levels of fine sediment (Siskiyou Research 

Group 1999). 

Physical changes to stream habitat from a large fire could have negative effects on fish 

populations within the project area. There is also the chance of direct mortality from excessive stream temperature caused by the ambient heat of the fire. 

96
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Although natural input of large wood from burned snags and streamside slides after a 

wildfire could directly improve fish habitat in the project area, potential for increasing 

large wood density in the absence of wildfire is also high due to current management 

practices. Fish habitat structures have been added to Slate Creek in the past with mixed 

results (Siskiyou Research Group 1999) and current management practices preclude the 

removal of large wood from streams and large tree riparian timber harvest (USDA/USDI 

1994b). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): The proposed action would reduce risk large scale, high 

severity wildfire, thereby resulting in a long term positive trend toward watershed condition (see Hydrologic Report for the Butcherknife/Slate Creek Project). The proposed action would not significantly change erosion and sedimentation as a result of surface 

erosion following the projects in streams draining the project area. Using mitigation 

measures in the form of Best Management Practices would protect water quality (e.g. 

sediment, nutrients, pH, temperature) (see Hydrologic Report for the Butcherknife/Slate 

Creek Project). These Best Management Practices will include buffers of intact vegetation and duff layers that will separate the treatment areas from streams and trap eroded 

soil before it moves downslope into a stream channel. The project does not propose to 

treat moist riparian areas, or sensitive landslide-prone terrain, nor does it propose to build 

new roads. Because the proposed action avoids these activities, it also would likely have 

no measurable adverse effects on threatened or sensitive fishes within the action area. 

Further, because the project proposes to improve existing road conditions within the project area through road maintenance, stormproofing, or decommissioning this alternative 

would likely result in less long term sediment delivery than the No Action alternative. 

Also, because the project proposes to add fish habitat structures on several miles of 

stream, fish spawning and rearing habitat would be increased or enhanced. Installation of 

fish habitat structures would follow approved design criteria (NMFS 2007a) and if installed above the range of coho salmon would be expected to Not Adversely Affect the 

species. 

Indirect: 

No Action Alternative: Indirect effects related to the No Action Alternative include effects related to fire suppression such as fireline construction and aerial retardant application. Suppression activities from a large wildfire in the project area could result in input 

of fire retardants and construction of fire lines that also contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Fire retardants are toxic to many salmonids and have caused fish kills when 

applied to streams (Norris et al. 1991). 

Fire lines and other ground-disturbing suppression activities can have significant and 

long-lasting environmental effects, if not rehabilitated (Bisson et al. 2003). Although 

Forest Service policy is to not deploy aerial retardant within 300 feet of waterways when 

fighting fire, occasionally accidents happen that result in deployment to live streams and 

fish kills (e.g. Fall River, Deschutes County, Oregon). Recently, National Marine Fisheries Service found continued use of aerial retardants by the Forest Service was likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened fish species (including 

97
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

SONCC coho salmon) and was also likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of these endangered and threatened fish species, including 

SONCC coho salmon (NMFS 2007b). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Physical scientists predicted there would be no indirect 

adverse effects of the treatments on sediment delivery or shade (see Hydrologic Report 

for the Butcherknife/Slate Creek Project). Subsequently, there would be no indirect effects on fish from the proposed action. Because the project area would be more fire resilient the probability of using aerial retardant in the project area to fight wildfire would be 

decreased. Consequently, the risk of applying retardant to waterways and resultant fish 

kills would be substantially reduced. 

Cumulative: Within the project area, there are no other major activities being planned 

by the Forest Service. Downstream in the action area (lower Slate Creek subwatershed) 

land management activities and development will likely continue to occur on private 

lands. Examples of these in the Slate Creek subwatershed include clearing of land for agriculture and rural residences, road fill and stream bank stabilization along Highway 199, 

floodplain gravel extraction and development near the mouth of Slate Creek, potential 

timber harvest on BLM-administered and private lands in the subwatershed. 

No Action Alternative: The increases in erosion and sedimentation associated with a 

large wildfire could contribute to physical effects caused by other activities in the action 

area. Increased human development and resource management in the Slate Creek subwatershed will likely have adverse effects to fish and aquatic habitats within the action 

area depending on land and water use planning in the privately-owned valley bottom. 

 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Because there are no anticipated adverse effects from 

implementing the proposed action (particularly long term), there can be no cumulative effects from the action. Effects to fish and aquatic habitats from the proposed action would 

be negligible compared to current and predicted future effects from human development 

in the action area. Implementing the proposed action would reduce the risk of wildfire, a 

disturbance that could combine with other factors to reduce population viability of threatened and sensitive fishes in the lower Applegate watershed. 

2. Determination of Effects: 

No Action Alternative: Because it maintains the current condition, I find the No Action Alternative would have no effect to SONCC coho salmon and its Critical Habitat. I also find 

the No Action Alternative has no impact to SONCC Chinook salmon and would not adversely affect its essential fish habitat. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Based on a review of best available science, input from 

an interdisciplinary science team, and professional judgment, I find effects from the proposed 

action of the Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management Project would result in a short term 

may affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) determination for SONCC coho salmon 

and a may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend to98
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

wards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) determination for SONCC Chinook salmon. The proposed action also would not adversely affect essential fish habitat or critical habitat as designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

or Endangered Species Act respectively. These determinations were based on the prediction 

there could be slight and temporary increases in suspended sediment from road maintenance, 

log haul, or fish habitat structure installation. Project implementation would result in a longterm beneficial effect to coho salmon and beneficial impact to Chinook salmon by decreasing risk of high-severity wildfire. 

