Butcher Knife Slate 

Port-Orford-Cedar Report 

I. INTRODUCTION

Port-Orford-cedar is attacked by a non-native pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis (P. 

lateralis) which causes Port-Orford-cedar root disease. The spread of the pathogen is 

primarily influenced by human activities that move infested soil, organic material, or 

water. This analysis will use the Record of Decision and Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in 

Southwest Oregon (USDA-FS and USDI-DI 2004) direction to determine if live PortOrford-cedar is “measurably contributing to” meeting land objectives, Plant Association 

Group (PAG) along with stand exams other observations will be used to determine the 

ecological role of Port-Orford-cedar and its overall importance. Refer to Attachment 1-A 

for applicable direction for Port-Orford-Cedar Management as referenced in the ROD 

and FSEIS, Attachment 1-B for a glossary of terms, and Attachment 1-C for discussion 

on Pacific Yew. 

II. AFFECTED ENVIROMENT

A. Analysis Area: Port-Orford-cedar root disease is not located in the analysis area of 

Butcher Knife Slate project. Port-Orford-cedar exists within the project area in specific 

Plant Association Groups. The total analysis area and uninfested acres are estimated to be 

8,979 acres. 

 

Table 1: Overview of Port-Orford-cedar in Analysis Area 

Examined Area Port-Orfordcedar in 

Examined Area 

Port-Orfordcedar present 

Without P. 

lateralis 

Infested Areas 

of all risk levels 

within PortOrford-cedar 

Total Acres 8,979 507 507 0 

 

Plant Association Groups (PAGs): A function of Plant Associate Groups is used in 

determining if activities were neutral or beneficial to meeting management objectives. 

Plant Associations where Port-Orford-cedar is prominent in the overstory are defined in 

the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement-Management of Port-OrfordCedar in Southwest Oregon as the 59 plant associations with Port-Orford-cedar in their 

name, and 5 others where Port-Orford-cedar is common, occurring in the overstory data 

for the plant association at least 20 percent of the time (USDA USDI 2004). 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 1
The 20% figure was reduced to 10% based on a pervious analysis within the Biscuit 

Recovery Plan (June 2004). The project area has three major PAGs: Douglas-fir, 

Tanoak, and Ultramafic/Jeffrey Pine. 

Table four below is based on eco-plots analysis in the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project 

(2004). It is divided into three columns with Port-Orford-cedar measurably contributing 

to objectives, high or low risk and Port-Orford-cedar canopy closure. How the 

“Measurably contributes to” meeting objectives is defined, for this analysis, as PortOrford-cedar contributing at least 10% of total overstory cover, listed as canopy. 

Exceptions are noted by an asterisk and explained immediately below Table Two. 

Besides the habitat contributions of POC, the concept of risk of infection by P. lateralis) 

root disease must also be considered. The definitions for risk are defined in Attachment 

1-B. 

Table 2: Measurable Contribution; Risk Rating; Port-Orford-Cedar Canopy Cover 

Port-Orford-cedar 

Measurably 

Contribute to 

Objectives 

High or Low Risk** Port-Orford-cedar 

Canopy Cover % 

Douglas-fir/poison 

oak-warm (1407/08) 

No* High 16% 

Douglas-firchinquapin/salal 

Moist (1409) 

No* High 20% 

Tanoak-Moist 

(1502-04) 

Yes High 35% 

Ultramafic/Jeffrey 

Pine-SW Oregon 

(1201) 

Yes High 20% 

*Port-Orford-cedar provides at least 10% canopy cover and occurs on high risk 

sites, but the frequency of occurrence of Port-Orford-cedar in the PAGs based on ecoplots, (number of plots with Port-Orford-cedar and/or number of plots with overstory 

Port-Orford-cedar) is so low that it does not measurably contribute to meeting objectives 

across the landscape in these PAGs. 

**Risk of P. lateralis by PAG – High risk and low risk sites occur in all PAGs. In 

general, high risk sites occur in moist sites, however low risk sites can also be found. Site 

specific recon during implementation will be necessary to avoid high risk areas or to 

provide appropriate mitigation measures. Refer to Attachment 1-B for definitions of High 

and Low Risk. 

