USDI, Bureau of Land Management 

Three Rivers Resource Area, Burns District 

Hines, Oregon 97738 

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

FOR 

SLICKEAR/CLAW CREEK FOREST RESTORATION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

OR-025-08-017 

INTRODUCTION: 
Burns District Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to implement fuels management 
and ecosystem restoration treatments within Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units (collectively 
referred to as the project area) in Three Rivers Resource Area (RA).  Prescribed fire and 
silvicultural thinning activities would be the primary management tools. 
The Slickear/Claw Creek Forest Restoration Project area is made up of two subunits located in 
Harney County. Slickear Creek Unit (approximately 6,900 acres) and Claw Creek Unit 
(approximately 4,600 acres) are located approximately 26 miles north-northwest and 43 miles 
west-northwest of Burns, respectively (Map 1).  Slickear Creek Unit is located almost 
exclusively within Skull Creek Grazing Allotment with elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet 
(T. 20 S., R. 29 E., Sections 31-35, and T. 21 S., R. 29 E., Sections 2-11 and 14-18; Maps 2 and 
3). Claw Creek Unit is located almost exclusively within Claw Creek Allotment with elevation 
ranges from 4,660 to 5,150 feet (T. 21 S., R. 26 E., Sections 12, 13, and 24 and T 21 S. R. 27 E., 
Sections 7, 8, and 17-20; Maps 4 and 5). The project would be implemented over a 10 to 12-year 
period. 
Rangeland plant communities represented in the project area are dominated by species such as 
ponderosa pine, western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and stiff sagebrush.  
Other important plant communities occurring in the project area include quaking aspen, 
mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush. 
Due to climate shifts, historic livestock grazing, fire suppression, early logging practices, a shift 
in land-use practices, and absence of other forest management practices, ponderosa pine and 
western juniper have expanded and encroached upon important plant communities and are out of 
balance with historical compositions. 
Western juniper (addressed separately from all other conifers in this document) is encroaching 
upon all plant communities in the project area to various degrees.  Between 1870 and 1900, rapid 
increases in juniper density within sagebrush-steppe plant communities coincided with the onset 
of favorable climatic conditions, major changes in land-use patterns, and decreases in fire 
frequency and intensity throughout eastern Oregon.  A simultaneous increase in establishment of 
juniper forests in the region occurred between 1879 and 1918.  Fire return intervals in mountain 
big sagebrush-bunchgrass plant association groups varied between 15 and 25 years prior to Euro­
American settlement (Miller and Rose 1999).  Increasing distribution and density of juniper 
within shrubland and grassland ecosystems can dramatically impact biodiversity, hydrologic 
cycles, fauna, and nutrient cycling (Bates et al. 1999).  The most frequently cited cultural factors 
involved in the historic expansion of juniper involve introduction of sheep and cattle grazing at 
the end of the 19th century. Livestock grazing removed or reduced herbaceous fine fuels from 
the understory of shrubland plant communities, thereby, reducing fire frequency, intensity, and 
area burned. Fire suppression also contributed toward the trend of fire exclusion as tactics and 
technologies advanced over time.  
Exclusion of wildland fire combined with early logging methods have also resulted in 
overstocked ponderosa pine stand conditions, high levels of forest litter, fuel accumulations, 
increased ladder fuels, and increased proportions of fire-intolerant trees (Hann et al. 1997; 
Swetnam et al. 1999).  Large-scale wildfires that occur under these conditions can be dangerous, 
unpredictable events that threaten human life, private property, and cause resource damage. 
Forested areas within the project area are overstocked1, which has resulted in a reduction of 
grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Ponderosa pine stands in the project area were historically dominated 
by large, fire-resistant ponderosa pine. Now, the understory and middlestory of these stands are 
crowded with fire-intolerant, small-diameter trees and canopies are often in a closed condition.  
The shift in land-use practices that accompanied Euro-American settlement also transformed the 
structure and composition of forestland plant communities in the region.  Prior to 1890, the fire 
return interval in lower elevation, fire-adapted forests common to the southern Blue Mountains 
varied between 5 and 23 years (Agee 1994).  The low intensity/high frequency disturbance 
regime favored development of fire resistant trees such as large ponderosa pine.  It also favored 
development of open stands with scant ladder fuels.   
Density and patch size of aspen stands and other riparian species in the project area, have 
declined due to ponderosa pine and juniper encroachment.  In the project area juniper has 
encroached into many of the stands, but only dominates a small number of aspen sites.  
Ponderosa pine has encroached upon almost all aspen stands within the project area and is 
dominating most of them. 
Density, patch size, health and vigor of mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrasses, mountain 
mahogany, and bitterbrush stands are declining as a result of encroaching juniper and pine trees. 
Much of the existing mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities are in an early transitional 
phase to closed western juniper woodlands.  Juniper has also encroached into, and in many cases 
dominates, mountain mahogany and bitterbrush stands.  Ponderosa pine has also encroached 
upon these plant communities.  Historically, higher elevation, forest-fringe ecological sites were 
open shrub-grassland communities supporting only two to five ponderosa pine trees per acre 
(Munger 1917; Erickson and Conover 1918). Current conditions support an average of 40 or 
more ponderosa pine trees per acre. 
At the lower fringes of this forest type, ponderosa pine and western juniper have encroached 
meadows and other areas where conifers were not historically prevalent.  There is an increasing 
1 Overstocked: Having a tree density in excess of the range of historic variability. 
2

realization forests and woodlands of the Blue Mountains have evolved with fire and historical 
conditions were often more resilient and sustainable than the present condition (Langston 1995). 
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION: 
The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is to move toward management objectives 
described in Three Rivers Resource Management Plan (RMP) within Slickear Creek and Claw 
Creek Units by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring plant communities, and improving wildlife 
habitat diversity. The emphasis on treatments in forested areas would be to reduce densities of 
small diameter trees and duff and litter accumulations.  The emphasis in shrublands, woodlands, 
and riparian areas would be to move conditions toward historic2 species composition and 
structure while reducing fuels in the vicinity of the towns of Burns, Hines, and Riley, as well as 
numerous ranches, homes, and dwellings.  Burns, Hines, and Riley were identified as 
communities at risk in the Harney County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (2005). 
The need for action is western juniper and ponderosa pine have encroached upon important plant 
communities (as described above) impacting biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, fauna and nutrient 
cycling. Fuel accumulations have also occurred creating potential for large-scale, high-intensity 
wildfires threatening human life, property, and natural resources. 
Additional Purposes Include: 
¾	 Reduce horizontal and vertical fuel continuity and loading of forests and 
woodlands to reduce the chances of a surface fire becoming a crown fire, and a 
small fire becoming a stand-replacement wildfire.  Reducing fuels would not only 
help protect life, property, and resource values on private and public lands, but 
would also increase the safety for wildland firefighters. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Fire Management Objective 1 (RMP, p. 2-101):  As 
determined through the values at risk analysis, maximize protection of life, property, and 
high value sensitive resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. 
Project Objectives: 
- Reduce surface fuels in forested stands from seven tons per acre to approximately 
three tons per acre. 
- Reduce density of understory trees acting as ladder fuel in forests or woodlands so 
they are spaced at an average of 22 feet within treated stands. 
- Reduce woody fuel loading within western juniper encroached mountain big 
sagebrush communities in the project area.  Reduce 1-hour and 10-hour time lag 
fuels associated with juniper by a mean total of 90 percent and 100-hour fuels by 
a mean total of 75 percent in treated areas. 
¾	 Improve vigor and resiliency of fire-dependent ecological communities to 
wildfire, insects, disease, and other disturbances.  Reintroducing fire into 
2 Historic:  Refers to a period prior to 1940 throughout this document. 
3

shrublands, grasslands, forestlands, and riparian areas would move stands toward 
conditions that are more stable, support greater wildlife species diversity, and 
enhance watershed function. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Vegetation 1 (RMP, p. 2-51): Maintain, restore, or 
enhance the diversity of plant communities and plant species in abundances and 
distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or 
indigenous plant species within the RA. 
Project Objective: 
- Move mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities and hydrological 
conditions within the project area toward historic conditions by reducing live 
western juniper density by a mean total of 70 percent within treated areas. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Forestry and Woodlands Objective 1 (RMP, p. 2-24): 
Manage approximately 50,000 acres of available productive noncommercial forestlands 
and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, minor forest products, watershed 
protection, and rangeland productivity. 
Project Objective: 
- Move pine forest, pine woodland, and pine savannah stand densities, structure, 
and composition toward historic conditions within the project area. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Fire Management Objective 2 (RMP, p. 2-101): 
Consistent with the values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed fire 
and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. 
Project Objective: 
- Reintroduce fire as a disturbance process in mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass, 
and ponderosa pine woodland and forest communities within the project area. 
¾	 Improve quality and productivity of forage species available to wildlife and 
livestock in the project area.  Bunchgrasses and forbs, important forage for elk, 
mule deer, antelope, domestic livestock and avian species, have been reduced or 
are completely absent in plant communities undergoing conversion to juniper 
woodlands and in closed canopy ponderosa pine forest stands.  Key wildlife 
browse species such as bitterbrush and mountain mahogany are declining under 
the influence of juniper and pine expansion. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Wildlife 7 (RMP, p. 2-74):  Restore, maintain, or enhance 
the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and distribution 
which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or indigenous wildlife 
species habitat within the RA. 
4

Project Objectives: 
- Reduce western juniper encroachment into key wildlife habitat dominated by 
bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, aspen, or riparian hardwoods by 90 percent 
within the project area while maintaining habitat values. 
- Reduce post-settlement3 western juniper density by 90 percent on low 
sagebrush/bunchgrass ecological sites targeted to improve sage-grouse habitat. 
- Increase forage available to big game and other wildlife on BLM-administered 
lands in the project area while retaining adequate cover. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Grazing Management 1 (RMP, p. 2-33): Resolve resource 
conflicts and achieve management objectives as identified for each allotment. 
Project Objective: 
- Increase forage available to domestic livestock on lands within Skull Creek and 
Claw Creek Grazing Allotments. 
¾	 Improve riparian and water quality conditions in the project area.  Areas of 
accelerated erosion and increased sediment delivery into fluvial systems within 
the project area are occurring due to current road locations and conifer 
encroachment upon riparian areas. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Water Quality 1.1 (RMP, p. 2-4):  On a case-by-case basis 
and after adequate public involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting surface 
water quality and not needed for administration or fire protection on public lands. 
Project Objective: 
-	 Improve water quality by reducing sediment delivery into Claw Creek associated 
with road use. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Soil Management 2 (RMP, p. 2-20):  Rehabilitate areas 
with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human influenced) 
sediment delivery to fluvial systems. 
Project Objective: 
-	 Reduce or slow erosion within Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units. 
¾	 Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to resource needs.  This 
would reduce treatment costs incurred by the agency and supply raw materials 
and jobs that contribute to community stability. 
 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans, Laws, Regulations and Policy 
This analysis incorporates and conforms to the Three Rivers Record of Decision/RMP 
management objectives and also conforms to the following documents, which direct and 
provide the framework for management of BLM lands within Burns District:  
3 Post-settlement:  A period of time occurring after Euro-American settlement in the region. 
5

•	 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), 1970. 
•	 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), 1976. 
•	 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1544), 1973. 
•	 Burns District Noxious Weed Management Program Environmental Assessment 
(EA) (OR-020-98-05) (1998). 
•	 The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon:  A 
plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat (2005). 
•	 The Burns Interagency Fire Zone Fire Management Plan (2004). The project area 
lies entirely within the Silver and Silvies Fire Management Units (FMU). 
•	 Four of the five key points set forth within the National Fire Plan (NFP)4. Additionally, 
the proposal responds to the goals of A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildfire 
Risk to Communities and the Environment:  10-year Comprehensive Strategy5. 
Key points of the NFP are: 
1.	 Firefighting preparedness 
2.	 Rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by wildfire 
3.	 Hazardous fuels reduction 
4.	 Promote community assistance 
5.	 Accountability 
Goals of the NFP 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy : 
1.	 Improve Fire Prevention 
2.	 Reduce Hazardous Fuels 
3.	 Restore fire-adapted ecosystems 
4.	 Promote community assistance 
•	 Harney County CWPP founded on the NFP and the related 10-year 
Comprehensive Strategy in Harney County (PF-IRA-006, DNRC et al. 2005).  
The CWPP was completed in 2005 through a collaborative effort with a diverse 
group of interested parties. The purpose and need of the Proposed Action are in 
conformance with the CWPP goals of protecting communities, rural residences 
and structures, grazing lands, recreational lands, and cultural resources.  The 
CWPP recommends that fuels reduction projects focus on Fire Regime Condition 
Class (FRCC) 3 (Section 10, Fire Management) lands and private landowners 
collaborate with Federal agencies to make fuels management efforts more 
effective. 
Finally, the Proposed Action is in compliance with State, tribal, and local laws and 
regulations. 
4 National Fire Plan (NFP): A collection of policies and documents for actively responding to severe wildland 
fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future 
(http://www.fireplan.gov). 
5 http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/fire/final_fire_rpt.pdf 
6

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: 
The proposal is to utilize various methods of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to 
accomplish specific objectives to improve forest and rangeland health.  The project area 
treatment proposals are grouped into four dominant vegetative communities:  forest areas 
(ponderosa pine stands), low/stiff sagebrush flats, mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrasses 
communities, and aspen stands. Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush communities are lumped 
in as inclusions with the mountain big sagebrush and ponderosa pine plant communities.   
In addition to the mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, approximately 0.75-mile of a 
rough road that meanders through Claw Creek would either be closed or moved to reduce 
sediment input into the stream channel.  This road is currently a rough, two-track road that runs 
through the creek bed and dead ends due to topographic features.  Twenty-one Project Design 
Elements, for protection or maintenance of specific resource values, have been incorporated 
into the Proposed Action, as the result of specialist recommendations.  
Forested Areas Treatment 
There are approximately 1,500 acres within the project area dominated by ponderosa  
pine-bunchgrasses plant communities.  These stands have become overstocked due to absence of 
fire and other management practices.  Other important plant communities occurring within these 
sites include quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush.  Juniper has encroached upon 
these plant communities.  Objectives in these areas are to improve forest health, reduce 
hazardous fuel loading and risk of sustained crown fires, and to improve wildlife habitat.  To 
return these stands to a historical ponderosa pine community, it is necessary to reduce surface, 
ladder, and continuous canopy fuels in stages (Agee 2005). The proposal is to thin overstocked 
pine stands and remove encroaching juniper.  Several untreated islands would be left to provide 
quality thermal and hiding cover for wildlife.  These islands would be determined during onsite 
project layout.  Approximately 70 to 90 percent or 1,050 to 1,350 acres of these communities 
would be treated. All juniper trees except those displaying old-growth characteristics or obvious 
wildlife occupation would be cut and piled. Understory and intermediate and co-dominant 
overstory ponderosa pine trees would be thinned using variable tree spacing creating basal areas 
ranging from 40 to 120 feet2/acre. Thinning would retain the largest and best formed trees for 
overstory retention. If it is determined to be both economically and environmentally feasible, cut 
conifers could be sold and removed.  All slash would be piled either by hand or machine 
depending on feasibility and resource concerns.  All piles would be burned after the vegetation 
cured (vegetation should cure within 2 years).  A prescribed underburn would be conducted 5 to 
7 years after mechanical treatments to further reduce ground fuels (litter, twigs, branches <3 
inches) in the same stands.  
Low/Stiff Sagebrush Flats Treatment 
There are approximately 5,700 acres classified as low/stiff sagebrush sites within the project 
area. Some sites have had some level of juniper encroachment on them.  The proposal is to treat 
some of the low and stiff sagebrush flats encroached upon by juniper.  The recommendation to 
treat the area would be determined by the relative importance of the area for sage-grouse.  Areas 
7

considered to be suitable for sage-grouse, but currently unsuitable due to juniper encroachment 
would be given highest priority for treatment.  Other areas, such as suitable habitat or probable 
habitat for sage-grouse, would be determined by the level of juniper encroachment and relative 
importance.  The objectives in these areas are to improve sage-grouse habitat and protect the 
integrity of the low/stiff sagebrush flats.  The proposal in these plant communities is to remove 
the competitive influence of encroaching juniper.  Encroaching juniper trees would be cut and 
left. Downed juniper may be jackpot burned6 after the vegetation has cured. This determination 
would be based upon whether or not downed juniper would create enough fuel buildup to create 
a potential wildfire hazard. Single-tree burning7 may occur on a limited basis as an alternative 
method to cutting.  
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Communities Treatment 
There are approximately 3,600 acres in the project area classified as mountain big sagebrush-
bunchgrass plant communities. Scattered ponderosa pine woodlands, mountain mahogany stands, 
and bitterbrush stands are intermixed within some of the mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrass 
plant communities. These plant communities are being encroached upon, and in some cases, 
dominated by juniper.  Pine has also expanded, to a limited degree, outside its historical niche 
within these communities.  
The objective in these areas is to restore and enhance existing mountain big  
sagebrush-bunchgrass, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and pine woodland communities, to 
improve wildlife habitat.  The management objective in all these communities is to remove 
encroaching juniper and pine trees.  Approximately 40 to 60 percent of the land area made up of 
these plant communities would be targeted for treatment.  The recommendation to treat a given 
area would be determined by the level of encroachment and relative importance of the area for big 
game.  The proposal in these plant communities consists of an array of management actions in 
order to reduce influence of encroaching juniper and pine.  The two principal treatments used to 
treat the majority of these communities would be 1) cutting encroaching juniper followed by 
jackpot burning after juniper has cured or 2) cutting and piling. In areas where cutting and piling 
is the preferred method, piles would be moved away from retained desired vegetation to the 
extent practical. Piling would be done by hand or mechanized equipment (excavator, feller 
buncher, etc.). Where ponderosa pine has expanded outside its historical niche, understory 
thinning, ranging from complete removal to a 22-foot spacing, may occur.  All piles would be 
burned after the vegetation cured. 
6 Jackpot Burning: Prescribed burning of concentrations of woody fuels during the late fall, winter or spring, 
preferably when the ground is partially frozen or wet.  This method would burn the fine fuels, limit the ability of 
the fire to spread and prevent soil sterilization from excessive heat.  It is conducive to maintaining the herbaceous 
plant species growing under the downed junipers.  (For more detail see Appendix A - Activity Descriptions.) 
7 Single-tree Burning: Prescribed burning of individual trees during the late fall, winter or spring, preferably when 
the ground is partially wet or frozen.  This method would burn the fine fuels, limit the ability of the fire to spread 
and prevent soil sterilization from excessive heat.  It is conducive to maintaining the herbaceous plant species 
growing under the junipers.  (For more detail see Appendix A - Activity Descriptions.) 
8

Lesser amounts of prescribed broadcast burning and juniper/pine cutting and leaving may be 
employed.  The cutting and leaving activity would only be used in sparse fuels where it is 
determined not to be a hazard.  In areas targeted for a broadcast burn, the objective is to burn 40 
to 60 percent of the mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrass communities in early or mid-transition 
toward juniper woodlands and 90 to 100 percent of mountain big sagebrush plant communities in 
late transition toward juniper woodlands. Any remaining encroached juniper may be cut and 
jackpot burned within treated areas and within areas left unburned by the broadcast prescribed 
burn. Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush plant communities greater than an acre may receive 
some form of pretreatment prior to any broadcast burning.  Pretreatment would primarily consist 
of cutting and jackpot burning, blacklining, or cutting and pulling cut vegetation away from 
mountain mahogany and bitterbrush stands, or piling via hand or mechanized equipment, prior to 
the broadcast burn.  The recommendation to perform pretreatment and type of pretreatment 
would be determined by resource advisors during onsite project layout. 
Aspen Treatment 
There are several aspen stands found within the project area.  All aspen stands within the project 
area are being encroached upon by juniper, ponderosa pine, or both.  The proposal in these 
treatment areas is to remove encroaching vegetation.  Mechanical cutting would be the primary 
tactic used in these communities.  Broadcast burning may be utilized in addition to mechanical 
treatments or as a substitute for mechanical treatments in an effort to cut down on juniper and 
pine seedling establishment.  
Ponderosa pine trees less than 10 inches Diameter Breast Height (DBH) would be cut, limbed, 
and piled. Ponderosa pine trees in the 11 to 19-inches DBH size range may be cut and limbed.  
Only limbs would be piled on these trees, leaving the bole to serve as downed woody debris.  
Ponderosa pine trees greater than 19 inches DBH would either be girdled to provide snag habitat, 
cut, or left onsite.  The largest and true old-growth pine trees would be left onsite.  If it is 
determined to be both economically and environmentally feasible, cut conifers could be sold and 
removed.  Junipers, except those showing old-growth characteristics or obvious wildlife 
occupation, would be cut and piled. Piling in aspens stands would be done by either machine or 
hand. Piles and downed juniper would be burned after the cut vegetation has cured, and during a 
time of year that would reduce damage to soils and minimize fire spread.  Aspen stands could be 
fenced to protect aspen suckers from browsing animals.  The need for fencing would be 
determined through monitoring.  Big game exclosure fences would be built to Burns District 
BLM standards, which consist of woven wire from ground to at least 7 feet aboveground.  If a 
big game exclosure fence is determined to be needed, it would be removed after new suckers 
attain a height where the apical bud is 7 feet or higher or above the reach of most grazing 
animals as determined by monitoring. 
Project Design Elements 
1.	 Protect cultural resource values throughout the life of the project. Archaeological 
inventory of the proposed treatment areas would be completed prior to any 
mechanical treatments.  Archaeological sites may be avoided within mechanical 
9

treatment units and activity generated fuels would not be piled within the 
boundaries of sites. Sites with combustible components would be protected 
during deployment of prescribed fire by blacklining resources and use of 
appropriate ignition techniques.  The District Fuels Archaeologist would review 
burn plans prior to project implementation. 
2.	 Protect Special Status vegetation species throughout the life of the project. Special 
Status plant populations would be avoided within mechanical treatment units if 
necessary. Fire intolerant sensitive plants would be protected during deployment 
of prescribed fire by blacklining resources and use of appropriate ignition 
techniques.  The District Fuels Botanist would review burn plans prior to project 
implementation. 
3.	 Protect Special Status wildlife species (fisheries and wildlife) habitat throughout 
the life of the project. Structures or areas with Special Status Species (SSS) 
habitat value identified during wildlife surveys would be protected during project 
implementation.  The District Fuels Wildlife Biologist and the Three Rivers 
Fisheries Biologist would review burn plans prior to project implementation. 
4.	 Sites that lack sufficient understory species, such as fully developed juniper 
woodlands, or areas burned at a high intensity, may require seeding following a 
prescribed fire treatment to attain the desired post-fire response.  Mixtures of 
native and nonnative grass, forb, and shrub seed may be applied to designated 
areas with aerial or ground-based methods.  Candidate sites for seeding would be 
determined on a case-by-case basis as monitoring data are gathered. 
5.	 Livestock grazing would not occur for at least two growing seasons in pastures 
treated with broadcast burning.  An additional season of rest from grazing would 
be necessary prior to a broadcast burn to allow for development of a fine fuel 
ignition source. 
6.	 Pastures treated with a jackpot burning treatment may be rested for a period of up 
to two growing seasons if necessary to allow for recovery of understory species. 
7.	 No downed ponderosa pine logs greater than 15 inches diameter and no snags 
greater than 15 inches DBH would be intentionally burned in any unit.  Snags 
may be intentionally created if an area is determined to be snag deficient 
following mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. 
8.	 The raking of deep duff around old-growth ponderosa pine trees, large snags, 
large down woody debris may occur prior to prescribed burning if determined to 
be necessary to retain them. 
9.	 Maintain suitable big game hiding and thermal cover.  Ensure mountain 
mahogany stands and conifer leave islands continue to function as big game cover 
10

following treatments.  Retain approximately 10 percent of expansion juniper and 
young pine stands within the project area to provide cover for mule deer and elk. 
10.	 Avoid manual cutting of pine and juniper with old-growth characteristics or 
obvious wildlife occupation (cavities or nests).  Consider protection of such trees 
during prescribed fire operations. 
11.	 All ponderosa pine stumps greater than 14 inches diameter created during the 
project would be treated with Borax to guard against the threat of annosus (Fomes 
annosus) root disease. 
12.	 Two years of goshawk inventory would be performed prior to any implementation 
of the Proposed Action. 
13.	 Prior to treatment of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment units, noxious weed 
populations in the area would be inventoried.  Weed populations identified in or 
adjacent to the project area would be treated using the most appropriate methods 
in accordance with the Noxious Weed Management Program EA/Decision Record 
(DR), OR-020-98-05. 
14.	 Risk of noxious weed introduction would be minimized by ensuring all equipment 
(including all machinery, 4-wheelers, and pickup trucks) is cleaned prior to entry 
to the site, minimizing disturbance activities, and completing follow-up 
monitoring, for at least 3 years, to ensure no new noxious weed establishment.  
Should noxious weeds be found, appropriate control treatments would be 
performed in conformance with the Noxious Weed Management Program 
EA/DR, OR-020-98-05. 
15.	 Piles and cut juniper would be jackpot burned when soil moisture is high or under 
frozen soil conditions to reduce threat of soil sterilization and to maintain the 
existing shrub and herbaceous plant communities to the extent practical. 
16.	 Prescribed burning would follow the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in 
order to protect air quality and reduce health and visibility impacts on designated 
areas. 
17.	 All burns would be planned based on either instructions given by, or in 
consultation with, the Oregon Department of Forestry and the State 
Implementation Plan for prescribed fires. Coordination with other prescribed fire 
projects occurring at the same time may be required. 
18.	 Any road damaged by vehicles or equipment would be restored to its previous 
standard or higher, with special attention placed on installing and improving 
drainage on the road. 
11

19.	 Dispersed campsites identified within the project area would not be intentionally 
burned during broadcast burn operations. Protection would be considered for 
leave islands of sufficient size around identified campsites to protect cultural and 
recreation values. 
20.	 Limit the amount of mechanized equipment in the riparian area.  Landings and 
piles would be kept out of riparian areas. 
21.	 Prior to beginning operations requiring any fuel tanks or fuel handling at the site, 
the contractor or BLM would develop and submit to the authorized officer a spill 
contingency plan. 
SUMMARY OF NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE: 
Under this alternative, there would be no thinning of forestlands, cutting of encroaching juniper 
and pine in sagebrush communities or stands of mahogany or aspen, application of prescribed 
fire, removal or realignment of the road alongside Claw Creek, or temporary protection fencing 
erected around aspen stands. All other current management, such as livestock grazing, under the 
No Action Alternative would proceed under the Three Rivers RMP and all other relevant policy 
direction. 
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT: 
This proposal is in conformance with objectives and land use plan allocations in the 1992 Three 
Rivers RMP. Based on the analysis of potential environmental impacts contained in the EA and 
all other information, I have determined that the Proposed Action and alternatives analyzed do 
not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly impact the quality of the human 
environment.  Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary and will not 
be prepared. 
Rationale: 
The following critical elements of the human environment have been analyzed in the Three 
Rivers Proposed RMP/FEIS, and are not known to be present in the project area or affected by 
enacting either alternative, and therefore, will not be addressed further in this document:  Areas 
of Critical Environmental Concern, Flood Plains, Paleontology, Prime or Unique Farmlands, 
Hazardous Materials, SSS – Plants, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic 
Rivers. The following critical element is not discussed in the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and 
would not be affected by the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives: 
Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 requires that Federal agencies adopt strategies to 
address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. Implementation 
of the Proposed Action would not result in disproportionately adverse effects on minority or low-
income populations. 
12

Wilderness Characteristics:  The issue of impacts to potential wilderness characteristics was 
raised by the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) for the project area.  BLM reviewed 
the submitted information as part of updating its original wilderness characteristics inventory.  
Using field knowledge and onsite verification (where necessary), BLM determined that its 
original inventory finding that no wilderness characteristics exist in the project area remains 
valid. As such, wilderness characteristics will not be analyzed further in this document.  Both 
the BLM's findings and the ONDA-proposed inventory information are available to the public 
upon request. 
The following critical elements are present and are analyzed in the document:  Air Quality, 
Water Quality/Wetlands and Riparian Zones, Migratory Birds, SSS - Fauna, Noxious Weeds, 
American Indian Traditional Practices, and Cultural Heritage.  Noncritical elements which are 
present and analyzed in this document are Soils/Biological Soil Crusts (BSCs), Vegetation, 
Wildlife, Fisheries, Grazing Management, Recreation/Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), Visual 
Resources, Economic and Social Values, Forestry/Woodlands, Fire Management, and 
Transportation/Roads. 
This chapter describes affected environmental components not site-specifically described in the 
Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and all effects including direct, indirect, and cumulative on resources 
from enacting the proposed alternatives.  A distinction between direct and indirect effects is not 
made and in many cases cumulative effects are only described as effects.  All effects are 
considered direct and cumulative; therefore, use of these words may not appear.  
For the purpose of this analysis, the term "short term" refers to a period of time that is equal to or 
less than 15 years. The term "long term" refers to a period of time that is greater than  
15 years. 
Air Quality: 
Air quality in the areas associated with both Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units currently 
meets or exceeds air quality standards outlined by the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality (ODEQ). Due to the long distance from large metropolitan areas and factories, ambient 
air quality is generally good with few particulates or other pollutants.  No area or community in 
Harney County is considered a nonattainment area for particulate matter meaning it is not in 
violation of the particulate (PM 2.5) national ambient air quality standard.  Impacts on air quality 
from the proposal could range from reduced visibility to pneumonic irritation, and smoke odor 
affecting people in proximity to the project area when such treatments are underway.  These 
impacts are short lived, the greatest impact occurring during the actual ignition phase, lasting 
from one to a few days depending on the size or number of actual burn units or number of piles 
to be ignited. 
13

