Join Counterpart Regulations Fish Biological Assessment 

Project Name: Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management 

National Forest/Ranger District: Rogue River-Siskiyou /Wild Rivers 

Fifth-Field Watersheds: Lower Applegate 

Sixth-Field Subwatersheds: Slate Creek 

Seventh-Field Drainages: Slate Creek, Butcherknife Creek, Ramsey Creek 

Watershed Analysis Name/Date: Slate/Cheney 1996 (BLM)

ESA Species Considered: Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts coho 

salmon, federally threatened 

ESA Determinations: “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” 

SONCC coho salmon and critical habitat 

 

EFH Determinations: “Would Not Adversely Affect” EFH for coho and 

Chinook salmon 

Project Fisheries Biologist: Ian Reid 

Project Hydrologist: Maureen Joplin 

Level 1 Team Fish Biologist: Susan Maiyo 

Line Officer: Joel King 

Executive Summary

The Butcherknife-Slate vegetation management project proposes to treat about 4,600 acres of mostly 

previously-managed stands including selected Riparian Reserves to reduce the risk of large scale 

wildfire through a variety of mechanisms including thinning and prescribed burning. Less than six 

percent of the Slate Creek subwatershed would be treated by thinning (Joplin 2008). The project area 

overlaps occupied coho salmon critical habitat in Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks. The project 

was determined to be “May Affect, but would Not Likely Adversely Affect” coho salmon and their 

critical habitat in the short term because of the low probability fine sediment could be introduced into 

critical habitat through log haul and road maintenance activities and other actions related to timber 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 1 of 33 
felling and yarding and prescribed burning. Further, this project, in the sense that it would help restore 

ecosystem function by reintroducing low-intensity fire and protecting against a major stand-replacing 

fire, was determined to be “May Affect, with a Beneficial Effect” to coho salmon and their critical 

habitat in the long term. Primary rationale for these determinations were 1) the adherence to project 

design features and best management practices outlined in this biological assessment, 2) a hydrology 

report (Joplin 2008) that predicted any adverse physical effects from this project to coho salmon 

critical habitat would be transitory, negligible, and insignificant and the project could provide long 

term watershed benefits, 3) hydrologist assurance the project would meet Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives, 4) monitoring observations that did not detect substantial adverse effects from 

similar vegetation management projects in the adjacent Waters Creek drainage (Park 2005; King 

2008), a tributary to Slate Creek, 5) concurrence from regulatory agencies that similar projects in this 

region were Not Likely to Adversely Affect listed coho salmon (e.g. Lohn 2003). In general, this 

project uses prescribed fire and thinning to reduce risk and effects of large-scale wildfire in the lower 

Applegate watershed and would be a prudent step toward restoring natural ecosystems in the range of 

Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts coho salmon. It also proposes to improve watershed 

condition through road maintenance or decommissioning, riparian silviculture, and creation of 

instream structures. 

Section-7 Endangered Species Act Consultation with other agencies

The Butcherknife-Slate vegetation management project was planned under the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. 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 Endangered Species Act section-7 consultation because this is a HFRA 

project that supports the National Fire Plan, and the biologist determination was May Affect, Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect threatened SONCC coho salmon, its critical habitat, and essential fish 

habitat. Proposed treatment areas are within the Wildland-Urban-Interface of the ‘At Risk’ community 

of Wonder/Wilderville. The journey-level biologist of record is Ian Reid, who passed the required 

Joint Counterpart Regulations and Alternative Consultation Agreement exam on 20 May 2004. The 

line officer of record is Joel King, who passed the required Joint Counterpart Regulations and 

Alternative Consultation Agreement exam on 23 October 2008. See Appendices in this Biological 

Assessment for specific information regarding consistency with the Joint Counterpart Regulations of 

the Alternative Consultation Agreement. 

Introduction

The purposes of this project are to reduce the potential for a high intensity wildfire within the Slate, 

Butcherknife, and Ramsey Creek drainages to reduce fuel hazard and vegetative density, reintroduce 

fire as a natural ecological process, restore or maintain fire-dependent plants or plant communities, and 

reduce long range fire suppression costs. Both managed (previously harvested) and some un-managed 

stands are proposed for treatment. The un-managed stands have also experienced fire suppression. All 

proposed treatment areas are within the wildland urban interface (WUI) of the At Risk community of 

Wonder/Wilderville. Fuels reduction activities including pruning, understory non-commercial 

thinning, piling, and underburning would be conducted across the project area, including selected 

Riparian Reserves where fuels treatment is needed. In addition commercial timber removal would 

occur on about 2,093 acres of the project area. The treatment activities are proposed for 

implementation over the next 10 to 15 years. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 2 of 33 
The project area contains 5,834 acres, with over 95 percent of the area occurring in the Slate Creek 

subwatershed. Less than 5 percent of the area is located in the Deer Creek watershed. Because of the 

lack of commercial treatment in this Deer Creek area and the treatment location near ridgetops it would 

have No Effect to fish or their habitats and will not be discussed further in this analysis. Southern 

Oregon Northern California Coasts coho salmon, its critical habitat, and its Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH) occur in the project area in Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks. 

Description of Proposed Actions

The following activities are proposed for this project (See Table 1 for general descriptions of the 

locations and extent of these activities): 

1. Commercial thinning (does not include Riparian Reserves) 

2. Precommercial thinning (less than 9” DBH, could include the understory of Riparian Reserves) 

3. Pruning (ladder fuel reduction) 

4. Hand piling 

5. Pile burning 

6. Fireline construction and reconstruction 

7. Lopping & scattering 

8. Fuels pullback 

9. Broadcast burning 

10. Road maintenance 

11. Temporary road construction and reconstruction 

12. Instream log or boulder placement 

13. Timber haul 

14. Road decommissioning 

Table 1. Project elements, general location, and size. From Slate-Butcherknife Proposed Action. 

We anticipate the following types of treatments/activities may be implemented in areas labeled 

as such on the project map. The total project area is 5,834 acres, although about 1,200 acres 

within this area would not be treated. 

1. DENSITY MANAGEMENT on 2,093 Acres (36% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

Commercial 

Thinning 

(larger than 8” DBH 

trees) 

2,093 acres Thin from below. First select smallest 

vegetation for removal and proceed up 

through diameter classes until desired residual 

density is achieved. This also includes 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 3 of 33 
1. DENSITY MANAGEMENT on 2,093 Acres (36% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

planned roadside thinning 200-feet 

(horizontal distance) of the road edge 

Radial Vegetation 

Removal 

2,093 acres Remove all vegetation below and around 

selected ponderosa/sugar pine, black oak or 

white oak for a distance up to 25 to 35 feet 

from the drip line of individual stems or 

clumps of individuals. 

Product Extraction 2,093 acres Removal of timber, firewood, post/poles, 

biomass, special forest products, etc. 

Product Haul 37 miles This is the maximum miles of road that would 

be utilized for any project activity involving 

the removal of a commercial product from 

National Forest. 

Small Diameter 

Thinning & Release 

2,093 acres ‘Thin from Below’ (less than 8” DBH 

vegetation). First select smallest vegetation 

for cutting and proceed up through diameter 

classes until desired residual density is 

achieved. 

Ladder Fuel 

Reduction 

2,093 acres Remove live and dead branches from conifer 

or hardwood trees and/or remove understory 

brush in order to reduce the chance of a 

surface fire igniting the branches or brush and 

moving up into overstory trees. 

Fuel Pullback 2,093 acres Treatment is designed to remove fuel near 

base of tree, such that tree is more likely to 

survive a surface fire or an underburn. Duff, 

litter, bark, lichen, dead or live fuels, etc. 

around base of tree is removed for a specified 

distance from base of tree or up the bole of 

the tree. The maximum distance this material 

is treated is out to the dripline of tree plus 1 

foot and up to 8 feet above the ground. 