Roads: The analysis area contains a mixture of open roads, closed roads (gates or other 

forms of barricades), roads which have been decommissioned, and proposed temporary 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 2
roads/spurs. Roads are currently open year round and area expected to remain open for 

public/fire/administrative use. An estimated 29 miles of road are considered open (all 

ownerships and responsibilities) with an estimated 9 miles of unclassified road 

reconstruction, and temporary road landing spur construction proposed throughout the 

project. Current existing roads, although altered by one or more methods i.e. (sanitation, 

road clearing) are primarily in Tanoak-Moist and Douglas-fir Moist PAGs. Temporary 

roads/spurs contain a mixture of all PAGs within the project. 

Table 3: Miles of Classified Roads in the Project Area. 

5th field 

watershed 

Total Miles 

of access 

roads 

Miles of 

access road 

with PortOrford-cedar 

present 

Miles of 

access road 

with uninfested 

Port-Orfordcedar 

Miles of 

access road 

with infested 

Port-Orfordcedar 

Butcher 

Knife Slate 

29 1.1 1.1 0 

Seventh Field Un-infested Watersheds: Emphasis is on keeping P. lateralis out of 

currently un-infested 7th field watersheds. 

III. ALTERNATIVES

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered two alternatives which are Action and No 

Action. The proposed action (Action Alternative) has an estimated 2,612 acres of density 

management; this includes commercial thinning and small diameter thinning. The Action 

Alternative proposed a combination of harvest operations that would facilitate treatment. 

These operations include ground based, skyline and helicopter yarding systems. Specific 

landings sites have been identified and wash sites will be identified in the implementation 

phase. The following table outlines the proposed action’s division of unclassified roads 

(Temporary haul roads in either existing or new) and landings. 

Table 4: Proposed Action Alternative Road Access 

Roads miles 

Existing Road 

Maintenance 29 

New Road 

Construction 0 

Existing Road 

Template for Temp 

Road Haul (Closed 

after use) 

6 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 3
Temporary Road 

Stubbies (Closed after 

Use) 

3 

Permanent Road 

Decomission 0.33 

Road Closures 1.2 miles 

IV. APPLICATION OF RISK KEY

Application of the Risk Key (FEIS 2-18) based on Action Alternative 

Proposed Action (Action Alternative) 

1a. Are there uninfected Port-Orford-cedar within, near, or downstream of the activity 

area that’s ecological, Tribal, or product use or function measurably contributes to 

meeting land and resource management plan objectives? Yes. Based on GIS runs uninfected Port-Orford-cedar is distributed throughout the total analysis area and the 

existing haul road miles within the project. Within each 5th field watershed, PAGs are 

primarily associated within the Tanoak-Moist and ultramafic. The Tanoak and 

Ultramafic PAGs were identified to measurably contribute to land resource objectives. 

As projects are developed during implementation, additional site specific recon will be 

necessary to analyze Port-Orford-cedar stocking and distribution in relation to high risk 

sites (i.e. High risk sites occur in all PAGs. In the direr PAGs (Douglas-fir Dry, Douglasfir Moist, and Tanoak-Moist will primarily be located on high-risk sites. Streams, seeps 

and other moist micro-sites are the principal locations where Port-Orford-cedar can 

successfully compete with other vegetation in these PAGs). Mitigation measures will be 

based on site specific analysis.

1b. Are there uninfected Port-Orford-cedar within, near, or downstream of the activity 

area that, were they are to become infested, would likely spread infections to trees whose 

ecological, Tribal, or product use or function measurably contributes to meeting land 

and resource management plan objectives? Yes. Within or adjacent to planned activities 

the Tanoak-Moist, and Ultramafic PAGs were identified. All are considered to 

measurably contribute to meeting objectives and are considered a high risk. 

As projects are developed during implementation, additional site specific recon will be 

necessary to analyze Port-Orford-cedar stocking and distribution in relation to high risk 

sites. Factors affecting risk of spread will include: distance to nearest Port-Orford-cedar, 

host abundance, and catchment areas (Jules et al). Mitigation measures will be based on 

site specific analysis. 