Water Quality, Wetlands & Riparian: 
The proposed project includes portions of Silver and Silvies subbasins.  Riparian conditions were 
analyzed at the 6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)8 or 6th level subwatershed. There are 
five, 6th-level HUCs within the project area. 
Streams in the project area have been evaluated for water quality impairment as directed by the 
ODEQ. Egypt Creek, Wickiup Creek, Claw Creek, and Skull Creek are on ODEQ's 303(d) list 
of water quality impaired streams for exceeding the 68 ºF water temperature standard for 
salmonid rearing.  No other pollutants are documented in the streams within the project area.  
Below are brief descriptions of the current conditions of 6th level subwatersheds within the 
project area. 
Reintroducing and mimicking natural processes excluded from riparian zones (e.g., juniper and 
other conifer removal and prescribed burns) should result in a positive vegetation response.  
Prescribed burns would be initiated when conditions are conducive to lower intensity burns, 
which would reduce potential of losing desired riparian vegetation.  In burned areas, most 
herbaceous and root sprouting shrubs would retain their live rooting systems intact and hold the 
soil in place. Deciduous riparian vegetation with high-fuel loading with potential to burn very 
hot would be pretreated by manual reduction to reduce fuel loads.  
Reducing competition from juniper and other conifers in riparian zones should facilitate recovery 
of deciduous woody and herbaceous riparian communities to a more historic regime.  This would 
improve watershed stability and function by reducing bare soil and sediment inputs, stabilizing 
banks, increasing infiltration, and maintaining or restoring proper storage and release of 
groundwater important for late season flows and temperatures.  Water quality would improve 
with enhanced watershed function where erosion is minimized, sediment inputs are minimized, 
channel bank stability is reinforced, infiltration rates increase, and potential for groundwater 
recharge is restored. 
By reducing high fuel loads throughout the project area, the risk of a large-scale, high-severity 
wildland fire would be reduced. Where riparian vegetation appears to be well adapted to low-
severity fires, mortality rates are highest when the litter layer and root crowns are consumed by 
fire (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). High-severity burned areas also experience higher rates of soil 
loss from erosion, increased peak flows of runoff, greater duff reduction, loss of soil nutrients, 
and soil heating. If organic layers are consumed and mineral soil layers are exposed, soil 
infiltration and water storage capacities are reduced (Robichaud 2000).  By treating fuel loads 
within the project area the risk of these effects would be reduced. 
Removal of 0.75-mile of road along Claw Creek would improve water quality and riparian 
condition on Claw Creek. Currently this road is a primary source of excessive sediment found in 
8 HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code.  A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, hierarchical 
drainage system.  Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate an area drained 
by a river system, a reach of a river and its tributaries in that reach, a closed basin(s), or a group of streams forming 
a coastal drainage area. 
14

the stream channel.  Removing this portion of the road would trend 0.65-mile of Claw Creek 
toward proper functioning condition (PFC). 
Migratory Birds: 
The project area has a variety of plant communities, and thus offers the potential for quality 
habitat for numerous migratory bird species.  Migratory bird species strongly associated with the 
following habitats are likely to occur or have potential to occur in the project area:  ponderosa 
pine woodlands, ponderosa pine/juniper woodlands, juniper woodlands, big 
sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, and low and stiff sagebrush plant communities.  Small 
isolated stands of mountain mahogany, aspen, and willow also occur within the project area 
adding to the habitat diversity within the project area.  A few migratory bird species of 
conservation concern for the Great Basin either occur within the project area or potential habitat 
for these species exists within the project area.  These species include golden eagle, Lewis’ 
woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, Brewer's 
sparrow, and sage sparrow.  These species, except golden eagles, are Burns District SSS and will 
be addressed in the SSS section. Golden eagles use a variety of habitats, and generally nest on 
ledges along rims, but may nest in large, mature coniferous trees.  There are no known golden 
eagle nest sites within or near the project area.  There are many other migratory bird species not 
of conservation concern for the Great Basin Region that use the project area for nesting, 
foraging, and resting. 
Direct impacts to migratory birds would be minimized by limiting burning operations and 
mechanical treatments to the fall and winter seasons where necessary and through project design 
elements.  In the long term, migratory bird species diversity and richness would increase as 
grasses, forbs, sagebrush, and other shrubs are regenerated by the reintroduction of fire in 
rangeland ecosystems and the mosaic of habitat types it creates.  Enhancing stands of aspen and 
other hardwood habitats would also benefit populations of migratory birds.  In forested areas 
migratory birds such as cavity nesters that prefer large trees would have improved habitat quality 
at the stands get healthier producing larger trees in the long term.  There would be a reduction in 
habitat quality for birds that prefer dense understories and those that forage and nest in the small 
size class conifer trees. However, the overall net effect of the Proposed Action would likely be 
an increase in habitat diversity and an increase in avian species diversity. 
Special Status Species - Fauna: 
Terrestrial Species 
There are no known Federally listed Threatened or Endangered wildlife species found within or 
adjacent to the project area. There are several SSS that either occur or have potential to occur as 
their habitat or potential habitat exists within the project area.  These species include greater 
sage-grouse, northern goshawk, northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, 
Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, olive-sided flycatcher, 
loggerhead shrike, Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, and several species of bats. Other SSS may 
occasionally occur within the project area, but their occurrence would be considered rare or 
infrequent. 
15

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), a special status species, and their habitat are 
known to occur within the project area. The Proposed Action is in conformance with the Greater 
Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon. The Proposed Action would 
have long-term positive effects on sage-grouse, as sagebrush communities are restored to 
functioning habitats. 
Northern goshawks may occur or have potential to occur in the project area. There are no known 
nest sites in the project area.  However, the project area's forested stands and aspen stands have 
potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for northern goshawks.  The proposal should have 
immediate and long-term positive effects on northern goshawks and their habitat. 
Northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-
headed woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch are forest species that have not been documented in the 
project area, but are either expected to occur or potential habitat for these species occurs.  These 
species are cavity nesters primarily relying upon large dead and dying trees for nesting.  The 
olive-sided flycatcher prefers open forest with an uneven canopy.  Northern pygmy owl and 
pileated woodpecker prefer closed canopies, while Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, 
white-headed woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch prefer more open canopies.  All generally prefer 
a more open understory.  The Proposed Action would protect existing snags, large downed 
woody debris, and old-growth trees and promote recruitment of large trees which should benefit 
these species in the long-term.  All these species should benefit from opening of the understory.  
The Proposed Action would also remove a portion of subdominate and co-dominate trees that 
make up the forest canopy.  This part of the Proposed Action should benefit Lewis’ woodpecker, 
Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch as they prefer more 
open canopies. It would negatively affect northern pygmy owl and pileated woodpeckers as they 
prefer closed canopies. However, the variable nature of forest treatments would ensure there are 
portions of forest where canopy closure would remain high and not affect habitat quality for 
these species. The olive-sided flycatcher would also be beneficially affected as the Proposed 
Action would open the understory and promote larger tree growth.  
Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, and loggerhead shrike are expected to inhabit the project area.  
These species nest in habitats with varying degrees of sagebrush density.  Habitat quality in the 
project area for these species has been degraded by juniper encroachment, and in some cases, 
ponderosa pine. The Proposed Action would cause both immediate and long-term benefits for 
Brewer's sparrows, sage sparrows, and loggerhead shrikes.  Treatments that involve felling of 
juniper or removal of pine encroaching into shrub-steppe habitat would immediately improve 
habitat quality for these species.  Broadcast burn treatments may initially decrease habitat for 
these species as both sagebrush and juniper would be consumed by fire, but it should improve 
habitat quality for these species in the long term as sagebrush is reestablished. 
Several Special Status bat species may also be found within the project area.  Bat species 
typically found in forested habitats primarily depend upon large dead or dying trees for roosting.  
There has been no documentation of bats species occurring within the project area, but it is likely 
they occur in the area.  Special Status bat species expected to occur in the project area are likely 
to be not affected in the short term by the Proposed Action.  The Proposed Action would protect 
16

existing roost trees as well as maintain a suitable prey base.  In the long term Special Status bat 
species may benefit as the Proposed Action would promote larger trees which could potentially 
become roost trees. 
Aquatic Species 
Claw and Skull Creeks are the only known fish bearing streams within the project area.  These 
creeks provide habitat for Great Basin redband trout - a Bureau tracking species in Oregon.  This 
species prefers cold, clear, fast flowing water with clean cobbles and gravels, and spawns during 
spring. These trout are adapted to dry, hot summers of eastern Oregon and can withstand short 
periods of time at peak water temperatures of 24 to 27 °C (75 to 80 °F),which would be lethal to 
most other trout (Bowers et al. 1979).  Current population or genetic surveys have not been 
completed at this time. 
Generally, fish species present in the project area are not expected to be adversely affected by 
disturbances to habitat resulting from project activities. Ground disturbance occurring in uplands 
would be located sufficient distances from stream channels to avoid introduction of fine 
sediments.  
Reestablishing more natural patterns and processes could lead to restoration of more complex, 
productive aquatic habitats. Treatment of juniper and other encroached conifers in riparian areas 
would facilitate recovery of a riparian deciduous community and restore the riparian zone to 
more historic conditions. Thinning within the riparian zone would accelerate the stand structure 
toward late successional conditions and reduce the chance of a high severity fire.  The existing 
deciduous component would also be enhanced due to reduced competition with conifers.  By 
expanding the deciduous community, greater bank stability, sediment capture, long-term stream 
shading, nutrient input, and water storage and release are expected. Late season release of cool 
groundwater is important for fish survival during low flows.  Expanding the riparian hardwood 
community would also positively affect the aquatic food web.  Seasonal inputs of terrestrial 
insects from riparian areas are an important food source for drift feeding fish species (Young et 
al. 1997). These inputs are highest from closed-canopy riparian areas dominated by deciduous 
plant species (Elliot 2006). Altering vegetation within the riparian zone to facilitate expansion of 
existing deciduous vegetation would improve aquatic habitat and conditions for fish. 
Activities proposed along fish bearing streams would have negligible effects to Special Status 
fish species. No temporary roads would be constructed within riparian zones and mechanical 
treatments would be limited to hand cutting.   
Cut vegetation would be piled and burned outside the flood plain.  This would minimize ground 
disturbance and sediment entering the stream.  Prescribed underburns in uplands would be 
initiated when conditions are conducive to lower intensity burns.  A low-intensity burn into the 
riparian zone would most likely result in a patchy burn pattern and leave shade, providing 
riparian vegetation. A patchy burn would also minimize the chance of excessive sediment 
delivery to streams because sediment trapping vegetation would still remain.  
17

Water temperatures are not expected to increase from the Proposed Action. Field observations 
indicate topography and channel orientation of the streams in the project area, combined with the 
expected canopy retention on adjacent hillslopes, would not result in a net loss of effective 
stream shade.  
Fish habitat along Claw Creek is expected to improve following the removal of 0.75-mile of road 
along the creek. Currently this road is a primary source of excessive sediment found in the 
stream channel.  Removing this portion of the road would trend the 0.65-mile of Claw Creek 
currently Functioning at Risk (FAR) toward PFC. 
Noxious Weeds: 
There would most likely be no increase in populations of noxious weeds, or establishment of 
new populations, provided that appropriate project design elements are observed.  Follow-up 
treatment on noxious weeds identified during project monitoring would be performed as 
described in the Burns District Noxious Weed Program Management EA OR-020-98-05. 
American Indian Traditional Practices: 
No American Indian Traditional Practice areas are known to occur in the Claw Creek treatment 
unit. However, presence of economically important edible plants in the treatment unit suggests it 
is possible modern use by root gatherers may occur.  The Slickear Creek treatment unit is known 
to contain certain resources (obsidian, edible roots, and big game) important to Burns Paiute 
Tribe. The treatment unit is in close proximity to Burns Paiute Reservation and is said to be an 
area where sacred and religious as well as economic activities occur.  The Burns Paiute Tribe 
was consulted regarding the Proposed Action and no concerns were identified.  Prescribed fires 
may have a negative effect on root and other plant gathering activities immediately following the 
burn (first 2 years) as fire would remove some of this vegetation.  However, it is likely these 
traditional practices would benefit after this initial phase as plants associated with root and plant 
gathering are expected to reestablish at higher levels after the prescribed burn.  Burns Paiute 
Tribal Council did not comment on the Proposed Action or express a desire to meet with the 
BLM. 
Cultural Heritage: 
Cultural surveys will be completed prior to any implementation of the Proposed Action.  The 
Proposed Action would have no known impacts on cultural heritage as cultural sites will be 
protected throughout the life of the project, either through project design features or total 
avoidance. 
Soils: 
Minor increases in soil erosion could occur the first couple of years after the project is 
implemented.  Increases in surface erosion would be short-lived and would likely decrease 
thereafter as understory vegetation regenerates. 
18

Biological Soil Crusts: 
Common BSC likely to be found in the project area are included in the following list of genera:  
Byrum, Cladonia, Collema, Lecanora, Peltigera, Psora, and Tortula. The Proposed Action is 
likely to either benefit or have a negligible effect on biological soil crust in the project area.  
Duff reduction in forested systems as well as mosaic burn patterns from prescribed fires in 
sagebrush dominated communities would allow for soil exposure and establishment of biological 
soil crusts in areas where opportunity for establishment was lost. Biological soil crusts in the 
Project area should also benefit from increased light and moisture as a result of decreased 
interception (reduced conifer canopy). 
Vegetation: 
Under the Proposed Action native plant communities would likely be enhanced.  Native plant 
communities (forested and unforested) would benefit from a reduction in overstocked or 
encroaching conifer species. The aforementioned reduction in interspecific and intraspecific 
competition coupled with a return to historic mean fire return interval (MFRI) would enhance all 
native plant communities by increasing the functionality of the overall ecosystem. 
Overall species diversity would increase.  Application of prescribed fire to juniper woodlands 
developed on historic sagebrush-bunchgrass communities would make more resources 
(sunlight, water, nitrogen) available to understory shrubs, grasses, and forbs.  Following a lag 
period of approximately 5 years, a rapid increase in understory cover and density can be 
expected. Removing western juniper overstory can result in understory species density that is 
10 to 20 times greater than that of untreated areas within 5 years.  Forest health and vigor of 
ponderosa pine stands would be enhanced as well my removing much of the competing 
vegetation. Understory forbs, grasses, shrubs, and riparian vegetation would likely reestablish 
and increase to a more historic level.  Mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and aspen communities 
would be maintained and enhanced as a result of the Proposed Action also. 
Wildlife: 
Overall, there is likely to be an increase in wildlife species diversity as a result of implementing 
the Proposed Action. Species utilizing more open habitats would be favored as a result of the 
Proposed Action. Species favoring juniper woodlands and dense conifer understories would be 
negatively impacted by the Proposed Action. Foraging opportunities for big game and other 
herbivores would increase as understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs reestablish.  The Proposed 
Action will likely increase the health, vigor, and palatability of winter forage for both deer and 
elk. Plant communities wildlife rely upon would likely persist in the event of a wildfire.  
Thermal and hiding cover would decrease as a result of the Proposed Action, but there would 
still be more than sufficient thermal and hiding cover in the project area. 
Fisheries: 
A few reservoirs (Willow and Stateline) within Slickear Creek Unit are stocked by ODFW with 
hatchery rainbow trout. Other non Special Status fish species occur within fish bearing streams 
of the project area. Enacting either alternative would not affect hatchery stocked rainbow trout 
19

in the reservoirs. Impacts to non Special Status fish species occurring within fish bearing 
streams within the project area would be the same as effects to Special Status fish species 
addressed previously, and will not be separately analyzed in this document.  
Grazing Management: 
Combinations of treatments proposed for rangeland and forested plant communities would 
restore plant community diversity and improve watershed and rangeland health.  Overstory and 
understory thinning, piling, and understory prescribed burning proposed for forested areas would 
release herbaceous species which provide forage for livestock and wildlife.  It would increase 
overall plant diversity within these stands without damaging the older ponderosa pines.  
Proposed treatments within rangeland plant communities would restore plant diversity to 
communities found under a more historic fire regime.  All proposed treatments in rangelands 
should increase available soil moisture and release nutrients, resulting in an increased production 
of herbaceous and shrub species. An increase in herbaceous species would improve livestock 
distribution, thereby, reducing concentrations of livestock on any given area, and more uniform 
utilization patterns may result.  The Proposed Action may decrease overall utilization levels as 
well. The Proposed Action would provide healthy plant communities with adequate forage for 
species with similar dietary preferences such as cattle and elk. 
Implementation of the Proposed Action may require 1 to 3 years of rest from livestock grazing 
for the two pastures within Skull Creek Allotment and Claw Creek Pasture of Claw Creek 
Allotment.  However, sequences of treatments could be planned which would provide minimal 
economic impacts to cooperating ranches with continuation of grazing in adjoining pastures in 
the allotments or would allow them to acquire alternative forage.  Growing season rest may be 
required following jackpot burning to provide for plant recovery.  
Recovery time of plant communities from proposed treatments would be less than those that 
would have to occur if a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire occurred.  This is due to the fact that 
the disturbance from prescribed burning and cutting on plant communities which are beyond the 
historic fire regime (i.e., have juniper encroachment with a stressed and dead shrub component) 
is usually far less than disturbance from a wildfire.   
Recreation/Off-Highway Vehicles: 
Primary recreation activities in the project area are associated with hunting big game, driving for 
pleasure, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Under the Proposed Action there may be brief minimal 
impacts to recreational activities in the vicinity of the project area.  Smoke and noise generated 
during project implementation could disrupt recreational activities in the spring or fall seasons.  
In the long term, recreational activities related to driving for pleasure, big game hunting, and 
wildlife viewing would be enhanced as habitat function and overall community diversity 
improves over time. 
20

Economic and Social Values: 
The Proposed Action would utilize stewardship or service contracts to reduce biomass in the 
project area.  The purchase of supplies and equipment necessary for implementation of the 
Proposed Action from community merchants would constitute an additional economic effect. 
Increased rangeland health would increase forage production for livestock and wildlife thereby 
increasing economic opportunities and fostering more desirable recreation opportunities.  
Biomass produced from treatments may be made available for use by alternate energy plants. 
Visual Resources: 
The project area is remote and not visible from any highway.  The entire Claw Creek Unit is 
classified as a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. Management direction from 
Three Rivers RMP for a VRM Class III calls for partial retention of the landscape character.  
Approximately 60 percent of Slickear Creek Unit is classified as a VRM Class III as well.  The 
remaining 40 percent of Slickear Creek Unit is classified as a VRM Class IV.  Management 
direction from Three Rivers RMP for a VRM Class IV allows for modification of the landscape 
character. The Proposed Action meets management direction outlined in the Three Rivers RMP 
for VRM Classes III and IV.  Visual resources would be temporarily affected with short-term 
impacts while treatments are taking place.  Upon completion of the project long-term benefits to 
visual resources should be enhanced as the plant community health and overall diversity in the 
project area increases. 
Forestry/Woodlands: 
Under the Proposed Action forest health would be enhanced.  Growth and vigor of the retained 
trees would be enhanced. The risk of disease and insect infestations entering and/or spreading 
through the stand would decrease as growth, vigor, and overall health of the stand increases.  The 
risk of a stand replacement wildfire occurring in the stands would be greatly reduced. 
Fire Management: 
All treatments included in the Proposed Action would reduce fuel loading and help lessen the 
negative effects of wildfire. The Proposed Action would move the Fire Regime Condition Class 
of many plant communities (mountain big sagebrush, ponderosa pine, mountain mahogany, and 
aspen communities) in the project area from a Condition Class 3 (high risk of losing key 
ecosystem components from fire) to a Condition Class 2 or 1 (a moderate to low risk of losing 
key ecosystem components from fire).  The Proposed Action would lower the risk of stand 
replacement fire in the project area.  Overall, following treatment the ponderosa pine stands 
within the project area should survive any wildfire event. 
Transportation/Roads: 
After completion of all project activities within a specific area, roads damaged by project 
vehicles would be maintained and brought back to their previous conditions.  Other effects of 
project activities on transportation may include temporary loss of public access during certain 
21

_____________________________________   _______________________ 
phases of implementation of the Proposed Action such as prescribed burns.  There would also be 
a loss of or realignment of approximately 0.75-mile of a two-track road in Claw Creek Unit.  If 
the road is removed, it should not affect any through traffic transportation, as it is a very rough 
road that dead ends due to topographic features. 
Joan  M.  Suther       Date  
Three Rivers Resource Area Field Manager 
22

SLICKEAR/CLAW CREEK 

FOREST RESTORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

OR-025-08-017 

Bureau of Land Management 

Burns District Office 

28910 Hwy 20 West 

Hines, Oregon 97738

July 2008 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter I. Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action..............................................................1 

A. Background..............................................................................................................1 

B. Purpose of and Need for Action...............................................................................4 

C. Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans, Saws, Regulations and Policy .....7 

D. Decision Factors.......................................................................................................8 

E. Issues Considered But Not Developed Further........................................................9 

Chapter II. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.................................................................9 

A. No Action Alternative..............................................................................................9 

B. Proposed Action.......................................................................................................9 

C. Project Design Elements ........................................................................................13 

Chapter III. Description of the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..........16 

A. Critical Elements....................................................................................................17 

1. Air Quality .................................................................................................17 

2. Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian ......................................................18 

3. Migratory Birds..........................................................................................23 

4. Special Status Species – Fauna ..................................................................25 

5. Noxious Weeds ..........................................................................................33 

6. American Indian Traditional Practices ......................................................35 

7. Cultural Heritage........................................................................................36 

B. Noncritical Elements..............................................................................................37 

1. Soils/Biological Soil Crusts .......................................................................38 

2. Vegetation ..................................................................................................41 

3. Wildlife ......................................................................................................46 

4. Fisheries .....................................................................................................49 

5. Grazing Management.................................................................................49 

6. Recreation ..................................................................................................52 

7. Economic and Social Values .....................................................................53 

8. Visual Resources........................................................................................54 

9. Forestry/Woodlands...................................................................................55 

10. Fire Management .......................................................................................58 

11. Transportation/Roads.................................................................................61 

C. Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................63 

1. Cumulative Effects Analysis Area.............................................................64 

2. No Action Cumulative Effects...................................................................64 

3. Proposed Action: Cumulative Effects.......................................................65 

Chapter IV. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................66 

A. Agencies and Individuals Consulted......................................................................66 

B. Interdisciplinary Team...........................................................................................66 

C. Advisory.................................................................................................................66

References......................................................................................................................................67 

SLICKEAR CREEK/CLAW CREEK FOREST RESTORATION 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

OR-025-08-017 

CHAPTER I:  INTRODUCTION: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 
A. Background 
Burns District Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to implement fuels 
management and ecosystem restoration treatments within Slickear Creek and Claw 
Creek Units (collectively referred to as the project area) in Three Rivers Resource Area 
(RA). Prescribed fire and silvicultural thinning activities would be the primary 
management tools. 
The project area covered in this assessment is located in Harney County. Slickear Creek 
Unit (approximately 6,900 acres) and Claw Creek Unit (approximately 4,600 acres) are 
located approximately 26 miles north-northwest and 43 miles west-northwest of Burns, 
respectively (Map 1). Slickear Creek Unit is located almost exclusively within Skull 
Creek Grazing Allotment with elevation ranges from 4,400 to 5,000 feet (T. 20 S.,  
R. 29 E., Sections 31-35, and T. 21 S., R. 29 E., Sections 2-11 and 14-18; Maps 2 and 
3). Claw Creek Unit is located almost exclusively within Claw Creek Allotment with 
elevation ranges from 4,660 to 5,150 feet (T. 21 S., R. 26 E., Sections 12, 13, and 24 
and T 21 S. R. 27 E., Sections 7, 8, and 17-20; Maps 4 and 5).  The project would be 
implemented over a 10 to 12-year period. 
Rangeland plant communities represented in the project area are dominated by species 
such as ponderosa pine, western juniper, mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, and 
stiff sagebrush. Appendix A shows an inclusive list of scientific names of all plants 
and animals mentioned in the document.  Other important plant communities occurring 
in the project area include quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush. 
Due to climate shifts, historic livestock grazing, fire suppression, early logging 
practices, a shift in land-use practices, and absence of other forest management 
practices, ponderosa pine and western juniper have expanded and encroached upon 
important plant communities and are out of balance with historical compositions. 
Western juniper (addressed separately from all other conifers in this document) is 
encroaching upon all plant communities in the project area to various degrees.  
Between 1870 and 1900, rapid increases in juniper density within sagebrush-steppe 
plant communities coincided with the onset of favorable climatic conditions, major 
changes in land-use patterns, and decreases in fire frequency and intensity throughout 
eastern Oregon. A simultaneous increase in establishment of juniper forests in the 
region occurred between 1879 and 1918. Fire return intervals in mountain big  
sagebrush-bunchgrass plant association groups varied between 15 and 25 years prior to 
Euro-American settlement (Miller and Rose 1999).  Increasing distribution and density 
of juniper within shrubland and grassland ecosystems can dramatically impact 
biodiversity, hydrologic cycles, fauna, and nutrient cycling (Bates et al. 1999).  The 
most frequently cited cultural factors involved in the historic expansion of juniper 
involve introduction of sheep and cattle grazing at the end of the 19th century.  
Livestock grazing removed or reduced herbaceous fine fuels from the understory of 
shrubland plant communities, thereby, reducing fire frequency, intensity, and area 
burned. Fire suppression also contributed toward the trend of fire exclusion as tactics 
and technologies advanced over time.  
Exclusion of wildland fire combined with early logging methods have also resulted in 
overstocked ponderosa pine stand conditions, high levels of forest litter, fuel 
accumulations, increased ladder fuels, and increased proportions of fire-intolerant trees 
(Hann et al. 1997; Swetnam et al. 1999).  Large-scale wildfires that occur under these 
conditions can be dangerous, unpredictable events that threaten human life, private 
property, and cause resource damage. 
Forested areas within the project area are 
overstocked1, which has resulted in a reduction of 
grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Ponderosa pine stands 
in the project area were historically dominated by 
large, fire-resistant ponderosa pine. Now, the 
understory and middlestory of these stands are 
crowded with fire-intolerant, small-diameter trees 
and canopies are often in a closed condition. The 
shift in land-use practices that accompanied Euro-
American settlement also transformed the structure 
and composition of forestland plant communities 
in the region. Prior to 1890, the fire return interval 
in lower elevation, fire-adapted forests common to 
the southern Blue Mountains varied between 5 and 
23 years (Agee 1994).  The low intensity/high 
frequency disturbance regime favored development 
of fire resistant trees such as large ponderosa pine.  
It also favored development of open stands with 
scant ladder fuels. 
Figure 1.2 A representative photo from the 
project area displaying the overstocked 
nature of the stand.  Note the bark-beetle 
caused mortality in middle of picture. 
1 Overstocked: Having a tree density in excess of the range of historic variability. 
2 

Density and patch size of aspen 
stands and other riparian species in 
the project area, have declined due to 
ponderosa pine and juniper 
encroachment.  A recent study (Wall 
et al. 2001) of 91 aspen stands in the 
northwestern Great Basin found 
three-fourths of stands contained 
populations of recently established 
western juniper. Twelve percent of 
stands were completely replaced by 
western juniper and 23 percent were 
dominated by western juniper.  In the 
project area juniper has encroached 
into many of the stands, but only 
dominates a small number of aspen 
sites. Ponderosa pine has encroached 
upon almost all aspen stands within the project area and is dominating most of them. 
Figure 1.3  Pine encroachment upon aspen stands within 
the project area has already reduced health and vigor. 
Note the aspen mortality with little to no recruitment. 
Figures 1.4 and 1.5  Two more examples of pine encroachment upon aspen stands in the project area. The 
first picture represents a historic aspen clone that was totally outcompeted and replaced by the encroaching 
pine trees. 
Density, patch size, health and vigor of mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrasses, 
mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush stands are declining as a result of encroaching 
juniper and pine trees. Much of the existing mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass 
communities are in an early transitional phase to closed western juniper woodlands.  
Juniper has also encroached into, and in many cases dominates, mountain mahogany 
and bitterbrush stands. Ponderosa pine has also encroached upon these plant 
communities. Historically, higher elevation, forest-fringe ecological sites were open 
shrub-grassland communities supporting only two to five ponderosa pine trees per acre 
(Munger 1917; Erickson and Conover 1918). Current conditions support an average of 
40 or more ponderosa pine trees per acre. 
3 