Sectioning & 

Scattering Slash 

700 acres This activity involves cutting slash into 

smaller pieces and scattering the fuel to 

reduce depth, concentration and ultimately 

fire intensity during a wildfire or prescribed 

fire. 

Machine Piling and 

Burning 

600 acres In general, this would occur on a landing 

where un-utilized wood material is piled and 

covered with polyethylene in order to keep it 

dry so it can be completely consumed when 

burned during wet or snowy weather. At 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 4 of 33 
1. DENSITY MANAGEMENT on 2,093 Acres (36% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

other times, machinery would complete this 

piling in a harvest unit with the same size 

material targeted for piling as with hand 

piling. 

Machine 

Chipping/Mastication 

150 acres This could involve either machines with 

articulated arms with rotating cutting blades 

(such as a ‘slashbuster’) that travel through a 

unit under their own power and selectively 

chip/masticate either standing, small 

diameter, live or dead vegetation or down, 

dead fuels or hand fed chipping machines. 

Self propelled machines are limited to a 

maximum of approx 30% slopes. Hand fed 

chippers are even more limited on slope 

steepness. 

Vegetation Slashing 700 acres This activity involves cutting small diameter 

vegetation (usually less than 4” diameter) in 

order to provide a suitable fuel bed to assist in 

implementing an underburn. This cut 

vegetation provides areas with higher fire 

intensities that can assist in implementing an 

underburn during higher moisture conditions. 

Hand Fireline 

Construction/Reconst

ruction 

36 miles This involves the creation of an area of 

exposed mineral soil from 1.5 to 2 feet wide 

around the perimeter of a planned underburn. 

It also involves removing all vegetation and 

fuels near the fireline that might increase fire 

intensity or result in flaming debris crossing 

the fireline. These firelines are typically 

developed adjacent to private lands, along 

ridgetops (within 200 feet), and along areas to 

be protected from fire. 

Underburning 2,093 acres This activity involves the intentional ignition 

of understory vegetation, with the intent of 

leaving the overstory vegetation (i.e. trees) 

largely intact and alive. 

Wildlife Habitat 

Improvement 

2,093 acres This activity involves the creation of crown 

and bole defects in large live trees, creation of 

large snags, installation of bird boxes, forage 

seeding, and supplementation of existing 

coarse woody debris. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 5 of 33 
2. SMALL VEGETATION DENSITY MANAGEMENT on 619 

Acres (11% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

Small Diameter 

Thinning & Release 

(less than 8” DBH) 

619 acres Thin from below. First select smallest 

vegetation for cutting, proceeding up through 

diameter classes until desired residual density 

is achieved. 

Radial Vegetation 

Removal 

300 acres Remove all vegetation below and around 

selected ponderosa/sugar pine, black oak or 

white oak for a distance up to 25 feet from the 

drip line of individual stems or clumps of 

individuals. 

Ladder Fuel 

Reduction 

619 acres Remove live and dead branches from conifer 

or hardwood trees and/or remove understory 

brush in order to reduce the chance of a 

surface fire igniting the branches or brush and 

moving up into overstory trees. 

Fuel Pullback 300 acres Treatment is designed to remove fuel near 

base of tree, such that tree is more likely to 

survive a surface fire or an underburn. Duff, 

litter, bark, dead or live fuels, etc. around base 

of tree is removed for a specified distance 

from base of tree or up the bole of the tree. 

The maximum distance this material is treated 

is out to the dripline of tree plus 1 foot and up 

to 8 feet above the ground. 

Sectioning & 

Scattering Slash 

100 acres This activity involves cutting slash into 

smaller pieces and scattering the fuel to 

reduce depth, concentration and ultimately 

fire intensity during a wildfire or prescribed 

fire. 

Hand Piling and 

Burning 

519 acres Slash typically less than 4-6 inches in 

diameter (large end) is piled and covered with 

polyethylene in order to keep it dry so it can 

be completely consumed when burned during 

wet or snowy weather. 

Machine Piling and 

Burning 

50 acres In general, this would occur on a landing 

where un-utilized wood material is piled and 

covered with polyethylene in order to keep it 

dry so it can be completely consumed when 

burned during wet or snowy weather. At 

other times, machinery would complete this 

piling in a harvest unit with the same size 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 6 of 33 
2. SMALL VEGETATION DENSITY MANAGEMENT on 619 

Acres (11% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

material targeted for piling as with hand 

piling. 

Machine 

Chipping/Mastication 

50 acres This could involve either machines with 

articulated arms with rotating cutting blades 

(such as a ‘slashbuster’) that travel through a 

unit under their own power and selectively 

chip/masticate either standing, small 

diameter, live or dead vegetation or down, 

dead fuels or hand fed chipping machines. 

Self propelled machines are limited to a 

maximum of approx 40% slopes. Hand fed 

chippers are even more limited on slope 

steepness. 

Hand Fireline 

Construction/Reconst

ruction 

12 miles This involves the creation of an area of 

exposed mineral soil from 1.5 to 2 feet wide 

around the perimeter of a planned underburn. 

It also involves removing all vegetation and 

fuels near the fireline that might increase fire 

intensity or result in flaming debris crossing 

the fireline. These firelines are typically 

developed adjacent to private lands, along 

ridgetops (within 200 feet), and along areas to 

be protected from fire. 

Underburning 619 acres This activity involves the intentional ignition 

of understory vegetation, with the intent of 

leaving the overstory vegetation (i.e. trees) 

largely intact and alive. 

3. UNDERBURNING on 1,812 Acres (31% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

Underburning 1812 acres This activity involves the intentional ignition 

of understory vegetation, with the intent of 

leaving the overstory vegetation (i.e. trees) 

largely intact and alive 

Fuel Pullback 1812 acres Treatment is designed to remove fuel near 

base of tree, such that tree is more likely to 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 7 of 33 
3. UNDERBURNING on 1,812 Acres (31% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

survive a surface fire or an underburn. Duff, 

litter, bark, dead or live fuels, etc. around base 

of tree are removed for a specified distance 

from base of tree or up the bole of the tree. 

The maximum distance this material is treated 

is out to the dripline of tree plus 1 foot and up 

to 8 feet above the ground. 

Vegetation 

Slashing/Scattering 

450 acres This typically involves cutting small diameter 

vegetation (usually less than 4” diameter) in 

order to provide a suitable fuel bed to assist in 

implementing an underburn. This cut 

vegetation provides areas with higher fire 

intensities that can assist in implementing an 

underburn during higher moisture conditions. 

This activity can also include cutting slash 

into smaller pieces and scattering this fuel. 

Hand Fireline 

Construction/Reconst

ruction 

15 miles This involves the creation of an area of 

exposed mineral soil from 1.5 to 2 feet wide 

around the perimeter of a planned underburn. 

It also involves removing all vegetation and 

fuels near the fireline that might increase fire 

intensity or result in flaming debris crossing 

the fireline. These firelines are typically 

developed adjacent to private lands, along 

ridgetops (within 200 feet), and along areas to 

be protected from fire. 

5. STREAM, RIPARIAN or FISH HABITAT 

RESTORATION on 5.4 Miles of Stream 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

Thinning & Release 2 miles Thin from below. First select smallest 

vegetation for cutting, proceeding up 

through diameter classes until desired 

residual density is achieved. 

Sectioning & 

Scattering Slash 

2 miles This activity involves cutting slash into 

smaller pieces and scattering the fuel to 

reduce depth, concentration and 

ultimately fire intensity during a wildfire 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 8 of 33 
5. STREAM, RIPARIAN or FISH HABITAT 

RESTORATION on 5.4 Miles of Stream 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

or prescribed fire. 