Section 7 Consultation: This project (and its analysis under the National Environmental 

Policy Act) is being authorized as a project under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. The 

Joint Counterpart Regulations of the Alternative Consultation Agreement between federal 

regulatory and land management agencies (50 CFR 402.04) were used to conduct required 

informal ESA Section 7 consultation. The journey-level biologist and line officer of record 

is Ian Reid and Joel King, respectively. Both have passed the required Joint Counterpart 

Regulations and Alternative Consultation Agreement examination. 

As proposed, this project is within the scope of, and will support, the National Fire Plan because this project employs fuels reduction efforts via the application of various time-tested 

and adaptive prescribed fire and thinning methods, e.g., brush and tree density management. 

The Proposed Action is designed to implement the recommendations as described in the Josephine County Integrated Fire Plan regarding the general location and basic method of 

treatments. The Not Likely to Adversely Affect effects analysis completed and documented 

in the fish BE/BA was done under the Section 7 counterpart regulations is in compliance 

with the March 3, 2004 Alternative Consultation Agreement between the Forest Service, 

FWS and NMFS. 

I. Wildlife 

Two reports that forecast impacts to wildlife species and habitats has been prepared by David A. 

Austin, Wildlife Biologist, for the Butcherknife/Slate proposal. His reports, titled Wildlife Biological Evaluation, which was completed on October 5, 2008, and Wildlife Specialist Report,

which was completed on October 22, 2008, are included in the Analysis File for this EA. What 

follows are the findings made in those reports for wildlife species of concern affected by the 

Proposed Action. 

1. Impacts to the Threatened Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina): 

Effects on Suitable Habitat: The 2006 Biological Assessment (BA)(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) developed Project Design Criteria (PDCs) for minimizing impacts to habitat and for the maintenance of suitable dispersal and nesting roosting and foraging habitat for 

spotted owls. When conducting activities within spotted owl dispersal habitat (small forest 

containing 10-21” dbh with > 40% canopy cover), the following Project Design Criteria 

(PDC) applies: 

99
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

“Maintain dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls: average canopy cover above 40% 

at the stand level, with some areas of less than 40% canopy cover. These areas with less 

than 40% canopy cover should be one acre in size or smaller and should be less than 30% 

of the entire stand. Maintain or develop trees with nesting/resting platforms, such as 

large limbs, forked tops, mistletoe brooms, and cavities.” 

When conducting activities in mature or old growth forest habitat (>21” dbh and > 60% cc: 

spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat definition), the following PDC applies: 

“Maintain average canopy cover above 60% at the stand level, with some areas of less 

than 60% canopy cover. These areas with less than 60% canopy cover should be one 

acre in size or smaller and should be less than 30% of the entire stand. Canopy cover 

goals are designed to prevent adverse effects to spotted owls. Maintain or develop trees 

with nesting/resting platforms, such as large limbs, forked tops, mistletoe brooms, and 

cavities (ROD 1994, p. B-1 to B-4).” 

Effects from No Action: Implementation of No Action would have no negative or positive 

direct effects for the northern spotted owls or their habitat. Since no activities would occur, 

habitat conditions would remain the same as the current condition. There would be no 

changes in stand structure or prey base and no disturbance caused to those sites within 1⁄4 

mile of proposed activities (Ramsey Creek and south boundary sites). However, implementing No Action is expected to have negative indirect and cumulative effects from an expected 

higher risk of loss of habitat due to large-scale fire. 

The risk of a large scale fire by not treating hazardous fuels now would increase. If allowed 

to continue to build up, those areas where higher fuel loads occur would have a higher risk or 

potential to ignite over those with treated areas. The risk of a stand replacing event is greater 

than if treated. These areas would also burn with a higher intensity and a longer duration 

than treated areas due to the heavier fuel loads. This more intensive burning would cause a 

stand replacement event, which would consume all of the stands currently present. In addition, prey populations would also be negatively affected since the higher burn intensity 

would remove more vegetation and have more direct impact on prey populations with a faster 

rate of spread (smaller mammals would not be able to escape flame front). 

Without a reduction in fuels, a fire would have more potential to spread either from outside 

from private lands into the adjacent stands on forest lands since there would be no buffer or 

fuel break to prevent it from spreading. This has the potential to affect more area, and to affect those owl sites farther from the Butcherknife/Slate analysis area boundary, within the 

Waters Creek and Clear Creek drainages, and upper Slate Creek north of the old Buckeye 

Mine site (outside the analysis area). Therefore, the determination for the No Action on 

northern spotted owl is: may effect, likely to adversely affect (LAA) due to the higher risk 

of a stand replacing event which would remove suitable habitat within the analysis area. This 

would only occur if no subsequent treatments are proposed and a stand replacing event occurs. If it does not occur, there would be no effect. 