Figure 1.6  An example of a mountain big-sagebrush/bunchgrass community in early stages of transition 
toward juniper woodlands.  The majority of these trees are less than 40 years old. 
At the lower fringes of this forest type, ponderosa pine and western juniper have 
encroached meadows and other areas where conifers were not historically prevalent.  
There is an increasing realization forests and woodlands of the Blue Mountains have 
evolved with fire and historical conditions were often more resilient and sustainable 
than the present condition (Langston 1995). 
B. Purpose of and Need for Action 
The primary purpose of the Proposed Action is to move toward management objectives 
described in Three Rivers Resource Management Plan (RMP) within Slickear Creek 
and Claw Creek Units by reducing hazardous fuels, restoring plant communities, and 
improving wildlife habitat diversity.  The emphasis on treatments in forested areas 
would be to reduce densities of small diameter trees and duff and litter accumulations.  
The emphasis in shrublands, woodlands, and riparian areas would be to move 
conditions toward historic2 species composition and structure while reducing fuels  
in the vicinity of the towns of Burns, Hines, and Riley, as well as numerous ranches, 
homes, and dwellings.  Burns, Hines, and Riley were identified as communities at  
risk in the Harney County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) (2005). 
2 Historic:  Refers to a period prior to 1940 throughout this document. 
4 

The need for action is western juniper and ponderosa pine have encroached upon 
important plant communities (as described above) impacting biodiversity, hydrologic 
cycles, fauna and nutrient cycling.  Fuel accumulations have also occurred creating 
potential for large-scale, high-intensity wildfires threatening human life, property, and 
natural resources. 
Additional Purposes Include: 
¾	 Reduce horizontal and vertical fuel continuity and loading of forests and 
woodlands to reduce the chances of a surface fire becoming a crown fire, and a 
small fire becoming a stand-replacement wildfire.  Reducing fuels would not 
only help protect life, property, and resource values on private and public lands, 
but would also increase the safety for wildland firefighters. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Fire Management Objective 1 (RMP, p. 2-101):  As 
determined through the values at risk analysis, maximize protection of life, property, 
and high value sensitive resources from the detrimental effects of wildfire. 
Project Objectives: 
- Reduce surface fuels in forested stands from seven tons per acre to 
approximately three tons per acre. 
- Reduce density of understory trees acting as ladder fuel in forests or woodlands 
so they are spaced at an average of 22 feet within treated stands. 
- Reduce woody fuel loading within western juniper encroached mountain big 
sagebrush communities in the project area.  Reduce 1-hour and 10-hour time lag 
fuels associated with juniper by a mean total of 90 percent and 100-hour fuels 
by a mean total of 75 percent in treated areas. 
¾	 Improve vigor and resiliency of fire-dependent ecological communities to 
wildfire, insects, disease, and other disturbances.  Reintroducing fire into 
shrublands, grasslands, forestlands, and riparian areas would move stands 
toward conditions that are more stable, support greater wildlife species 
diversity, and enhance watershed function. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Vegetation 1 (RMP, p. 2-51): Maintain, restore, or 
enhance the diversity of plant communities and plant species in abundances and 
distributions which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or 
indigenous plant species within the RA. 
Project Objective: 
- Move mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass plant communities and hydrological 
conditions within the project area toward historic conditions by reducing live 
western juniper density by a mean total of 70 percent within treated areas. 
5 

Supporting RMP Objective: Forestry and Woodlands Objective 1 (RMP, p. 2-24): 
Manage approximately 50,000 acres of available productive noncommercial forestlands 
and woodlands for the enhancement of habitat diversity, minor forest products, 
watershed protection, and rangeland productivity. 
Project Objective: 
- Move pine forest, pine woodland, and pine savannah stand densities, structure, 
and composition toward historic conditions within the project area. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Fire Management Objective 2 (RMP, p. 2-101): 
Consistent with the values at risk analysis, maximize the beneficial use of prescribed 
fire and wildfire to achieve other resource management objectives. 
Project Objective: 
- Reintroduce fire as a disturbance process in mountain big 
sagebrush/bunchgrass, and ponderosa pine woodland and forest communities 
within the project area. 
¾ Improve quality and productivity of forage species available to wildlife and 
livestock in the project area.  Bunchgrasses and forbs, important forage for elk, 
mule deer, antelope, domestic livestock and avian species, have been reduced or 
are completely absent in plant communities undergoing conversion to juniper 
woodlands and in closed canopy ponderosa pine forest stands.  Key wildlife 
browse species such as bitterbrush and mountain mahogany are declining under 
the influence of juniper and pine expansion. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Wildlife 7 (RMP, p. 2-74):  Restore, maintain, or 
enhance the diversity of plant communities and wildlife habitat in abundances and 
distribution which prevent the loss of specific native plant community types or 
indigenous wildlife species habitat within the RA. 
Project Objectives: 
- Reduce western juniper encroachment into key wildlife habitat dominated by 
bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, aspen, or riparian hardwoods by 90 percent 
within the project area while maintaining habitat values. 
- Reduce post-settlement3 western juniper density by 90 percent on low 
sagebrush/bunchgrass ecological sites targeted to improve sage-grouse habitat. 
- Increase forage available to big game and other wildlife on BLM-administered 
lands in the project area while retaining adequate cover. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Grazing Management 1 (RMP, p. 2-33): Resolve 
resource conflicts and achieve management objectives as identified for each allotment. 
3 Post-settlement:  A period of time occurring after Euro-American settlement in the region. 
6 

Project Objective: 
- Increase forage available to domestic livestock on lands within Skull Creek and 
Claw Creek Grazing Allotments. 
¾	 Improve riparian and water quality conditions in the project area.  Areas of 
accelerated erosion and increased sediment delivery into fluvial systems within 
the project area are occurring due to current road locations and conifer 
encroachment upon riparian areas. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Water Quality 1.1 (RMP, p. 2-4):  On a case-by-case 
basis and after adequate public involvement, close and rehabilitate all roads impacting 
surface water quality and not needed for administration or fire protection on public 
lands. 
Project Objective: 
-	 Improve water quality by reducing sediment delivery into Claw Creek 
associated with road use. 
Supporting RMP Objective: Soil Management 2 (RMP, p. 2-20):  Rehabilitate areas 
with specific localized soil erosion problems and reduce accelerated (human 
influenced) sediment delivery to fluvial systems. 
Project Objective: 
-	 Reduce or slow erosion within Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units. 
¾	 Capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to resource needs.  
This would reduce treatment costs incurred by the agency and supply raw 
materials and jobs that contribute to community stability. 
C. 	  Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans, Laws, Regulations and Policy 
This analysis incorporates and conforms to the Three Rivers Record of Decision/RMP 
management objectives and also conforms to the following documents, which direct 
and provide the framework for management of BLM lands within Burns District:  
•	 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), 1970. 
•	 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), 1976. 
•	 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1544), 1973. 
•	 Burns District Noxious Weed Management Program Environmental Assessment 
(EA) (OR-020-98-05) (1998). 
•	 The Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon:  A 
plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat (2005). 
•	 The Burns Interagency Fire Zone Fire Management Plan (2004). The project area 
lies entirely within the Silver and Silvies Fire Management Units (FMU). 
7 

•	 Four of the five key points set forth within the National Fire Plan (NFP)4. 
Additionally, the proposal responds to the goals of A Collaborative Approach for 
Reducing Wildfire Risk to Communities and the Environment:  10-year Comprehensive 
Strategy5. 
Key points of the NFP are: 
1.	 Firefighting preparedness 
2.	 Rehabilitation and restoration of areas affected by wildfire 
3.	 Hazardous fuels reduction 
4.	 Promote community assistance 
5.	 Accountability 
Goals of the NFP 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy : 
1.	 Improve Fire Prevention 
2.	 Reduce Hazardous Fuels 
3.	 Restore fire-adapted ecosystems 
4.	 Promote community assistance 
•	 Harney County CWPP founded on the NFP and the related 10-year 
Comprehensive Strategy in Harney County (PF-IRA-006, DNRC et al. 2005).  
The CWPP was completed in 2005 through a collaborative effort with a diverse 
group of interested parties. The purpose and need of the Proposed Action are in 
conformance with the CWPP goals of protecting communities, rural residences 
and structures, grazing lands, recreational lands, and cultural resources.  The 
CWPP recommends that fuels reduction projects focus on Fire Regime 
Condition Class (FRCC) 3 (Section 10, Fire Management) lands and private 
landowners collaborate with Federal agencies to make fuels management efforts 
more effective. 
Finally, the Proposed Action is in compliance with State, tribal, and local laws and 
regulations. 
D. 	Decision Factors 
These additional decision factors will be relied upon by the decision maker in selecting 
between the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. 
1.	 Does the alternative achieve project objectives in a manner that considers the 
health and safety of the public and fire management personnel? 
4 National Fire Plan (NFP): A collection of policies and documents for actively responding to severe wildland 
fires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the future 
(http://www.fireplan.gov). 
5 http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/fire/final_fire_rpt.pdf 
8 

2.	 Does the alternative achieve project objectives in a manner that is  
cost-effective? 
E. 	 Issues Considered But Not Developed Further 
Wilderness Characteristics:  The issue of impacts to potential wilderness 
characteristics was raised by the Oregon Natural Desert Association (ONDA) for the 
project area.  BLM reviewed the submitted information as part of updating its original 
wilderness characteristics inventory.  Using field knowledge and onsite verification 
(where necessary), BLM determined that its original inventory finding that no 
wilderness characteristics exist in the project area remains valid.  As such, wilderness 
characteristics will not be analyzed further in this document.  Both the BLM's findings 
and the ONDA-proposed inventory information are available to the public upon 
request. 
CHAPTER II: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 
A.	 No Action Alternative 
Under this alternative, there would be no thinning of forestlands, cutting of encroaching 
juniper and pine in sagebrush communities or stands of mahogany or aspen, application 
of prescribed fire, removal or realignment of the road alongside Claw Creek, or 
temporary protection fencing erected around aspen stands.  Conversion of rangelands to 
juniper woodlands within Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units would continue.  The 
risk of a high-intensity, crown fire occurrence in the project area would escalate as 
density and distribution of fuels become increasingly hazardous.  All other current 
management, such as livestock grazing, under the No Action Alternative would proceed 
under the Three Rivers RMP and all other relevant policy direction. 
B.	 Proposed Action 
The Proposed Action was developed by an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), with 
representatives from all affected resources.  The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 
La Grande Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory's pathologist and entomologist 
also helped shape the Proposed Action. The pathologist and entomologist's findings 
from a site visit to the Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units can be found at the end 
of this document (Appendices B and C).  The proposal is to utilize various methods of 
prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to accomplish specific objectives described 
within the purpose and need section.  The project area treatment proposals are 
grouped into four dominant vegetative communities:  forest areas (ponderosa pine 
stands), low/stiff sagebrush flats, mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrasses communities, 
and aspen stands. Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush communities are lumped in as 
inclusions with the mountain big sagebrush and ponderosa pine plant communities.   
9 

In addition to the mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, approximately 0.75-mile 
of a rough road that meanders through Claw Creek would either be closed or moved 
to reduce sediment input into the stream channel.  This road is currently a rough, two-
track road that runs through the creek bed and dead ends due to topographic features.  
Twenty-one Project Design Elements, for protection or maintenance of specific 
resource values, have been incorporated into the Proposed Action, as the result of 
specialist recommendations. A detailed list of Project Design Elements is presented 
in Section D of Chapter II (Alternatives Including the Proposed Action).  Appendix D 
provides a more detailed description of the activities and methods that would be 
utilized under the Proposed Action. 
Forested Areas Treatment 
There are approximately 1,500 acres within the project area dominated by ponderosa  
pine-bunchgrasses plant communities.  These stands have become overstocked due to 
absence of fire and other management practices.  Other important plant communities 
occurring within these sites include quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, and 
bitterbrush. Juniper has encroached upon these plant communities.  Objectives in these 
areas are to improve forest health, reduce hazardous fuel loading and risk of sustained 
crown fires, and to improve wildlife habitat.  To return these stands to a historical 
ponderosa pine community, it is necessary to reduce surface, ladder, and continuous 
canopy fuels in stages (Agee 2005).  The proposal is to thin overstocked pine stands and 
remove encroaching juniper.  Several untreated islands would be left to provide quality 
thermal and hiding cover for wildlife.  These islands would be determined during onsite 
project layout. Approximately 70 to 90 percent or 1,050 to 1,350 acres of these 
communities would be treated.  All juniper trees except those displaying old-growth 
characteristics or obvious wildlife occupation would be cut and piled.  Understory and 
intermediate and co-dominant overstory ponderosa pine trees would be thinned using 
variable tree spacing creating basal areas ranging from 40 to 120 feet2/acre. Thinning 
would retain the largest and best formed trees for overstory retention.  If it is determined to 
be both economically and environmentally feasible, cut conifers could be sold and 
removed.  All slash would be piled either by hand or machine depending on feasibility 
and resource concerns. All piles would be burned after the vegetation cured (vegetation 
should cure within 2 years). A prescribed underburn would be conducted 5 to 7 years 
after mechanical treatments to further reduce ground fuels (litter, twigs, branches <3 
inches) in the same stands.  
10 

Low/Stiff Sagebrush Flats Treatment 
There are approximately 5,700 acres classified as low/stiff sagebrush sites within the 
project area. Some sites have had some level of juniper encroachment on them.  The 
proposal is to treat some of the low and stiff sagebrush flats encroached upon by 
juniper. The recommendation to treat the area would be determined by the relative 
importance of the area for sage-grouse.  Areas considered to be suitable for  
sage-grouse, but currently unsuitable due to juniper encroachment would be given 
highest priority for treatment.  Other areas, such as suitable habitat or probable habitat 
for sage-grouse, would be determined by the level of juniper encroachment and relative 
importance.  The objectives in these areas are to improve sage-grouse habitat and 
protect the integrity of the low/stiff sagebrush flats.  The proposal in these plant 
communities is to remove the competitive influence of encroaching juniper.  
Encroaching juniper trees would be cut and left.  Downed juniper may be jackpot 
burned6 after the vegetation has cured. This determination would be based upon 
whether or not downed juniper would create enough fuel buildup to create a potential 
wildfire hazard. Single-tree burning7 may occur on a limited basis as an alternative 
method to cutting.  
Mountain Big Sagebrush/Bunchgrass Communities Treatment 
There are approximately 3,600 acres in the project area classified as mountain big 
sagebrush-bunchgrass plant communities. Scattered ponderosa pine woodlands, 
mountain mahogany stands, and bitterbrush stands are intermixed within some of the 
mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrass plant communities.  These plant communities are 
being encroached upon, and in some cases, dominated by juniper.  Pine has also 
expanded, to a limited degree, outside its historical niche within these communities.  
6 Jackpot Burning: Prescribed burning of concentrations of woody fuels during the late fall, winter or spring, 
preferably when the ground is partially frozen or wet.  This method would burn the fine fuels, limit the ability of 
the fire to spread and prevent soil sterilization from excessive heat.  It is conducive to maintaining the 
herbaceous plant species growing under the downed junipers.  (For more detail see Appendix A - Activity 
Descriptions.) 
7 Single-tree Burning: Prescribed burning of individual trees during the late fall, winter or spring, preferably 
when the ground is partially wet or frozen.  This method would burn the fine fuels, limit the ability of the fire to 
spread and prevent soil sterilization from excessive heat.  It is conducive to maintaining the herbaceous plant 
species growing under the junipers.  (For more detail see Appendix A - Activity Descriptions.) 
11 

The objective in these areas is to restore and enhance existing mountain big  
sagebrush-bunchgrass, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and pine woodland 
communities, to improve wildlife habitat.  The management objective in all these 
communities is to remove encroaching juniper and pine trees.  Approximately 40 to 
60 percent of the land area made up of these plant communities would be targeted for 
treatment.  The recommendation to treat a given area would be determined by the level 
of encroachment and relative importance of the area for big game.  The proposal in these 
plant communities consists of an array of management actions in order to reduce 
influence of encroaching juniper and pine. The two principal treatments used to treat the 
majority of these communities would be 1) cutting encroaching juniper followed by 
jackpot burning after juniper has cured or 2) cutting and piling. In areas where cutting 
and piling is the preferred method, piles would be moved away from retained desired 
vegetation to the extent practical. Piling would be done by hand or mechanized 
equipment (excavator, feller buncher, etc.).  Where ponderosa pine has expanded outside 
its historical niche, understory thinning, ranging from complete removal to a 22-foot 
spacing, may occur.  All piles would be burned after the vegetation cured. 
Lesser amounts of prescribed broadcast burning and juniper/pine cutting and leaving 
may be employed.  The cutting and leaving activity would only be used in sparse fuels 
where it is determined not to be a hazard.  In areas targeted for a broadcast burn, the 
objective is to burn 40 to 60 percent of the mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrass 
communities in early or mid-transition toward juniper woodlands and 90 to 100 percent 
of mountain big sagebrush plant communities in late transition toward juniper 
woodlands. Any remaining encroached juniper may be cut and jackpot burned within 
treated areas and within areas left unburned by the broadcast prescribed burn.  
Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush plant communities greater than an acre may 
receive some form of pretreatment prior to any broadcast burning.  Pretreatment would 
primarily consist of cutting and jackpot burning, blacklining, or cutting and pulling cut 
vegetation away from mountain mahogany and bitterbrush stands, or piling via hand or 
mechanized equipment, prior to the broadcast burn.  The recommendation to perform 
pretreatment and type of pretreatment would be determined by resource advisors during 
onsite project layout. 
Aspen Treatment 
There are several aspen stands found within the project area.  All aspen stands within 
the project area are being encroached upon by juniper, ponderosa pine, or both.  The 
proposal in these treatment areas is to remove encroaching vegetation.  Mechanical 
cutting would be the primary tactic used in these communities.  Broadcast burning may 
be utilized in addition to mechanical treatments or as a substitute for mechanical 
treatments in an effort to cut down on juniper and pine seedling establishment.  
12 

Ponderosa pine trees less than 10 inches Diameter Breast Height (DBH) would be cut, 
limbed, and piled.  Ponderosa pine trees in the 11 to 19-inches DBH size range may be 
cut and limbed.  Only limbs would be piled on these trees, leaving the bole to serve as 
downed woody debris. Ponderosa pine trees greater than 19 inches DBH would either 
be girdled to provide snag habitat, cut, or left onsite.  The largest and true old-growth 
pine trees would be left onsite.  If it is determined to be both economically and 
environmentally feasible, cut conifers could be sold and removed.  Junipers, except 
those showing old-growth characteristics or obvious wildlife occupation, would be cut 
and piled. Piling in aspens stands would be done by either machine or hand.  Piles and 
downed juniper would be burned after the cut vegetation has cured, and during a time 
of year that would reduce damage to soils resource and minimize fire spread.  Aspen 
stands could be fenced to protect aspen suckers from browsing animals.  The need for 
fencing would be determined through monitoring.  Big game exclosure fences would be 
built to Burns District BLM standards, which consist of woven wire from ground to at 
least 7 feet aboveground. If a big game exclosure fence is determined to be needed, it 
would be removed after new suckers attain a height where the apical bud is 7 feet or 
higher or above the reach of most grazing animals as determined by monitoring. 
C.	 Project Design Elements 
1.	 Protect cultural resource values throughout the life of the project. 
Archaeological inventory of the proposed treatment areas would be completed 
prior to any mechanical treatments.  Archaeological sites may be avoided within 
mechanical treatment units and activity generated fuels would not be piled 
within the boundaries of sites.  Sites with combustible components would be 
protected during deployment of prescribed fire by blacklining resources and use 
of appropriate ignition techniques.  The District Fuels Archaeologist would 
review burn plans prior to project implementation. 
2.	 Protect Special Status vegetation species throughout the life of the project. 
Special Status plant populations would be avoided within mechanical treatment 
units if necessary.  Fire intolerant sensitive plants would be protected during 
deployment of prescribed fire by blacklining resources and use of appropriate 
ignition techniques. The District Fuels Botanist would review burn plans prior 
to project implementation. 
3.	 Protect Special Status wildlife species (fisheries and wildlife) habitat throughout 
the life of the project. Structures or areas with Special Status Species (SSS) 
habitat value identified during wildlife surveys would be protected during 
project implementation.  The District Fuels Wildlife Biologist and the Three 
Rivers Fisheries Biologist would review burn plans prior to project 
implementation. 
13 

4.	 Sites that lack sufficient understory species, such as fully developed juniper 
woodlands, or areas burned at a high intensity, may require seeding following a 
prescribed fire treatment to attain the desired post-fire response.  Mixtures of 
native and nonnative grass, forb, and shrub seed may be applied to designated 
areas with aerial or ground-based methods.  Candidate sites for seeding would 
be determined on a case-by-case basis as monitoring data are gathered. 
5.	 Livestock grazing would not occur for at least two growing seasons in pastures 
treated with broadcast burning.  An additional season of rest from grazing 
would be necessary prior to a broadcast burn to allow for development of a fine 
fuel ignition source. 
6.	 Pastures treated with a jackpot burning treatment may be rested for a period of 
up to two growing seasons if necessary to allow for recovery of understory 
species. 
7.	 No downed ponderosa pine logs greater than 15 inches diameter and no snags 
greater than 15 inches DBH would be intentionally burned in any unit.  Snags 
may be intentionally created if an area is determined to be snag deficient 
following mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. 
8.	 The raking of deep duff around old-growth ponderosa pine trees, large snags, 
large down woody debris may occur prior to prescribed burning if determined to 
be necessary to retain them. 
9.	 Maintain suitable big game hiding and thermal cover.  Ensure mountain 
mahogany stands and conifer leave islands continue to function as big game 
cover following treatments.  Retain approximately 10 percent of expansion 
juniper and young pine stands within the project area to provide cover for mule 
deer and elk. 
10.	 Avoid manual cutting of pine and juniper with old-growth characteristics or 
obvious wildlife occupation (cavities or nests).  Consider protection of such 
trees during prescribed fire operations. 
11.	 All ponderosa pine stumps greater than 14 inches diameter created during the 
project would be treated with Borax to guard against the threat of annosus 
(Fomes annosus) root disease.  
12.	 Two years of goshawk inventory would be performed prior to any 
implementation of the Proposed Action. 
14 

13.	 Prior to treatment of prescribed fire and mechanical treatment units, noxious 
weed populations in the area would be inventoried.  Weed populations 
identified in or adjacent to the project area would be treated using the most 
appropriate methods in accordance with the Noxious Weed Management 
Program EA/Decision Record (DR), OR-020-98-05. 
14.	 Risk of noxious weed introduction would be minimized by ensuring all 
equipment (including all machinery, 4-wheelers, and pickup trucks) is cleaned 
prior to entry to the site, minimizing disturbance activities, and completing 
follow-up monitoring, for at least 3 years, to ensure no new noxious weed 
establishment.  Should noxious weeds be found, appropriate control treatments 
would be performed in conformance with the Noxious Weed Management 
Program EA/DR, OR-020-98-05. 
15.	 Piles and cut juniper would be jackpot burned when soil moisture is high or 
under frozen soil conditions to reduce threat of soil sterilization and to maintain 
the existing shrub and herbaceous plant communities to the extent practical. 
16.	 Prescribed burning would follow the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan in 
order to protect air quality and reduce health and visibility impacts on 
designated areas. 
17.	 All burns would be planned based on either instructions given by, or in 
consultation with, the Oregon Department of Forestry and the State 
Implementation Plan for prescribed fires.  Coordination with other prescribed 
fire projects occurring at the same time may be required. 
18.	 Any road damaged by vehicles or equipment would be restored to its previous 
standard or higher, with special attention placed on installing and improving 
drainage on the road. 
19.	 Dispersed campsites identified within the project area would not be 
intentionally burned during broadcast burn operations.  Protection would be 
considered for leave islands of sufficient size around identified campsites to 
protect cultural and recreation values. 
20.	 Limit the amount of mechanized equipment in the riparian area.  Landings and 
piles would be kept out of riparian areas. 
21.	 Prior to beginning operations requiring any fuel tanks or fuel handling at the 
site, the contractor or BLM would develop and submit to the authorized officer 
a spill contingency plan. 
15 

CHAPTER III:  DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 
Slickear Creek/Claw Creek Forest Restoration EA is tiered to the Three Rivers Proposed RMP 
and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) Analysis (1991). 
A general description of the existing environment for Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units can 
be found in the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS. The terrain in the Slickear Creek and Claw Creek 
Units range from flats to steep canyons.  All aspects can be found within the project area. 
Elevation ranges from 4,400 feet to 5,150 feet in the project area. 
The following critical elements of the human environment have been analyzed in the Three 
Rivers Proposed RMP/FEIS, and are not known to be present in the project area or affected by 
enacting either alternative, and therefore, will not be addressed further in this document:  Areas 
of Critical Environmental Concern, Flood Plains, Paleontology, Prime or Unique Farmlands, 
Hazardous Materials, SSS – Plants, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, and Wild and Scenic 
Rivers. The following critical element is not discussed in the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and 
would not be affected by the No Action or Proposed Action Alternatives: 
Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 requires that Federal agencies adopt strategies 
to address environmental justice concerns within the context of agency operations. 
Implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in disproportionately adverse effects 
on minority or low-income populations. 
The following critical elements are present and are analyzed in the document:  Air Quality, 
Water Quality/Wetlands and Riparian Zones, Migratory Birds, SSS - Fauna, Noxious Weeds, 
American Indian Traditional Practices, and Cultural Heritage.  Noncritical elements which are 
present and analyzed in this document are Soils/Biological Soil Crusts (BSCs), Vegetation, 
Wildlife, Fisheries, Grazing Management, Recreation/Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), Visual 
Resources, Economic and Social Values, Forestry/Woodlands, Fire Management, and 
Transportation/Roads. 
This chapter describes affected environmental components not site-specifically described in the 
Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and all effects including direct, indirect, and cumulative on 
resources from enacting the proposed alternatives.  A distinction between direct and indirect 
effects is not made and in many cases cumulative effects are only described as effects.  All 
effects are considered direct and cumulative; therefore, use of these words may not appear.  
For the purpose of this analysis, the term "short term" refers to a period of time that is equal to 
or less than 15 years. The term "long term" refers to a period of time that is greater than  
15 years. 
16 

A. Critical Elements 
1. Air Quality 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on air quality resource(s) are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and relevant information contained in the 
following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Section 3-2. 
Air Quality: Affected Environment 
Air quality in the areas associated with both Slickear Creek and Claw Creek 
Units currently meets or exceeds air quality standards outlined by the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).  Due to the long distance from 
large metropolitan areas and factories, ambient air quality is generally good 
with few particulates or other pollutants.  No area or community in Harney 
County is considered a nonattainment area for particulate matter meaning it is 
not in violation of the particulate (PM 2.5) national ambient air quality standard. 
Weather systems move into the project area generally from the west or 
southwest and exit the project area to the east or northeast.  Periods of degraded 
air quality can occur, though typically these events are short lived, lasting 
usually only a few hours, and are associated with development of a stable air 
mass or cold air inversion over the project area.  Smoke from wildfires and to a 
lesser degree prescribed fires are also a cause of degraded air quality due to 
particulate matter contained in smoke.  
Air Quality: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Under the No Action Alternative no fuel treatments would occur.  Fuel loading 
and associated high-severity wildfire risks would increase with the progression 
of juniper encroachment and overstocking of ponderosa pine stands in the 
project area.  Occurrence of a high-severity wildfire in the areas during summer 
months could result in a large amount of low-lying smoke concentrations, as 
temperature inversions can concentrate smoke at low elevations.  Impact to air 
quality would probably be greater from wildfires as they typically have a longer 
ignition phase (burn longer), consume more of the burnable biomass, and 
produce more smoke and particulate matter than prescribed fires.  Air quality in 
the communities of Burns, Hines, Crane, and Riley may be impaired if a 
wildfire occurs in these areas.  These smoke concentrations can have high 
particulate levels (> PM 2.5) that can cause human health problems. 
17 