Hand Piling and 

Burning 

2 miles Slash typically less than 4-6 inches in 

diameter (large end) is piled and covered 

with polyethylene in order to keep it dry 

so it can be completely consumed when 

burned during wet or snowy weather. 

In-stream Fish 

Habitat 

Enhancement 

2 miles Placement of in-stream log and rock 

structures to improve fish habitat 

conditions. 

6. ROAD CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION or 

MAINTENANCE (No temporary road construction will occur in 

the riparian reserves). 

a. New Road Construction= 0 Miles

b. Road Decommissioning= 0.33 Miles

c. Road Closure (Level 1)= 0.5 Miles

d. Road Closure (Barricade)= 1.2 Miles

e. Re-Opening/Closing of Existing Road Templates and 

‘Stubbie’ (Temporary) Road Construction = 9 Miles

f. Existing Road Reconstruction/Maintenance= 29 Miles

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

New Permanent Road 

Construction 

0 miles No new, permanent (e.g. system), road 

construction is proposed. 

Road 

Decommissioning 

0.33 miles This involves returning an existing road to a 

condition similar to adjacent areas such that it 

will support trees and other vegetation 

Road Closure 

(Level 1) 

0.5 miles Assigned to intermittent use system roads 

during the times they are closed to vehicular 

traffic (including administrative traffic). 

Physically blocked or entrance disguised. 

Maintenance done only to minimize resource 

impacts. 

Road Closure 

(Barricade) 

1.2 miles This involves installation of a barricade (gate, 

post/rail, ditch, etc) to discourage or prevent 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 9 of 33 
6. ROAD CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION or 

MAINTENANCE (No temporary road construction will occur in 

the riparian reserves). 

a. New Road Construction= 0 Miles

b. Road Decommissioning= 0.33 Miles

c. Road Closure (Level 1)= 0.5 Miles

d. Road Closure (Barricade)= 1.2 Miles

e. Re-Opening/Closing of Existing Road Templates and 

‘Stubbie’ (Temporary) Road Construction = 9 Miles

f. Existing Road Reconstruction/Maintenance= 29 Miles

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

vehicle access to a section of road while 

maintaining the potential to access the area 

for administrative purposes, emergencies, etc. 

Re-Opening of 

Existing (nonsystem) Road 

Templates 

6 miles Existing road templates are old road 

excavations that are still visible on the ground 

that were blocked from vehicle use either 

intentionally or by vegetation and are not 

drivable in their current condition. Some 

existing road templates would be reopened 

and reconstructed for use in this project 

Opening/closing of 

‘Stubbie’ (e.g. 

Temporary) Road 

Construction 

3 miles These roads are constructed to provide shortterm access for harvest and fuel reduction. 

Typically, they (a) are constructed on the 

upper 1/3 of a slope in order to avoid riparian 

areas (b) generally are less than an average of 

500 feet long, per treatment unit and (c) are 

barricaded/obliterated following project 

implementation. 

Existing System 

Road Reconstruction 

or Maintenance 

29 miles Road reconstruction/maintenance involves 

any work that creates conditions such that the 

road can be utilized for an intended purpose 

such as log haul. This can include replacing 

damaged culverts, repairing bridges, rocking 

sections of road that are currently native 

surface and delivering sediment, removing 

encroaching vegetation or hazards, cleaning 

ditches and culverts, etc. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 10 of 33 
7. NO TREATMENT on 1,187 Acres (20% of Area) 

ACTIVITY 

ESTIMATED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS WHERE 

ACTIVITY 

WOULD OCCUR 

DESCRIPTION or EXPLANATION 

No Treatment 1,187 acres No planned activities. These include areas 

that have relatively intact mature to overmature stands and other sensitive sites 

(botanical or wildlife). 

Project Design Features

The following project design features (PDFs) and best management practices (BMPs) from the 

Hydrology Report and Slate-Butcherknife Proposed Action will be used to minimize the risk of 

adverse effects to SONCC coho salmon and to help this project meet the objectives of the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy. These design features were developed using best available science by resource 

specialists on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and outlined in a document, “Thinning in 

Riparian Reserves within overstocked managed stands—Project Design Criteria, 2006”. 

1. Harvest

a. Avoid new landing construction if possible. Utilize existing roads for 

landings whenever possible 

2. Temporary roads (also see Native Surface Roads and Firelines under Hydrology 

section)

a. Identify all existing road templates and map such that might be used to 

access a treatment area prior to contemplating building a ‘stubbie’ road

b. New, individual, temporary roads should be limited to less than an average 

of 500 feet per treatment unit. This does not apply to existing road 

templates.

c. Plan these roads on upper 1/3 of slope. If this is not possible, all drainage 

crossings should be field reviewed and approved by a hydrologist

d. All roads will be effectively waterbarred or treated to prevent erosion prior 

to the wet season if needed beyond the current year to complete project 

activities.

e. Native surface roads will not be used during wet weather when erosion is a 

concern

f. Road location, construction, etc requirements, timing, etc. should utilize 

BMPs that protect water quality

g. After use, these roads will be closed by barricade, earth, vegetation, etc such 

that further use as a road cannot occur 

h. Eliminate road access to Cedar Log Botanical Area at Slate Creek ‘ford’ 

unless required to provide access to valid mining claims

i. Avoid road construction through ultra-mafic areas

3. System Roads 

a. Road reconstruction/maintenance requirements, timing, etc. should utilize 

BMP’s that protect water quality 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 11 of 33 
b. Review potential to obtain ROW across private land in Butcherknife Creek 

to shorten haul distance

c. Individual, temporary roads should be limited to a maximum of 1⁄4 mile in 

total length

d. Roads should avoid locations that cross riparian areas unless approved by a 

hydrologist

e. All roads will be effectively waterbarred prior to the wet season if needed 

beyond the current year in order to complete project activities.

f. Native surface roads will not be used during wet weather when erosion is a 

concern

4. Hydrology/Fish

a. No vegetation cutting should occur within 25 feet of a perennial stream (fish 

bearing or non-fish bearing) OR on unstable areas 

b. Prescribed fire ignition should be implemented a suitable distance from 

stream courses such that most vegetation is maintained within any no 

treatment area near a stream. 

c. A substantial hardwood component (30% minimum) should be left within 

the inner Riparian Reserve (e.g within 50 feet of the channel) in order to 

provide for deciduous litterfall to benefit fish. 

d. Hand piles should be located outside of any no-treatment area along a stream 

course and far enough away from such protected vegetation so that burning 

does not result in loss of live vegetation within the 25-foot no treat area. 

e. Within 100 feet of a stream course (fish-bearing, perennial or intermittent), 

fireline location and construction techniques should maintain 90% of preactivity soil infiltration rates. In other words, avoid building extensive 

sections of fireline parallel to streams. No ground based, mechanical 

equipment may enter the Riparian Reserve. 

f. When removing water out of a fish bearing stream (e.g. drafting for mop up 

of prescribed fire), use a screen on draft hose with openings not to exceed 

3/32 (0.094) inches to prevent intake and impingement of juvenile salmonids 

(Sickling 2003). This screen is most critical during coho salmon fry 

emergence (February through April). 

g. No aerial ignition or fueling of equipment/drip torches should occur within 

100 feet (slope distance) of live water bodies in order to prevent ignition fuel 

from getting into the water. 

h. Avoid manual or mechanical or underburn activities on unstable landslide 

areas 

i. Mechanical harvest equipment should ONLY be used in areas where soils, 

sideslopes, etc. do not result in significant, long term impairment of soil 

productivity 

j. Native Surface Roads and Firelines 

i. Fireline construction near fish bearing or perennial streams should 

use ‘light on the land tactics’. 