1c. Is the activity area within a un-infested 7th field watershed as defined by Alternative 6 

of the 2004 FSEIS? Yes. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 4
2. Will the proposed project introduce appreciable additional risk into un-infected PortOrford-cedar? Yes. The FSEIS (Pg. 2-15) identified un-infested 7th fields watersheds 

throughout the range of Port-Orford-cedar for the objective of reducing the likelihood of 

the P. lateralis root disease becoming established. Within section IV overall management 

restrictions are identified that will be applied to potentially affected acres in order to 

reduce appreciable additional risk to Port-Orford-cedar from intervention and spread of P. 

lateralis root disease. Additional site specific recon will be necessary to analyze this risk 

to determine is mitigation measures would reduce the risk to an acceptable level based on 

actual site conditions. Information needed but not limited to would include actual amount 

of Port-Orford-cedar present, type of logging system including the need for additional 

spurs. The direction for management of Port-Orford-cedar on the Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest (USDA USDI 2004) provides direction for the management of PortOrford-cedar including the use of disease-controlling management practices. 

Synthesis of Risk Key Results and Recommended Disease Control Measures

Port-Orford-cedar is present at carrying levels within each PAG listed in this document 

including access and temporary/spur roads. Included within the Tanoak-Moist and 

Ultramafic PAGs have been identified. For this analysis, the Tanoak, and Ultramafic 

PAGs measurably contributes to meeting objectives and occurs on high-risk sites. These 

PAGs have the highest level of concern for retaining Port-Orford-cedar and should be 

prioritized for treatments1. 

Dry season operations should be used whenever possible for activities within high 

risk/high-value sites. Activities such as planting and pile burning that are normally 

implemented during wet seasons will be an exception to this however any wet season 

activities would be closely controlled and include mitigation measures that maintain a 

very low risk of spreading P. lateralis root disease. These mitigations would include 

scheduling activities to minimize movement between infested and un-infested areas and 

washing items that could transport spores, such as vehicles, planting tools, boots, etc. 

Each proposed project will have a site specific Port-Orford-cedar root disease control 

strategy developed during implementation to minimize the potential for spreading the 

pathogen while protecting healthy Port-Orford-cedar. 

 The following disease control measures guidelines are recommended individually or in a 

whole depending on site-specific projects developed for implementation. 

Port-Orford-Cedar Management and Mitigation of Pathogen Spread 

 

1

 It should be noted the High risk sites occur in all PAGs. In the drier PAGs (Douglas-fir-Dry, Douglas-firMoist, Tanoak-Dry, White Fir-Dry and Ultramafic), Port-Orford-cedar will primarily be located on highrisk sites. Streams, seeps and other moist micro-sites are the principal locations where Port-Orford-cedar 

can successfully compete with other vegetation in these PAGs. Mitigation measures will be used where 

appropriate to meet resource objectives regardless of PAG. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 5
To date, there are no infestations within the project area. If an unknown infested site is 

discovered, a number of management techniques are recommended for preventing spread 

of P. lateralis root disease or protecting un-infested areas. 

1) Project Work Scheduling / Sequencing 

Areas without P. lateralis infection will be treated first. This is to lessen the risk of 

spreading the pathogen. 

2) Logging Systems 

All logging systems 

Logs will not be dragged from areas infested with P. lateralis through areas uninfested 

with P. lateralis. This is to lessen the risk of spreading P. lateralis. 

All logging activities would be scheduled so that infested areas will be treated last. All 

mechanical treatments within non-P. lateralis areas will be completed prior to beginning 

any mechanical treatments in areas having P. lateralis. 

3) Vehicle/Equipment Washing 

Prior to entering a POC area or leaving a P. lateralis area, all vehicles, tractors, skidders 

and yarders involved in roadwork or harvest operations will be washed in accordance 

with the Forest Service Port-Orford cedar management guidelines. This includes 

washing every time a vehicle leaves an infested site or enters an uninfested site. Washing 

will occur at designated washing stations and must be approved by the Forest Service. 

Water used at these stations must come from a source approved by the Forest Service and 

or include treated water. In addition, access and egress routes as well as parking sites 

will require Forest Service approval prior to use. Vehicle parking would be restricted to 

existing road surfaces and turnouts. 

Vehicle and equipment washing, as described above, would not be required of site 

preparation crews. These users will have all access and egress routes as well as parking 

areas designated by Forest Service representatives. Failure to comply with identified 

travel routes and parking areas will result in the vehicle washing requirements for 

roadwork and harvesting being enforced for site preparation crews. 