Proposed Action Alternative 
The Proposed Action would produce smoke from prescribed fires, slash pile 
burning and to a lesser degree dust from mechanical treatments.  Impacts to air 
quality from prescribed fire and pile burning could range from reduced visibility 
to pneumonic irritation and smoke odor affecting people in proximity to the 
project area when such treatments are underway.  These impacts are short lived, 
lasting from one to a few days depending on size or number of actual burn units 
or number of piles to be ignited, with the greatest impact occurring during the 
actual ignition phase. Residual smoke produced from the burnout of large fuels 
or slower burning fuel concentrations could occur, lasting for 1 or 2 days 
following the ignition phase. Impacts to air quality from mechanical treatments 
would be reduced visibility in the immediate project area, ceasing quickly when 
such operations stop. 
Areas of greatest impact from prescribed fire would be those areas down wind 
and down drainage from the project area. A wind vector analysis and review of 
topographic features indicated these areas are typically east, southeast, and 
northeast of the project area. Amount of impact would be dependant on 
atmospheric conditions at time of ignition.  Prescribed fires are planned and 
implemented when atmospheric stability and wind conditions promote smoke 
dispersion into the atmosphere or transport out of the area.  In addition they are 
planned when diurnal wind conditions limit the amount of smoke pooling in 
canyons and valleys. The prescribed burn plan would minimize effects of 
smoke on the communities of Burns, Hines, Crane, and Riley.  The areas of 
greatest impact from mechanical treatments would be within the immediate 
project area. 
2. Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on water quality and wetland 
and riparian resource(s) are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMS/FEIS, and relevant 
information contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by 
reference: Sections 3-2, 3-3, 3-11, and 3-12. 
Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian:  Affected Environment  
The proposed project includes portions of Silver and Silvies subbasins.  
Riparian conditions were analyzed at the 6th-field Hydrologic Unit Code 
(HUC)8 or 6th level subwatershed. There are five, 6th-level HUCs within the 
project area. 
8 HUC - Hydrologic Unit Code.  A hydrologic unit is a drainage area delineated to nest in a multi-level, 
hierarchical drainage system. Its boundaries are defined by hydrographic and topographic criteria that delineate 
an area drained by a river system, a reach of a river and its tributaries in that reach, a closed basin(s), or a group of 
streams forming a coastal drainage area. 
18 

Streams in the project area have been evaluated for water quality impairment as 
directed by the ODEQ. Egypt Creek, Wickiup Creek, Claw Creek, and Skull 
Creek are on ODEQ's 303(d) list of water quality impaired streams for 
exceeding the 68 ºF water temperature standard for salmonid rearing.  No other 
pollutants are documented in the streams within the project area.  Below are 
brief descriptions of the current conditions of 6th level subwatersheds within the 
project area. 
Upper Claw Creek 6th Field HUC 
Claw Creek is the only documented stream in Claw Creek Unit under BLM 
administration providing habitat for salmonid fish in Upper Claw Creek 
subwatershed. Approximately 4.3 miles of the creek are within the project area; 
however, two of these miles are considered ephemeral.  
In 2006, a Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) Assessment9 was conducted 
along the perennial and intermittent sections of Claw Creek within the project 
area. The intermittent portion (.65-mile) of Claw Creek was rated as 
Functioning at Risk (FAR), no trend apparent.  The perennial section (1.6 miles) 
was rated at the high end of PFC.  Surveyors noted along the section rated as 
FAR, excessive sediment deposition was burying vegetation and possibly 
rerouting the channel.  The adjacent road on Claw Creek is likely a primary 
source for excessive sediment seen in the channel.  Surveyors noted the reach 
rated as PFC had high species diversity and was dominated by deep-rooted 
herbaceous and woody species.  The road causing degradation upstream is not 
present along this reach. The remainder of Claw Creek in the project area is 
ephemeral and was not surveyed.  
Claw Creek is on the 303(d) list as water quality limited for exceeding the 68 ºF 
temperature standard. Claw Creek is a tributary of Wickiup Creek, which is also 
listed as water quality limited for exceeding the 68 ºF temperature standard.  
Juniper has encroached into the riparian zone and the density of other conifers 
(Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine) has increased above historic conditions.  
Egypt Creek 6th Field HUC 
Claw Creek Unit includes 1.3 miles of Egypt Creek, which is depicted as 
intermittent on the USGS 7.5 minute map (Dry Mountain).  A 1998 PFC 
Assessment rated Egypt Creek as FAR with an upward trend.  Surveyors noted 
vegetative cover was insufficient to protect banks and dissipate energy during 
high flows. Photo monitoring has since shown deep-rooted herbaceous 
vegetation is now dominant where surface or subsurface water is present.   
9 Proper Functioning Condition Assessment: A methodology for assessing the physical function of riparian and 
wetland areas.  There are three main ratings; Proper Functioning Condition (PFC), Functioning at Risk (FAR) 
upward or downward trend and nonfunctioning. 
19 

Much of Egypt Creek in the project area is intermittent to ephemeral.  The 
portion of Egypt Creek within the project area is currently excluded from 
livestock.  
Egypt Creek is on the 303(d) list as water quality limited for exceeding the  
68 ºF temperature standard.  Egypt Creek is a tributary of Wickiup Creek, which 
is also listed as water quality limited for exceeding the 68 ºF temperature 
standard. 
Juniper has encroached into the intermittent and ephemeral portions of Egypt 
Creek. 
Skull Creek 6th Field HUC 
Skull Creek is the only documented stream in Slickear Creek Unit under BLM 
administration providing habitat for salmonid fish in Silvies subwatershed. 
Approximately 3.5 miles of Skull Creek are within the project area.  A 1998 
PFC Assessment rated Skull Creek as PFC with the exception of a 0.4-mile 
segment which was considered to be FAR – Upward Trend. 
The riparian vegetation resources along Skull Creek in the project area were 
measured in 2003 using the greenline method (Winward 2000).  Greenline 
stability was ranked high, greenline successional status was rated as late seral, 
and the cross-section successional status was rated as late seral.  Woody species 
(i.e., willows and other shrubs) were also measured on the greenline.  Seedlings, 
young, and mature plants were well represented with 150 plants in a 0.1-acre 
area. 
Skull Creek is on the 303(d) list as water quality limited for exceeding the 68 ºF 
temperature standard.  Juniper has encroached into the riparian zone and the 
density of other conifers (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine) has increased above 
historic conditions. 
Thousand Springs Creek and Yellowjacket Creek 6th Field HUCs 
Small portions of these subwatersheds fall within Slickear Creek Unit.  Streams 
within the project boundary on public land are intermittent or ephemeral.  No 
data have been collected in these subwatersheds within the project boundaries.  
Water Quality, Wetlands and Riparian:  Environmental Consequences  
No Action Alternative 
Under this alternative, juniper may increase or become established at the edges 
of or in drier zones of the riparian area.  This could decrease riparian vegetation 
diversity and productivity and function of riparian areas.  
20 

Juniper stands tend to have less complex vegetative communities, less 
understory cover, and more bare soil. Bare inter-canopy areas exhibit high rates 
of erosion (Reid et al. 1999). When riparian areas are dominated by juniper, 
high flow events have greater potential for erosion, leading to bank instability 
and subsequent channel degradation. 
Riparian vegetation plays an important role in maintaining water quality.  Water 
quality can be degraded by changes in chemical/nutrient content, temperature, 
turbidity, and levels of sedimentation. Juniper and conifer expansion into 
riparian areas can lead to degraded water quality from streambank instability, 
degraded channel morphology, loss of storage capacity, and reduced potential 
for groundwater recharge. The resulting impact can lead to increased 
sedimentation and changes to nutrient cycles associated with deciduous and 
herbaceous vegetation.  Groundwater recharge affects low or late season flows 
and thus water temperature.  
The No Action Alternative would maintain current condition and trend of 
riparian areas in the short term, unless or until an event such as high severity 
wildfire or flood occurs. Over time, riparian condition would likely trend 
downward with consequent negative effects to water quality and riparian zones. 
In the forested riparian zones, accelerated growth toward late successional 
conditions expected from the thinning prescriptions would not occur. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Fire was common historically in the riparian zones of dry, low-severity fire 
regime forests of the Blue Mountains (Olson 2000).  Reintroducing and 
mimicking natural processes excluded from riparian zones (e.g., juniper and 
other conifer removal and prescribed burns) should result in a positive 
vegetation response. Prescribed burns would be initiated when conditions are 
conducive to lower intensity burns, which would reduce potential of losing 
desired riparian vegetation. In burned areas, most herbaceous and root 
sprouting shrubs would retain their live rooting systems intact and hold the soil 
in place. Deciduous riparian vegetation with high-fuel loading with potential to 
burn very hot would be pretreated by manual reduction to reduce fuel loads.  
It is typically only during the first season after the burn and before vegetation 
begins growing that burned sites are vulnerable to accelerated erosion from 
direct raindrop impact. 
21 

Riparian plant species possess adaptations to fluvial disturbances that facilitate 
survival and reestablishment following fires, thus contributing to rapid recovery 
of streamside habitats (Dwire and Kauffman 2003).  Prescribed fire treatments 
usually result in mosaic burn patterns that include patches of unburned living 
vegetation following treatment.  These unburned areas would reduce immediate 
risks of increased water turbidity and stream sedimentation by providing cover 
and roots that stabilize sediments and serve as sediment traps.  Reeves, et al. 
(1995) stated fire can be important for maintaining complex and productive 
habitats. 
Reducing competition from juniper and other conifers in riparian zones should 
facilitate recovery of deciduous woody and herbaceous riparian communities to 
a more historic regime.  This would improve watershed stability and function by 
reducing bare soil and sediment inputs, stabilizing banks, increasing infiltration, 
and maintaining or restoring proper storage and release of groundwater 
important for late season flows and temperatures.  Water quality would improve 
with enhanced watershed function where erosion is minimized, sediment inputs 
are minimized, channel bank stability is reinforced, infiltration rates increase, 
and potential for groundwater recharge is restored. 
By reducing high fuel loads throughout the project area, the risk of a large-scale, 
high-severity wildland fire would be reduced.  Where riparian vegetation 
appears to be well adapted to low-severity fires, mortality rates are highest when 
the litter layer and root crowns are consumed by fire (Dwire and Kauffman 
2003). High-severity burned areas also experience higher rates of soil loss from 
erosion, increased peak flows of runoff, greater duff reduction, loss of soil 
nutrients, and soil heating.  If organic layers are consumed and mineral soil 
layers are exposed, soil infiltration and water storage capacities are reduced 
(Robichaud 2000). By treating fuel loads within the project area the risk of 
these effects would be reduced. 
Removal of 0.75-mile of road along Claw Creek would improve water quality 
and riparian condition on Claw Creek.  Currently this road is a primary source 
of excessive sediment found in the stream channel.  Removing this portion of 
the road would trend 0.65-mile of Claw Creek toward PFC.  
Concurrent actions within the project area include livestock grazing.  Livestock 
grazing would be managed to provide for upward trend in riparian condition, by 
manipulating the timing of grazing and rest periods, which would minimize any 
negative cumulative effects.  Treatment areas would be rested a minimum of 
two growing seasons following a broadcast burn and up to two growing seasons 
following a jackpot burn. Duration of the rest cycle would be determined by 
rangeland monitoring. Due to landscape-scale treatments, cumulative effects 
from wild ungulates would be minimal.  Treatments would occur across a large 
area in order to disperse use from wild ungulates. 
22 

3. Migratory Birds 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on migratory bird 
resource(s) are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information 
contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference:   
Sections 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11. 
Migratory Birds:  Affected Environment 
The project area has a variety of plant communities, and thus offers the potential 
for quality habitat for numerous migratory bird species.  Migratory bird species 
strongly associated with the following habitats are likely to occur or have 
potential to occur in the project area:  ponderosa pine woodlands, ponderosa 
pine/juniper woodlands, juniper woodlands, big sagebrush/bunchgrass 
communities, and low and stiff sagebrush plant communities.  Small isolated 
stands of mountain mahogany, aspen, and willow also occur within the project 
area adding to the habitat diversity within the project area.  A few migratory 
bird species of conservation concern for the Great Basin either occur within the 
project area or potential habitat for these species exists within the project area.  
These species include golden eagle, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's 
sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, Brewer's sparrow, and 
sage sparrow.  These species, except golden eagles, are Burns District SSS and 
will be addressed in the SSS section.  Golden eagles use a variety of habitats, 
and generally nest on ledges along rims, but may nest in large, mature 
coniferous trees. There are no known golden eagle nest sites within or near the 
project area.  There are many other migratory bird species not of conservation 
concern for the Great Basin Region that use the project area for nesting, 
foraging, and resting. 
Migratory Birds:  Environmental Consequences  
No Action Alternative 
Under the No Action Alternative, no disturbance to migratory birds would occur 
due to human activity.  Rangeland plant communities would continue to 
transition toward juniper woodlands while stocking of ponderosa pine forests 
would increase. When western juniper density and cover increase to the point 
shrub and herbaceous understory are suppressed, avian species diversity 
decreases (Reinkensmeyer and Miller 2000).  This has already happened over 
roughly 50 percent of the mountain big-sagebrush community in the project 
area. Avian species diversity is also likely to decrease as conifer stands 
continue to increase in basal area. Mountain mahogany and aspen stands would 
also continue to be encroached upon and outcompeted by juniper and pine trees, 
which would likely lead to the eventual loss of these habitats.  A loss of these 
habitats would also lead to a loss in avian species diversity.  This alternative 
would favor relatively few species, such as the gray and dusky flycatchers, 
which prefer juniper woodlands and densely overstocked conifer stands.   
23 

The No Action Alternative is likely to have no effect on golden eagles.  Overall, 
the net effect of the No Action Alternative would be a decrease in structural and 
vegetative diversity, and thus, a decrease in avian species diversity. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Effects on migratory birds would depend on treatment and vegetation being 
treated. The overall net effect of the Proposed Action would likely be an 
increase in habitat and structural diversity, and thus, an increase in avian species 
diversity. Direct impacts to migratory birds would be minimized by broadcast 
burning in the fall, and cutting and piling in the fall where determined 
necessary. This would help reduce the amount of disturbance to migratory birds 
during breeding, nesting, and fledging seasons.  The Proposed Action is likely 
to have little or no effect on golden eagles. 
Forested Areas 
In forested areas the Proposed Action would open up stands allowing grasses, 
forbs, and shrubs to regenerate. Opening of stands would also increase health 
and vigor of retained trees, thus promoting growth of larger trees.  Snags and 
downed woody debris habitat are also likely to be maintained or increased as a 
result of the Proposed Action. All of the above would increase vegetative 
species and habitat diversity, which would likely increase avian diversity and 
richness. Cavity nesters and other birds that utilize snags and larger trees 
should have an increase in habitat quantity and quality as a result of the 
Proposed Action. Other avian species that favor open stands would also see an 
increase in habitat quality and quantity as well.  There would be a reduction in 
habitat quality for birds that prefer dense conifer understories and a high level of 
canopy closure. However, areas of dense conifer understories with high levels 
of canopy closure would remain in the project area as not all forested sites 
would be treated. Overall, the net effect of the Proposed Action in forested 
areas would likely promote an increase in avian species diversity in the future. 
Sagebrush and Shrub-Steppe Communities 
Where junipers have developed into woodlands on mountain big sagebrush-
bunchgrass and low/stiff sagebrush sites, migratory bird diversity and richness 
are relatively low. Use of prescribed fire or mechanical cutting in these areas 
would regenerate grasses and forbs.  Shrubs, including sagebrush and 
bitterbrush, would also regenerate as a result of the Proposed Action.  As these 
species regenerate, bird diversity and richness are likely to increase.  These 
actions would reduce habitat quality and quantity for species that prefer 
woodland habitat, such as gray and dusky flycatchers.  Birds nesting in cavities 
in large western juniper would be minimally affected as large juniper trees are 
generally fire resistant, and would not be targeted by mechanical treatments.  
24 

There would also be areas left as No Action areas that support large, old-growth 
juniper trees. This would further ensure cavity nesting habitat would remain 
after treatments.  
In areas where juniper is in an intermediate stage of transition to woodlands, 
migratory bird diversity and richness are relatively high.  The Proposed Action 
is to use mechanical or prescribed broadcast fire to create a mosaic where 40 to 
60 percent of the area is treated.  Follow-up cutting to remove juniper in areas 
unburned may take place, but not through the entire unit.  A mosaic burn would 
provide a diversity of habitats, including early succession plant communities as 
well as retained areas of juniper in an intermediate stage of transition to 
woodlands. Diversity of habitats created by these mosaic burns would likely 
increase avian species diversity. Birds nesting in cavities in large western 
juniper would be minimally affected as large juniper trees are generally fire 
resistant, and would not be targeted by mechanical treatments. 
Mountain Mahogany, Aspen Stands, and Riparian Plant Communities 
Migratory bird species which utilize mountain mahogany, quaking aspen stands, 
and riparian plant communities, would likely be favored as the Proposed Action 
would protect and enhance these vegetative communities.  This would be 
beneficial because migratory bird diversity and richness are very high in aspen 
stands and riparian plant communities.  Removal of juniper and other conifers 
from these communities would increase health and vigor of stands, likely 
stimulating regeneration and recruitment of younger trees.  Fencing of aspen 
stands would provide protection of young and regenerating trees from browsing 
animals, further promoting regeneration of stands.  Protection and enhancement 
of these communities would ensure long-term availability of these habitats for 
migratory birds in the future.  The net effect of the Proposed Action would 
likely promote an increase in avian species diversity in the future.  
4. Special Status Species – Fauna 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on SSS – fauna resource(s) 
are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and relevant information contained in 
the following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-9. 
25 

Special Status Species – Fauna:  Affected Environment 
Terrestrial Species 
There are no known Federally listed Threatened or Endangered wildlife species 
found within or adjacent to the project area.  There are several SSS that either 
occur or have potential to occur as their habitat or potential habitat exists within 
the project area.  These species include greater sage-grouse, northern goshawk, 
northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's 
sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, olive-sided flycatcher, 
loggerhead shrike, Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, and several species of bats. 
Other SSS may occasionally occur within the project area, but their occurrence 
would be considered rare or infrequent. 
The project area is considered to be habitat or potential habitat for greater  
sage-grouse, an Oregon BLM sensitive wildlife species.  Greater sage-grouse 
have been documented in the project area.  Greater sage-grouse are sagebrush 
obligates, relying on the plant for food and cover throughout the year.  The 
species may require an extensive home range with specific sagebrush habitat 
types required for mating, lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering.   
Sage-grouse populations demonstrate seasonality in use of those habitats with 
specific areas used as mating/lekking habitat, nesting habitat, brood-rearing 
habitat and wintering habitat.  
Sage-grouse lek in open areas near sagebrush dominated plant communities. 
There are no known leks within the project area.  The nearest known lek is Claw 
Creek lek, just over 2 miles south-southwest of Claw Creek Unit.  The nearest 
known lek to Slickear Creek Unit is Hay Creek complex of two leks, 
approximately 3 miles north-northwest. 
Sage-grouse generally use big sagebrush for nesting habitat, although some 
have been known to nest in low sagebrush and other habitats. For the 
brood-rearing stage and pre-nesting period for hens, areas rich in forbs are 
important.  Low and stiff sagebrush flats within the project area could be 
optimal foraging areas during these stages as they generally are rich in forbs.  In 
winter sage-grouse congregate in areas where sagebrush is available above the 
snow or on windswept ridges. By late fall, sagebrush is almost exclusively the 
only item in their diet and remains so until spring. 
Mountain big and low/stiff sagebrush communities in the project area have 
potential to provide quality habitat for sage-grouse throughout much of the year.  
26 

Most mountain big sagebrush communities and low/stiff sagebrush 
communities are classified as probable habitat, context unknown.  A portion of 
these communities are considered historical habitat but currently unsuitable due 
to juniper encroachment.  These are areas where mountain big sage/bunchgrass 
communities and low sagebrush flats have been encroached upon and 
outcompeted by western juniper.  Today these areas would be classified as 
juniper woodlands or in a mid to late-transitional stage toward juniper 
woodlands. In addition, much of the area under the broad classifications of 
probable habitat, context unknown, is experiencing juniper and ponderosa pine 
encroachment as well.  These areas experiencing juniper or pine encroachment 
are already, or would be, considered historical habitat, but currently unsuitable 
for sage-grouse, if nothing is done to control encroaching juniper and pine.  
Northern goshawks may occur or have potential to occur in the project area. 
There are no known nest sites in the project area.  However, the project area's 
forested stands and aspen stands have potential to provide suitable nesting 
habitat for northern goshawks. Two years of goshawk inventory would be 
performed prior to any implementation of the Proposed Action.  
Northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's 
sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch are forest species 
that have not been documented in the project area, but are either expected to 
occur or potential habitat for these species occurs.  These species are cavity 
nesters primarily relying upon large dead and dying trees for nesting.  Northern 
pygmy owl and pileated woodpecker prefer closed canopies, while Lewis’ 
woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, and pygmy 
nuthatch prefer more open canopies.  All generally prefer a more open 
understory. 
The olive-sided flycatcher prefers open forest with an uneven canopy.  Tall 
prominent trees and snags, which serve as foraging and singing perches, are 
common features of nesting habitat. 
Brewer's sparrow, sage sparrow, and loggerhead shrike are expected to inhabit 
the project area.  These species nest in habitats with varying degrees of 
sagebrush density. Habitat quality in the project area for these species has been 
degraded by juniper encroachment, and in some cases, ponderosa pine. 
Several Special Status bat species may also be found within the project area.  
Bat species typically found in forested habitats primarily depend upon large 
dead or dying trees for roosting. There has been no documentation of bats 
species occurring within the project area, but it is likely they occur in the area.  
27 

Aquatic Species 
Claw and Skull Creeks are the only known fish bearing streams within the 
project area. These creeks provide habitat for Great Basin redband trout - a 
Bureau tracking species in Oregon. This species prefers cold, clear, fast flowing 
water with clean cobbles and gravels, and spawns during spring.  These trout are 
adapted to dry, hot summers of eastern Oregon and can withstand short periods 
of time at peak water temperatures of 24 to 27 °C (75 to 80 °F),which would be 
lethal to most other trout (Bowers et al. 1979).  Current population or genetic 
surveys have not been completed at this time. 
Special Status Species – Fauna:  Environmental Consequences 
  No Action Alternative-Terrestrial Species 
There are no known effects to Threatened or Endangered wildlife species under 
this alternative.  The No Action Alternative would have effects on greater  
sage-grouse, northern goshawks, northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, 
Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy 
nuthatch, olive-sided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, Brewer's sparrow, sage 
sparrow, and several species of bats or their habitat. There would be no direct 
effect on these species as a result of human actions under the No Action 
Alternative. 
Areas of potential sage-grouse habitat, currently nonfunctional under the 
influence of juniper or pine encroachment, would remain in existing conditions. 
As juniper and pine encroachment progresses, areas offering nesting, brood 
rearing, and wintering habitat for sage-grouse would experience a decrease in 
herbaceous and shrub cover and an increase in predatory raptor perches. 
Eventually these areas would also become nonfunctional as sage-grouse habitat. 
In the long term, most of the project area may become unsuitable for  
sage-grouse due to advancement of juniper and pine encroachment under this 
alternative. 
Potential goshawk nesting habitat would continue to be encroached upon by 
juniper and overstocked by reproduction trees under this alternative.  These 
areas would remain suitable for goshawks until a stand replacement wildfire 
occurred. However, northern goshawks prefer healthy forested sites that have 
more open understories. Therefore, although the habitat is likely to remain 
suitable for northern goshawks, it would continue to decrease in quality.  A 
high-intensity wildfire could have devastating effects on their habitat if one 
were to occur. 
28 

The No Action Alternative is likely to have long-term negative effects on 
Special Status avian species associated with forested sites.  These include 
Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy 
nuthatch, and the olive-sided flycatcher. Habitat quality for these species would 
generally continue to decrease as forest health is expected to decline and the 
understory and overstory continue to become overstocked.  If a large-scale, 
high-intensity wildfire occurred, there could be major impacts on habitats these 
species are currently using.  
The No Action Alternative would increase canopy closure favoring the northern 
pygmy owl and pileated woodpeckers.  However, overall habitat quality for 
these species would likely decline as understory basal area increases and overall 
forest health decreases. 
Brewer's sparrows, sage sparrows, and loggerhead shrikes would be negatively 
impacted as a result of the No Action Alternative in the long term.  Habitat 
quality in the project area for these species has already been degraded by juniper 
and other conifer encroachment and would continue to decline as these species 
continue to encroach upon the sagebrush plant communities they prefer. 
The No Action Alternative is likely to have no effect on Special Status bat 
species until a stand replacement wildfire burns through the project area.  A 
stand replacement wildfire would likely remove at least some of the bat roosting 
trees. 
  No Action Alternative-Aquatic Species 
Under the No Action Alternative, fuel loads would not be reduced across the 
project area. Current condition and trend would be maintained, until a wildfire 
event. During the past century, fire suppression and timber harvests have 
altered fuel loads and forest structure in the dry forest communities of the 
project area.  Because of this, the probability of large, stand-replacing fires has 
increased in those areas. Changing fire regimes and potential for larger, more 
destructive fires may threaten the loss of aquatic habitat diversity and lead to 
accelerated extinction of some vulnerable populations (Elliot 2006).  
Fish habitat would likely be affected by continued expansion of conifers. 
Juniper dominance on a site has been shown to decrease shrub and  
herbaceous vegetation cover (Roberts and Jones 2000).  With this loss, soil is 
more prone to increased soil crusting, decreased infiltration and increased 
erosion (Pierson et al. 1994). Under the No Action Alternative, increased runoff 
and erosion from surrounding hillsides are likely to occur, causing chronic 
sediment delivery to stream channels.  Chronic sediment inputs reduce 
spawning habitat and reproductive success of fish by smothering eggs or 
trapping newly-hatched fish in the gravels below the streambed surface.   
29 

Elevated sediment also reduces available habitat for both fish and 
macroinvertebrates (which are an important food source for fish).  Increased 
sediment reduces pool habitat, which is important for cover, over-wintering 
habitat, and thermal refuges during temperature extremes. 
Proposed Action Alternative-Terrestrial Species 
There would be no known effects to Threatened or Endangered wildlife species 
under this alternative. The Proposed Action would have effects on greater  
sage-grouse, northern goshawk, northern pygmy owl, pileated woodpecker, 
Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, pygmy 
nuthatch, olive-sided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, Brewer's sparrow, sage 
sparrow, and several species of bats.  
The Proposed Action is in compliance with the Greater Sage-Grouse 
Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon:  A Plan to Maintain and 
Enhance Populations and Habitat (2005).  In mountain big, low, and stiff 
sagebrush communities in a mid to late-transitional stage toward fully 
developed juniper woodlands there would be long-term beneficial impacts 
toward sage-grouse and their habitat as a result of the Proposed Action.  These 
areas are currently considered to be unsuitable for sage-grouse due to juniper 
encroachment.  Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would remove 
encroaching juniper from these plant communities.  Mechanical treatments 
would immediately benefit sage-grouse and their habitat.  This treatment would 
remove predatory raptor and raven perches while maintaining and invigorating 
the sagebrush and herbaceous understory.  All habitat components for  
sage-grouse would be improved as a result of mechanical treatments, especially 
nesting habitat in big sagebrush communities and brood rearing in low 
sagebrush communities.  Some of the early to mid-transitional mountain big 
sagebrush sites may be broadcast burned.  Broadcast burning would remove 
juniper as well as the shrubby and herbaceous understory.  Nesting and 
wintering habitat for sage-grouse would come back in the long term in these 
areas as mountain big sagebrush reestablishes itself.  These areas would likely 
offer quality brood-rearing habitat for sage-grouse in the short term as there is 
likely to be a flush of forbs after the broadcast burn treatments.  Overall, 
mountain big sagebrush and low and stiff sagebrush sites currently considered 
to be unsuitable for sage-grouse due to juniper encroachment would likely 
become functional sage-grouse habitat if they receive treatments outlined in the 
Proposed Action. 
30 

Some areas classified as sage-grouse habitat or probable sage-grouse habitat, 
context unknown, are proposed to receive mechanical or prescribed fire 
treatments.  Areas within these habitat types proposed for treatment are places 
where juniper has already begun to encroach.  Although these areas may be 
receiving some sage-grouse use now, as juniper encroachment continues,  
sage-grouse use would decline and these areas may eventually cease to function 
as habitat. Broadcast burn treatments in these areas would likely displace  
sage-grouse during much of the year in the short term, but in the long term 
would improve habitat as mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities 
reestablish in burned areas. Sage-grouse may benefit nutritionally in the short 
term by the flush of forbs expected to occur after burning.  Mechanical and 
single tree burning treatments in low and stiff sagebrush sites would have 
immediate beneficial impacts on sage-grouse. 
There would be no known direct effects to northern goshawks as there are no 
known nest sites found within or adjacent to the project area.  Should a nest site 
be discovered, a Project Design Element would be in place to protect both the 
birds and nesting habitat. If goshawks are found within the project area, effects 
would be minimal as nesting and fledging seasons would be avoided if 
necessary. Under the Proposed Action, northern goshawk habitat would either 
be maintained or enhanced.  The Proposed Action would improve forest health, 
reduce stocking levels of the understory, and promote aspen regeneration, all of 
which should favor goshawks. Goshawk prey populations would likely increase 
as the Proposed Action is likely to attract more songbirds to the area.  Goshawk 
habitat is also likely to persist in the event of a wildfire.  Overall, the Proposed 
Action should improve goshawk habitat in the project area. 
The Proposed Action is likely to benefit the northern pygmy owl, pileated 
woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed 
woodpecker, and pygmy nuthatch.  These cavity nesting species are dependent 
upon large trees and snags for nests. The Proposed Action would protect 
existing snags, large downed woody debris, and old-growth trees and promote 
recruitment of large trees which should benefit these species in the long term. 
All these species should benefit from opening of the understory.  The Proposed 
Action would also remove a portion of subdominate and co-dominate trees that 
make up the forest canopy.  This part of the Proposed Action should benefit 
Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, and 
pygmy nuthatch as they prefer more open canopies.  It would negatively affect 
northern pygmy owl and pileated woodpeckers as they prefer closed canopies.  
However, the variable nature of forest treatments would ensure there are 
portions of forest where canopy closure would remain high and not affect 
habitat quality for these species. The olive-sided flycatcher would also be 
beneficially affected as the Proposed Action would open the understory and 
promote larger tree growth. 
31 