ii. Firelines should be constructed/reconstructed/maintained such that 

erosion is minimized and any erosion does not deposit sediment into 

stream channels. 

iii. Waterbars on firelines or native surface roads of adequate size, 

spacing and durability are required (Note: See Waterbar 

Construction ‘Typical’ illustration in project files) 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 12 of 33 
Slope 

Gradient % 

Maximum Distance 

Between Waterbars 

(feet) 

1- 9% 100 

10- 19% 75 

20- 39% 50 

Greater than or 

equal to 40% 

25 

1. Do not construct waterbars on bedrock or in areas with more 

than 80% rock 

2. Install waterbars at a 45-degree angle to the slope, pointing 

down slope 

3. Dig the waterbar deep enough to catch and carry water across 

the entire width of the fireline 

4. Dig the outlet deeper than the inlet and dig through any side 

berms to keep the outlet from filling with material and 

plugging 

5. Place slash, rocks or debris below the outlet or extend the 

waterbar into thick vegetation or rock outcrops to dissipate 

the force of the runoff 

6. Rehabilitate waterbars immediately after adjacent project 

activities so they continue to function appropriately. 

k. When practical and economically feasible, use cut trees for any nearby fish 

habitat/watershed improvement projects. 

In addition, any instream structure placement, culvert removal, or road decommissioning activities 

would follow terms and conditions outlined in the 2007 Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion 

(NMFS 2008) and other mitigating measures outlined in Joplin 2008. 

Description of the Action Area 

General Description: The Butcherknife-Slate vegetation management project is proposed almost 

entirely in the Slate Creek subwatershed (6th Field HUC 171003090605), a productive and important 

stream system for threatened coho salmon and other native fishes (Fig. 1). Less than 5 percent of the 

area is located in the Deer Creek watershed. Because of the lack of commercial treatment in this Deer 

Creek area and the treatment location near ridgetops it would have a No Effect determination to fish or 

their habitats and will not be discussed further in this analysis. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 13 of 33 
Figure 1. Project area boundaries and known distribution of SONCC coho salmon (green lines) based 

on Forest Service corporate GIS data. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 14 of 33 
Status of Listed Species, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat

Listed Species and Critical Habitat: 

Coho salmon in the Rogue 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 

had 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 have 

ranged from 1,261 fish in 1993 to 24,481 in 2004 (ODFW 2005a). The 2004 run was a record based on 

24 years of data collection and was 4.2 times greater than the previous 10-year average. Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) for SONCC coho salmon is identified under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and includes 

the same area as critical habitat. 

Essential Fish Habitat: 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), in accordance with the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) designates EFH for coho and Chinook salmon 

(Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12). The MSA defines EFH as “...those waters and substrate necessary 

to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12).” 

EFH closely mirrors the occupied and historic habitat of coho and Chinook salmon. 

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action and Description of Environmental Baseline:

Primary Constituent Elements 

This BA has been prepared using the Analytical Process to determine the effects on ESA listed fish. It 

focuses on analysis of specific indicators that are pertinent to aquatic habitat health. As a result, the 

habitat indicators (non-watershed scale) addressed also represent the primary constituent elements 

(PCEs) of critical habitat for SONCC coho salmon. 

When the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was re-authorized in 

1996, it directed Regional Fishery Management Councils to identify EFH for commercial fish species 

of concern. Effects analysis contained in this BA address potential effects to coho salmon EFH (i.e. 

effects to coho salmon habitat). 

The list of Primary Constituent Elements essential for the conservation of the SONCC coho ESU 

include, but are not limited to: spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian 

vegetation (64 FR 24050, May 5, 1999) (Table 2). Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as 

the area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or 

chemical regulation, stream bank stability, and input of large woody debris or organic matter. NMFS 

defines 10 essential habitat features to include substrates, water quality, water quantity, water 

temperature, water velocity, cover/shelter, food, riparian vegetation, space, and safe passage conditions 

(64 FR 24059, May 5, 1999). For the purposes of this BA, the 10 essential habitat features are cross 

referenced with the respective Habitat Indicators. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 15 of 33 
Table 2. Primary Constituent Elements for Coho Salmon 

Essential Feature of 

CCH Habitat Indicator 

Substrate Sediment, Pool Quality, Landslide Rates, Large Woody Debris 

Water Quality Temperature, Sediment, Road Density & Location 

Water Quantity Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Road Density and Location 

Water Temperature Temperature, Riparian Reserves, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, 

Peak/base flows, Riparian Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity. 

Water Velocity 

Peak/base flows, Drainage Network Increase, Floodplain Connectivity, Off-channel 

Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio, Road Density and Location, Streambank Condition, Large 

Woody Debris 

Cover/shelter Sediment, Pool Quality, Streambank Condition, Riparian Reserves, Refugia, Large 

Woody Debris, Off-channel Habitat, Width/Depth Ratio, Floodplain Connectivity 

Food Sediment, Riparian Reserves, Floodplain Connectivity, Large Woody Debris, 

Temperature 

Riparian Vegetation Riparian Reserves, Large Woody Debris, Disturbance History, Floodplain 

Connectivity 

Space Pool Quality, Off-channel Habitat, Floodplain Connectivity 

Safe Passage Conditions Refugia, Physical Barriers, Change in Peak/Base Flows 

Aquatic Habitat in the Action Area (from Reid 2008) 

In general, fish habitat quality in Slate Creek on Forest Service lands was moderate to high based on 

wood density, pool abundance, embeddedness and shade according to a 1991 stream habitat survey 

(USDI BLM 1996). A 1993 stream habitat survey found habitat quality in Butcherknife Creek was low 

to moderate. Also, a 1990 stream habitat survey found habitat quality in Ramsey Creek to be low to 

moderate (USDI BLM 1996). 

Fish habitat in the upper Slate Creek subwatershed (primarily Forest Service land) was resurveyed in 

1999 by Siskiyou Research Group. Instream large wood densities on Forest Service land were 

moderate to high (Table 3), but still likely below benchmark conditions (e.g. Bowers et al. 2001; Fox 

and Bolton 2007). Based on pool abundance or stream gradient (Montgomery et al. 1999), 

Butcherknife, reach 1 of Ramsey, and reach 1 and 2 of Slate creeks are the most likely to be used for 

coho salmon spawning or rearing. 

Table 3. Stream habitat parameters from 1999 habitat inventory (SRG 1999). 

Stream Reach Large wood / 

mile 

Percent 

gradient 

Percent pool 

area 

Butcherknife 1 50 4 42

Ramsey 1 (private) 3 4 24

Ramsey 2 47 6 11

Slate 1 46 4 55

Slate 2 41 4 43

Slate 3 37 8 22

Between the 1991 and 1999 habitat surveys, the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA/USDI 1994) was 

adopted, which provided additional protection to streams and riparian areas and processes through the 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 16 of 33 
designation of Riparian Reserves. It is generally accepted that this legislation provides the foundation 

to hastened stream habitat recovery on federal lands in southwestern Oregon. For example, Gallo et al. 

(2005) and Reeves et al. (2006) assessed 250 sixth-field watersheds in the Pacific Northwest and found 

a general increase in stream habitat quality in the first 10 years after the adoption of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. 

Stream Crossings: Eleven culverts containing intermittent, perennial non-fish-bearing, or perennial 

fish-bearing streams would be crossed by project vehicles and log trucks. There would be 

approximately 1,000 project related crossings of each stream over a 15-year period by log trucks and 

other vehicles and equipment. 

Subpopulation Characteristics 

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. 

Proximity of Coho Salmon to Proposed Actions 

Coho salmon are immediately adjacent to the project area in Slate, Ramsey, and Butcherknife creeks 

(Fig. 1). 