4) Rain Events 

During periods of rainy weather, all operations will be discontinued unless approved by a 

Forest Service representative. An example of a rain event is when enough precipitation 

falls so that puddles appear on a road and/or, roadside ditches are running water and/or, 

soil moisture exceeds 20% (as measured by a Speedy moisture meter). Exceptions are 

listed below in Table 5. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 6
5) Seasonal Operation Restrictions 

Table five outlines the seasonal operating restrictions that would apply. Identified 

activities are precluded from operating during the restricted dates. 

TABLE 5: Seasonal Operating Restrictions 

Location Restricted Activities Restricted Dates 

(Restricted Activities 

not permitted during:) 

Reasons / Comments 

Uninfested 

Treatment Units 

All operations (including 

but not limited to logging, 

log hauling and roadwork) 

October 15 to June 15 

of following year. 

P. lateralis Control. Some variations of the 

dates depending on weather and soil moisture 

conditions. Due to the limited window for fuels 

treatments, these activities could occur between 

October 15 and May 15 provided unit scheduling 

is consistent with 1 and 3 above. 

Vehicle/equipment washing would then be 

required. 

Some variations in these dates would be permitted dependent upon weather and soil 

moisture conditions. 

6) Fuel Treatment and Prescribed Fire 

All water used in prescribed fire activities would come from a Forest Service approved 

source that does not contain PL. 

Understory Burning or Underburn (UB) is the application of prescribed fire within areas 

where residual trees and shrubs are present. Prescribed underburning is proposed to 

achieve fuel hazard reduction and POC management objectives in areas where P. 

lateralis has been identified. Prescribed underburning is designed to be a low to 

moderate intensity burn (surface temps up to 300 degrees C). Higher intensity would 

occur where greater amounts of woody material over 3 inches diameter are found. 

Recording of surface and soil temperature during burning would be a part of project 

monitoring to evaluate the effects of fire induced soil temperatures on P. lateralis

occurrence. Underburning will occur in the late Spring to early Summer and/or early Fall 

time periods. Pullback of fuel concentrations around base of residual trees prior to 

ignition might be utilized where residuals tree diameters are less than 10" DBH and fuel 

amounts around the base of the tree bole are considered excessive. 

Hand Piling and Burning In areas of P. lateralis, piles would be located on top of areas 

where P. lateralis presence is known or suspected. 

7) Roads - Improvement, Decommissioning, Closures 

Temporary road decommissioning is intended to reduce the potential for P. lateralis

spread, soil erosion, and to reduce the impacts on wildlife. Temporary road proposed for 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 7
decommissioning that are needed to support the prescribed burning / fuel reductions 

would have the decommissioning scheduled for after burning is complete. 

8) Sanitation and Eradication 

Areas that present high risk for infestation would require sanitation and or eradication. 

These areas include but are not limited to: roads and pockets of new infestation that have 

an identifiable source for infestation that can be mitigated and small pockets of 

infestation. 

9) Planting P. lateralis resistant stock in areas of infestation 

If an infested area was found that required eradication of infested Port-Orford-cedar, then 

that area would be planted with P.lateralis resistant Port-Orford-cedar. 

10) Proposed Dust Abatement 

Dust abatement would be in the form of water or lignin. Water would come from a 

Forest Service approved source that does not contain P. lateralis. 

11) Botanical Resource Protection 

The Cedar Log Flat Research Natural Area will be unaffected as no new temporary or 

permanent road construction is planned and no mechanical density management is 

planned. The planned prescribed fire will implement the measures described in this 

paper. 

12) Featuring Port-Orford-cedar on low-risk sites. 

This could include retaining Port-Orford-cedar after precommercial or commercial 

thinning, thinning to wide spacing or planting resistant stock; 

13) Monitoring 

Monitoring will be done in cooperation with the Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and 

Disease Technical Center (SWOFIDTC). Monitoring would be conducted in relation to 

treatment units that are within uninfested treatment areas. 

All of these actions are planned individually or in combination with, dependent on 

management activities, the Butcher Knife Slate project. Employing a planned 

combination of treatments can reduce probability of long-distance spread more than a 

single treatment. An integrated treatment program that uses a combination of sanitation 

treatments, vehicle washing treatments, road drainage improvements, timing of activities 

during dry seasons, using certified clean or Clorox bleach-treated water, scheduling 

treatments in un-infested before infested areas, regulation of special use activities such as 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 8
cedar bough collecting, and public education efforts has a suggested probability of 2.1 to 

4 % chance of resulting in the spread of P.lateralis root disease. If such treatments are 

combined with road closures, the percentage drops to 0 to 2% (USDA USDI 2004) per 

activity. This new direction represents a practicable level of effort to control a disease 

that will spread at some rate regardless of management activity. Thus, management 

consistent with this newly adopted direction is essentially “neutral” to POC for the 

purposes of meeting NWFP guidance for management actives. An activity would be a 

single trip by a vehicle, a single person walking in the woods, a single trip by someone 

riding a mountain bike or a horse (Betlejewski, Frank: The Biscuit Fire Recovery Project, 

2004).