The Proposed Action would cause both immediate and long-term benefits for 
Brewer's sparrows, sage sparrows, and loggerhead shrikes.  Treatments that 
involve felling of juniper or removal of pine encroaching into shrub-steppe 
habitat would immediately improve habitat quality for these species.  Broadcast 
burn treatments may initially decrease habitat for these species as both 
sagebrush and juniper would be consumed by fire, but it should improve habitat 
quality for these species in the long term as sagebrush is reestablished. 
Special Status bat species expected to occur in the project area are likely to be 
not affected in the short term by the Proposed Action.  The Proposed Action 
would protect existing roost trees as well as maintain a suitable prey base.  In 
the long term Special Status bat species may benefit as the Proposed Action 
would promote larger trees which could potentially become roost trees. 
  Proposed Action Alternative-Aquatic Species 
Generally, fish species present in the project area are not expected to be 
adversely affected by disturbances to habitat resulting from project activities. 
Ground disturbance occurring in uplands would be located sufficient distances 
from stream channels to avoid introduction of fine sediments.  
Reestablishing more natural patterns and processes could lead to restoration of 
more complex, productive aquatic habitats.  Treatment of juniper and other 
encroached conifers in riparian areas would facilitate recovery of a riparian 
deciduous community and restore the riparian zone to more historic conditions. 
Thinning within the riparian zone would accelerate the stand structure toward 
late successional conditions and reduce the chance of a high severity fire.  The 
existing deciduous component would also be enhanced due to reduced 
competition with conifers.  By expanding the deciduous community, greater 
bank stability, sediment capture, long-term stream shading, nutrient input, and 
water storage and release are expected.  Late season release of cool groundwater 
is important for fish survival during low flows.  Expanding the riparian 
hardwood community would also positively affect the aquatic food web.  
Seasonal inputs of terrestrial insects from riparian areas are an important food 
source for drift feeding fish species (Young et al. 1997).  These inputs are 
highest from closed-canopy riparian areas dominated by deciduous plant species  
(Elliot 2006). Altering vegetation within the riparian zone to facilitate 
expansion of existing deciduous vegetation would improve aquatic habitat and 
conditions for fish. 
Activities proposed along fish bearing streams would have negligible effects to 
Special Status fish species.  No temporary roads would be constructed within 
riparian zones and mechanical treatments would be limited to hand cutting.   
32 

Cut vegetation would be piled and burned outside the flood plain.  This would 
minimize ground disturbance and sediment entering the stream.  Prescribed 
underburns in uplands would be initiated when conditions are conducive to 
lower intensity burns. A low-intensity burn into the riparian zone would most 
likely result in a patchy burn pattern and leave shade, providing riparian 
vegetation. A patchy burn would also minimize the chance of excessive 
sediment delivery to streams because sediment trapping vegetation would still 
remain.  
Water temperatures are not expected to increase from the Proposed Action. 
Field observations indicate topography and channel orientation of the streams in 
the project area, combined with the expected canopy retention on adjacent 
hillslopes, would not result in a net loss of effective stream shade.  
Fish habitat along Claw Creek is expected to improve following removal of  
0.75-mile of road along the creek.  Currently this road is a primary source of 
excessive sediment found in the stream channel.  Removing this portion of the 
road would trend the 0.65-mile of Claw Creek currently FAR toward PFC. 
5. Noxious Weeds 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on noxious weeds are tiered 
to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS and relevant information contained in the 
following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-7. 
Noxious Weeds:  Affected Environment 
Claw Creek Unit is essentially weed-free.  There are a few small incidental 
thistles (<5acres total) within the boundary but nothing noteworthy.  
There are currently four documented and recorded noxious weed sites within 
Skull Creek Allotment.  However, three of these recorded sites occur on the 
portion of Skull Creek outside the project area boundary.  A 0.177-acre 
infestation of Russian knapweed occurs in Lake Creek Pasture within the 
project area boundary. Other acres of recorded noxious weed infestations 
occurring in the allotment outside the project area are medusahead rye  
(2.22 acres) in Early Turnout Pasture, bull thistle (0.0008-acre) in Campbell 
Place Pasture, and Dalmatian toadflax (1.868 acres) in Willow Flat Pasture.  
In addition, there were several infestations discovered and treated in 2007 that 
have not yet been entered into our Geographical Information System database.  
These consisted of approximately 1-acre of whitetop with some bull thistles 
scattered along Skull Creek Road and a 2-acre site of diffuse knapweed in Early 
Turnout Pasture near a small reservoir. 
33 

There have been some systematic weed inventories conducted in the proposed 
project area, mostly associated with the road network and prior fuels 
management projects (described under Section C of this Chapter).  There would 
be botanical surveys conducted prior to implementation of this new proposed 
project. If noxious weeds are identified, appropriate weed treatments should 
occur prior to initiating work on this project.  
There are a number of other known noxious weed sites in relatively close 
proximity to Slickear Creek Unit.  Species include Canada thistle, bull thistle, 
whitetop, Russian knapweed, and Dalmatian toadflax.  They occur primarily 
along roads and have mostly been treated on a regular basis.  
There are a number of frequently traveled roads within Slickear Creek Unit. 
This area is quite close to town and receives a lot of traffic.  Roads are a 
continual source of new weed introductions and must be monitored regularly to 
ensure early detection of new weed populations.  If weeds are found, sites 
should be treated promptly to minimize spread. 
  Noxious Weeds: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Risk of noxious weed establishment and spread would increase under the No 
Action Alternative as woodlands continue to degrade, creating niches for 
noxious weed invasion, and by accumulation of fuels increasing the likelihood 
of a large-scale wildfire. 
Sagebrush-bunchgrass plant communities would continue to progress toward 
juniper woodlands. Wildfires that occur in these communities tend to be severe 
enough to kill a high percentage (>60 percent) of understory plants.  These 
conditions are highly susceptible to noxious weed invasion. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Overstocked, declining woodlands, including areas with encroaching stands of 
juniper have the ability to outcompete other, desirable native vegetation creating 
new niches that can be occupied by noxious weeds.  Management actions which 
promote healthy woodlands as described under the Proposed Action for this 
project, including reducing the threat of large-scale, high-intensity wildfires, 
would help counteract this effect. 
Initially, mechanical treatments and use of prescribed fire could open up areas 
for weed colonization by creating disturbed habitat favoring noxious weed 
invasion. However, an aggressive survey and treatment protocol by the BLM 
would help address newly invading noxious weeds before they can become 
established. 
34 

There would be minimal increases in the risk of introduction of new weed 
populations or the expansion of existing weed populations as a result of 
implementing the Proposed Action if the Project Design Elements are followed. 
Monitoring for noxious weeds would occur for 3 years post-treatment and any 
weeds attempting to establish would be treated using an integrated weed 
management approach, as outlined in the District's Noxious Weed Management 
EA. 
6. American Indian Traditional Practices 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on American Indian 
Traditional Practices are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant 
information contained in the following section is incorporated into this EA by 
reference: Sections 3-21. 
American Indian Traditional Practices:  Affected Environment 
Claw Creek Unit: No American Indian Traditional Practice areas are known to 
occur in this treatment unit.  However, presence of economically important 
edible plants in the treatment unit suggests it is possible modern use by root 
gatherers may occur. 
Slickear Unit: This treatment unit is known to contain certain resources 
(obsidian, edible roots, and big game) important to Burns Paiute Tribe.  The 
treatment unit is in close proximity to Burns Paiute Reservation and is said to be 
an area where sacred and religious as well as economic activities occur. 
Consultation with Burns Paiute Tribal Council was initiated in January of 2008 
with a scoping letter and a request to meet with the Council about the project. 
No response was received from the tribe.  
American Indian Traditional Practices:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Traditional practices within the project area are not likely to be affected by the 
No Action Alternative. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Traditional practice areas, particularly within Slickear Creek Unit, are likely to 
be affected by the Proposed Action as religious or sacred activities associated 
with ancestors, hunting marmots, big game, personal use, obsidian, root 
gathering, and gathering other plant materials for personal use are some of the 
likely traditional practices occurring within this unit. 
35 

Because no specific locations of American Indian Traditional Practices are 
known within Slickear Creek Unit, it is problematic to analyze effects of the 
Proposed Action on those activities. However, prescribed fires may have a 
negative effect on root and other plant gathering activities immediately 
following the burn (first 2 years) as fire would remove some of this vegetation.  
However, it is likely these traditional practices would benefit after this initial 
phase as plants associated with root and plant gathering are expected to 
reestablish at higher levels after the prescribed burn.  Burns Paiute Tribal 
Council did not comment on the Proposed Action or express a desire to meet 
with the BLM. 
7. Cultural Heritage 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on cultural resources are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-21. 
Cultural Heritage:  Affected Environment 
Claw Creek Unit: Only 75 acres of cultural resource inventory and survey have 
been completed in this unit prior to this project proposal.  No archaeological 
sites were inventoried during this survey.  This unit contains uplands with 
low/stiff sagebrush plant communities with edible root plants important to 
prehistoric and modern American Indian communities.  The probability for 
finding cultural properties eligible for the National Register in the unit is high. 
Landforms associated with ecotones between low/stiff sagebrush flats and 
historic juniper/pine populations and landforms adjacent to live water sources 
are the most likely places to find cultural properties. 
Slickear Creek Unit: Only 107 acres of cultural resource inventory and survey 
have been completed in this unit prior to this project proposal.  The majority of 
this survey was completed for the Strategic Fuel Breaks Project in 2003.  Seven 
prehistoric archaeological sites are known to occur in the unit.  All appear to be 
associated to some degree with occurrence of abundant obsidian sources.  Other 
landform associations are similar to Claw Creek Unit.  All archaeological sites 
are observed on the ground surface and most have buried materials.  Two 
yielded datable prehistoric artifacts suggesting prehistoric use as early as  
7,000 years ago. Two sites contained grinding stones indicating seed or root 
processing. Potential for finding additional sites eligible for the National 
Register in the unit is very high. From a cultural resources perspective, Slickear 
Creek Unit is the more important unit.  The greater importance is due to 
presence of high quality obsidian and closer proximity to Burns Paiute 
Reservation, just north of Burns. 
36 

Cultural Heritage:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
It is likely the No Action Alternative would not affect cultural resources unless 
cultural resources occurred in a dense stand of juniper.  Cultural resources 
within dense stands of juniper may be affected if stands are not treated because 
decreased ground covering plants may allow for accelerated surface erosion, 
thus reducing the buried cultural deposits' integrity.  Decreased ground covering 
plants can also contribute to increased ground surface visibility.  Increased 
surface visibility can lead to loss of cultural material through illegal artifact 
collection. However, it is probable dense juniper stands have not progressed to 
the exclusion of all other vegetation and these two possibilities for effects are 
not active at this time. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Chain saw cutting of juniper in sparse juniper stands is not likely to affect 
cultural resources.  In fact, cutting and leaving trees without treating slash may 
positively affect cultural resources through release of shrub, grass, and forbs 
that may increase ground cover and decrease erosion and surface visibility. 
Cutting and broadcast burning within site boundaries located within dense 
juniper stands is likely to produce high, sustained temperature levels, which 
could damage or destroy surface artifacts.  These sites would be 
avoided/mitigated through Project Design Elements, thus, there should be no 
effect on these cultural heritage resources. 
Burning piles when the ground is frozen or covered with snow would alleviate 
effects of high temperatures on subsurface artifacts in cultural sites.  If burning 
is conducted as designed in the Proposed Action, no effects to subsurface 
cultural resources are expected.  
Broadcast burning when soils are wet or frozen would minimize effects to 
subsurface archaeological materials because temperatures would be low. 
However, broadcast burning could affect surface archaeological materials 
because temperatures in contact with burning juniper trees could be high and 
sustained. 
B. Noncritical Elements 
Noncritical elements that are not known to be present or would not be affected by 
enacting either alternative are Lands and Realty, Minerals, Reclamation, and Wild 
Horses and Burros. Noncritical elements of the human environment which may be 
affected by the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative are: 
37 

1. Soils/Biological Soil Crusts 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on Soils/BSC resources are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-3. 
Soils/BSCs: Affected Environment 
Soil textures in the area are gravelly to very stony loams and silts; rock outcrops 
are also represented in both Claw Creek and Slickear Creek Unit boundaries. 
General soil series in Slickear Creek Unit include Gaib, Merlin, Anatone, 
Minam, Ateron, Rubbleland, Westbutte, Rock Outcrop, Vitale, and Teguro.  No 
single soil series dominates Slickear Creek Unit.  General soil series in Claw 
Creek Unit include Gaib, Merlin, Anatone, Minam, Ateron, Westbutte, Rock 
Outcrop, Egyptcreek, and Teguro. Merlin and Teguro soil series dominate 
Claw Creek Unit. 
The project area has not been inventoried to determine if BSCs are present.  The 
BSC are a suite of organisms that occupy the first few inches of soil surface. 
The main function of BSC is to increase soil stability and facilitate nutrient 
cycling in the surface few inches of soil.  The BSC data specific to the northern 
Great Basin have been lacking in the past.  For a discussion on how BSCs 
contribute to the functional, structural, and compositional parts of a functioning 
ecosystem see the technical reference (Biological Soil Crust Ecology and 
Management TR-1730-2).  Common BSC likely to be found in the project area 
are included in the following list of genera:  Byrum, Cladonia, Collema, 
Lecanora, Peltigera, Psora, and Tortula.  This is not an all inclusive list of 
potential genera. 
Soils/BSCs: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continued increase of juniper 
and ponderosa pine cover and density in big sagebrush, low sagebrush (stiff 
sagebrush to a limited extent), quaking aspen, and riparian areas.  Increase in 
overstory cover and density would further deplete the understory woody and 
herbaceous plant community.  Reducing the understory vegetation would 
increase the amount of bare ground exposed to the forces of wind and rain.  
38 

Erosion would increase on these sites.  Reduction in understory vegetation 
would be most evident in areas dominated by big sagebrush and have shallow 
soils or a restrictive layer within 18 inches of the soil surface (Miller et al. 
2001). In these areas, juniper and understory vegetation are forced to root in the 
same soil volume.  Juniper is a much more effective competitor for resources 
and its roots dominate the soil horizon.  The effect would be less dramatic on 
deeper soils.  However, in deeper soils, juniper would still eliminate associated 
woody plants due to their similar rooting patterns and the ability of juniper to 
better compete for available resources.  Under these conditions shrubs would be 
eliminated from the plant community before herbaceous vegetation.  
Accumulating fuels especially from increasing numbers of juniper and 
quantities of duff in forested systems would increase the chances of a  
large-scale, high-intensity wildfire in the project area.  High-intensity fires 
would increase the potential for scorched soils and creation of large, 
uninterrupted burned areas. Shallow soils and lithisols would not be as heavily 
impacted as a result of the No Action Alternative as fuels have been modified to 
a much lesser extent. 
Duff accumulation in forested systems would continue and therefore not allow 
for soil exposure and establishment of BSC. 
No Action would allow continued modification of vegetative communities by 
conifer expansion in some portions of the project area.  The BSC in the project 
area may suffer from decreased light and moisture as a result of increased 
interception (greater conifer canopy). 
Loss of BSC cover through wildfire and duff accumulation in some areas, 
especially areas with a major moss/shrub component, could experience 
prolonged BSC recovery periods.  The BSC in areas of naturally low fuels (low 
sagebrush sites) would have less likelihood of experiencing fire events and 
would proportionately have less effects. If these areas remain untreated due to 
priority or other limitations, potential effects from conifer expansion could 
slowly occur. 
Without reducing buildup of fuels, especially from increasing numbers of 
juniper, chances of a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire in the project area 
would be increased as well as the potential for creation of large, uninterrupted 
burned areas. 
39 

Proposed Action Alternative 
By reducing buildup of fuels, especially from increasing numbers of juniper and 
quantities of duff in forested systems, chances of a large-scale, high-intensity 
wildfire in the project area would be reduced as well as the potential for 
scorched soils and creation of large, uninterrupted burned areas.  Shallow soils 
and lithisols would not be heavily impacted as a result of implementation. 
Duff reduction in forested systems would allow for soil exposure and 
establishment of BSC in areas where opportunity for establishment was lost. 
The Proposed Action would reduce continued modification of vegetative 
communities by conifer expansion in some portions of the project area.  The 
BSC in the project area may benefit from increased light and moisture as a 
result of decreased interception (reduced conifer canopy).  
Prescribed burning in the form of broadcast, jackpot or individual tree burning 
could have an initial effect on BSC. Overall seral stage representation of BSC 
should be a mosaic that mirrors to some extent the mosaic of vascular plant 
community seral stages.  
By removing BSC cover through burning, some areas, especially areas rich in 
moss/shrub species, could experience prolonged BSC recovery periods.  The 
BSC in areas of naturally low fuels (low sagebrush sites) would have less 
likelihood of experiencing fire events and would proportionately have less 
effects. If these areas remain untreated due to priority or other limitations, 
effects from conifer expansion could slowly occur. 
The intent of the proposed prescribed fire events is to create a mosaic of seral 
stages in vegetation. As a fire burns through an area, some vegetation is left 
unaffected; this concept applies to BSC as well.  The BSC also occur in areas 
without vegetation, so the total remaining BSC cover in a burned area should be 
the sum of the cover in the unburned vegetation and untreated interspaces or 
areas of naturally low fuels. 
The BSC in the project area could potentially suffer a limited loss of cover as a 
result of use of large track or wheeled machines to cut and pile trees.  This loss 
of cover is limited in scale and would not be a reoccurring disturbance.  The 
BSC would still be present in these site-specific disturbance areas and would 
continue to be a part of the functioning ecosystem.  
40 

2. Vegetation 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on vegetation resources are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-3 
and 3-7.  All other vegetation (e.g., ponderosa pine) not addressed in this section 
will be addressed in the Forestry/Woodlands section. 
Vegetation: Affected Environment 
Vegetation communities within the project area contain significant physical and 
biological diversity that provide valuable wildlife habitat, watershed protection, 
and livestock forage. Past land management practices have shaped the plant 
community composition in the southeastern portion of Oregon.  The following 
vegetation communities occur within or adjacent to the two project units: 
• Forested and Forest Fringe Communities (~15 percent of project area) 
Forested areas with ponderosa pine or western juniper have expanded 
into portions of the project area over time.  Mountain mahogany and 
quaking aspen are also present in areas.  Understory vegetation is in 
varying conditions with mountain shrub and bunchgrass still present 
outside of areas with heavy duff accumulation or increased evergreen 
overstory. However, sagebrush still co-dominates some of the forested 
plant communities across much of the area. 
• Sagebrush Dominated Communities (~80 percent of project area) 
Sagebrush species dominate many of the nonforested plant communities 
within the two project units. Ponderosa pine and western juniper have 
expanded into portions of the sagebrush dominated areas.  However, 
sagebrush still dominates the plant communities across much of the area.  
Mountain Big Sagebrush Plant Communities (~31 percent of project 
area) 
Big sagebrush plant communities above approximately 4,500 feet are 
dominated by mountain big sagebrush.  These sagebrush plant 
communities are some of the most productive plant communities within 
Burns District. A number of other shrubs are often found within the 
mountain big sagebrush plant communities.  The most common shrubs 
associated with mountain big sagebrush are antelope bitterbrush, 
mountain snowberry, wax currant, rubber rabbitbrush, and snowbrush. 
Bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, Thurber's needlegrass, western 
needlegrass, Sandberg's bluegrass, and junegrass are the dominant 
grasses. 
41 

Low and Stiff Sagebrush Plant Communities (~49 percent of project 
area) 
Low sagebrush and stiff sagebrush plant communities are found on 
shallow soils or soils with a heavy clay layer within 16 inches of the soil 
surface. Antelope bitterbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and green rabbitbrush 
are often found in association with low sagebrush.  These larger shrubs 
are often found on slightly deeper soil islands within the low sagebrush 
plant community. Herbaceous vegetation is similar to the neighboring 
Wyoming or mountain big sagebrush plant communities.  Sandberg's 
bluegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Idaho fescue are the dominant 
perennial grasses. 
Stiff sagebrush communities tend to form on lithisols and usually have a 
complex forb component usually comprised of biscuitroot, big headed 
clover, fleabane, milkvetch, and balsam root. 
• Nonvegetated (<5 percent of project area) 
These acres within the project perimeters include rock outcroppings, 
rock faces and barren soils. 
Vegetation: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continued increase of juniper 
and ponderosa pine cover and density in big sagebrush, low sagebrush (stiff 
sagebrush to a limited extent), quaking aspen, and riparian areas.  Increase in 
cover and density would further deplete the understory woody and herbaceous 
plant community. Under these conditions shrubs would be eliminated from the 
plant community before herbaceous vegetation.  
Herbaceous vegetation would persist for a longer period because they root in 
upper soil horizons. Sites with deep soils (greater than 24 inches) may develop 
dense juniper woodlands with canopy cover approaching 75 percent and still 
maintain a good herbaceous plant cover.  These sites would only occur over a 
small percentage (<20 percent) of the project area. 
Noticeable effects from increasing juniper in low sagebrush communities would 
develop at a slower rate because of the lower productivity on these sites.  Shrubs 
would be reduced, but juniper cover and density would not reach that of the big 
sagebrush plant communities.  
42 

In most cases, influence of juniper is limited to areas directly below the trees. 
Low sagebrush sites may also contain very old trees.  The low fire return 
interval of these sites allows juniper to establish and grow to a very old age 
(>500 years). Increase in juniper on these sites raises the risk of large-scale, 
high-intensity fires that may kill a large number of these old-growth trees. 
Juniper would continue to increase in more productive quaking aspen and 
riparian areas. Juniper would reach very high densities and cover, approaching 
full canopy closure on some sites.  A combination of intense competition for 
resources and heavy needle fall would reduce the understory herbaceous and 
woody plants to lower levels. Establishment of juniper alters the vegetation and 
fuel structure of these areas. A shift to coniferous vegetation from broadleaves 
increases fuel continuity and changes the fuel chemical composition.  Dense 
juniper stands would increase the likelihood of high-intensity/severity fires in 
these areas. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
The project area is part of a fairly continuous block of sagebrush plant 
communities with stringers of conifers (juniper and ponderosa pine) and 
riparian corridors throughout (see riparian sections for effects to riparian 
communities).  Reestablishment of shrub communities would help to restore 
sagebrush systems on a regional basis.  Effects specific to each community type 
are as follows:  
• Forested and Forest Fringe Communities 
Thinning ponderosa pine populations would restore the overall health 
and functionality of forested areas.  Follow-up broadcast burning in 
these communities would reduce duff accumulation and promote 
understory recovery of shrub and forb components. 
Removal of juniper less than 130 years old would restore the site to its 
historic structure. Old-growth juniper would be left onsite.  These  
old- growth trees are important for many neotropical migrant birds and 
small mammals.  Response of understory vegetation to tree removal 
would be limited by the stage of encroachment.  
• Sagebrush Dominated Communities 
Mountain Big Sagebrush-bunchgrass 
Juniper (and ponderosa pine to a lesser extent) has increased 

considerably in mountain big sagebrush plant communities.   

Prescribed fire or mechanical cutting have been effective methods used 

to reduce influence of juniper on this plant community in the past.  

43 

Cutting, followed by jackpot burning, has also been an effective method 
to balance plant community restoration and fire management concerns 
on areas where juniper has developed into closed woodlands. Juniper 
woodlands that have progressed to the point where understory shrubs 
have been reduced, or eliminated, would not carry fire into the canopy of 
trees. In general, only high-intensity fires that occur under severe 
climatic conditions would move from tree to tree in juniper woodlands. 
Temperature, relative humidity and wind conditions required for this to 
occur only happen on less than 1 percent of the days during an average 
fire season. Conditions rarely occur during late summer or fall when 
broadcast burning occurs. Cut juniper trees would provide protection for 
establishing grasses and forbs. Bates and others (2001) found sites with 
an understory vegetation cover of less than 5 percent had increased to 
greater than 30 percent 5 years after juniper cutting.  Jackpot burning 
helps reduce the threat of high-intensity wildfire in cut juniper 
woodlands. This method would burn fine fuels, limit the ability of the 
fire to spread, and prevent soil sterilization from excessive heat.  It is 
conducive to maintaining the shrub component on the site and the 
herbaceous plant species growing under downed junipers.  Jackpot 
burning would impact herbaceous plants under a high accumulation of 
fuels. Burning when soils are frozen or saturated would reduce negative 
effects of jackpot burning. Burned patches would depend on precutting 
density, cover and average tree size.  Winter burning of downed juniper 
slash was found to reduce negative impacts of jackpot burning by  
30 percent (Bates et al. 2002). Native perennial grasses and forbs are 
capable of responding to removal of juniper and subsequent jackpot 
burning, if done when soils are frozen or saturated.  If jackpot burning 
occurs during times when soils are dry, seeding would be required to 
limit establishment of undesirable plants. 
Broadcast burning is an effective treatment of juniper in areas where 
shrubs are still present in the plant community.  Burning would be done 
in a mosaic pattern with a goal of 40 to 60 percent of the area burned. 
This type of burning produces an irregular shaped burn with several 
patches of unburned areas intermixed within burned areas.  This creates 
a greater amount of edge effect10 than does burning in regular shaped 
blocks. Large amounts of edge and a number of interior unburned 
sagebrush islands increases overall landscape diversity and helps in 
reestablishment of a sagebrush dominated plant community.  Miller and 
others (2000) state one native grass plant per 10 feet2 is sufficient for 
native vegetation to recover following burning or cutting.  If the 
threshold of one native grass plant per 10 feet2 is not reached, seeding 
would be required to maintain a native plant population. 
10 Edge effect: The effect of the juxtaposition of contrasting environments on an ecosystem. 
44 

Low Sagebrush/Stiff Sagebrush-bunchgrass 
The majority of juniper found on low and stiff sagebrush-bunchgrass 
sites have established over the last 110 to 130 years.  Removal of these 
trees would help to reestablish appropriate low and stiff sagebrush plant 
communities.  Cutting encroaching juniper would help to increase soil 
resources (water and nutrients) for grasses, forbs, and shrubs.  Cutting 
would have the least impacts on the associated herbaceous and woody 
plants. The downed trees and slash would also moderate the 
environment for plants beneath the canopy of downed trees.  Moderation 
of the environment would help to reduce effects of extremely cold or hot 
conditions on young establishing plants and protect those plants from 
grazing by domestic and wild ungulates.  
Areas treated with a jackpot burn would maintain most shrub cover.  Pile 
burning when soils are frozen or totally saturated would help to reduce 
individual plant death due to high temperatures caused by accumulation 
of fuels. 
Broadcast burning of low sagebrush may occur on small portions of low 
sagebrush plant communities located within larger tracts of big 
sagebrush. Burning would result in conversion of small areas to 
perennial bunchgrass/forb dominated plant communities.  Miller and 
Rose (1999) estimated establishment of low sagebrush following 
burning may take in excess of 50 years to occur on large burned areas. 
Establishment would occur quicker in areas where unburned patches of 
low sagebrush are left. 
Low sagebrush sites are inherently low in productivity and change 
occurs slowly. Burning would reduce the cover of low sagebrush and 
mat-forming shrubs.  Return to pre-burn shrub cover could take more 
than 50 years. Burning would also reduce the cover of low-growing, 
mat-forming forbs.  However, larger perennial bunchgrass and  
deeper-rooted perennial forbs would fill in the cover left by the 
reduction of mat-forming plants.  Impacts of burning would occur on a 
very small percentage (<10 percent) of the area because of the open 
nature of juniper woodlands on low sagebrush sites and the low 
likelihood of burning treatments occurring in these communities. 
• Quaking Aspen 
Juniper and pine encroachment into quaking aspen stands are 
exacerbating the general decline of quaking aspen documented across 
the western United States (Wall et al. 1999).  Removing encroaching 
juniper and pine would help increase the amount of soil moisture and 
nutrients available to residual quaking aspen and understory plants. 
45 