The proposed action is comprised of the following project elements: 

• Timber Felling

• Timber Yarding

• Timber Hauling

• Fuels Treatments, including broadcast burning

• Temporary road and landing construction

• Road maintenance and reconstruction

• Road decommissioning1

• Instream log and boulder placement1

1

Road decommissioning and instream fish habitat improvement projects are already covered for 

consultation under the 2008 Formal Programmatic Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Fish Habitat Restoration 

Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY2007-CY2012 (NMFS 2008) and will not be discussed 

further in this Biological Assessment. 

Water Quality 

a) Temperature 

Analysis of Effects 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 17 of 33 
PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction. 

Baseline - Slate Creek is listed on the Oregon DEQ 303(d) list (water quality limited) for temperature 

from mile 0.0 to 5.3. Although the lower Applegate fifth field watershed is probably not properly 

functioning for temperature, Joplin (2008) reported Slate Creek and its tributaries inside the project 

area was generally well-shaded. 

Proximity - Many of the project activities would occur within the Riparian Reserve. The Stream 

Channel Protection Zone is from the edge of stream course up to 25 feet. No vegetation management 

(including commercial extraction) would occur within 25 ft. of the active stream channel. No hand 

piles would be located or burned within the channel. Prescribed fire would not be ignited within this 

zone but fire may be allowed to “back down” to stream channel. Additionally, “Primary Shade Zone” 

criteria will be implemented to ensure that no warming of surface waters occurs (see Hydrology report 

for specifics). Temporary roads and landing would be constructed adequate distances away from the 

stream channels to prevent any effects from their construction on stream temperature. 

Probability - In the short term, the current temperature condition would be maintained by the proposed 

project actions. Based on prior monitoring observations in Waters Creek, it is unlikely any significant 

overstory mortality of shade-providing trees would occur if controlled burns are conducted under the 

proper environmental conditions and the fire does not burn hot enough to ignite material within 25 feet 

of the stream (Park 2005). According to the Butcherknife-Slate proposed action, risk of scorch 

mortality of 20” dbh riparian trees that would provide stream shade is relatively low. Yarding 

corridors, 12 feet in width or less and spaced a minimum of 200 feet apart are highly unlikely to cause 

increased solar radiation and warming of surface waters.

Magnitude - The effect on water temperature will be dependent upon the stream orientation, valley 

configuration and other factors. PDCs have been developed to ensure that these effects are very small 

or absent, and not measurable at the site or reach scale. The local effects are expected to be very slight 

and immeasurable on coho salmon individuals present at the site and downstream in the action area. 

Changes in surface water temperatures will not be measurable or detectable and therefore will be 

discountable. It is highly unlikely that critical habitat will be affected by the minimal canopy openings 

(associated with cable yarding corridors), as other vegetation providing shade to surface waters will 

remain unaffected. Effects on critical habitat will be immeasurable and discountable. These actions 

will have a very slight negative (-) effect on temperature. 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction, 

project elements would result in a slight negative (-) insignificant effect to the temperature indicator at 

the 6th or 7th field watershed scale. 

b) Sediment and Turbidity 

Baseline - Although the lower Applegate fifth field watershed is probably not properly functioning for 

sediment, stream habitat surveys on Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks found relatively low (< 15 

percent) fine sediment levels in riffles. 

 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 18 of 33 
Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Proximity – Buffers within Riparian Reserves are included in prescriptions for all streams to prevent 

sediment delivery mechanisms to channels. These include no cut buffers within 25 feet of all channels 

and buffers with very limited ground disturbance within the primary shade zone. Following PDCs, 

little ground disturbance will occur for project elements within 100 feet of stream channels in order to 

prevent sediment delivery and loss of soil porosity. Temporary roads and landing would be constructed 

adequate distances away from the stream channels to prevent any effects from their construction on 

stream sediment. Several roads located in Riparian Reserves (e.g. Ramsey Creek/744 crossing and the 

020 road that parallels upper Slate Creek) would be maintained to prevent fine sediment from entering 

stream channels (Joplin 2008). 

Probability - In the short-term this project should not add enough sediment to the Slate Creek system 

to be detected because: 1) road PDFs will attenuate sediment delivery from road construction and 

hauling (i.e. dry season haul only), prescribed burns will likely extinguish more than 25 feet away from 

streams, extensive sections of fireline running parallel to streams will not be built. Furthermore, 

monitoring of similar projects in the Slate Creek watershed has not detected significant prescribed 

burning-related sediment influx within stream channels (Park 2005b). 

Magnitude - If any sediment or ash is delivered to critical habitat from implementing this project it 

would be discountable and insignificant based on studies that have documented significant effects to 

coho salmon from sediment (e.g. Bisson and Bilby 1982; Redding et al 1987; Reiser and White 1988), 

the proposed road maintenance activities and design criteria (dry season haul). Based on the above 

rationale these activities would have a very slight and immeasurable negative (-) effect on 

sedimentation and turbity. 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

project elements would result in a slight and immeasurable negative (-) insignificant effect to the 

sedimentation and turbidity indicator at the 6th or 7th field watershed scale. 

 

c) Chemical Contamination and Nutrients 

Baseline - Although the lower Applegate fifth field watershed is probably at risk for chemical 

contamination and nutrient enrichment due to agricultural run-off on private lands, the only water 

quality 303(d)-listed stream in the lower Applegate is lower Slate Creek (Park 2005). Slate Creek and 

its tributaries on National Forest System Lands are assumed to be properly functioning for chemical 

contamination and nutrients. 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Proximity – PDCs have been developed to keep equipment and fuel away from stream channels where 

it would be possible for spills to infiltrate into stream channels. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 19 of 33 
Probability - In the short-term this project should not change chemical contamination and nutrients in 

these streams because prescribed burns will likely extinguish more than 25 feet away from streams, no 

ash or fine sediment will be transmitted into stream channels, most deciduous trees will be left in the 

inner riparian zone to provide for litterfall, equipment and drip torches will be refueled at least 100 feet 

from stream channels, fuel from pumps used in drafting will be kept on absorbent pads away from 

stream channels, and potassium permanganate and ethylene-glycol mixtures will not be used within 

100 feet of stream channels. In the long-term the project has the potential to help maintain chemical 

contamination and nutrient levels within the watershed by reducing the likelihood of a large wildfire 

and the associated ash input and reduction of deciduous litterfall in the riparian zone. Also, fire 

retardant use associated with a large wildfire could cause fish kills if applied to streams during wildfire 

suppression (Norris et al. 1991). 

Magnitude - Therefore, project activities would have a neutral (0) effect on chemical contamination.

 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

elements would result in a neutral (0) effect to the chemical contamination indicator at the 6th or 7th

field watershed scale. 

Pool Quality, Off Channel Habitats, Refugia, and Large Wood, Channel Condition and Dynamic 

(width/depth ratio, stream bank condition, floodplain connectivity) 

Baseline - Many drainages within the Lower Applegate River watershed have limited pool quality, off 

channel habitat, and refugia habitat (USDI BLM 1996, SRG 1999, SRG 2002, Park 2005). These 

conditions are largely a function of the paucity of large wood within the active stream channels. A 

2001 stream survey documented the limited pool quality within Ramsey and upper Slate Creeks (SRG 

2002). Further, this characteristic (i.e. limited pool quality) is a contributing factor to the overall fair 

quality of the habitat within these drainages (Bowers et al. 2001, SRG 2002). Streambank conditions 

within the lower Applegate fifth field watershed are at risk because of habitat degradation on private 

lands. Streambanks in Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks on Forest Service land are generally 

well-armored and in good condition. Floodplain connectivity within the lower Applegate fifth field 

watershed is not functioning properly because of channel incision, straightening, and downcutting, and 

removal of large wood. Slate Creek on Forest Service land is moderately entrenched and generally 

removed from its floodplain. 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Proximity – Density, vegetation management, and fuels treatments would occur within Riparian 

Reserves per direction provided by specific PDCs. These PDCs were designed to prevent unwanted 

resource effects, including sediment delivery to streams. Temporary roads and landing would be 

constructed adequate distances away from the stream channels to prevent any effects from their 

construction on pool quality, floodplain connectivity, large wood and off-channel habitats. 