IV. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Information from surveys on all federal lands and collated by the Siskiyou National 

Forest indicates that P.lateralis infects trees on about 15% of high risk sites (USDA-FS 

and USDA-DI 2004) of the total area occupied by Port-Orford-cedar on public lands in 

Southwest Oregon and Northwest California and is predicted to reach 17% in 100 years. 

Infection is heavily concentrated in wet, low-lying areas where conditions are especially 

favorable for the disease organism. Port-Orford-cedar growing on dry sites, on convex 

slopes, and away from streams and roads has limited vulnerability. The project area is 

within the Siskiyou Risk Region for Port-Orford-cedar. Of the approximately 126,000 

acres of Port-Orford-cedar in this risk region, twenty percent are considered to be at high 

risk (approximately 25,200 acres). At this time, about 75% of these acres are infested 

(approximately 18,900 acres). In 100 years, the predicted amount of infested acres is 

predicted to increase to 82% of high-risk sites (approximately 20,800 acres). These 

estimates cover all management activity for the Forest Service and BLM. A more 

complete discussion of risk and rate of spread can be found in the Port-Orford-cedar 

FSEIS (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2004). Application of the risk key and application of 

resultant management practices will make the project consistent with the mid- and largescale geographic and temporal-scale effects described by the analysis in the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Management of Port-Orford-cedar in 

Southwest Oregon. Site specific Risk Keys will be applied to specific projects as they are 

developed. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 9
LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCED 

Goheen, D.J., Marshall, K., Hansen, E.M., Betlejewski, F.2000, Effectiveness of vehicle washing 

in decreasing transport of Phytophthora lateralis inoculum: a case study, Southwest Oregon 

Forest Insect and Disease Service Center, SWOFIDSC-00-2.6p. 

Jules, E.S.; Kauffman, M.J., Ritts, W.D.; (and others). 2002. Spread of an Invasive Pathogen 

Over a Variable Landscape; A Mon-native Root Rot on Port-Orford-cedar, Ecology (83)11:3167-

3181. 

Marshall, K., and Goheen, D.J 1999. Preliminary results of effectiveness monitoring of PortOrford-cedar roadside sanitation treatments in Southwest Oregon. 

Murrary, M.S.; Hansen,E.M. 1997. Susceptibility of Pacific Yew to Phytophthora lateralis. Plant 

Disease 81:1400- 1404. 

E.M. Hansen and W. Sutton eds. Phytophthora diseases of forest trees. Proceedings First 

International Meeting on Phytophthora in forests and wild land ecosystems. IUFRO working 

party 7.02.09. Forest Research Laboratory. Oregon State University p.125 – 126. 

USDA/USDI. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of 

habitat for latesuccessional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern 

spotted owl. Forest 

Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM, 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement-Biscuit Fire Recovery. 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon. 

USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – 

Management of Port-Orford- Cedar in Southwest Oregon Portland OR 485p. 

USDA/USDI. 1994b. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the Northern spotted owl. Forest 

Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource 

Management, WO 

Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Noxious Weed Management. 

Interim Direction for the ROR/SIS National Forests. February 15, 2002. Best Management 

Practices for Noxious Weed Prevention and Management, Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease 

Prevention and Management, Sudden Oak Death Prevention and Management. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 10
USDA-FS; USDI-BLM. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact StatementManagement of Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon Portland OR 485p 

Jimerson, T.M. 1999. A conservation strategy for Port-Orford-cedar. Unpublished paper. On file 

with: Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest, 333 West 8th St. Medford OR 97501 

ATTACHMENT 1-A 

Applicable General Direction For Port-Orford-cedar Management 

The U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have published the 2004 Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on Management of Port-Orford-cedar in 

Southwest Oregon. The FSEIS amends the land and resource management plans for the Siskiyou 

National Forest by replacing existing management direction with direction in Alternative 2 of the 

FSEIS. Alternative 2 includes a Risk Key clarifying the environmental conditions at the 7th field 

watershed level that requires the implementation of one or more site-specific disease-controlling 

management practices for Port-Orford-cedar. 