Suckering would be encouraged by some physical damage caused by 
juniper and pine falling. Trees may knock over or damage some 
standing quaking aspen. This damage would help to facilitate the 
suckering of quaking aspen.  However, resources released by cutting of 
juniper and pine would also be available for small juniper and pine that 
occur in the understory. Miller and Rose (1995) found up to  
1,400 western juniper seedlings per acre in the understory of quaking 
aspen stands on Steens Mountain.  Follow-up broadcast burning 
treatments would reduce the number of juniper and pine seedlings 
released following cutting and increase the number of quaking aspen 
suckers. Fencing with woven wire following treatment would protect 
new quaking aspen suckers from browsing by large wild herbivores and 
domestic livestock.  Jackpot burning following cutting would also help 
to reduce juniper and pine seedlings.  However, seedlings outside the 
burned area would not be killed by burning and would benefit from 
released nutrients and resources. 
• Fuels Reduction 
Treatment of cut juniper and ponderosa pine would reduce the level of 
biomass, or fuel, left onsite.  Burning during frozen or saturated soil 
conditions would help to reduce negative impacts of burning in areas 
with high fuels accumulations.  Effects would be the same as burning in 
quaking aspen and riparian areas during the same time of year.  Areas 
where high fuel levels occur may require post-burning seeding to 
facilitate establishment of perennial plants.  Machine piling may be used 
to concentrate fuels.  Compaction due to machine use would be limited 
by timing and concentrating travel paths.  Working machinery on frozen 
soils would reduce negative soil impacts to negligible levels. 
3. Wildlife 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on wildlife resources are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-9, 
3-10, and 3-11. 
Wildlife:  Affected Environment 
Wildlife in addition to migratory birds and SSS occurring in the project area 
include mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, pronghorn antelope, badger,  
black-tailed jackrabbit, cottontails, cougar, bobcat, coyote, several reptiles and 
amphibians, many other bird species, and a myriad of small mammal species. 
The project area falls entirely within the Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife's (ODFW) Silvies River Hunt Unit for all big game species.  
46 

Pronghorn antelope can be found throughout the nonforested and woodland 
portions of the project area. However, they prefer more open habitats such as 
low/stiff sagebrush flats and generally open rolling terrain. 
Mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk use the project area yearlong.  The project 
area would be considered quality spring, summer, and fall habitats for both deer 
and elk. Approximately 25 percent and 15 percent of Slickear Creek Unit is 
classified as deer and elk winter range, respectively.  In Claw Creek Unit 
approximately 70 percent of the area is classified as elk winter range.  There is 
no part of Claw Creek Unit classified as deer winter range.  However, wintering 
deer frequently use south facing slopes and open ridgetops in the area.  Deer are 
largely dependent on sagebrush for their winter diet.  Bitterbrush and other 
shrubs are also important browse species that deer forage on in fall and winter. 
The project area offers forest fringe habitat which can provide good wintering 
habitat for elk. Winter range for both deer and elk is being degraded across the 
project area as juniper and ponderosa pine encroachment continues to take place 
upon important plant communities.  Much of the winter range within the project 
area does not currently support browse.  These are areas where juniper or pine 
have encroached upon and outcompeted these key forage species, and have 
become woodlands.  There are several other areas within the project area where 
juniper is in an intermediate transitional stage toward woodlands.  In these areas 
browse species are declining in quantity, health and vigor, and palatability. 
There are a few other areas within the project area where browse species are 
healthy and plentiful. These areas offer good winter forage for both wintering 
deer and elk. Overall the project area has a relatively small percentage  
(<10 percent) of winter range currently not being degraded by juniper or pine 
encroachment.  
There is an abundance of thermal and hiding cover within the project area. 
Juniper, forested sites, and big sagebrush are major cover types used for hiding 
and thermal cover during winter months to help animals reduce heat loss during 
cold winter nights. Mountain mahogany and aspen stands also serve as hiding 
or thermal cover, but they occur on a less frequent basis.  
Wildlife:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Under the No Action Alternative, no disturbance to wildlife would occur due to 
human activities.  Plant communities would continue to transition toward 
juniper woodlands and overstocked conifer stands with reduced herbaceous 
understories. Pronghorn would be negatively affected by expansion of juniper 
and pine into the sagebrush communities as they prefer open habitats.  
47 

Browse species (bitterbrush, big sagebrush, chokecherry, etc.) that elk and 
especially deer rely upon in fall and winter would continue to decrease in 
quantity, health, vigor, and palatability.  Mountain mahogany and aspen stands 
would also continue to be encroached upon and outcompeted by juniper and 
pine trees, which would likely lead to eventual loss of these habitats.  This 
would cause a decrease in habitat quality for big game species as well as several 
bird and small mammal species that utilize these habitats.  This loss and 
degradation of habitat may eventually reduce habitat capacity for supporting 
current big game populations. 
Thermal and hiding cover would increase under this alternative if a stand-
replacement wildfire did not occur.  Habitat quantity and quality for relatively 
few species that prefer dense juniper woodlands or dense ponderosa pine 
communities would increase.  Overall, habitat diversity within the project area 
would decrease as a result of the No Action Alternative, thus causing an 
associated decrease in wildlife diversity occurring on the project area. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Overall there is likely to be an increase in wildlife species diversity as a result of 
implementing the Proposed Action.  Strategically placed juniper cuts, conifer 
thinning treatments, and prescribed burns within the project area would create a 
diversity of habitats.  These actions would reduce juniper and pine 
encroachment, and cause an increase in grasses, forbs, and shrubby browse 
species. These treatments are likely to increase health, vigor, and palatability of 
winter forage for both deer and elk. In areas such as juniper woodlands and 
dense pine stands, quantity of winter forage browse species is expected to 
increase as well. 
Protection and enhancement of mountain mahogany and aspen stands would 
also benefit deer and elk, as well as many other wildlife species.  There would 
be a short-term loss of aspen habitats for big game species if aspen stands 
require a protective fence. Thermal and hiding cover would decrease as a result 
of the Proposed Action, but there would still be more than sufficient thermal 
and hiding cover in the project area. 
Species utilizing more open habitats, such as pronghorn, would be favored as a 
result of the Proposed Action. Species favoring juniper woodlands and dense 
conifer stands would be negatively impacted as their preferred habitat would be 
targeted for removal by the Proposed Action.  However, interior leave islands 
(No Action Areas) and the variation in prescriptions would allow for retention 
of some of these habitat types. 
48 

4. Fisheries: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 
A few reservoirs (Willow and Stateline) within Slickear Creek Unit are stocked 
by ODFW with hatchery rainbow trout. Other non Special Status fish species 
occur within fish bearing streams of the project area.  Enacting either alternative 
would not affect hatchery stocked rainbow trout in the reservoirs.  Impacts to 
non Special Status fish species occurring within fish bearing streams within the 
project area would be the same as effects to Special Status fish species 
addressed previously, and will not be separately analyzed in this document.  
5. Grazing Management 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on Grazing Management are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-3 
and 3-7. 
Grazing Management:  Affected Environment 
The project includes portions of the following grazing allotments:  Claw Creek 
#7010 and Skull Creek #7030. Observations from field visits and professional 
judgment have determined western juniper is showing a marked increase on 
many of the upland mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrasses and low/stiff 
sagebrush-bunchgrasses communities within the project area.  Ponderosa pine 
stands are overstocked and have also encroached upon mountain big sagebrush-
bunchgrass communities within the project area.  Rangeland trend condition and 
photo analysis have also demonstrated the increase of western juniper and pine 
in these communities. 
General season of use and a general summary for each allotment are as follows: 
Claw Creek Allotment #7010 – The Claw Creek Allotment contains  
24,244 acres of BLM-administrated public land which is divided into eight 
pastures. The proposed project would affect approximately 5,000 acres within 
the Claw Creek Pastures. This pasture receives an early/graze (May 1 to  
June 15) season of use. Average actual use between 1990 and1999 was 
191 AUMs. This allotment is in an improve category of management.  During 
the 1999 assessment of Standards for Rangeland Health for this allotment, an 
IDT determined the following standards were not being achieved due to past 
livestock grazing and juniper encroachment:  watershed function in riparian 
areas, water quality, and native, T&E, and locally important species.  
49 

Skull Creek Allotment #7030 - Skull Creek Allotment contains 26,368 acres of 
public land which is divided into eight pastures.  The proposed project would 
affect approximately 7,200 acres within the two largest of the eight pastures 
(Lake Creek and Boulder). Skull Creek Allotment has three grazing permits 
which graze 1,375 cattle from April 15 to June 10 in a rotational grazing 
management system.  This allotment is in an improve category of management 
due to not meeting Standards for Rangeland Health for water quality 
(temperature) and for locally important species (redband trout habitat) due to 
water temperature and juniper encroachment.  In the 2004 allotment IDT 
evaluation of this allotment, it was determined current livestock management 
was not a causal factor for not meeting these standards.  Skull Creek is the 
perennial stream in this allotment which would be within the unit.  Juniper 
encroachment was an identified concern on this allotment.  As of the 2004 
evaluation, 700 acres of western juniper had been cut. 
Grazing Management:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
All plant communities in these allotments are dependent on periodic fire to 
maintain forest and rangeland health and fire has been absent from most lands 
within this project area for 30+ years beyond the historic fire regime resulting in 
deteriorated rangeland and forest health.  If juniper encroachment and 
ponderosa pine expansion are left untreated, rangeland plant community 
diversity would continue to decline.  As plant communities transition to western 
juniper woodlands, browse species such as sagebrush and bitterbrush species are 
outcompeted for water and nutrients.  This would impact watershed health and 
wildlife species more than current livestock grazing.  As tree density increases, 
herbaceous species such as forbs and grasses decline which decreases the forage 
base for livestock and wildlife.  As grass species decline in abundance, there is 
increased use by livestock on remaining plants.  As remaining plants decrease in 
vigor, they make available more nutrients for tree species and the downward 
cycle would continue unless reductions in livestock use were implemented. 
With increases in juniper and pine and subsequent decreases in shrub and 
herbaceous components, comes an increase in competition for remaining forage 
between livestock and wildlife (elk, mule deer, and antelope).  As this 
competition increases, livestock reductions would have to be made to continue 
managing for rangeland health.  Even if livestock were reduced or removed, as 
juniper reaches the closed canopy woodland stage across a landscape, wildlife 
habitat value would continue to decline.  
50 

The No Action Alternative also leaves open the opportunity for heavy buildup 
of large woody fuel and the chance for intense wildfire.  Currently the project 
area is in various stages of juniper encroachment from early transition to late 
transition to juniper woodlands which provide stressed and dying shrub species 
creating a drier fuel-bed, which increases the risk of large-scale, high-intensity 
wildfires. Although natural recovery of most plant communities following a 
severe wildfire is likely, it would be an unplanned economic burden on the 
grazing permittees as grazing would be removed for two or more years to allow 
plant communities to recover. Portions of the area where dead shrubs and 
overstocked tree stands exist would be sterilized by extreme heat from wildfire 
which would delay and or prohibit natural recovery and provide opportunities 
for noxious weed establishment. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Combinations of treatments proposed for rangeland and forested plant 
communities would restore plant community diversity and improve watershed 
and rangeland health. Overstory and understory thinning, piling, and understory 
prescribed burning proposed for forested areas would release herbaceous 
species which provide forage for livestock and wildlife.  It would increase 
overall plant diversity within these stands without damaging the older 
ponderosa pines. 
Proposed treatments within rangeland plant communities would restore plant 
diversity to communities found under a more historic fire regime.  All proposed 
treatments in rangelands should increase available soil moisture and release 
nutrients, resulting in an increased production of herbaceous and shrub species. 
An increase in herbaceous species would improve livestock distribution, 
thereby, reducing concentrations of livestock on any given area, and more 
uniform utilization patterns may result.  The Proposed Action may decrease 
overall utilization levels as well. The Proposed Action would provide healthy 
plant communities with adequate forage for species with similar dietary 
preferences such as cattle and elk. 
Implementation of the Proposed Action may require 1 to 3 years of rest from 
livestock grazing for the two pastures within Skull Creek Allotment and Claw 
Creek Pasture of Claw Creek Allotment.  However, sequences of treatments 
could be planned which would provide minimal economic impacts to 
cooperating ranches with continuation of grazing in adjoining pastures in the 
allotments or would allow them to acquire alternative forage.  Growing season 
rest may be required following jackpot burning to provide for plant recovery.  
51 

Recovery time of plant communities from proposed treatments would be less 
than those that would have to occur if a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire 
occurred. This is due to the fact that the disturbance from prescribed burning 
and cutting on plant communities which are beyond the historic fire regime (i.e., 
have juniper encroachment with a stressed and dead shrub component) is 
usually far less than disturbance from a wildfire. 
6. Recreation: Affected Environment 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on recreation/OHV 
resources are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information 
contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference: 
Sections 3-15. 
Primary recreation activities in the project area are dispersed camping and 
hiking. These activities are usually associated with hunting big game such as 
mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and pronghorn antelope.  Upland game bird 
and waterfowl hunting may also occur occasionally in the project area.  Other 
recreation activities are rockhounding, photography, wildlife viewing, and 
driving for pleasure. 
Recreation: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
There would be no direct effect to recreational activities under this alternative. 
Under the No Action Alternative there are more likely to be brief disruptions to 
recreational activities in the vicinity of the project area from fire suppression 
and smoke during summer and fall seasons. 
In the long term, big game hunting opportunities may diminish as habitat 
effectiveness declines with loss of species and structural diversity in rangeland 
and ponderosa pine woodland plant communities. 
  Proposed Action Alternative 
Under the Proposed Action there may be brief impacts to recreational activities 
in the vicinity of the project area.  Recreational activities within the project area 
would be affected by implementation of the Proposed Action.  There may be 
temporary closures of areas while prescribed burns are taking place.  Temporary 
closures are likely to be less than a week in duration.  Smoke and noise 
generated during project implementation could disrupt recreational activities in 
spring or fall seasons. In the long term, recreational activities related to driving 
for pleasure, big game hunting, and wildlife viewing should be enhanced as 
habitat function and landscape diversity are expected to improve over time. 
52 

7. Economic and Social Values 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on economic and social 
resources are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information 
contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference: 
Sections 3-25, 3-26, and 3-27. 
Economic and Social Values:  Affected Environment  
Livestock raising and associated feed production industries are major 
contributors to the economy of Harney County. T he highest individual 
agricultural sales revenue in the county is derived from cattle production, which 
is inextricably linked to the commodity value of public rangelands.  The cattle 
industry provided $48,782,000 in sales in Harney County in 2007 [Oregon State 
University (OSU), Extension Service 2007].  Nearly half the county taxes are 
derived from the ranching community (www.harneycounty.com 2003). 
Those engaged in ranching and forage production are an important part of the 
history, culture and economy of Harney County and make up a strong 
component of the fabric of the local societies. Livestock grazing operations on 
public and private lands, as well as fire and forestry management, can have a 
stabilizing influence on local employment and quality of life (social, health, 
economic and environmental conditions). 
"Quality of life" is very individual when determining what is valued in a 
lifestyle and what features make up that lifestyle.  Lifestyle features can be 
determined by historical activities of the area, career opportunities, and the 
general cultural features of the geographical area.  Quality of life issues are 
subjective and can be modified over time with exposure to other ways of living. 
Recreation is a component of most lifestyles in the area and includes driving for 
pleasure, camping, hunting, hiking, rockhounding, photography, wildlife 
viewing, and sightseeing for the overall quality of life for residents.  In addition 
to local recreation use, the undeveloped, open spaces in the county are 
themselves a tourist attraction and contribute a "sense of place" for many.  The 
attachment people feel to a setting, typically through a repeated experience, 
provides them with this sense of place.  Attachments can be spiritual, cultural, 
aesthetic, economic, social or recreational.  
These amenities enhance local communities and tourism, though the specific 
contribution of the project area is not known.  Hunting and other types of 
dispersed outdoor recreational experiences also contribute to the local economy 
on a seasonal basis. Fee hunting and recreation alone contributed $100,000 to 
Harney County in 2007 (OSU, 2007). 
53 

Economic and Social Values:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Under this alternative, no service contracts would be granted and no supplies 
would be purchased from local vendors for the purpose of project 
implementation.  Woodland harvest areas would not be made available for 
public use. 
The value of livestock production in the project area may eventually decline 
under the No Action Alternative as forage productivity is reduced over time. 
The local economy may also be affected as big game hunting opportunities in 
the project area are reduced as habitat quality deteriorates.  Recreational 
activities in the project area associated with wildlife viewing, photography, and 
driving for pleasure would continue under this alternative, but they may be 
reduced as habitat quality deteriorates and landscape diversity decreases over 
time. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
There would be effects to the local economy under the Proposed Action.  The 
Proposed Action would utilize stewardship or service contracts to reduce 
biomass in the project area.  Purchase of supplies and equipment necessary for 
implementation of the Proposed Action from community merchants would 
constitute an additional economic effect.  Biomass may be made available for 
alternative energy plants as well. 
The Proposed Action would improve rangeland health which would increase 
forage production for livestock thereby increasing economic opportunities for 
the livestock industry. Disruption to agribusiness during the prescribed burns 
and the required rest period may occur.  There could be a short-term loss of 
economic opportunities for the livestock industry if the project area requires rest 
(no livestock grazing) after implementation of the Proposed Action.  If grazing 
rest is required, it would return within a couple of years.  
Recreational activities would be enhanced as habitat function and landscape 
diversity are expected to improve following implementation of the Proposed 
Action. 
8. Visual Resources 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on visual resources are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-17. 
54 

Visual Resources:  Affected Environment 
The project area is remote and not visible from any highway.  The entire Claw 
Creek Unit is classified as a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III. 
Management direction from Three Rivers RMP for a VRM Class III calls for 
partial retention of the landscape character.  Approximately 60 percent of 
Slickear Creek Unit is classified as a VRM Class III as well.  The remaining  
40 percent of Slickear Creek Unit is classified as a VRM Class IV.  
Management direction from Three Rivers RMP for a VRM Class IV allows for 
modification of the landscape character. 
Visual Resources: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
There would be no effects anticipated to visual resources under the No Action 
Alternative in the short term unless a large-scale, high-intensity wildfire event 
occurred in the area. A large-scale, high-intensity wildfire event would 
drastically change the visual resources in the project area. In the long term, 
visual resources would be negatively impacted due to loss of plant community 
diversity and structure on the landscape. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
The Proposed Action meets management direction outlined in Three Rivers 
RMP for VRM Classes III and IV. Visual resources would be affected while 
treatments are taking place.  Upon completion of the project, visual resources 
and aesthetic character of the project area should be enhanced as regeneration of 
grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees takes place and overall health and diversity of 
the project area improves. 
9. Forestry/Woodlands 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on forestry and woodland 
resources are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information 
contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference: 
Sections 3-3 and 3-7. 
Forestry/Woodlands:  Affected Environment 
There are two types of forests/woodlands in the project area:  ponderosa pine 
woodland and ponderosa pine forested areas. 
55 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland Areas: 
Portions of the project area can generally be described as being ponderosa pine 
woodland. These stands are characterized by scattered, large diameter 
ponderosa pines dispersed into mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass and 
mountain mahogany communities.  These areas contain about one or two large 
trees per acre generally greater than 24 inches DBH and are more than  
250 years old. Locally dense pockets of these large pines occur (10 to  
30 trees/acre), generally less than 5 acres in size.  Throughout these woodlands, 
encroaching ponderosa pines from 1 to 20 inches DBH may occur.  These trees 
are generally less than 100 years old and can be characterized as being open 
grown and "limby," with black bark and limbs most of the way to the ground. 
These trees established due to lack of wildfire and are considered to be far more 
common than historical stocking levels. These pines and western junipers of 
similar age have invaded mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass and mountain 
mahogany communities and are beginning to occupy the site.  Past management 
in the area has been limited to livestock grazing and fire suppression.  Snags and 
downed logs occur infrequently. Health and vigor of pine trees in these units 
are generally poor to fair. 
Ponderosa Pine Forested Areas: 
Ponderosa pine forests occur in Slickear Creek and Claw Creek drainages and in 
scattered pockets throughout the project area.  The vast majority of these stands 
can be characterized as having an overstory that is lightly (3 to 5 trees per acre) 
stocked with large diameter (>24-inches DBH) ponderosa pine.  These areas 
differ from woodlands in that the density of all sizes of ponderosa pine is much 
greater. Throughout the project area, the understory trees are considerably 
overstocked with far more trees per acre than what historically existed.  Dense 
understory varies from a small pine reproduction (0 to 5 inches DBH) to pole 
timber (5 to 11 inches DBH) and areas of small sawtimber (11 to 21 inches 
DBH). A few localized pockets of Douglas-fir occur in conjunction with the 
ponderosa pine and exhibit similar tree sizes and stocking levels.  Past 
management in Slickear Creek area has been limited to fire suppression with no 
thinning and limited harvest in the overstory in the 1950s.  Claw Creek area had 
a commercial harvest in the mid-1960s followed by limited pre-commercial 
thinning of the understory. Overall health and vigor of all stands are poor. 
Stocking levels are considerably higher than historical levels and has lead to 
increased stress on trees and increased susceptibility to pathogens.  Pockets of 
bark beetle-killed pines are common.  The number of snags is generally low 
with a few large diameter old pine snags.  Locally there are pockets of beetle 
killed, pole-sized snags. More than 75 percent of ponderosa pine forested areas 
within the project area have deep duff (4 to 8 inches deep) with minimal 
herbaceous and shrub cover. 
56 

Aspen occurs in a number of areas generally on north and east facing slopes. 
These shade intolerant aspen stands are being overtopped by conifers and are 
shrinking in size due to ongoing mortality and no reproduction.  Where live 
aspen still do exist, they are of generally low vigor with skeletons of dead aspen 
trees quite common.  
Forestry/Woodlands:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative
 Ponderosa Pine Woodland Areas: 
Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush would continue to decrease in abundance 
and would eventually die from being overtopped by encroaching ponderosa pine 
and junipers. These encroaching ponderosa pines and junipers would continue 
to thrive at unprecedented population levels. It is likely that any wildfire would 
become an unnatural stand replacement fire, destroying valuable habitats and 
vegetative resources. It would be considered unnatural due to heavy fuel 
loading created by the encroaching ponderosa pine and juniper trees. 
Ponderosa Pine Forested Areas: 
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have a continued negative 
impact on stands.  Large diameter ponderosa pine trees in the overstory would 
continue to die from western pine beetle and pine engraver attack and not be 
replaced by other medium to large trees (Cochran 1994).  Ponderosa pine 
understory would remain stagnant with a slow growth rate while continuing to 
suffer pockets of heavy mortality from mountain pine beetle and pine engraver 
(Obedzinski and others 1999). Overall, tree vigor would remain low, mortality 
high, and the large diameter ponderosa pine component would be diminished 
and not replaced for decades, assuming the project area does not experience a 
large-scale, high-intensity wildfire. 
The remnant aspen stands would continue to suffer mortality from being 
overtopped by expansion ponderosa pine and junipers (Wall and others 2000). 
Aspen suckers would continue to be browsed and aspen clones would face 
eventual stand death. It is likely any wildfire would become an unnatural stand 
replacement fire, destroying valuable habitats and vegetative resources. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Ponderosa Pine Woodland Areas: 
Western juniper would decrease to be more in line with historical levels.  Small 
and medium-sized ponderosa pine stocking would be reduced considerably.  
57 

Pines that remain would have increased vigor and be more able to withstand 
natural disturbance processes such as fire and insect attack.  Bitterbrush, 
bunchgrass and other upland vegetation would benefit from decreased stocking 
of trees. Ponderosa pine would exist in a level more characteristic of the 
historical pine woodland, with scattered large diameter pines with some other 
sizes dispersed through the sagebrush/bunchgrass community. 
Ponderosa Pine Forested Areas: 
The Proposed Action would restore the character of stands to near their historic 
condition. The overstory would continue to consist of large-diameter ponderosa 
pines. Character of the understory would change as the basal area would be 
greatly reduced.  Overall stand character would be more open and park-like with 
clumps of big trees and scattered understory reproduction.  Both the overstory 
and trees that remain in the understory would grow faster and more vigorously 
and result in better overall stand health.  All treated stands would be more 
resilient to natural disturbance processes such as fire, disease and insect attack. 
Duff depths would be reduced and with more sunlight and moisture, the ground 
cover would respond with much greater cover of herbaceous and shrub species.  
Aspen stands would respond to treatments and would reproduce and remain in 
the project area. 
10. Fire Management 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on fire management are 
tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information contained in 
the following section is incorporated into this EA by reference:  Sections 3-15. 
Fire Management:  Affected Environment 
Slickear Creek and Claw Creek Units are located in Silver and Silvies FMUs. 
Suppression of wildfires is the primary fire management goal for these FMUs. 
A number of fuel types are present in these FMUs.  Vegetation within the 
project area is primarily dominated by sagebrush communities and ponderosa 
pine. Western juniper has encroached upon all plant communities occurring in 
the project area to varying degrees.  The area has numerous roads that help in 
suppression operations. 
The project area has a history of wildfire occurrence.  Since 1990 the Slickear 
Creek Unit has had five fires recorded as occurring within its boundaries and 
several others occurring in the vicinity.  Since 1990 the Claw Creek Unit has 
had eight fires recorded as occurring within its boundaries and several others 
occurring in the near vicinity. Large fires have occurred within the last 20 years 
in the vicinity of both units. 
58 

An FRCC analysis was conducted for both Slickear Creek and Claw Creek 
Units (refer to Appendix E for a more detailed definition and description of fire 
regimes and condition classes).  The FRCC is a measurement used to determine 
how departed a geographic unit or plant community is from its historical fire 
regime or plant community structure.  A Condition Class 1 represents an area 
where composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are similar to the 
natural (historic) regime.  In other words, a Condition Class 1 represents what 
you would expect to find at the site prior to European settlement in the area.  
The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is low.  A Condition Class 2 
represents an area where composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are 
moderately altered from the natural regime.  The risk of loss of key ecosystem 
components is moderate.  A Condition Class 3 represents an area where 
composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly altered from the 
natural regime.  The risk of loss of key ecosystem components is high.  
FRCC Analysis for Slickear Creek Unit: 
The FRCC analysis for Slickear Creek Unit indicates the plant communities 
have shifted from their historic fire regime.  Three major Biophysical Settings 
(BpS), otherwise known as vegetation classifications, were identified and 
analyzed within Slickear Creek Unit for the FRCC analysis.  Low sagebrush 
BpS was the largest of the three, comprising 50 percent of the unit.  Analysis 
indicated the low sagebrush BpS was classified as Fire Regime IV (35-100+ 
year wildfire frequency and low to mixed severity) and Condition Class 3. 
Ponderosa pine BpS represents 32 percent of the unit, and is classified as Fire 
Regime I (0-35-year frequency and low to mixed severity) and Condition  
Class 3. Mountain big sagebrush BpS represents 14 percent of the unit and is 
classified as Fire Regime II (0-35 year frequency and high severity) and 
Condition Class 3.  All plant communities were classified as being in Condition 
Class 3, indicating plant communities were considerably altered from their 
historic fire regimes.  To move Slickear Creek Unit and individual plant 
communities toward a more appropriate fire regime, the vegetation structure and 
composition must be modified. 
FRCC Analysis for Claw Creek Unit: 
The FRCC analysis for Claw Creek Unit indicates the plant communities have 
shifted from their historic fire regime.  Three major BpS were identified and 
analyzed within Claw Creek Unit for the FRCC analysis. The low sagebrush 
BpS was classified as a Condition Class 3, and represents 49 percent of the unit.  
59 

Ponderosa pine BpS represents 19 percent of the unit, and is classified as being 
in a Condition Class 3. Mountain big sagebrush BpS represents 24 percent of 
the unit and is also classified as being a Condition Class 3.  All plant 
communities were classified as being in Condition Class 3, indicating plant 
communities were considerably altered from their historic fire regimes.  The 
overall FRCC for the unit was determined to be a Condition Class 3.  The 
analysis also suggests that to move Claw Creek Unit toward the historic FRCC 
conditions, both fuel structure and vegetation composition need to be altered. 
Fire Management:  Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
Fuel loadings would not be reduced and fire would not be reintroduced under 
the No Action Alternative.  Rangeland plant communities would continue on a 
predicted successional transition to fully-developed juniper or ponderosa pine 
woodlands (Miller et al. 1996).  Pine dominated forest stands would continue to 
amass woody debris, present a crown fire hazard and threaten private property 
and resource values. Firefighters would be placed at greater risk during future 
suppression efforts in environments with elevated fuel loads. 
In areas being encroached upon by western juniper, the size of most wildfires 
would remain small because of the reduced ability of the site to carry fire 
because of decreased understory herbaceous plants and shrubs (areas lacking 
ground fuel connectivity). However, under severe conditions,11 risk of larger 
fires increases because of increased continuity of crown fuels.  Fires under these 
conditions have potential to burn large areas and are difficult to suppress. 
Suppression actions under these conditions would rely primarily on indirect 
attack. This suppression tactic relies on line constructed (hand, dozer, etc.) at 
some distance from the fire and unburned fuel between the fireline and flaming 
front is burned. This tactic increases the area burned.  Accumulation of fuels 
would also require a greater mop-up12 effort following control of wildfire. 
Overall, both units would remain in a Condition Class 3 where the risk of 
large-scale, high-intensity wildfires and negative effects to human life and the 
environment reach their maximum. 
11 Severe Conditions:  Severe conditions could include any or a combination of all of the following: high

temperatures, low relative humidity, and high wind speeds. 