100
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Direct Effects on Habitat – Proposed Action: With the above listed PDCs in place, the 

2,711 acres of suitable habitat affected in those stands proposed for vegetation density management and fuel treatments would be maintained. However, the proposed treatment activities may modify or degrade suitable habitat to unsuitable in the short term, due to the 

silvicultural prescriptions needed in order to reduce heavy fuel loads and promote larger tree 

diameter growth within current dispersal and nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF) habitat areas 

in the analysis area. Table 21 displays the proposed activities and number of acres of suitable habitat affected by density management and prescribed burning activities. 

Table 21: Acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat affected by proposed treatment activities within the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area. 

Proposed Treatment Acres 

Treatment 

type 

Dispersal 

Maintained 

Dispersal 

Degraded* 

NRF 

Maintained 

NRF 

Degraded* Totals 

No Treatment 160 0 864 0 1024

Small-sized Density 

Mgmt with understory 

burning 

37 0 0 50 87

Density Mgmt with 

burning 

554 0 0 979 1533

Understory burning only 24 0 43 0 67

Totals 775 0 907 1029 2711

* Degraded means the habitat still functions as suitable habitat but its value is lessened for the 

described use since canopy cover remains above 40%, but below 60%. 

Approximately 775 acres of dispersal habitat is present within the analysis area. No treatment would occur on 160 acres of this habitat type. About 24 acres would receive only understory burning activities. The other 591 acres would be maintained (> 40% of canopy 

closure retained) by vegetation density management activities. About 37 acres of the 591 

acres will be treated by the small-sized vegetation density management treatments, including 

understory burning activities. The remaining 554 acres of dispersal habitat would be maintained (> 40% of canopy closure retained) by the proposed larger-sized density management 

treatments to reduce fuel loading and promote the growth of selected pines, hardwoods, larger Douglas-fir, etc. Thus, all the dispersal habitat within the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis 

Area is expected to be maintained at > 40% canopy closure by all treatments types proposed. 

Approximately 1,936 acres of NRF habitat is present in the analysis area. No treatment 

would occur on 864 acres of this suitable habitat type. About 43 acres would receive only 

understory burning activities. An estimated 979 acres of NRF habitat would receive vegetation density management treatments that would reduce canopy closures below the required 

60% level down to > 40%. This is necessary in some places in order to reduce fuel loading 

and promote the growth of larger pines, hardwoods, etc, including understory burning activities. Approximately 50 acres is proposed for the small-sized vegetation density management 

treatment which also would reduce the foraging habitat 60% canopy closure down to > 40% 

of canopy closure. Within the WUI the goal under the HFRA direction is to reduce fuel 

loading in the 1.5 mile area adjacent to the Forest boundary. This reduction in vegetation 

cover is necessary in the short term in order to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in the long101
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

term. This short term reduction in canopy closure is expected to close back to 60% within 

ten years (Bellville personal communication 2008). 

The expected outcomes are a lower risk of catastrophic fire with reduced fuel loads, lower 

burning intensities with less fuel loads and less ladder fuels, and greater ability to either contain a fire within the area or keep a fire from spreading into the area with created /treated fuel 

breaks. Since the proposal downgrades currently suitable NRF habitat, the Proposed Action 

would have a may effect, likely to adversely affect (LAA) determination for effects to owl 

habitat for the short term (less than 10-15 years). However, since the proposed treatments 

are expected to decrease the risk of catastrophic fire, and is expected to promote the growth 

of larger trees in the stands quicker than if left untreated, and should provide more habitat diversity with increased growth in tree species, the Proposed Actions may have a long term 

beneficial effect to spotted owl habitat. 

Direct Effects on Habitat within Spotted Owl Core Areas – Proposed Action: There are 

two spotted owl core areas (#303 and #BKS-08) affected by the proposed vegetation density 

management activities. Effects to the amount of habitat affected within these two owl sites is 

presented in Table 22. Owl site BKS-08 is located within 1⁄4 mile of the forest boundary and 

does not currently, nor will it in the future, the necessary amount of habitat required within 

1.3 mile home range area for owls. Site #303 is located within 1⁄2 mile of the forest boundary 

and has a similar but less restrictive problem. 

Table 22: Acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat within Core Areas 

affected by proposed treatment activities within the Butcherknife/Slate 

Analysis Area. 

300m / 70 ac Owl Site 303 Owl Site BKS-08 

Pre-Action Acres 40 59 

Patch Area Action Acres 0 0 

Post-Action Acres 40 59 

.5 mi / 500 ac 

Pre-Action Acres 212 262 

Pre-Action Percent 42 52 

Action Acres w/in .5 mi 14 37 

Post-Action Acres * 198 225 

Core Area 

50% needed 

Post-Action Percent 40 45 

1.3 mi / 3340 ac 

Pre-Action Acres 1870 1513 

Pre-Action Percent 56 45 

Action Acres w/in .5 mi 131 299 

Post-Action Acres * 1739 1214 

Home Range 

40% needed 

Post-Action Percent 52 36 

* Does not include degraded habitat, which still functions as suitable habitat, but its 

value is lessened for the described use. Canopy cover remains above 40%, but below 

60%. 