Applicable General Direction Needed for Port-Orford-cedar Management (from 

FSEIS p. 2-15 to 17) 

Restoration of Port-Orford-cedar: To retain existing species diversity the most current resistant 

Port-Orford-cedar stock will be planted in the thinning units where appropriate at a 25 by 25 foot 

spacing. Bough cutting: There would be no bough cutting proposed within 7th field un-infested 

areas under this proposal. Bough cutting would be allowed only in selected areas identified at a 

later date. Sanitation/Eradication: Port-Orford-cedar sanitation/eradication is recommended along 

roadsides or in areas where eradication is considered likely to be an effective mitigation measure. 

Exceptions include areas along roads which have been decommissioned or effetely closed to 

human disturbance. Resanitation will be reviewed and completed if necessary. Snag Retention: 

No Port-Orford-cedar snags are considered for removal unless considered a safety hazard or 

candidates for use in stream habitat improvement. If felling is recommended identified PortOrford-cedar snags will be left on site or moved to desired location as down woody material. 

Disease Export: When heavy equipment, including road maintenance equipment, has left surfaced 

(rocked or paved) roads in infested Port-Orford-cedar areas, it will be washed upon leaving 

project areas. Washing requirements will be part of the proposed thinning contracts and will have 

a dual purpose to assist in reducing disease and noxious weed movement. Community Outreach 

Through Interagency Coordination: Continue to assist Dorena Genetics Resource Center and with 

the Oregon State Extension Office in Curry and Coos county to continue education efforts on 

Port-Orford-cedar within each county. The planting of resistant stock is recommended on private 

land within the project area. 

Port-Orford-cedar FSEIS OVERVIEW 

Low risk sites are generally found in moist PAGs (Port-Orford-Cedar, Shasta Red Fir- White Fir, 

Western Hemlock-Dry, Western Hemlock – Coastal, and White Fir – Moist). Port-Orford-cedar 

can still be found near water, but in these PAGs, the moisture gradient is less steep and POC 

occurs on upland sites and is not restricted to areas in close proximity to water. While the 

potential for new infection still exists on high risk sites in these PAGs, the distribution of POC 

across the landscape puts the species at low risk overall as the potential for new infection away 

from water is low. In addition, there are a greater number of other tree species that occur in the 

moist PAGs that can provide some of the ecosystem function of POC such as western hemlock 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 11
and western red cedar. Port-Orford-cedar can occur on low risk sites in the drier PAGs; for 

example above roads at the top of a drainage. (Betlejewski, Frank. The Biscuit Fire Recovery 

Project, Appendix E – Wildlife E-71) (USDA USDI 2004) As per the Port-Orford-cedar FSEIS 

definition on page 5-36, high-risk sites are Low-lying areas (infested or not) that are located down 

slope from already infested areas or below likely sites for future introductions, especially roads; 

they include streams, drainage ditches, gullies, swamps, seeps, ponds, lakes, and concave lowlying areas where water collects during rainy weather. A vast majority of the roads in the analysis 

area are considered to be already infested with P. lateralis root disease in scattered locations 

except within designated un-infested 7th field watersheds. It is assumed that roads with scattered 

infection sites along their lengths or at the ends of road are infested for their entire length because 

of the availability of spores. 

Within high risk sites, the likelihood of infection is very great. Once the pathogen is established 

in such areas, all or most of the Port-Orford-cedar may be infested and the disease becomes 

chronic. Though Port-Orford-cedar is seldom completely eliminated from such sites, individual 

trees seldom survive long enough to achieve large size (Don Goheen, conservation 11/18/05). 

High risk sites occur in all PAGs. In the drier PAGs (Douglas-fir-Dry, Douglas-fir-Moist, 

Tanoak-Dry, Tanoak-Moist, White Fir-Dry, Grand-fir), Port-Orford-cedar will primarily be 

located on high-risk sites. Streams, seeps, and other moist micro-sites are the principal locations 

where Port-Orford-cedar can successfully compete with other vegetation in these PAGs. 