Probability – Pool habitats form as a result of the interaction between the stream and large woody 

debris accumulations and the geologic conditions that form the channel. There is no probability that 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 20 of 33 
the very small and localized effects to large wood recruitment and sediment would translate to changes 

in stream habitat and affect the nature of pools. Within Riparian Reserves, the project is thinning small 

diameter trees, which do not contribute to the formation of pools at critical habitat. Further, within the 

Primary Shade Zone, larger trees felled for skyline corridors would be retained. The addition of large 

wood and boulder structures within Upper Slate and Ramsey Creeks would have a direct positive 

effect on pool habitat within the affected reaches. The 25 foot stream channel protection zone would 

further protect these habitat elements via the absence of density management actions and prescribed 

fire ignition sites. 

Magnitude – The proposed vegetation management actions, such as timber yarding corridors, will not 

have an effect on primary habitat constituents such as pools, off-channel habitats, and refugia. These 

instream features are formed by large wood pieces and complexes or by large geomorphic features that 

are not affected by localized vegetation changes. The magnitude of sediment reaching stream channels 

from any project activities will be extremely low and insignificant to instream habitats. No effects to 

pool depth or pool volume will occur. There is no chance of the possible small inputs of sediment 

affecting pool frequency and quality, large pools, off-channel habitat, refugia habitats, width/depth 

ratios, streambank condition, or floodplain connectivity at the site scale or at critical habitat. 

Vegetation management elements would have neutral (0) effect to these habitat elements. 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

project elements would result in a neutral (0) effect to the pool quality indicator at the 6th or 7th field 

watershed scale

Peak/Base Flows 

Analysis of Effects 

Baseline – Stream flow within the proposed project area reflects the precipitation pattern within the 

watershed. Flows within the Applegate River are regulated by releases from Applegate Dam, which 

attenuates normal winter flood pulses. Within the Slate Creek subwatershed, instream diversions and 

fire exclusion are contributing to decreased base flows when compared to the historic potential. 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Proximity – Most of the proposed activities will occur away from stream channels. However, limited 

vegetation and fuels treatment would occur within inner Riparian Reserves (up to 25 feet away from 

stream channels). Specific PDCs have been developed to prevent the accelerated delivery of runoff to 

channels. Following the PDCs will limit ground disturbance within close proximity to stream 

channels, thereby maintaining current site specific water delivery mechanisms and soil porosity. 

Probability – Although scientific evidence is scant, based on field observation and monitoring of the 

1995 Waters Thin projects in the Slate Creek watershed and available literature it is unlikely thinning 

and prescribed burning would detectably change stream flows because of the amount of area treated 

and the method used—thinning from below (Joplin 2008). Additionally, following project activities, 

temporary roads would be obliterated; thereby restoring normal drainage patterns. Project activities 

would have a neutral (0) effect on peak/base flows. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 21 of 33 
Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

project elements would result in a neutral (0) effect to the peak/base flow indicator at the 6th or 7th field 

watershed scale 

4) Drainage Network Density 

Baseline – The stream network density within the action area reflects the topography, geology, soils 

and vegetation cover within the associated watershed. 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction, road decommissioning, 

and instream log and boulder placement. 

Proximity – As discussed previously, project actions are limited within close proximity to stream 

channels. Temporary roads and landing would be constructed adequate distances away from the stream 

channels to prevent any effects from their construction on drainage network density. 

Probability – Specific PDCs have been established to prevent the excessive channeling of surface 

runoff, as well as to prevent creating a direct conduit of water to stream channels. Firelines and native 

surface roads would be water-barred during project implementation and rehabilitated following project 

completion. In addition, riparian buffers have been established to further dissipate any concentrated 

flow potentially originating from uphill project activities. Project activites would have a neutral (0) 

effect on drainage network densities. 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction, 

project elements would result in a neutral (0) effect to the drainage network density indicator at the 6th

or 7th field watershed scale

Road Density and Location 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction, road decommissioning 

Currently the watershed is moderately roaded, with an existing road density of 2.7 miles/square mile. 

Road densities in the 5th field watershed are high, corresponding to private land development and 

extensive historic harvest levels (Joplin 2008). 

During project implementation, up to 6 miles of exiting road templates would be reopened, and 3 miles 

of new “stubbie” (i.e. temporary) routes would be constructed outside of Riparian Reserves. Following 

project implementation, all these routes would be closed or obliterated. Further, the project would 

decommission 0.33 miles of road, close 1.7 miles of road, and not authorize the construction of any 

new system roads. Thus, the project would have a net positive (+) effect on road density and location 

as it relates to fish habitat and watershed processes. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 22 of 33 
Disturbance History 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Disturbance history within the lower Applegate fifth field watershed including Slate Creek is not 

functioning properly mostly because of wildfire exclusion and suppression. The proposed project is a 

density management treatment plan that would enhance the development of mid-seral age stands to late 

successional habitat conditions. Thinning prescriptions will retain trees outside of the no-harvest 

buffers where landslides and debris flows are most likely to initiate, particularly those that could 

impact streams. Permanent roads will not be constructed and other activities near streams will be very 

localized, minor and not affect stream habitat conditions. 

This project would help restore disturbance history by changing the fire condition class and fire return 

interval, including the Riparian Reserves. Therefore the project would have a net positive (+) effect on 

disturbance history. 

Riparian Reserves 

Baseline - The vegetation within Riparian Reserves is comprised of riparian and upland forest 

communities. Generally, within the project area riparian areas are functioning with a variety of 

conifers, hardwoods, riparian shrubs, and wetland plant species. However, the condition of many 

Riparian Reserves within the lower Applegate fifth field watershed including Slate Creek are altered 

from the natural condition, primarily due to previous timber harvest, invasive species, road-building, 

and current overstocking and fuel loading. 

Analysis of Effects 

PE: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including broadcast burning, 

temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

Proximity – Various project activities would occur within Riparian Reserves. In general, these 

activities will promote accelerated tree growth and late seral conditions within Riparian Reserves. 

Prescriptions are designed to remove competing smaller trees and provide adequate growing space for 

the forest to mature. This will benefit riparian values and expedite large wood contribution, shade and 

other riparian benefits to the associated stream systems. Temporary roads and landing would be 

constructed adequate distances away from the stream channels, to prevent any effects from their 

construction on the Riparian Reserves indicator. 

Probability – The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts to riparian vegetation. No 

timber harvest or fuels treatments would be allowed within 25 feet of streams. However, prescribed 

underburns, ignited outside of this buffer, would be allowed to back within this buffer. The probability 

is very low that thinning of understory trees, to promote tree growth, will negatively affect riparian 

function or values. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 23 of 33 
Magnitude - This project would affect Riparian Reserves in the short term by reducing fuel loading and 

reintroducing fire to selected areas. Because the project met all Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives (Joplin 2008) designed to protect Riparian Reserves, a neutral (0) effect to Riparian 

Reserves is predicted for the short-term. In the long-term, the project would help restore natural 

vegetation patterns, disturbance regimes, and large wood recruitment rates within the associated 

Riparian Reserves. These improved conditions should correlate to improved instream habitat (i.e. pool 

quality, spawning habitat, etc.) for coho salmon. 