The core area for Site #303 is currently below (at 42%) the required 50% minimum suitable 

acreage. The 14 acres proposed for treatment are to create the Fuel Management Zone 

(FMZ) that traverses along Forest Service Roads (FSR) 2500 to reduce fuels along the ridge 

running the length of the analysis area from the Forest Boundary to the west edge, reducing 

102
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

the overall percentage to 40%. However, the home range acreage for this site is currently 

well above ( at 56%) the minimum 40% required; and after treatments on 198 acres, will still 

be at 52%, thus this site should be able to be maintained after the treatments occur. 

The core area for Site BKS-08 (new site found in 2008) is currently above (at 52%) the 

minimum suitable acreage. The 37 acres proposed for treatment in this core area again are to 

create the Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) that traverses along Forest Service Roads (FSR) 

2500 to reduce fuels along the ridge running the length of the analysis area from the Forest 

Boundary to the west edge, reducing the overall percentage to 45%. The home range acreage 

for this site is currently above (at 45%) the minimum 40% required; and after treatments on 

299 acres, mostly occurring in the Butcherknife Creek to the north and northeast, will drop to 

36%, below the required 40%. In order to maintain the minimum required 40%, at least 

1,336 acres of suitable NRF habitat needs to be maintained. 

In order to maintain the required minimum threshold 40% suitable habitat within a known 

owl’s home range would require either not conducting vegetation density management treatment on 122 acres (of the 299 acres), or if treating, then maintaining on those 122 acres a 

minimum > 60% of canopy closure. 

Indirect Effects – Proposed Action: Some indirect impacts from smoke or noise disturbance could occur from the proposed activities, especially if activities are implemented during the breeding season for owls. These impacts can be reduced by applying the Project 

Design Criteria (PDCs) from the BA/BO. 

Fuel reduction activities can have short term (less than 5 years) adverse impacts on prey species and foraging and dispersal habitat given the removal of nature of the fuel reduction removing vegetative cover for small mammals. However, the reduction of hazardous fuel 

loads in these areas is designed to reduce the long term risks associated with wildland fire in 

the area; such as reducing the risk of a stand replacing event. This reduction in risk from 

stand replacing events is expected to have a long term beneficial effect to spotted owls and 

habitat. 

Disturbance from density management, surface fuels and burning activities can be minimized 

and adverse effects from disturbance and smoke avoided to spotted owls during the breeding 

season by applying seasonal restrictions. The seasonal restriction period for protection of 

breeding owls, as well as distance limits for various activities, is listed above in Chapter II. 

The seasonal restriction may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive status 

surveys conducted according to the FWS-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls 

are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 

of the following year. Previously known sites/activity centers are assumed occupied unless 

protocol surveys indicate otherwise. With the use of a seasonal restriction, the project has a 

determination of no effect (NE) for disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects – Proposed Action: According to the Recovery Plan for the Northern 

Spotted Owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) a scientific panel of expert stated that 

“past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and competition from barred owls are the most103
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

pressing threats to the spotted owl, even though timber harvest recently has been greatly reduced on Federal lands [pages 7 and 8].” The panel noted that evidence of these three threats 

is presented in the scientific literature. The range of threat scores made by the individual 

panelists was narrowest for barred owl competition and slightly greater for habitat threats, 

indicating that there was more agreement about the threat from barred owls. The panel identified disease and the effect of climate change on vegetation as potential and more uncertain 

future threats. 

It is the Service’s belief that the threat from barred owls is extremely pressing and complex, 

requiring immediate consideration. Barred owls have been found in all areas where surveys 

have been conducted for spotted owls. Consequently, the Service assumes barred owls are in 

all areas occupied by resident, dispersing and displaced spotted owls. Addressing the threats 

associated with past and current habitat loss must be conducted simultaneously with addressing the threats from barred owls. Addressing the threat from habitat loss is relatively 

straightforward with predictable results. However, addressing a large-scale threat of one raptor on another, closely related raptor has many unknowns and has never been attempted 

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). 

A similar barred owl-spotted owl interaction in sections 23/24 in 2008 on National Forest 

lands was also experienced on Bureau of Land Management-administered lands directly east 

of the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area, in Cheney – Slate Analysis Area on the Grants Pass 

Resource Area. 

An aggressive barred owl on spotted owl interaction was recorded approximately 5 miles to 

the east of the interaction on National Forest land; and about the same time period (last week 

of May during a spotted owl survey). This information has been provided to Dr. Eric Forsman and Oregon State University for review and study (R.Snider, (GPRA-MFO) BLM, unpublished report 2008). 

Further, to not increase competitive pressure while the threat from barred owls is being addressed, the Recovery Plan recommends maintaining older, multi-layered forests outside of 

the MOCAs on Federal lands in the Provinces west of the Cascades crest, such as those older 

growth stands found in the Butcherknife/Slate Creek analysis area. There are seven of these 

stands within the analysis area that were not identified for vegetation density management or 

fuel reduction treatments, thus will be managed as mature or old growth stands for approximately 500-600 acres. 