However, these same sites also have a high probability for occurrences of new P.Lateralis root 

disease infection (Betlejewski, Frank. FEIS The Biscuit Fire Recovery Project, Appendix E – 

Wildlife E-71 ,USDA USDI 2004) 

ATTACHMENT 1-B 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 12
Glossary of Terms and meanings/interpretations as referenced in the FEIS Biscuit 

Fire Recovery Project in Appendix E-Wildlife Section prepared by Frank 

Betlejewski, Port-Orford-Cedar Program Manager, April 13, 2004. 

1. “Measurably contribute to” is defined as a function of the Plant Association Group 

(PAG) in which Port-Orford-Cedar occurs. In some PAGs, Port-Orford-cedar can be an 

important component of the vegetation and essential to achieving late-successional 

conditions. In other PAGs, Port-Orford-cedar ecological role is less important. 

2. The POC at risk from the proposed activity: 

Not meaningful: Where Port-Orford-cedar is a small percentage of the stand or does not 

provide unique stand attributes (not providing the largest trees in the stand; for instance), 

its loss is probably not meaningful when measured against management objectives. 

Similarly, where stream shading, bank stability, and other riparian functions are readily 

performed by other species onsite, Port-Orford-cedar mortality is probably not 

meaningful. Where Port-Orford-cedar mortality could affect rare or unique plants, but 

mortality has been demonstrated to benefit such plants, Port-Orford-cedar mortality is 

probably not meaningful. 

Meaningful: Where Port-Orford-cedar is a significant portion of the riparian vegetation 

and its instability, turbidity, or other problems, Port-Orford-cedar is making a meaningful 

contribution to land and resource management plan objectives. Significant geographic 

areas in wilderness are making a meaningful contribution. Port-Orford-cedar as a large 

percentage of the stand in recreation or visually sensitive areas is probably making a 

meaningful contribution. Where Port-Orford-cedar is part of the reason for the 

designation of a research natural area or area of critical environmental concern, it is 

making a meaningful contribution. Port-Orford-cedar protecting rare plants, or serving as 

nest structures for listed species, are probably making a meaningful contribution if 

substitutes are not readily available. It is more likely that Port-Orford-cedar is making a 

meaningful contribution to land and resource management plan objectives if the site is 

within the 90,900 acres in Oregon where POC is prominent in the overstory (USDA 

USDI 2004) 

3. Factors Affecting Risk of Infection Jules et al. (2002) showed that the incidence of 

new Port-Orford-cedar infection was positively associated with 3 factors: 

Distance to the nearest Port-Orford-cedar - In infested streams, the mean distance 

from a road crossing a stream to the nearest Port-Orford-cedar was 10.5 meters. In uninfested streams, the mean distance from a road crossing a stream to the nearest 

uninfested POC was 117.7 meters. 

Host abundance - In infested streams, the mean number of trees in proximity to the road 

crossing was 18.5 Port-Orford-cedar. In un-infested streams, the mean number of trees in 

proximity to the road crossing was 6.3 Port-Orford-cedar. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 13
Catchment area - Catchment area is most directly an indicator of streamflow in the 

creek. Crossings with high catchment area were more likely to have flowing water during 

summer months while low catchment areas were seasonal. Mean catchment area, for 

infested streams, was 3,924.5 square kilometers compared to 1,759.3 square kilometers 

for uninfested streams. 

Knowing which factors are associated with incidence of new infection sites is an 

important tool in reducing the potential for spread of the pathogen and occurrence of new 

infection. There is an important distinction that must be made when reviewing the 

information provided by Jules et al. The first incidence of infection in this study was 

dated as 1977. This is several years before the 1988 completion date of the Region 5-

Region 6 Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease Action Plan. Exactly which type(s) of 

mitigation were employed (if any) in the study area from 1977 to the adoption of the 

Action Plan is unclear. The paper’s conclusions do not account for the more rigorous and 

routine mitigation required under the March, 2004 management direction and planned for 

implementation as part of the Coastal Healthy Forest Treatments. Jimerson (1999) has 

shown a highly significant difference between infested and un-infested stands based on 

slope position. In California, stands in riparian areas are much more likely to have PortOrford-cedar infested with P.lateralis root disease. Infested and un-infested stands are 

significantly different in mean distance from roads. Infested stands average 52 feet and 

un-infested stands 139 feet from a road. Distance from the Pacific Ocean (an integration 

of several environmental factors, including fog, moisture, temperature, etc.) and elevation 

also differed between infested and uninfested stands. Mean distance from the ocean was 

14 miles for infested and 24 miles for uninfested stands. Mean elevation for infested 

stands was 475 feet and for un-infested stands, 866 feet. 