Element Summary: Timber felling, timber yarding, timber hauling, fuels treatments, including 

broadcast burning, temporary road and landing construction, road maintenance and reconstruction 

project elements would result in a neutral (0) effect to the Riparian Reserve indicator at the 6th or 7th

field watershed scale 

Discussion of Watershed Effects 

Proposed activities for the Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management Project were determined to 

have slightly negative insignificant effects for water temperature and sediment/turbidity. The project 

was determined to have slightly positive insignificant effects on disturbance history, road density and 

location. The project would have neutral effects on the remaining indicators. 

It is not anticipated that these slight negative effects will work synergistically to create a larger effect 

within the lower Applegate watershed. Riparian areas and riparian vegetation will buffer stream 

channels and downstream critical habitat from effects. Project activities will be scattered in location 

and timing and are anticipated to only slightly affect different stream reaches and streams at different 

periods of time. These adverse negative effects are expected to be very small, insignificant and 

immeasurable. 

There is a low probability that tree harvest and fuels reduction work occasionally twenty-five feet 

away from stream channels and in most instances at least 100 feet on each side of streams will produce 

even very localized and minor effects. Riparian buffers in place and with other project design features 

will prevent most effects in headwater streams, fish-bearing stream reaches, and effects to critical 

habitat. Any negligible effects that do occur related to sediment delivery to streams are expected to 

occur during the first fall rains or at the time of first flushing of leaves and detritus in channels and thus 

be short term in duration. Little or no sediment will reach active stream channels, and project designs 

and mitigations will ensure that surface waters will not be warmed by increased solar radiation. These 

PDF’s will also result in accelerated tree growth and provide future and current large wood to channels 

at the expected frequency and spacing along stream profiles. Riparian Reserves will continue to 

function properly and thinning will result in more rapid tree growth along streams in the project area. 

 

If small adverse effects do occur at specific sites, these are expected to be very minor, short term (less 

than one year), immeasurable, insignificant and discountable at the site, reach and sub-watershed and 

watershed scale. Beneficial long-term effects (as long as several decades), likewise minor and 

insignificant at the watershed scale, are expected with accelerated tree growth in Riparian Reserves. 

These positive effects will be slight at the watershed scale as treatment areas are located sporadically 

within the stream system and riparian zones thinned represent a very small percentage of total riparian 

zones along streams. More rapid tree growth will decrease solar radiation to surface waters, provide 

larger wood to channels in a shorter time period and restore riparian forests to mature condition more 

rapidly. Given the historic wildfire frequency in the Applegate River sub-basin, and number of missed 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 24 of 33 
return intervals, thinning may reduce the intensity, rate of spread and size of future wildfires. Fuels and 

vegetation management from this project could help buffer riparian and aquatic systems from the 

effects of very intense wildfires. 

Conclusions 

Based on the information above, the Butcherknife-Slate vegetation management project “May Affect, 

but would Not Likely Adversely Affect” SONCC coho salmon and their critical habitat in the short 

term. Several of the project elements, such as fish habitat improvement structures and road 

decommissioning would have beneficial effects to the species in the long run. Further, the fuels 

reduction portion of this project, in the sense that it would help restore ecosystem function by 

reintroducing low-intensity fire and protecting against a major stand-replacing fire, “May Affect, with 

a Beneficial Effect” SONCC coho salmon and their critical habitat in the long term. 

Essential Fish Habitat Analysis

Chinook salmon occur lower in the drainages than coho salmon throughout the action area. Because 

any adverse physical effects to coho salmon habitat from this project are expected to be transitory, 

negligible, and insignificant (Joplin 2008) resulting in a Not Likely to Adversely Affect critical habitat 

determination, this project would also Not Adversely Affect coho or Chinook salmon essential fish 

habitat. 

Dichotomous Key for Making ESA Determination of Effects 

Project: Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 25 of 33 
Note: Selections are in bold type 

1. Does the proposed action result in any change (+ or -) to any indicator, Critical habitat, 

and/or are there any effects to fish that are not habitat related? 

 

YES..........................................................Go to 2

 NO...........................................................No Effect 

2. Are they only positive (will be defined in process paper) effects? 

 

 YES.........................................................NLAA 

NO...........................................................Go to 3 

 

3. Are all of the negative effects negligible or discountable? 

 

YES............................................................NLAA 

 NO....................................LAA, fill out Adverse Effects Form 

References Cited 

Amaranthus, M. 1990. Stream shading, summer stream flow, and maximum water temperature 

following intense wildfire in headwater streams. In: Wildfire recovery and monitoring. Siskiyou 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 26 of 33 
National Forest 1990 monitoring reports. Available from Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 333 

W. 8th St., Medford, OR 97501. 

Benda, L., D. Miller, P. Bigelow, and K. Andras. 2003. Effects of post-wildfire erosion on channel 

environments, Boise River, Idaho. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 105-119. 

Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 2: 371-374. 

Bisson, P. B., B. E. Rieman, C. Luce, P. F. Hessburg, D. C. Lee, J. L. Kershner, G. H. Reeves, and R. 

E. Gresswell. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key 

questions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 213-229. 

Bowers, P. A., S. C. Foster, C. H. Stein, and K. K. Jones, eds. 2001. A guide to interpreting stream 

survey results. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 2001-06. Salem, OR. 

Chambers, J. 2003. The impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on fish and amphibian population dynamics 

in Glade Creek, Oregon. Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 

February. 

Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Rieman. 2003. Effects of fire on fish 

populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative fish invasions. Forest 

Ecology and Management 178: 183-196. 

Dwire, K. A. and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of the western 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 61-74. 

Federal Register. 1999. Designated critical habitat; Central California Coast and Southern Oregon 

Northern California Coasts coho salmon 64(86) 5 May 1999. 

Fox, M. and S. Bolton. 2007. A regional and geomorphic reference for quantities and volumes of 

instream wood in unmanaged forested basins of Washington State. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 27:342–359. 

Gallo, K, S. Lanigan, P. Eldred, S. N. Gordon,and C. Moyer. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): preliminary assessment of the condition of watersheds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 133 p. 

Haspiel, A. 1990. Fish habitat and population in Silver and Indigo creeks. In: Wildfire recovery and 

monitoring. Siskiyou National Forest 1990 monitoring reports. Available from Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest, Medford, OR. 

Howell, P. 2003. Effects of wildfire and subsequent floods, debris torrents, and landslides on fish 

distribution and abundance in tributaries of North Fork John Day River. Presentation. Oregon Chapter 

American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February. 

Joplin, M. 2008. Hydrologic report for the Butcherknife/Slate Creek project. Available from Wild 

Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, OR. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 27 of 33 
Kershner, J., L.M. Decker, and D. Winters. 2004. An evaluation of the short-term effects of the 

Hayman Fire on aquatic ecosystems. Presentation. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, 

Sunriver, OR, 18-20 February. 

King, J. 2008. Monitoring notes from Waters 2 prescribed burn. Available from Wild Rivers Ranger 

District, Cave Junction, OR. 

Lohn, D. R. 2003. Letter of concurrence to Tim Reuwsaat, Medford BLM District Manager, for 

Endangered Species Act section 7 informal consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act essential fish habitat consultation for the Rogue River fuel hazard reduction 

project. 30 July 2003. Available from BLM, Medford, OR. 

Minshall, G. W. 2003. Responses of stream benthic macroinvertebrates to fire. Forest Ecology and 

Management 178: 155-161. 

Montgomery, D.R., E. M. Beamer, G. R. Pess, and T. P. Quinn. 1999. Channel type and salmonid 

spawning abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:377-387. 