With the implementation of treating hazardous fuel, the risk of a stand replacement event 

would be reduced from no action taken. The spread of a fire from private land onto federal 

land would be reduce and possibly stopped since fuel loads would be lower on federal, would 

burn with lesser intensity, and could be control easier due to the lesser intensity. This would 

prevent the fire from spreading outside of the Butcherknife/Slate Creeks Analysis Area 

boundary, thus not affecting those KOAC sites within the next 3 miles (as mentioned under 

No Action). Thus, the Proposed Action alternative has a possible long term beneficial effect

to the northern spotted owl. Other projects in the vicinity of Butcherknife/Slate Analysis 

104
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Area by the Forest Service are the Waters Creek project (approximately 2,400 acres); which 

has been implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects the last 12 years. 

This analysis area contains similar habitat conditions and vegetation density and fuels management similar to that proposed in the Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area; much of the same 

silvicultural and wildlife habitat prescriptions are the same for both areas. It also contains 

approximately 250 acres of serpentine meadow. These meadows are not suitable spotted owl 

habitat nor would they become suitable due to the serpentine soils in these areas. 

The BLM is currently proposing a similar hazardous fuel treatment project and timber sale in 

their Cheney – Slate Analysis Area to the east of the Butcherknife/Slate Creek Analysis 

Area. There is one treatment area in section 19 (T.37S., R.7W.) which adjoins the Forest 

Service treatment area by Hayes Hill. The BLM sections are isolated parcels separated by 

private lands; the largest areas to be treated are either full sections to 1⁄4 sections (600 to 100 

acres) in size. 

Finally, meadow restoration projects in the analysis area total approximately 200 areas. 

These areas are treating the serpentine meadows by removing encroaching vegetation less 

than 8” dbh from within designated and proposed MA-9 meadows. 

Section 7 Consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service: If it is determined a proposed action “may effect” a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required. Because the determination for this 

proposal is may effect, likely to adversely affect (LAA) to threatened northern spotted owl 

habitat, the Joint Counterpart Regulations of the Alternative Consultation Agreement (ACA) 

between federal regulatory and land management agencies (50 CFR 402.04) can not be used 

to conduct Section 7 consultation even though the Butcherknife/Slate proposal is planned under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. 

Therefore, the Forest Service proposes to complete consultation for this project with the programmatic consultation through the Rogue River/South Coast; FY09-FY10 for Activities that 

may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for the Rogue River - 

Siskiyou National Forests, expected to be completed in October 2008. Until this BA/BO is 

signed, this project will follow the Project Design Criteria (PDC) and Terms and Conditions 

stated in the current programmatic consultation for the Rogue River/South Coast; FY06-08 

for Activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for the 

Medford District BLM and Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2006). This former Biological Opinion (BO #1-15-06-F-0163) and Letter of Concurrence (#1-15-06-I-0164) will be used for minimizing effects of the proposed action on northern spotted owl. 

105
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

2. Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife: 

a. Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) 

Effects from No Action: Implementation of No Action would have no negative or positive direct effects for the Pacific fisher. Since no activities would occur, habitat conditions would remain the same as the current condition. There would be no changes in 

stand structure or prey base and no disturbance caused to by the proposed activities in 

suitable habitat. However, implementing No Action may have negative indirect and 

cumulative effects from loss of habitat due to large-scale fire. 

The risk of a large scale fire by not treating hazardous fuel now would increase. If allowed to continue to build up, those areas where higher fuel loads occur would have a 

higher risk or potential to ignite over those with treated areas. The risk of a stand replacing event is greater than if treated. These areas would also burn with a higher intensity 

and a longer duration than treated areas due to the heavier fuel loads. Prey populations 

would also be negatively affected since the higher burn intensity would remove more 

vegetation and have more direct impact on prey populations with a faster rate of spread 

(smaller mammals would not be able to escape flame front). 

Effects from the Proposed Action: Direct impacts to fisher habitat from implementation of proposed treatments would be similar to those discussed under the northern spotted owl. Fishers use the largest live and dead trees for den and resting habitats; loss of 

these structures also reduces habitat quality for resident animals. Older trees must also 

have the types of structures that provide for den and rest sites such as cavities, rust and 

mistletoe brooms, and large, clumped branches. Field habitat analysis of the proposed 

treatment areas did not discover any suitable fisher denning habitat in the areas surveyed 

for northern spotted owl; however, not all treatment areas were surveyed, such as Ramsey 

Creek and Butcherknife Creek riparian areas. However, following the PDCs for spotted 

owl nesting, roosting and foraging habitat would minimize impacts to fisher denning 

habitat. 

Fuel reduction activities can have short term (less than 5 years) adverse impacts on prey 

species and foraging and dispersal habitat given the removal of nature of the fuel reduction removing vegetative cover for small mammals. However, the reduction of hazardous 

fuel loads in these areas is designed to reduce the long term risks associated with wildland fire in the area; such as reducing the risk of a stand replacing event. This reduction 

in risk from stand replacing events is expected to a have long term beneficial effect to 

fishers and their habitat. 

Disturbance from density management, surface fuels and burning activities can be minimized and adverse effects from disturbance and smoke avoided to fishers during the 

denning season by applying a seasonal restriction similar to that for the northern spotted 

owl. The determination of impacts from all activities associated with the Butcherknife/Slate proposal on the Pacific fisher is: may impact individuals or habitat, but 

106
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

b. black salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus)

Effects from No Action: Implementation of No Action would have no direct or indirect 

impacts since no activities would occur; no changes in habitat conditions. However, a 

negative cumulative impact is that without treating hazardous fuel in the vicinity of these 

areas, the risk of a catastrophic stand replacing event is not removed or lessened. Allowing a catastrophic event to occur could have longer term negative impacts due to higher 

burning intensities, faster rates of spread and large scale coverage than what the treatments under the Proposed Action create. 