4. Factors Affecting Pathogen Spread 

When evaluating the likelihood of long-distance spread to and establishment of P.lateralis 

into a new area, consideration needs to be given to the probabilities that: (1) viable 

inoculum will be picked up at an infested source; (2) the inoculum will be carried to a 

particular uninfested area; (3) the inoculum will remain viable during transit; (4) the 

inoculum will be deposited in the new site; and (5) the inoculum deposited will infect a 

Port-Orford-cedar and disease establishment will result. A number of factors influence 

inoculum accession, spread, and establishment of P.lateralis root disease, especially: 

Character of site of origin: The potential for carriers of P.lateralis entering a possible 

inoculum source area varies, and is dependant upon the characteristics of the site entered. 

Inoculum clearly will not be available on a site with no infection. Areas with obvious 

infection of Port-Orford-cedar and where certain kinds of wet conditions prevail are the 

most likely places for inoculum to be acquired. 

Type of carrier: Vehicles (both motorized and non-motorized), equipment, humans on 

foot, and 

animals (especially cows, horses, and elk) have been implicated in carrying P.lateralis. 

Probability of successful spread is greater with the larger carriers, those that transport 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 14
greater amounts of soil, carriers most likely to access infested areas, and those that can 

rapidly travel to new sites. 

Time of year of transport event: Likelihood of acquiring inoculum, successfully 

transporting it, and establishing disease at a new site is greatly favored by cool 

temperatures, and probability of infection is much greater during wet periods than dry 

periods. Also, inoculum is most likely to be picked up from an infested site during a wet 

period when infested soil is muddy and prone to adhere to the carrier. Probability of 

spread and establishment of new infections is greater with soil movement in late fall, 

winter, and early spring than summer, and is greater in rainy rather than dry weather. 

Distance traveled and associated time elapsed: Probability of successful delivery of 

viable inoculum from one site to another decreases with distance traveled and associated 

time elapsed since inoculum was picked up. 

5. Moving vs. Causing New Infections: Based on information in the FEIS for Biscuit 

Fire Recovery Project (April 13, 2004) in Appendix E-Wildlife Section and a 

conservation with Frank Betlejewski, Port-Orford-Cedar Program Manager (personnel 

communication, 7/20/2006) it was discussed that moving P.lateralis root disease is not the 

same as causing new infection to occur. Causing new infections is a separate event from 

pathogen transport. Identification of sites with greater risk of infection as described by 

Jules et al. and Jimerson highlights situations where implementation of mitigation will be 

particularly aggressive. The combination of implementing mitigation and identifying the 

areas most prone to new infection minimize the risk of spreading Phytophthora lateralis 

while protecting healthy Port-Orford-cedar and meeting management objectives. 

Therefore, the actions for the Butcher Knife Slate Treatments related to Port-Orfordcedar are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines identified in the Record of 

Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan. 

PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 15
PORT-ORFORD-CEDAR REPORT 16

ATTACHMENT 1-C 

OTHER SPECIES: PACIFIC YEW 

If Pacific yew is observed during vegetation surveys it would be protected with the same 

mitigation measures given to Port-Orford-cedar depending on individual unit. As stated 

in Kleijunas paper “Pacific yew is infested by P.lateralis root disease on infrequent 

occasions (Kliejunas, J.T. 1994. Port-Orford-cedar Root Disease. Fremontia 22:3-11). 

Observation and laboratory trails show that Pacific yew is much less susceptible than 

Port-Orford-cedar. Where it has been found infested, Pacific yew was growing in close 

association with many previously infested Port-Orford-cedar (Murray, M.S; Hansen, 

E.M. 1997. Susceptibility of Pacific Yew to P. lateralis (Plant Disease 81:1400-1404). 

Examples of areas where Pacific Yew will be protected from the P.lateralis root disease 

include but are not limited are within Port-Orford cedar seventh field un-infested areas, 

ground base treatments will have dry season operating seasons, and areas containing 

heavy amounts of un-infested Port-Orford-cedar. No pacific yew, if identified, is 

proposed to be removed under this project regardless of its location.