NMFS [National Marine Fisheries Service] Northwest Region. 2008. Endangered Species Act – 

Section 7 Programmatic Consultation Biological and Conference Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Fish Habitat 

Restoration Activities in Oregon and Washington, CY2007-CY2012. Available from 7600 Sand Point 

Way NE, Bldg 1, BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115. 

Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest chemicals. Pp 207-296 in: Meehan, W.R. 

Editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Bethesda, 

MD: American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 750p. 

[ODFW] Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2005. Estimates of the run size of Rogue basin 

adult coho salmon past Huntley Park, 1980-2004. Available on the internet at 

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/pdf%20files/coho/ROGCOHO.pdf 

O’Laughlin, J. 2005. Conceptual model for comparative ecological risk assessment of wildfire effects 

on fish, with and without hazardous fuel treatment. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 59-72. 

Park, C. 2005. Waters #2 hydrologic cumulative effects analysis and hydrology report. Available from 

Wild Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, Oregon. 

Redding, J. M., C. B. Schreck, and F. H. Everest. 1987. Physiological effects on coho salmon and 

steelhead of exposure to suspended solids. Transactions of the AFS 116: 737-744. 

Reeves, G. H., J. E. Williams, K. M. Burnett, and K. Gallo. 2006. The aquatic conservation strategy of 

the Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology 20:319-329. 

Reid, I. S. and J. L. Chambers. 2005. Influence of wildfire and subsequent habitat restoration on lotic 

fishes and amphibians in southwestern Oregon. Poster. Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology 

and the Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society Joint Annual Meeting, 23-25 February 2005, Corvallis, 

Oregon. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 28 of 33 
Reid 2008. Butcherknife-Slate fish biological evaluation. Available from Wild Rivers Ranger District, 

Cave Junction, OR. 

Reiser, D. W. and R. G. White. 1988. Effects of two sediment-size classes on survival of steelhead and 

Chinook salmon eggs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 432-437. 

Rieman, B. 2003. Native salmonids and the threats of fire and fire related management. In: Conference 

Presentation: risk assessment for decision-making related to uncharacteristic wildfire. Available online 

through: http://outreach.cof.orst.edu/riskassessment/agenda.htm. 

Rieman, B. and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildfire and native fish: issues of forest health and conservation of 

sensitive species. Fisheries: 22(11): 6-15. 

Roberts, B. C. and R. G. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on trout redds and pre-emergent fry. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 450-459. 

Sedell, T. 2003. Impacts of the Quartz Gulch Fire on stream channel characteristics within Glade 

Creek. Poster. Oregon Chapter American Fisheries Society, Eugene, OR, 26-28 February. 

Sickling, L. P. 2003. Anadromous fish strainers for use in wildland drafting operations. USDA Forest 

Service Technology and Development Program 0351 1203-SDTDC. 

Spencer, C. N., K. O. Gabel, and F. R. Hauer. 2003. Wildfire effects on stream food webs and nutrient 

dynamics in Glacier National Park, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 141-153. 

[SRG] Siskiyou Research Group. 1999. Slate, Butcherknife, and Ramsey creeks level II stream survey. 

Report provided to Wild Rivers Ranger District, Cave Junction, Oregon. 

[USDA FS] United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2005. A strategic assessment 

of forest biomass and fuel reduction treatments in Western states. USDA Forest Service, Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. 

[USDI BLM] U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Slate/Cheney watershed 

analysis. Available from BLM, Medford, OR. 

Vogt, J. 2004. Upper Rogue smolt trapping project report. Available from Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Upper Rogue Watershed, 1495 E Gregory Rd., Central Point, OR 97502. 

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. 

Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-24. Available from National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Coastal Zone and Estuarine Studies Division, 2725 Montlake 

Blvd. E, Seattle WA 98112. 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 29 of 33 
Appendix 1: NATIONAL FIRE PLAN PROJECT ESA COMPLIANCE 

 STATEMENT 

PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 30 of 33 
CONSULTION REQUIREMENTS, USING THE 

COUNTERPART CONSULTATION REGULATIONS 

USDA FOREST SERVICE 

PROJECT NAME: _____ Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management 

STATE: ______________Oregon__________________________________ 

FOREST SERVICE REGION: ________Pacific Northwest R-6__________ 

NATIONAL FOREST/GRASSLAND: _____Rogue River - Siskiyou_____ 

RANGER DISTRICT: _______Wild Rivers_________________ 

DATE OF COMPLETED BE or BA: ____12/20/08 ___________________________

NAME OF JOURNEY-LEVEL BIOLOGIST, BOTANIST OR ECOLOGIST WHO ENSURED THE 

ADEQUACY OF THE BE or BA: 

______Ian S. Reid______________ 

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 

Applegate Fire Plan and the Josephine County Integrated fire plan regarding the general 

location and basic method of treatments. 

The Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) effects analysis completed and documented in the above 

BE or BA was done under the Section 7 counterpart regulations of the Endangered Species Act 

(Federal Register, December 8, 2003), and is in compliance with those regulations and the March 3, 

2004 Alternative Consultation Agreement between the Forest Service, FWS and NMFS. 

SIGNATURE OF LINE OFFICER: ___/s/ Joel T. King

NAME OF LINE OFFICER: _____Joel King_________________ 

TITLE OF LINE OFFICER: _____District Ranger_

DATE: _____December 23, 2008

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 31 of 33 
Appendix 2: Procedural Checklist to Certify that Procedural Requirements 

 Have Been Met, Pursuant to the ACA 

 

(To be prepared by each Forest Service Ranger District for use by the Monitoring Team) 

Region ____6____Name of Forest and District ____Rogue River-Siskiyou , Wild Rivers RD___ 

Date _____ 23 December 2008______ Certifying Line Officer ________Joel King___________ 

Criterion 

Consulting and Reviewing Biologists have: Yes No 

1 Access to current published biological and ecological 

information 

X 

2 

Access to current published biological and ecological 

information relevant to the conservation of the threatened 

and endangered species and designated critical habitat 

X 

3 Access to information on the methods and procedures for 

environmental assessments 

X 

4 

Access to current information on the environmental 

consequences of human actions on threatened and 

endangered species and designated critical habitat 

X 

5 

Access to current information on the success or failure of 

actions intended to minimize affects on threatened and 

endangered species and designated critical habitat 

X 

6 Access to continued agency training and guidance on 

section 7 

X 

7 

Access to biological assessment template and other tools 

where applicable (e.g., Northwest regional consultation 

tools) 

X 

 

Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 32 of 33 
Butcherknife-Slate Final Fish Biological Assessment Page 33 of 33 

Appendix 3: Evaluation of Determination of Effects Documents that Support 

NLAA Determinations 

(To be used by the Monitoring Team) 

Action Agency _USDA Forest Service_Name of Subunit Rogue River-Siskiyou NF; Southwest OR 

Level 1 Team__ 

Name of Project________ Butcherknife-Slate Vegetation Management ________________

Team Representative _Susan Maiyo_______ Date _____December 13 2008_____________ 

Product/Criterion Yes No 

1 Identifies proposed action clearly (includes a description of the various 

components of the action) X 

2 

Identifies spatial and temporal patterns of the action’s direct and indirect 

environmental effects, including direct and indirect effects of 

interrelated and interdependent actions 

X 

3 Identifies Action Area clearly (based on information in 2.) X 

4 

Identifies all threatened and endangered species and any designated 

critical habitat that may be exposed to the proposed action (includes a 

description of spatial, temporal, biological characteristics and 

constituent habitat elements appropriate to the project assessment) 

X 

5 

Compares the distribution of potential effects (identified in 2) with the 

threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat 

(identified in 4) and establishes, using the best scientific and 

commercial data available, that (a) exposure is improbable or (b) if 

exposure is likely, responses are insignificant, discountable, or wholly 

beneficial 

X 

6 Determination is based on best available scientific and commercial 

information X