Effects from the Proposed Action: Direct impacts to salamander talus habitat from implementation of proposed treatments can be reduced by applying the following Conservation Measures taken from the Conservation Strategy for Siskiyou Mountain salamanders 

(a similar species found in the Rogue River basin) (Olson et al. 2007): (recommended, 

not mandatory): 

• Maintain 40% canopy closure on the known site. 

• Avoid ground disturbing activities on 80% of the known site. 

• Habitat or ground disturbing activities and burning should occur when 

salamanders are not surface-active, which is from late spring through early 

fall (in fall, before 1.5 inches of rain falls), or when environmental conditions are "out of protocol" (e.g., in winter, after freezing, temperatures 

when animals are unlikely to be near surface). 

The impact determination for black salamanders is: may impact individuals or habitat, 

but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). This determination was made since habitat 

for the species is present; and the proposed vegetation density management and hazardous fuel reduction treatments may impact habitat for salamander, since both Ensatina and 

Del Norte salamanders are known to occur in the project area. 

c. foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Effects from the Proposed Action: Removal of some vegetation within riparian areas 

may impact a very small area of yellow-legged frog nesting habitat. The Rogue RiverSiskiyou National Forest has developed riparian guidelines for thinning and fuel treatments established for fisheries (USDA Forest Service 2006) and should be used to minimize impacts to these frogs and/or habitat. The upland treatment areas are not expected 

to cause impacts to habitat or individuals and like with the previous discussions, the reduction of hazardous fuel loads in these areas is designed to reduce the long term risks 

associated with wildland fire in the area; such as reducing the risk of a stand replacing 

event. This reduction in risk from stand replacing events is expected to have a long term 

beneficial effect to wildlife by retaining some vegetation and structure that would be lost 

during a stand replacing event. 

107
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Therefore, the determination of impacts from all proposed activities associated with the 

Butcherknife/Slate proposal on the yellow-legged frog is: may impact individuals or 

habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

d. northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata)

Effects from the Proposed Action: Removal of some vegetation within riparian areas 

may impact a very small area of turtle nesting habitat. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has developed riparian guidelines for thinning and fuel treatments established for fisheries (USDA Forest Service 2006) and should be used to minimize impacts 

to turtles and or habitat. The upland treatment areas are not expected to cause impacts to 

habitat or individuals and like with the previous discussions, the reduction of hazardous 

fuel loads in these areas is designed to reduce the long term risks associated with wildland fire in the area; such as reducing the risk of a stand replacing event. This reduction 

in risk from stand replacing events is expected to have a long term beneficial effect to 

wildlife by retaining some vegetation and structure that would be lost during a stand replacing event. 

Therefore, the determination of impacts from all proposed activities associated with the 

Butcherknife/Slate proposal on the northwestern pond turtle is: may impact individuals 

or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

e. Oregon shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta hertleni) and Chace sideband snail (Monadenia chaceana)

Effects from the Proposed Action: Impacts to these terrestrial mollusk species would 

be similar to those discussed above for the black salamander and yellow-legged frog. 

Since proposed fuel treatments will remove physically some or most of the low-lying 

vegetation in the proposed activity area, direct impacts to habitat and predicted mortality 

to individuals that may be present is expected during mechanical and prescribed burning 

activities. Direct and indirect impacts are changes to microclimate and expanding edge 

effect along the forested slope adjacent to areas of suitable habitat or individuals that may 

occur in the adjacent area. Cumulative impacts from this project are not expected. 

Therefore, the determination of impacts from all proposed activities associated with the 

Butcherknife/Slate Analysis Area on the Oregon shoulderband and Chace sideband snails 

are: may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

f. coronis fritillary butterfly (Speyeria coronis coronis)

Effects from the Proposed Action: The low elevation grasslands that this butterfly inhabits in the Illinois and Rogue valleys are threatened by urbanization, development, and 

agriculture (Hammond 2008). The proposed meadow restoration treatments may directly 

108
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

impact the larvae of this species during periods of prescribed broadcast burning activities; 

the removal of encroaching vegetation into meadows would have direct beneficial impacts to habitat by restoring grass areas lost to brush. Indirect impacts from disturbance 

caused by burning activities, such as the movement of adults out of the area during burning operations, would have short term negative impacts on this species but would provide 

long term beneficial impacts with the expected increase in forbs, flowers and nectar from 

shrubs, after activities have occurred. Currently, there are no conservation measures 

identified for this species as of August 2008 (Hammond 2008). 

Therefore, the determination of impacts from all proposed activities associated with the 

Butcherknife/Slate proposal on the coronas fritillary butterfly is: may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or 

cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). There is also a possible 

long term beneficial effect, due to expected expansion and increased suitability of habitat 

by treatment activities, within serpentine meadow areas. 