12 Mop-up: The work after the fire has been controlled to assure fire does not flare up again and escape control 

lines. 

60 

Proposed Action Alternative 
The Proposed Action would reduce intensity and severity of wildfires and risk 
to firefighters by altering the continuity of fuels in the project area.  Suppression 
actions would be able to employ more direct attack strategies minimizing acres 
burned in wildfires. Firefighters may rely more on natural fuel breaks and 
changes in fuels.  Less fireline may need to be constructed to suppress wildfires.  
Implementation of the Proposed Action would lower the risk of a large-scale, 
high-intensity wildfire event occurring within either unit.  The overall FRCC 
rating of both units would likely change from a Condition Class 3 to a 
Condition Class 2 as open, early-seral shrublands increase across the landscape 
and closed-canopy pine forest and juniper woodland stands are treated.  The 
Proposed Action would likely move portions of the project area into a Condition 
Class 1, which is an NFP goal. 
Treatments would reduce the FRCC from a rating of Class 3 to Class 2 or  
Class 1 in the mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass stratum.  The fire behavior 
fuel model would change from a model 5-6 (shrub or juniper/shrub fuels) to a 
model 1-2 (grass-shrub fuels). 
The FRCC rating of the ponderosa pine dominated forest and woodland stratum 
would decrease from a Class 3 to Class 2 or Class 1 as fuel loading is decreased 
and fuel patterns are less continuous. Fire behavior in these areas can be 
expected to have low rates of spread, low fire intensities, and low flame lengths 
immediately following fuel treatments. 
Overall FRCC rating of low and stiff sagebrush dominated sites within the 
project area is currently a Condition Class 3.  Where treatments occur it is 
expected to move the FRCC to a Condition Class 1.  However, not all low/stiff 
sagebrush areas would be treated. Therefore, the Proposed Action would only 
lower the overall FRCC rating for low/stiff sagebrush communities in the 
project area to a Condition Class 2. 
11. Transportation/Roads 
Current discussion and analysis of potential effects on transportation/road 
resources are tiered to the Three Rivers PRMP/FEIS, and relevant information 
contained in the following sections is incorporated into this EA by reference: 
Sections 3-23 and 3-24. 
61 

Transportation/Roads: Affected Environment 
General access to Slickear Creek Unit is via U.S. Hwy 20, Hines Logging Road 
(the 47 road), and Skull Creek Road. Local access into and around Slickear 
Creek Unit is via roads and trails crossing BLM and private lands. These roads 
all originate off Skull Creek Road. 
General access to Claw Creek Unit is via U.S. Hwy 20, Silver Creek Road, and 
Forest Road No. 4130. Local access into and around Claw Creek Unit is via 
roads and trails crossing BLM, private, and National Forest lands.  These roads 
all originate off Forest Road 4130. 
Transportation/Roads: Environmental Consequences 
No Action Alternative 
There would be no known impacts on transportation/roads as a result of the No 
Action Alternative unless there is a wildfire event.  Wildfire suppression 
activities could have effects on roads within the project area if a large-scale, 
high-intensity wildfire event occurred.  However, road damage caused by fire 
suppression is generally rehabilitated following the fire if funds are available. 
Proposed Action Alternative 
Some project activities such as cutting, piling, and burning are necessary during 
late fall, winter, and early spring when narrow windows are available between 
fire season and deep snow.  During these times the road surface and soils may 
be saturated and unfrozen. In these cases, even light traffic can create ruts, 
"drive arounds," and other damage to the road and adjacent soils and vegetation. 
These ruts become channels for runoff causing additional damage to the road 
and offsite erosion and sedimentation. Without corrective maintenance, over 
time the roadbed washes out making it difficult to traverse rocks and boulders. 
Ultimately another route paralleling the original road may develop and the 
original road abandoned. This results in long-term loss of vegetation, habitat, 
and land productivity and can result in safety and liability issues associated with 
public use of the road. 
During dry periods damage to roads by vehicles and equipment accessing the 
area for project purposes is less consequential.  Powdering of the road may 
occur during dry periods with heavier traffic associated with intensive project 
work. This creates dust and visibility problems but is generally confined to the 
local area. In some cases deep, dry ruts and dust pockets develop in roads 
causing affects similar to those that occur from wet season traffic.  Heavy traffic 
during the dry season also loosens soil making it easier to erode during the wet 
season. 
62 

Other effects of project activities on transportation may include temporary loss 
of public access during certain phases of implementation of the Proposed Action 
such as prescribed burns.  There would also be a loss of or realignment of 
approximately 0.75-mile of a two-track road in Claw Creek Unit.  If the road is 
removed, it should not affect any through traffic transportation, as it is a very 
rough road that dead ends due to topographic features. 
In the past the BLM has been quick to rehabilitate any damage to roads on both 
private and public lands related to implementation of projects.  Adherence to 
project design features would also help alleviate all aforementioned 
transportation concerns. 
C. Cumulative Effects 
As the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in guidance issued on June 24, 2005, 
points out, the "environmental analysis required under NEPA is forward-looking," and 
review of past actions is required only "to the extent that this review informs agency 
decision-making regarding the Proposed Action."  Use of information on the effects on 
past action may be useful in two ways according to the CEQ guidance.  One is for 
consideration of the Proposed Action's cumulative effects, and secondly as a basis for 
identifying the Proposed Action's direct and indirect effects. 
The CEQ stated in this guidance that "[g]enerally, agencies can conduct an adequate 
cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 
without delving into the historical details of individual past actions."  This is because a 
description of the current state of the environment inherently includes the effects of past 
actions. The CEQ guidance specifies that the "CEQ regulations do not require the 
consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects 
of past actions." Our information on the current environmental condition is more 
comprehensive and more accurate for establishing a useful starting point for a 
cumulative effects analysis, than attempting to establish such a starting point by adding 
up the described effects of individual past actions to some environmental baseline 
condition in the past that, unlike current conditions, can no longer be verified by direct 
examination. 
The second area in which the CEQ guidance states that information on past actions may 
be useful is in "illuminating or predicting the direct and indirect effects of a Proposed 
Action." The usefulness of such information is limited by the fact that it is anecdotal 
only, and extrapolation of data from such singular experiences is not generally accepted 
as a reliable predictor of effects.  However, "experience with and information about 
past effects of individual past actions" have been found useful in "illuminating or 
predicting the effects" of the Proposed Action in the following instances: predicting the 
effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives is based on published empirical 
research and the general accumulated experience of the resource professionals in the 
agency with similar actions. 
63 

1. Cumulative Effects Analysis Area 
The Cumulative Effects Analysis Area (CEAA) looked at all lands within the 
ODFW's Silvies Hunt Unit, which includes the watersheds the project area falls 
within and several other neighboring watersheds, within Three Rivers RA  
(Map 6). The CEAA encompasses approximately 803,000 acres consisting of 
various ownerships. The BLM administers approximately 232,000 acres within 
the CEAA. 
2. No Action: Cumulative Effects 
At the Silvies Hunt-Unit scale, effects of the No Action Alternative could be 
considered cumulative with effects to similar areas in the same watersheds 
receiving no landscape-level treatments.  Other juniper control and forest health 
projects occurring on BLM-administered lands within this CEAA include Three 
Rivers Juniper Management Project (EA OR-025-00-04), Strategic Fuels Break 
Project (EA OR-025-03-030), Dry Mountain Fuels Reduction Project  
(DNA OR-025-03-011), SHED Forest Restoration Project  
(EA OR-025-04-038), and the North-Central Fuels Reduction Project  
(CX OR-05-025-041). 
The effect of forested areas becoming overstocked and at high risk for  
large-scale, high-intensity wildfire on human safety, private property, wildlife 
habitat, aquatic resources, cultural resources, livestock grazing, and SSS may be 
cumulative with effects of overstocked forests with high risk of large-scale, 
high-intensity wildfire on other landscapes within this CEAA.  In addition, the 
effect of the transition of mountain big sagebrush-bunchgrass communities and 
low/stiff sagebrush-bunchgrass communities to juniper woodlands on wildlife 
habitat, aquatic resources, cultural resources, livestock grazing, and SSS may be 
cumulative with the effects of juniper woodland development on other similar 
landscapes within these watersheds.  Accumulations of hazardous fuel in the 
project area, in combination with other hazardous fuels on adjacent BLM and 
USFS-administered and private lands within this CEAA, would increasingly 
threaten resource values, private property values, and human safety over time in 
these watersheds.  (Please see individual resource sections for a detailed 
description of effects.) 
64 

3. Proposed Action: Cumulative Effects 
At the Silvies Hunt Unit scale, effects of the Proposed Action could be 
considered cumulative with effects of previous and reasonably foreseeable 
future vegetation management projects in this area.  Other juniper control and 
forest health projects occurring on BLM-administered lands within this CEAA 
include Three Rivers Juniper Management Project (EA OR-025-00-04), 
Strategic Fuels Break Project (EA OR-025-03-030), Dry Mountain Fuels 
Reduction Project (DNA OR-025-03-011), SHED Forest Restoration Project 
(EA OR-025-04-038), and the North-Central Fuels Reduction Project  
(CX OR-05-025-041). 
Most BLM-administered land within the CEAA is comprised of sagebrush 
communities. There are approximately 74,000 acres of BLM-administered land 
in the CEAA dominated by mountain big sagebrush.  The Proposed Action in 
concert with other juniper control efforts in the watersheds would reduce 
influence of western juniper on approximately 9,320 acres or roughly  
12.6 percent of mountain big sagebrush on BLM-administered lands within the 
CEAA. There are approximately 127,000 acres of BLM-administered land in 
the CEAA that is dominated by low or stiff sagebrush.  The Proposed Action in 
concert with other juniper control efforts in the CEAA would reduce influence 
of western juniper on approximately 11,980 acres or roughly 9.4 percent of the 
low and stiff sagebrush on BLM-administered lands within the CEAA.  There 
are approximately 16,100 acres of BLM-administered land in the CEAA 
supporting ponderosa pine. The Proposed Action in concert with other forest 
health projects in the CEAA would improve forest health on up to an estimated 
5,940 acres or roughly 37 percent of BLM-administered land supporting 
ponderosa pine in the watershed. 
The Proposed Action includes Project Design Elements developed to avoid or 
minimize effects to fisheries, SSS habitat, cavity-nesting bird habitat, big game 
cover and forage values, cultural resources, and economic and social values. 
Project Design Elements would also limit the ability of noxious weed expansion 
or establishment.  Project Design Elements would reduce effects related to loss 
of soil productivity and sedimentation of water sources to levels immeasurable 
at a watershed scale.  Effects of smoke on air quality would be short lived. 
(Please see individual resource sections for a detailed description of effects.) 
65 

CHAPTER IV:  CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 
A. Agencies and Individuals Consulted 
Burns Paiute Tribe 
Harney County Court 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Craig L. Schmitt, Blue Mountain Pest Management Service Center Pathologist 
Lia H. Spigel, Blue Mountain Pest Management Service Center Entomologist 
U.S. Forest Service: Malheur National Forest, Emigrant Creek Ranger District 
B. Interdisciplinary Team 
Lindsay Davies, Fisheries Biologist/Aquatic Specialist 
Laura Dowlan, Natural Resource Specialist-Recreation 
Rhonda Karges, District Planning/Environmental Coordinator 
Doug Linn, Fuels Botanist 
Nick Miller, Fuels Wildlife Biologist, Lead Preparer 
Brett Page, Natural Resource Specialist (Recreation) 
Ronda Purdy, Rangeland Management Specialist 
Skip Renchler, District Lands and Realty Specialist 
Jon Reponen, Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist (Forestry) 
Lesley Richman, Natural Resources Specialist (Weeds) 
Dan Ridenour, Fuels Planner 
Scott Thomas, District Archaeologist 
C. Advisory 
Jim Buchanan, Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist 
Kelly Hazen, Geographic Information System Specialist 
Rhonda Karges, District Planning/Environmental Coordinator 
Dave Toney, Prescribed Fire Implementation Specialist 
66 

References: 
Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. 
Tech. Rep. INT-122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest, Service, 
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p. [FEIS id: 2901] [Call: F] 
Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island 
Press. 493 p. [FEIS id: 22247] [Call: B(fire)]  
Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and Weather Disturbances in Terrestrial Ecosystems of the Eastern 
Cascades [of Oregon].” GTR-PNW-320. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
Northwest Research Station. 
Barrett, Stephen W. 1980. Indians and Fire. In: Western Wildlands, Vol. 6, #3 (Spring): 17-21. 
Bates, Jon D., Miller, Richard F. and Svejcar, T. 1998. Understory patterns in cut western 
juniper (Juniperus occidentalis ssp. Occidentalis HOOK.) woodlands. Great Basin 
Naturalist 58(4): 363-374. 
Bates J., R.F. Miller, T.J. Svejcar. 1999. Plant succession in cut juniper woodlands; 1991–98. 
In: Range field day 1999, Juniper Woodlands: History, Ecology, and Management. 
Special Report 1002. Corvallis, OR: Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center and 
Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University. p 30–43. 
Bates, Jon D., Miller, Richard F. and Svejcar, T. 2000. Understory Vegetation Response and 
Nitrogen Cycling Following Cutting of Western Juniper. Journal of Rangeland 
Management 53: 119-126. 
Bates, Jon D., and R.F. Miller. 2004. Restoration of Aspen Woodland Invaded by Western 
Juniper: Applications of Partial Cutting and Prescribed Fire. 16 Int’l Conferences, 
Society for TH Ecological Restoration, August 24-26, Victoria, Canada. 
Binford, Lewis R. 1980. Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems 
and Archaeological Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1): 4-20. 
Bowers, W., B. Hosford, A. Oakley and C. Bond. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed 
rangeland –the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon, Native Trout. USDA Forest 
Service General Technical Report PNW-84.  
Brimlow, George. 1951. Harney County and Its Rangeland. Binford and Mort Publishers, 
Portland, Oregon. 
Buckhouse J.C. and J.L. Mattison. 1980. Potential Soil Erosion of Selected Habitat Types in 
the High Desert Region of Central Oregon. Journal of Rangeland Management. 
33:282–285. 
67 

Cochran, P.H.; Geist, J.M., Clemens, D.L., Clausnitzer, Rodrick R.; Powell, David C. 1994. 
Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern 
Washington. Res. Note PNW-RN-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 21 p. 
Couture, Marilyn D. 1986. Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern Great Basin 
Population. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 8:150-160. 
Dwire, K.A., and J.B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and Riparian Ecosystems in Landscapes of The 
Western USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 178(1-2): 61-74. 
Elliot, W.J. and Audin, L.J., (Eds.). (2006, March 21--last update). DRAFT Cumulative 
Watershed Effects of Fuels Management in the Western United States. [Online]. 
Available: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/ [2007, February 7--access date].  
Hagen, C.A. 2005. Greater Sage-grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A 
plan to maintain and enhance populations and habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, Salem, USA. 
Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. 2001. Spatial Data for National Fire 
Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372. 
Gedney, D.R., D.L. Azuma, C.L. Bolsinger, Neil McKay. 1999. Western Juniper Ecology in 
Eastern Oregon. PNW – GTR – 464. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 
Gucker, Corey L. 2006. Cercocarpus ledifolius. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ 
(2006, August 29). 
Langston, Nancy. 1995. Forest Dreams, Forest Nightmares: The Paradox of Old Growth in the 
Inland West. University of Washington Press. Seattle. 
Linderman, Carole A. 1992. The Effects of Fire on Obsidian Artifacts: A Problem in Hydration 
Dating in a Woodland Environment. Unpublished Senior Honors Paper, Department of 
Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. 
Malheur Basin Action Plan. 1999. Malheur-Owyhee Watershed Council. 
Maser C., J.W. Thomas, and R.G. Anderson. 1984. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Rangelands 
– The Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon – The Relationship of Terrestrial 
Vertebrates to Plant Communities, Part 1, Text. USDA general technical report PNW­
172. 
68 

Miller, R.F. and Jeffery A. Rose. 1999. Fire History and Western Juniper Encroachment in the 
Shrubs Steppe. Journal of Rangeland Management, Nov. 1999. 
Miller R.F., Svejcar T.J. and N.E. West. 1994. Implications of livestock grazing in the 
intermountain sagebrush region: plant composition. Pages 101-146 In: Ecological 
Implications of Livestock Herbivory in the West. Vavra M, Laycock WA & Pieper RD 
(eds.), Society for Rangeland Management, Denver, Colorado U.S.A. 
Miller R.F., T.J. Svejcar, J.R. Rose. 2000. Impacts of Western Juniper on Plant Community 
Composition and Structure. Journal of Rangeland Management. 53:574–585. 
Miller, R.F., J.D. Bates, T.J. Svejcar, F.B. Pierson, and L.E. Eddleman. 2005. Biology, 
Ecology, and Management of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Oregon State 
University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 152. 82pp. 
National Park Service. 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 
Properties. National Register Bulletin 38. National Park Service, National Register of 
Historic Places, Washington D.C. 
Obedzinski,R.A., Schmid, J.M., Mata, S.A., Kessler, R.R.. 1999. Growth of Ponderosa pine 
Stands in Relation to Mountain Pine Beetle Susceptibility. General Technical Report 
RMRS-GTR-28. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 13 p. 
Olson, Diana L. 2000. Fire in Riparian Zones: A Comparison of Historical Fire Occurrence in 
Riparian and Upslope Forests in the Blue Mountains and southern Cascades of Oregon. 
Seattle: University of Washington. M.S. Thesis. 
Pierson, F.B., W.H. Blackburn, S.S. Van Vactor, and J.C. Wood. 1994. Partitioning small scale 
spatial variability of runoff and erosion on sagebrush rangeland. Water Resources 
Bulletin 30:1081-1089. 
Reeves, G.H., Benda, L.E., Burnett, K.M., Bisson, P.A., Sedell, J.R., 1995. A Disturbance-
Based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring Freshwater Habitats of 
Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous Salmonids in The Pacific Northwest. 
In: Nielsen, J. (ed.), Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem. Amer. Fisheries Soc. 
Symposium 17, Bethesda, MD, pp. 334-349. 
Reid, K.D., B.P. Wilcox, D.D. Breshears, and L. MacDonald. 1999. Runoff and Erosion in a 
Piñon-Juniper Woodland: Influence of Vegetation Patches. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 
63:1869-1879. 
Reinkensmeyer, D., and R.F. Miller. 2000. Habitat Association of Bird Communities in Shrub 
Steppe and Western Juniper Woodlands. Eastern Oregon Agriculture Research Center. 
Annual Report. 
69 

Roberts, C., and J.A. Jones. 2000. Soil patchiness in juniper-sagebrush – grass communities of 
central Oregon. Plant and Soil 223:45-61. 
Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Forest Fire Effects on Hillslope Erosion: What We Know. Watershed 
Management Council Networker 9(1). 
Schmidt, Kristen M.; Menakis, James P.; Hardy, Colin C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Bunnell, David L. 
2002. Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuels 
Management. RMRS-87. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 
Schwabe, L. and R. Perkins. 2003. Evaluate the Life History of Native Salmonids Within the 
Malheur Subbasin, FY 2002 Annual Report. Report to Bonneville Power 
Administration, Portland, Oregon. 
Skinner, Craig E., Jennifer J. Thatcher, and M. Kathleen Davis. 1997. X-Ray Fluorescence 
Analysis and Obsidian Hydration Rim Measurement of Artifact Obsidian from 35-DS­
193 and 35-DS-201, Surveyor Fire Rehabilitation Project, Deschutes National Forest, 
Oregon. Report 1996-33 prepared for the Deschutes National Forest, Bend, Oregon, by 
Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of 
Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions [Online WWW]. Available URL: 
“http://soils.usda.gov/soils/technical/classification/osd/index.html” [Accessed 13 
February 2007]. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 14, Malheur Recovery Unit, Oregon. 71 p. In: 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery 
Plan. Portland, Oregon. 
Wall, Travis; Vavra, Martin; Miller, Rick. 1999. Aspen Ecology and Rehabilitation in Eastern 
Oregon. An Annual Report of Preliminary Results and Progress. 
Whiting, Beatrice B. 1950. Paiute Sorcery. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology No. 15. 
Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing Fire Frequencies on Idaho's River Plains: Ecological and 
Management Implications, P. 4-10. In: Proceedings: Cheatgrass Invasion Shrub  
Die-off, and Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. USDA Forest Service 
Technical Report. Int-276. Ogden, Utah. 
Wilde, J.D. 1985. Prehistoric Settlements in the Northern Great Basin: Excavations and 
Collections Analysis in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph.D 
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. 
Winward, Alma H. 2000. Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas. USDA 
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. RMRS-GTR-47. 
70 

Young, M.K., R.B. Rader, and T.A. Belish. 1997. Influence of Macroinvertebrate Drift and 
Light on the Activity and Movement of Colorado River Cutthroat. Transactions of the 
American Fisheries Society 126: 428-437. 
Zlatnik, Elena. 1999. Purshia tridentata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Research Station, Fire Sciences 
Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/  
[2008, April 13]. 
71 

4130
 
4100.400 
D
 
R
 
H
 
C
 
A
 
R
 
0 0 
H I N E S LOGGING 
D
 
R
 
E 
N
 
I 
P 
E 
O
 
L 
O
 L EY RD 
A D A R 
R
N L 
H E
L L 
E D A R G 
D L O 
0 0
M
 O
 
R ES ROAD 
L L C R E E K
 R O A D 
D U S N B E R R Y L A K E R O
 A 
S I L V E R CREEK R D 
N O R TH C H A I N L A K E 
A D 
FR
 Y 
R
 D
 
H
 O
 
I N T H E G R O
 U
 N
 D
 
A D 
C
 O
 Y O
 T E R
 I 
R O
 A D 
E
 
W
 
R
 
E
S
PR
IN
G
 R
O
E N G S T R OM LN 
ILEY MARK E T L
S U N S E V
 A L L E
 Y LN 
S
K C 
R E L L I 
M
 
C A N
 Y O N R
 O A D 
N 
L O N E P I N
 E R
 D
Slic
kCl  Craw ee
kear
Creek 
Creek 
N
 
F
S K U 
RD DI
 
R
 RANCH RD 
N R O A D
O
 N
D R OL E
A
D
 
DOG M O UNT AI
B E
 SR O M A
V L 
S
BLM Land National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
T 
37 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Indian Reservation	
E W 
31 
43 
47 
41 
47 
39541 
N 
E 
Burns 
Hines 
20 Riley

395

Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management Map 1: Slickear / Claw Creek Project Area Vicinity Map	
as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
Paved Road 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
Non-Paved Improved Road State Land	 200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
U.S. Forest Service Land	 shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private Project Area Boundary landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Bureau of Land Management 
Burns District, Oregon L 5 
Private Land Three Rivers Resource Area 
Miles 
0 1.5 3 6 
AVER SPRING LN\\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\Vicinityr8x11.mxd  
July 9, 2008    For Nick Miller 
S k u l l C
r e e k 
S l
i c
k e
a r
C r
e e
k 
L a
ke
Cr
e ek
 
E m i g r a n t
Cr
ee
k 
T21S R29E 
T20S R29E 
\\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\TOPOSlickEar8x11.mxd   
July 9, 2008 For Nick Miller 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 
Burns District, Oregon 
Three Rivers Resource Area 
Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 
as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private 
landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Project Area Boundary 
BLM Land 
U.S. Forest Service Land 
Private Land 
Map 2: Slickear Creek Unit Topo Map 
0  0.5  10.25 
Miles 
S k u l l C
r e e k 
S l
i c
k e
a r
C r
e e
k 
L a
ke
Cr
e ek
 
E m i g r a n t
Cr
ee
k 
T21S R29E 
T20S R29E 
\\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\TOPOSlickEar8x11.mxd   
July 9, 2008 For Nick Miller 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 
Burns District, Oregon 
Three Rivers Resource Area 
Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 
as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private 
landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Project Area Boundary 
2005 Summer Aerial Image (NAIP) 
0  0.5  10.25 
Miles 
Map 3: Slickear Creek Unit Aerial Photo Map 
l
C
a 
w
C r e
ek
 
E g y p t C r ee k 
T21S R27E T21S R26E 
\\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\TOPOClawCreek8x11.mxd  
July 9, 2008 For Nick Miller 
0  0.5  10.25 
Miles 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 
Burns District, Oregon 
Three Rivers Resource Area 
Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 
as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private 
landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Project Area Boundary 
BLM Land 
State Land 
U.S. Forest Service Land 
Private Land 
Map 4: Claw Creek Unit Topo Map 
l
C
a 
w
C r e
ek
 
E g y p t C r ee k 
T21S R27E T21S R26E 
\\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\TOPOClawCreek8x11.mxd  
July 9, 2008 For Nick Miller 
0  0.5  10.25 
Miles 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 
Burns District, Oregon 
Three Rivers Resource Area 
Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 
as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private 
landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Project Area Boundary 
Map 5: Claw Creek Unit Aerial Photo Map 
2005 Summer Aerial Image (NAIP) 
S l i c 
Cl aw Cr e e k 
4130
 
4100.400 
Ce
nt
r
r
Pr
i
e
 D
i
tr
t 
Th
r
r
00
R
A
N
C
H
 R
D
 
H
IN
ES
LOGGING RD 
LO
N
 E
 P
IN
E 
R
D
 
FO
L
EY RD 
RA
DA
R L
N 
BE
SH
E L
L
G
RA
DE
OL
D
00
ROAD
 
M
O
O
N
R ES ROAD 
S KULL CREEK
R
O
AD 
DUS NBERRY LA
KE
R
O
A
D 
SILVER CRE EK RD 
NORTH CHAIN LAKE
RO
A
D 
FR
Y
 R
D
 
H
O
L
E
IN
THE
G
RO
U
N
D
R
O
A
D 
C
O
YO
T E R
IM
R
O
A
D 
W
E
A
V
E
R
 S
P
R
 IN
 G
 R
 O
A
 D
 
RILEY MAR KET L
SUNSE V
ALLE
Y LN 
S RA
N
C
H
 R
D
 
DI
C
K
M
IL
LE
R C
AN
YON RO
AD 
DOG MOUNTAIN LN 
LO
N
E
P IN
E R
D
 
ce
Ar
ea
 
i
n
u
il
s
c
cev
leo Ar
ea
eg
 R
es
o
o
n u
rn
ct
 
kear
Creekr
al
O
s 
Di
Creek
ve
r
st
ri
s 
Re
s
Bu
ee
 R
i
Note: No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management 
for individual or aggregate use with other data.  Original data was 
compiled from various sources.  This information may not meet 
National Map Accuracy Standards.  This product was developed 
through digital means and may be updated without notification. 
Ownership boundaries are accurate to within plus or minus 
BLM Land 
State Land 
U.S. Forest Service Land 
Paulina Seneca 
Izee 
37 
31 
43 
47 
41 
47 
41 395 
Burns 
Hines 
N 
20 
395Riley 
Map 6:  Slickear / Claw Creek 
E
ENGSTROM LNas to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of these data Cumulative Effects Analysis Area Map 
T 
Paved Road 
Non-Paved Improved Road 
200 feet.  Make local inquiry of road conditions in remote areas. L 5 LN 
Some roads are impassable following severe weather. Roads 
WEAVER SPRINGS LN 
shown may not be all existing roads.  Always seek private Cumulative Effects Analysis Area 
landowner permission before using or crossing their lands. 
Project Area Boundaries Indian Reservation 
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Bureau of Land Management 
Resource Area Boundary Private Land Burns District, Oregon 
Three Rivers Resource Area 
0 2.5 5  10  \\ilmorbu3gi1\gisbns$\projects\SLICKEAR\CumEffectsArea8x11.mxd  
Miles July 10, 2008    For Nick Miller 
Appendix A 