3. Impacts to Protection Buffer Species: 

Red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus): Surveys were conducted of the project area in 2002, 

2003 and again in 2008 under contract by Glen Wickes Forestry, Inc. Active nest sites were 

identified and verified (by climbing) using the 2002 protocol. A total of 900 acres was surveyed. There were 78 identified red tree vole nest trees found: 23 active nest sites; 28 confirmed nest trees; 27 were inactive, with an additional 44 unconfirmed nests. The 

determination for red tree vole (RTV) is May Impact Individual or Habitat (MIIH). Management Recommendations for RTV and mollusk should be followed for the known sites. 

In addition, a field trip in March 2002 by the some members of the taxa working group for 

RTV was conducted in the Waters Creek project area, adjacent to the Slate Creek portion of 

the project area. People included on this trip were Laura Finney (FWS), Carol Hughes 

(USFS R6), Lee Webb, Randy Miller, Mike Miller, David Austin (USFS ROR-SIS NF), and 

Diane MacFarlane (USFS R5). The group reviewed the mature forest habitat conditions present within the watershed. It was determined during this field trip that the Waters Creek and 

Slate Creek areas were marginal suitability for RTV given the mixed conifer-hardwood 

stands. The project area should not be given high priority for RTV management given better 

sites in Briggs Valley and other areas of the former Galice Ranger District. The PDCs for 

owl and habitats of concern will also provide additional protection for red tree vole. 

4. Impacts to Management Indicator Species: 

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the LRMP, eight Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) were selected to “act as barometers for the health of various habitats ... 

[USDA Forest Service 1989a, p. III-102].” These MIS represent all other wildlife species 

that utilize the same habitat type. The eight MIS are listed in Table III-28 (USDA Forest 

Service 1989a, p. III-102) of the LRMP FEIS and a summary of the effects of the project on 

each MIS are as follows: 

109
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

• The determination for bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is “no impact” due to no 

known nest sites and lack of large water bodies for foraging. 

• The determination for osprey (Pandion haliaetus) is “neutral” for the Proposed Action 

because no large bodies of water exist in the analysis area; therefore, ospreys are unlikely 

inhabitants of the analysis area. 

• The determination for northern spotted owl is “may effect, likely to adversely affect”

due to the altering of dispersal and foraging habitat. 

• The determination for the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is “may impact” 

for the Proposed Action, because some snag habitat would be removed if snag deemed 

safety hazard. 

• The determination for all other woodpeckers, which includes the downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), white-headed woodpecker, 

northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), acorn 

woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) and Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), is 

“may impact” for the Proposed Action, because some snag habitat would be removed if 

snag deemed safety hazard. 

• The determination of “may impact” for the American marten (Martes americana) is 

similar to fisher because denning, dispersal and foraging habitat is proposed to be altered 

by density management activities. 

• The determination for Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) 

and Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) are “beneficial” for all action alternatives, 

because deer and elk should benefit from thinning that increases the amount of grasses, 

forbs, palatable shrubs, and acorns from released oaks. Providing as much additional forage habitat within the five watersheds affected is the most desirable element that can be 

provided for big game habitat (Austin 2008 personal communication with Mark Vargus, 

ODFW). Due to the lack of recent forage opportunities on federal lands, this habitat 

component is below desired conditions. 

5. Impacts to Neotropical Migrant Birds: 

The effects upon neotropical migrant birds (NTMBs) are variable depending on the habitat 

associations of the individual species, but no more than “minimal” for any species. Effects 

to species are based upon effects to their habitat. It is expected that logging may remove 

some smaller snags and thus have a potential negative effect on cavity nesting birds in certain 

areas. However, analysis has shown that implementation activities are expected to leave 

amounts of dead wood sufficient for the needs of cavity-dependent species and, where 

needed, snags and down wood will be created (see above discussion). Overall, potential 

population numbers for grass and shrub nesting and foraging birds are expected to increase. 

110
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Fuel management treatments in grass and brush lands may have short-term negative affects 

(less than 5 years) on nesting habitat and food sources by reducing the amount and availability post treatment activities. Although prescribed burning would result in some indirect 

negative effects to neotropical bird habitat, it also provides beneficial effects by reducing 

risks to residual stands of late-successional habitat from high intensity fire. This will indirectly benefit those NTMBs that prefer old-growth and mature forest conditions such as the 

pileated woodpecker and Vaux’s swift. The action alternative which includes possible forage 

seeding will benefit NTMBs overall by increasing landscape level habitat diversity. 

Disturbance from operations and smoke during the nesting period is also a concern for 

NTMBs. Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in 

the project area that may be directly impacted by broadcast burning operations. Timing of 

operations should occur outside of the spring breeding/nesting season as much as possible 

(Feb-May). 

Because of the limited acres of dryland grass sites, the biggest concern with NTMB on National Forest lands may lie in degradation of riparian habitat and subsequent loss of brush 

cover favored by many species (Bock et al. 1993). Riparian habitat in the project area would 

not be appreciably altered or impacted by the proposed activities: see the mitigation measures 

for protection of riparian habitat. Since the majority of the species occupy or require a riparian habitat component; the proposed project would not be impacting this habitat type. 

Overall, potential population numbers for grass and shrub nesting birds are expected to increase. The long term impacts of fuel reduction may have beneficial impacts by maintaining 

grasses by reducing brush competition for available space. Another benefit is the creation of 

some snag trees (usually 1-2/per acre) caused by scorching from burning activities; although 

there are mitigations to help limit this, some may occur; thus creating some foraging and 

nesting habitat for woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters. For those species dependent 

on acorns, reducing conifer encroachment on oak woodlands helps to maintain and increase 

growth of oaks, thus benefiting bird foraging habitat. And lastly, the remnants of some unburned or partially burnt piles may benefit nesting and cover habitat in areas that currently 

lack these components. 

Bird conservation objectives are tied to focal species that represent habitat attributes and/or 

ecological functions of various forest age classes. For example, Vaux’s Swifts use large 

snags in old-growth systems, olive-sided flycatchers use residual canopy trees in early seral 

stages, and hermit warblers use the closed canopy in young to mature-aged forests. 

These habitats and their attributes, in certain quantities and combinations, should be maintained on landscapes in a shifting mosaic of conditions. Portions of the project area provide 

for nesting, dispersal, foraging, and cover for variety of bird species. 

Cumulative effects to NTMBs are variable depending on the habitat associations of the individual species and effects to habitats previously described. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from commercial thinning of younger forests; however, due to the limited 

amount of area affected by these projects, relative to the Forest, effects to NTMBs are expected to be minimal. 

111
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

J. Other Consequences 

The following summarizes additional consequences related to the human environment that we 

identified during this environmental review. These determinations are not linked to significant 

issues or specific resource concerns identified for this proposal but potential for effects in these 

matters are worthy of deliberation and a specific conclusion. 

1. Relationship between local short-term use of the human environment and maintenance or enhancement of long-term productivity 

In the short-term, cutting and use of timber resources harvested from area stands is expected to 

modify the existing forest environment as a result of the Proposed Action (see sections A 

through I, above). However, effects upon long-term productivity to the forest and associated 

resources (soils, wildlife, etc.) are not expected as a consequence of harvest and burning operations or other related activities. 

2. Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources 

For the Proposed Action, the cutting of individual trees and the loss of wood production on those 

trees would be an irretrievable commitment of resources (that is, those trees cannot be put back 

after cutting but much of the wood production that would have accrued on the cut trees would be 

subsequently accumulated by trees remaining in the stand). On the other hand, should the No 

Action alternative be chosen, accelerated stand growth and tree size increases that could be realized during 10 or more years following thinning would be irretrievably lost, in the absence of 

taking action. Use of quarried rock (for road maintenance) and petroleum products (fuel, lubricants and paving binders) are two inconsequential (in comparison to total ongoing uses of these 

resources in Josephine County) but irreversible commitments of natural resources that would be 

realized with implementation of this project. 

3. Social/economic effects 

The availability of natural resources contributes to the quality of life for many Josephine County 

residents. Many communities are closely tied to the Forest for both work and recreation. These 

communities are directly influenced by changes in the supply of resources produced from the 

Forest or by forest production of firewood, game, scenery and recreational opportunities. Proposed treatments would offer greater opportunity for wildfire suppression and therefore reduced 

risk of structure losses for private homeowners residing in wildland/urban interface forests. 

4. Environmental justice 

Environmental Justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all 

populations are provided the opportunity to: 1), comment before decisions are rendered, 2), are 

allowed to share in the benefits of, 3), are not excluded from, and 4), are not affected in a dispro112
 Butcherknife/Slate Fuels Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

portionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting human 

health or the environment. 

The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives do not have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on any minority or low income populations or Indian Tribes. The Proposed Action 

and No Action alternatives do not have disproportionately high and adverse human health effects, disproportionately high or adverse environmental effects, or substantial environmental 

hazards/effects to differential patterns of consumption of natural resources that are correlated 

with particular population segments. Moreover, scoping did not reveal any issues or concerns 

associated with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation measures to offset or 

ameliorate adverse affects to these populations are identified. 

5. Effects on prime farmland, rangeland and forestland 

No prime farmlands or rangelands would be affected by the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives. Forestlands would be affected by the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives and 

those consequences have been identified during environmental review of this proposal and are 

revealed above in sections A through I. 

6. Effects upon wetlands and floodplains 

No floodplains, associated with Executive Order 11988, exist within the analysis area. All alternatives would constitute a "no effect" undertaking in relation to the Wetlands Executive Order 

11990 because no wetlands are involved. All alternatives would be in compliance with Riparian 

Reserve standards and guidelines and would allow attainment of the Northwest Forest Plan 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. 

V. EA PREPARATION and CONSULTATION

A. EA Preparers: 

The following Forest Service employees were instrumental in the inventory, analysis, documentation, compilation and editing work essential to preparation of this environmental assessment: 

Interdiciplinary Team Core Members 

David A. Austin, Wildlife Biologist 

Don Bellville, Prescribed Fire/Fuels Planner (Project Proponent) 

Maureen Joplin, Hydrologist 

Maureen J. Jules, Botanist 

Joel T. King, Soil Scientist/Forester/IDT Leader 

Dave Knutson, Archeological Technician 

Ian S. Reid, Fisheries Biologist 

John T. Wells, Environmental Coordinator (EA Compiler) 

113