PLANTS 
Common Name     Scientific Name 
Antelope Bitterbrush Purshia tridentata 
Balsam Roots      Balsamorhiza sagittata & B. serrata 
Big Headed Clover Trifolium macrocephalum 
Biscuitroot Lomatium sp. 
Bluebunch Wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata 
Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare 
Canada Thistle Cirsium arvense 
Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum 
Crested Wheatgrass     Agropyron cristatum 
Dalmatian Toadflax Linaria genistifolia spp. dalmatica 
Diffuse Knapweed Centaurea diffusa 
Douglas-Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 
Fleabane      Erigeron  sp.  
Idaho Fescue Festuca idahoensis 
Junegrass Koleria macrantha 
Low Sagebrush Artemisia arbuscula 
Medusahead Rye Taeniatherum caput-medusae 
Milkvetch Astragalus sp. 
Mountain Big Sagebrush Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana 
Mountain Mahogany Cercocarpus. ledifolius 
Mountain Snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus 
Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 
Quaking Aspen Populus tremuloides 
Rubber Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 
Russian Knapweed Acroptilon repens 
Sandberg's Bluegrass Poa sandbergii 
Snowbrush Ceanothus velutinus 
Stiff Sagebrush Artemisia rigida 
Thurber's Needlegrass Achnatherum thurberianum 
Wax Currant Ribes cereum 
Western Juniper Juniperus occidentalis 
Western Needlegrass Achnatherum occidentalis 
 White  Top  Lepidium draba 
ANIMALS 
Common Name
Badger  
Black-Tailed Jackrabbit 
Bobcat  
Brewer’s Sparrow 
Mountain Cottontail 
Mountain Pine Beetle 
Cougar 
Coyote 
Dusky Flycatcher 
Golden Eagle 
Gray Flycatcher 
Great Basin Redband Trout 
Greater Sage-Grouse 
Lewis's Woodpecker 
Loggerhead Shrike 
Mule  Deer  
Northern Goshawk 
Northern Pygmy Owl 
Rocky Mountain Elk
Olive-Sided Flycatcher  
Pileated Woodpecker 
Pine Engraver 
Pronghorn Antelope 
Pygmy Nuthatch 
Sage Sparrow 
White-Headed Woodpecker 
Western Pine Beetle 
Williamson's sapsucker 
    Scientific Name 
Taxidea taxus 
Lepus californicus 
Felis rufus 
Spizella breweri 
Sylvilagus nuttallii 
Dendroctonus ponderosae 
Puma concolor 
Canis latrans 
Empidonax oberholseri 
Aquila chrysaetos 
Empidonax wrightii 
Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. 
Centrocercus urophasianus 
Melanerpes lewis 
Lanius ludovicianus 
Odocoileus hemionus 
Accipitor gentilis 
Glaucidium californicum 
    Cervus elaphus 
Contopus cooperi 
Dryocopus pileatus 
Ips spp. 
Antilocapra Americana 
Sitta pygmaea 
Amphispiza belli 
Picoides albolarvatus 
Dendroctonus brevicomis 
Sphyrapicus thyroideus 
United States Forest Blue Mountains Pest 1401 Gekeler Lane 
Department of Service Management Service Center La Grande, OR 97850-3456 
Agriculture Wallowa-Whitman NF (541) 963-7122 
APPENDIX B 
File Code: 3420 Date: January 16, 2008 

Route To:

Subject: Technical Assistance: Slickear Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, Three 
Rivers Resource Area, Burns District, BLM 
To: 	 Three Rivers Resource Area Manager, and 

District Manager, Burns BLM 

28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, OR  97738 

On June 6, 2008, we were on the Burns District at the request of Jon Reponen for the 
purpose of reviewing a couple of project areas for forest health issues.  This report will 
be for the proposed Slickear project.  Proposed treatment opportunities include stocking 
level control, fuel treatment, aspen restoration and possibly juniper treatment in pine 
woodlands.  During these evaluations we were primarily concerned with insect and 
disease occurrence and risk, recommended treatment options, and consequences of 
action and deferring treatment. During this field visit, we were joined by a number of 
district staff, especially folks from the fire shops.  Jon Reponen organized and led this 
trip. 
The Slickear project area is located west of Silvies and Emigrant Creeks, south of Skull 
Creek, in the Slickear Creek and Spring Draw areas.  This is about 15 miles northwest 
of Burns. Conifers, primarily ponderosa pine and fewer Douglas-fir are mostly in draws 
and on northerly-facing slopes. Juniper, sagebrush, and bunchgrass characterize the 
more exposed aspects. Aspen are found mostly in riparian areas, moist draw bottoms, 
and a few talus slopes.  About 1000 of the 4500 acres or so in the Slickear project are 
potential treatment areas. 
We made several stops in representative stands within the proposed project area.  
These were primarily densely-stocked pine or pine/fir stands, with and without aspen.  
We were not particularly concerned with the exposed upland juniper-grassland-scarps 
on shallow soils, as these are not proposed for management.  Much of the rest of the 
area is pine woodland (widely-spaced juniper and pine).  We walked through these 
stands as a group and discussed conditions encountered and answered questions.  We 
also dug up roots and removed the bark from representative dead and dying trees to 
confirm the causes of mortality.   
The first area we visited was heavily logged in 1953 under a partial removal prescription 
that removed about 50% of the mature trees.  As a result, there are three existing 
size/age classes; the original residual large old trees; advanced regeneration and small 
trees that were existing in 1953 and survived, which are now 16 to 18” trees; the 
Caring for the Land and Serving People	 Printed on Recycled Paper 
regeneration that resulted following removals over 50 years ago are now 4 to 6” dbh.  
Not all stands in this area were harvested.  There has been no thinning or harvesting 
since the 1953 logging and most stands are excessively stocked.  We measured basal 
area in several locations and 220 to 240 ft2/acre was the rather consistent result. These 
stands historically burned at a rather frequent periodicity and fire suppression has 
eliminated this natural disturbance.  It did not appear that these stands have 
experienced fire since the logging. 
The two other areas we stopped had not had previous timber management.  These 
areas had abundant young understory (Figure 1).  Some areas without obvious 
disturbance for many decades had extremely thick duff accumulations beneath the 
larger trees. Where duff is deep, around a foot or more, mitigation must be considered 
before returning fire 
to an area. Dry duff 
that ignites tends to 
burn with a 
smoldering, long-
lasting combustion 
that can injure tree 
roots and boles 
(Ryan and 
Frandsen, 1991), 
increasing the 
susceptibility of 
large trees to bark 
beetles, pathogens 
and drought (Wallin 
et al. 2003, 
McHugh et al. 
2003). 
One commonly 
Figure 1:  Note large stem in background and abundant smaller trees all recommended 
around. This area had no stumps, indicating very little cutting here in the method to reduce 
past. basal fire damage 
to trees with thick 
duff is to rake the duff away from the bole of the large trees.  Raking reduces the 
damage to trees from smoldering combustion. The trees that seem most likely to suffer 
damage from large duff accumulations are those with the large bark plates that have 
bark flaking off and adding to the duff. Our recommendation is to rake around the boles 
of these large trees to a distance of at least 3 feet radius around the trunk.  The duff 
should be evenly scattered and not left piled up at the edge of this radius. However, in 
some soils, raking has not reduced mortality. It is believed this is due to the damage 
caused to fine roots growing in the duff. Because raking has not been studied in our 
soils, an extra precaution would be to rake at least a year prior to burning to allow the 
fine roots to recover. 
Plant associations that were noted or are likely to be represented in the Slickear area 
include Douglas-fir/mountain snowberry (Psme/Syor); Douglas-fir/elk sedge 
(Psme/Cage); ponderosa pine/mountain-mahogany/elk sedge (Pipo/Cele/Cage); 
ponderosa pine/mountain-mahogany/Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass 
2 
(Pipo/Cele/Feid-Agsp); ponderosa pine/pinegrass (Pipo/Caru); ponderosa pine 
bitterbrush/ Ross’ sedge (Pipo/Putr/Caro); ponderosa pine/ bitterbrush/ elk sedge 
(Pipo/Putr/Cage); and ponderosa pine/ Idaho fescue (Pipo/Feid) (Johnson and 
Clausnitzer 1992).  Stockability of ponderosa pine is related to bark beetle risks.  Stands 
that maintain densities of pine that are excessive such that trees are impacted by 
reduced vigor will be susceptible to bark beetle attack and beetle-caused mortality 
during low and moderate population levels.  Natural disturbances such as periodic 
ground fire, will reduce stocking and help to keep bark beetle risk low.  Managed 
stocking level control has been used to reduce bark beetle risk generally in the absence 
of natural disturbances.  Recommended stocking is dependent upon a number of 
factors, and current state-of-the-art recommendations are given by Cochran and others 
(1994) and Powell (1999). Stocking guidelines can be determined given the conifer 
species, quadratic mean stand diameter, plant community, and stand structure.  Table 
1. gives examples of stocking recommendations for representative plant associations of 
the Slickear area for ponderosa pine in even-aged structure where the quadratic mean 
stand diameter is 12 inches dbh. 
Table 1. Recommended stocking for ponderosa pine where quadratic mean stand 
diameter is 12” dbh in even-aged structure (Cochran 1994; Powell 1999). 
Plant Association Upper Management Zone 
ft.2/acre basal area 
Lower Management Zone 
ft.2/acre basal area 
PSME/SYOR 102 68 
PSME/CAGE 49 33 
PIPO/CELE/CAGE 46 31 
PIPO/CELE/FEID-AGSP 18 12 
PIPO/CARU 87 58 
PIPO/PUTR/CARO 52 35 
PIPO/PUTR/CAGE 40 27 
PIPO/FEID 36 27 
Stockability varies mostly by plant community.  Stands with larger diameter trees 
(quadratic mean stand diameters) have progressively higher stockability, while stands 
with smaller trees have progressively lower stockability. 
We recommend taking overstocked stands down to near the lower management zone 
recommendation and scheduling stocking level control reentries or other treatment such 
as underburning, when stocking exceeds the upper management zone.  In the Slickear 
area, target species and recommendations should generally be for ponderosa pine.  
Judging from our several measurements and observations of stocking, nearly all stands 
are currently overstocked by a factor of 2, 3, or even more.   
Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) epidemics are a risk to overstocked 
small sawlog-size ponderosa pine. Risk is particularly high where basal area exceeds 
150 ft.2/acre and average tree diameter is 10” or more.  These stands are generally at 
moderate risk to mountain pine beetle due to very high stocking but mostly smaller size 
classes of trees. Beetle activity can be expected to be sporadic during periods of low 
endemic populations. However, the numbers of these insects are very cyclic and they 
will periodically build to high populations.  When plenty of susceptible hosts are 
available over a large area, they will eventually go into full-blown epidemic status while 
mortality becomes extensive.  So, retaining the existing conditions, the beetle activity 
3 
can be expected to fluctuate and may increase to outbreak levels at any time.  
Outbreaks can originate here or elsewhere in the southern Blue Mountains, and insect-
caused mortality will result in the Slickear area.  Stocking level control will reduce the 
level of endemic beetle activity as well as reduce the damage that will result if the 
beetles go into epidemic status on the landscape. 
Larger trees will often be attacked by western pine beetle (D. brevicomis), or a mix of 
western and mountain pine beetles when they experience drought, fire damage, or 
some other stressor that increases their susceptibility to attack.  An incremental stressor 
on large trees is the growth of neighboring smaller trees competing for the same 
resources. Large trees are often more prone to dying after burning than young trees 
(Kolb et al. 2007) and one of the causes is root and bole damage that increases their 
attractiveness to western pine beetles. Western pine beetle populations have been high 
in the Blue Mountains for the past several years with the result that an increased 
number of older ponderosa pine trees have been killed.  Targeting areas with large 
remnant ponderosa pine for restoration through removing competing trees and 
removing nearby duff and woody fuels will help perpetuate these old pines on the 
landscape. 
It is apparent that while some mountain pine beetle-caused mortality had occurred in 
recent years, the levels of mortality are generally low compared to the existing risk.  
Thus, past mortality should not be used to gauge what could happen in the future. 
We visited a few areas that had had pine engraver (Ips spp.) activity in the past but saw 
nothing current.  Ips beetles generally restrict themselves to feeding on tree tops and 
smaller diameter (>5”) trees.  Severely crowded trees will sometimes be attacked but 
populations usually do not get very large nor do they continue to expand.  Unlike most 
of the other bark beetles, this bark beetle does not require a living host for reproduction.  
Therefore, it is most commonly a problem during or after thinning or logging operations 
that leave green slash behind for the beetle to breed in.  Ips beetles emerge from 
overwintering sites as early as April in some areas and have 2-3 generations a year.  If 
they emerge and find nearby green slash, this 
provides prime breeding habitat and thus causes 
their populations to expand. When this next 
population emerges about 6 weeks later, it is 
now numerous enough to successfully attack 
and kill nearby standing green trees. To avoid 
this scenario, we recommend not creating, or 
treating or removing, logging or thinning slash 
created from January through July.  Populations 
that emerge in the spring will thus decline when 
optimum breeding sites are not available. This is 
not fool-proof, sometimes in dry years slash 
created in the late summer has led to nearby 
tree mortality. 
One large center of mountain pine beetle activity 
was encountered at the first stop we made at 
Slickear. Some of the characteristics of this 
activity did not look quite right so we looked 
closely as several of the recently-killed and one Figure 1.  Standing blackstain root disease-
caused mortality. 
4 
 Figure 2.  Black stain root disease center. 
or more obviously declining trees 
and confirmed the presence of 
blackstain root disease 
(Leptographium wagenerii). 
Blackstain root disease is very 
easy to miss, since bark beetles 
are nearly always involved in killing 
diseased trees and their signs and 
symptoms are much more visible.   
Presence of blackstain is indicated 
by mortality having occurred over 
many years, usually with evidence 
of enlarging and expanding centers 
of mortality (Figures 1 and 2). Prior 
to be being attacked by beetles, 
the crown may appear sparse, with 
shorter-than normal needles and 
reduced retention of older needles. 
Bark beetles, on the other hand, typically kill trees in groups over a two or three year 
period. In this case, mortality had occurred over a longer time-frame than is typical for 
bark beetles working alone. We were able to confirm the presence of root disease by 
chopping into the root collar of several declining and recently-killed pines and exposing 
the characteristic black-stained sapwood.  We did not confirm blackstain at any other 
stops in the Slickear area, so it may not be prevalent in this proposed project area.  
However, we made no attempt to systematically survey the area.  This conjecture is 
based solely on our limited observations in a walk-through reconnaissance through 
several of the pine-dominated areas. Blackstain root disease is especially common on 
Forest Service lands east of Highway 395 on the southern portion of the Malheur 
National Forest. We have confirmed some presence of blackstain most times we have 
reviewed ponderosa pine stands on the Burns District, BLM. 
Existing fuels, additional fuel loading which can be expected from beetle-caused 
mortality in the future if treatment is deferred, and treatment of project fuels which will 
result from thinnings, all need to be addressed in this proposed project plan. 
5 
One or more clones of quaking aspen were noted in the draw bottom between Slickear 
Creek and Spring Draw. The larger stems in this community had a high incidence of  
Figure 3. Conks of Phellinus tremulae, cause of 
white trunk rot 
Figure 4. Excavation by a cavity-nesting bird on an 
aspen with white trunk rot. 
Figure 5. Decline in aspen clone vigor; conifer invasion, 
mortality with little or no recruitment. 
decay, stem cankers and associated mortality.  This condition in itself is often normal for 
mature stems and is characteristic of the short-lived nature of aspen stems.  White trunk 
rot, caused by Phellinus tremulae is quite common in Blue Mountain aspen, and it was 
confirmed at Slickear (Figure 3). Several trees were observed with conks of the fungus, 
which confirm infection and decay. Trees with conks have a column of decay that is a 
soft white rot. Cavity-nesting birds often excavate their cavities in these trees, and it is 
6 
common to see bird holes on live trees with conks (Figure 4).  Other trees were dead or 
had the tops dead or sometimes broken out. This is often caused by one of several 
canker diseases that are common in the Blue Mountains.  Cytospora canker (Cytospora 
chrysosperma); Sooty-bark canker (Encoelia pruinosa); Ceratocystis canker 
(Ceratocystis fimbriata); and Cryptosphaeria canker (Cryptosphaeria lignyota) are all 
known to be active in this area. These are native diseases and incidence increases as 
stems mature. Broken topped trees will remain standing for years and are used as 
snags by wildlife.  Aspen stands can be considered healthy even if they have a high 
incidence of these diseases in older stems, as long as mortality is being adequately 
replaced by new suckers. Level of infection of many to most of these diseases is 
related to clone susceptibility. 
At Slickear, there was evidence of several universally common factors of Blue Mountain 
aspen clone deterioration and poor health.  Conifers, especially ponderosa pine, have 
invaded traditionally aspen-dominated sites (Figure 5).  Secondly, recruitment and 
development of suckers is not occurring fast enough to replace large stem mortality 
(Figure 5 and 6). Thirdly, there is evidence that the area occupied by the clone is 
shrinking or retreating (Figure 6). There is historical evidence that contemporary aspen 
communities have retreated to their moist-site refuges due to a combination of grazing, 
fire suppression, and conifer invasion. 
Aspen is quite different from other hardwoods, including other members of Populus, in 
the Blue Mountains; black cottonwood, water birch, mountain alder, and bitter cherry 
reproduce vegetatively using sprouts 
produced from the lower stem area 
of mature trees, whereas vegetative 
reproduction for aspen occurs almost 
exclusively as suckers from an 
individual, often very large, root 
system. Reproduction by root 
suckers maintains the perpetuation 
of the clone root structure, which can 
be thousands of years old. 
Interactions between two different 
plant growth hormones, auxin 
produced in the stem and cytokinin 
produced in the roots, regulates 
sucker production. Apical 
dominance is controlled by auxin, 
and movement into the roots is 
stopped or curtailed by cutting, 
burning, girdling, killing, or 
defoliation, auxin levels in the roots rapidly decline, removing the suppression of sucker 
production. 
Aspen exhibits a fantastic degree of genetic variation expressed as phenotypic 
differentiation; leaf shape and size, bark color, branching habit, autumn leaf color, 
disease resistance, as well as other factors can vary by clone.  Oftentimes adjoining 
clones can be recognized by these differences.  In some cases clones will overlap.   
Figure 6.  Evidence of contacting clones; dead and down 
stems on microsites with no existing live aspen 
7 
 Disturbance that initiates sucker development is dependent upon carbohydrate reserves 
stored in the root system to supply the energy needed for sucker production and early 
development. In declining clones where vigor is especially poor, these reserves may be 
insufficient to allow successful sucker production and survival.  Examples of clones of 
poor vigor are those with the large stems dying and breaking due to canker and stem 
decay diseases while conifers are invading and sucker survival is poor, often due to 
ungulate browsing.  Fortunately, this drawbottom Slickear clone still retains a number of 
large stem components, but it is declining, there is inadequate recruitment to replace 
dying stems and the clone is compressing, and without restoration or natural 
disturbance before conditions have deteriorated too far, this clone could be lost in the 
not-to-distant future. 
Restoration strategies include killing remaining overstory aspen stems, thus stopping 
auxin production and translocation, in order to promote a new cohort of young stems. 
This is somewhat risky and requires an existing clone with enough vigor and 
carbohydrate reserves that ample sucker production will result.  If not, the clone can be 
lost. 
In the northern Rocky Mountains, a fire interval periodicity of 20 to 130 years is reported 
as necessary to maintain aspen forests (Noble and Slatyer 1980).  There is no reason 
to believe that that time span is not applicable in the Blue Mountains.   
Conifer removal is highly recommended in nearly all cases of proposed aspen 
restoration. There are at least several impacts conifers exert over aspen.  One of 
course is simply site occupancy and the invasion of relatively shade-tolerant conifers 
onto sites of very shade-intolerant aspen.  While part of this is simply related to the 
invasion of traditional aspen communities by the invading conifer, there are other 
reasons as well. Research has shown that small conifers exhibit greater water stress 
(midday xylem water potential) when growing under a conifer overstory than an aspen 
overstory (citation). Research also demonstrates that large conifers use more soil 
moisture than large aspens (Schimpf and others 1980).  In other words, conifers out-
compete aspen for moisture, which is especially significant in dry communities that 
characterize the southern Blue Mountains. 
Fencing is often included with other activities in an integrated aspen restoration plan. 
The primary reason fences are built is to allow suckers to develop without being 
browsed. Browsing is very frequently severe and may prevent any suckers from 
developing normally. Most common fences have been lodgepole pine buck-and-pole 
designs, which are effective in keeping both bovines and elk out of enclosures.  Other 
designs are New Zealand deer fence and modifications of multiple-strand wire fence.  
Bringing in material would likely be needed here, as on-site ponderosa pine may not be 
suitable fence building material. 
Other designs and strategies can achieve similar results to fencing.  Conifers left on-site 
that protect suckers can be effective.  This has included slash piles designed to create 
barriers, discouraging ungulate access to suckers.  Another effective method is to fell 
trees on high stumps but do so such that the boles remain attached to the stump to for a 
“hinge”. This can be done on pole-size trees by eliminating a face cut and using a back 
cut 3 or 4 feet off the ground.  These can effectively reduce access by making it rather 
difficult. This treatment or techniques have been most effective when they were kept 
small, encouraging native ungulates to go around them rather than through them 
8 
(Shirley and Erickson 2001). Powell (2007) compiled some of the information and 
literature citations for aspen applicable to the Blue Mountains and referenced and used 
in this report. The Umatilla National Forest also has some specifics available on fencing 
(http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/nr/native-plants/aspen/buckandpole.pdf). 
There is a complex interrelationship between stand structure, historic fire effects, insect 
and disease activity and fuel loading.  This has been the subject of much research, 
numerous journal articles, and at least a few symposia.  Common consensus is that dry 
pine communities were frequently visited by light ground fires that kept stocking much 
lower than currently occurs and fuel accumulations were light (Hessburg and others 
2005). Stand replacement fire events were infrequent because of the light fuels and 
widely-spaced trees (Heyerdahl and Agee 1996).  Bark beetles readily respond to 
overstocked conditions and current conditions are believed to result in substantially 
greater bark beetle-caused mortality than historically occurred.  Higher fuel levels, 
especially vertical fuel, combined with higher accumulated fuels, gives the potential for 
fire events which are beyond the historical norm, resulting in hotter fires and often 
catastrophic fires (Agee 1994). Changes that have occurred in diseases to ponderosa 
pine are less clear. Under current conditions, dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium 
ponderosae) has increased in severity in stands that are infested, although western 
dwarf mistletoe was not observed in the Slickear.  We believe root diseases, especially 
blackstain and armillaria (Armillaria ostoyae) root diseases, have increased in both 
incidence and severity, but this is difficult to confirm.   
Western juniper encroachment into savanna and transitional forest is well documented 
and contributes to changes in vegetation and available moisture (Gedney and others 
1999). While associated pines are often killed by beetles, junipers seem relatively 
immune to insect and disease-caused mortality. 
Proposed treatments in the pine stands and possibly some of the pine woodlands 
tentatively involve a strategy to maintain and sustain the large old pine component.  
This would include removal of smaller (generally post-fire suppression vintage) trees 
from around the large older residuals. Merchantable trees would be harvested and sub-
merchantable trees would be machine piled and burned.  About 5 years later a 
broadcast burn would be done as well. Research in recent years has established that 
reducing basal area around large old pines increases their vigor as well as their rates of 
growth (McDowell and others 2003; Latham and Tappeiner 2002).  While not reported, 
longevity likely increases as well, as inferred from documented increase in vigor.  
We are available to assist the BLM with any insect/disease management issue.  
Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report. 
Craig  L.  Schmitt             Lia  H.  Spiegel  
Service Center Pathologist    Service Center Entomologist 
cc: 
Jon Reponen, Burns BLM 
Bob Rock, Wallowa-Whitman NF 
 Don Scott 
9 
References and Literature Cited 
Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the 
eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320.  Portland, OR: USDA Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment 
team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., Sr., 
science team leader and tech ed., Volume III: assessment.) 
Cochran, P.H., Geist, J.M., Clemens, D.L., Clausnitzer, R.R., and Powell, D.C.  
1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon 
and southeastern Washington. Research Note PNW-RN-513; USDA Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 
Gedney, Donald R.; Azuma, David L.; Bolsinger, Charles L.; McKay, Neil.  1999. 
Western juniper in eastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-464. 
Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  53 
p. 
Hessburg, Paul F., Agee, James K., Franklin, Jerry F.  2005. Dry forests and 
wildland fires of the inland Northwest USA: Contrasting the landscape 
ecology of the pre-settlement and modern eras.  Forest Ecology and 
Management 211: 117-139. 
Heyerdahl, Emily K., and Agee, James K. 1996. Historical fire regimes of four 
sites in the Blue Mountains, Oregon and Washington. Un-numbered final 
report. Seattle WA: University of Washington, College of Forest 
Resources.173 p. 
Johnson, Jr., and Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and 
Ochoco Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Report R6-FRW-TP-036-92 
Latham, P., Tappeiner, J. 2002.  Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in 
stand density in western Oregon Forests.  Tree Physiology 22: 137-146. 
McDowell, N., Brooks, J.R., Fitzgerald, S.A., and Bond, B.J.  2003. Carbon 
isotope discrimination and growth response of old Pinus ponderosa trees to 
stand density reductions. Plant, Cell and Environment 26: 631-644. 
McHugh, C.W., Kolb, T.E., & Wilson, J.L. (2003) Bark Beetle Attacks on Ponderosa 
Pine Following Fire in Northern Arizona. Environmental Entomology, 32:510-522. 
Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional 
changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio. 
43: 5-21. 
Powell, David C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in 
Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An implementation 
guide for the Umatilla National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
10 
Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest Rept. F14-SO-TP-03-99.  300p. 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/nr/silv/stockingpub1.pdf 
Powell, David C. 2007. Comments about aspen communities at Elk Flats.  
Letter to the District Ranger, Walla Walla Ranger District, Umatilla National 
Forest, File Code 2470, dated November 8, 2007 from the Umatilla National 
Forest Silviculturist. On file at the Supervisors Office, Umatilla National 
Forest, Pendleton, OR, and the Walla Walla Ranger District, Umatilla National 
Forest, Walla Walla, WA. 
Ryan, K.C. & Frandsen, W.H. (1991) Basal Injury from Smoldering Fires in Mature 
Pinus Ponderosa Laws. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 1:107-118. 
Schimpf, D.J.; Henderson, J.A.; MacMahon, J.A. 1980. Some aspects of 
succession in the spruce-fir forest zone of northern Utah. Great Basin 
Naturalist. 40(1): 1-26. 
Shirley, D.M.; Erickson, V. 2001. Aspen restoration in the Blue Mountains of 
northeast Oregon. In: Shepperd, W.D.; Binkley, D.; Bartos, D.L.; Stohlgren, 
T.J.; Eskew, L.G., compilers. Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: 
symposium proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 
101-115. 
Wallin, K.F., Kolb, T.E., Skov, K.R., & Wagner, M.R. (2003) Effects of Crown Scorch on 
Ponderosa Pine Resistance to Bark Beetles in Northern Arizona. Entomological 
Society of America, 32:652-661. 
11 
 United States Forest Blue Mountains Pest 1401 Gekeler Lane 
Department of Service Management Service Center La Grande, OR 97850-3456 
Agriculture Wallowa-Whitman NF (541) 963-7122 
APPENDIX C 
File Code: 3420 Date: January 29, 2008 

Route To:

Subject: Technical Assistance: Claw Creek Project, Three Rivers Resource Area, 
Burns District, BLM 
To: 	 Three Rivers Resource Area Manager, and 

District Manager, Burns BLM 

28910 Hwy 20 West, Hines, OR  97738 

On June 6, 2007, we were on the Burns District at the request of Jon Reponen for the 
purpose of reviewing a couple of project areas for forest health issues.  This report will 
be for the proposed Claw Creek project.  Proposed treatment opportunities include 
stocking level control, enhancement of large ponderosa pine vigor and growth by 
removing adjacent understory, project fuel treatment, and subsequent underburning.   
During these evaluations we were primarily concerned with insect and disease history, 
occurrence and risk, recommended treatment options, and consequences of action and 
deferring treatment. During this field visit, we were joined by a number of district staff, 
especially folks from the fire shop.  Jon Reponen organized and led this trip. 
The Claw Creek area is west of Emigrant Butte in the upper portions of Claw and Egypt 
Creeks. These are multi-Section blocks of BLM ground with several sections and partial 
sections of private holdings, all surrounded by Ochoco National Forest.  We spent a few 
hours in this area, accessing it via the Claw Creek road.    
There are approximately 1000 acres of stand type that would benefit from the proposed 
treatment within this area.  Vegetation and plant community vary by aspect, slope and 
soil depth. Conifers, mostly ponderosa pine (and scattered juniper) are most densely 
stocked in draws and northerly- and easterly-facing aspects on moderate slopes.  The 
remainder of the area is stocked with well-spaced pines and junipers in pine woodland 
communities. Plant Associations represented in Claw Creek probably include: 
Ponderosa pine/mountain-mahogany/elk sedge (PIPO/CELE/CAGE); Ponderosa 
pine/mountain-mahogany/Wheeler’s bluegrass (PIPO/CELE/PONE); Ponderosa pine 
/bitterbrush/Ross’sedge (PIPOPUTR/CARO); Ponderosa pine/bitterbrush/elk sedge 
(PIPO/TUTR/CAGE); Ponderosa pine/elk sedge (PIPO/CAGE); Ponderosa pine/ 
pinegrass (PIPO/CARU), and perhaps other similar associations. 
Historical management of this area includes two commercial harvest entries; one in 
1952 and a second in 1966, and some thinnings in 1967 and 1968. The 1952 entry was 
essentially a heavy partial removal, and the second entry included some regeneration 
treatments. Most of the area was not thinned.  Fire exclusion has of course been 
Caring for the Land and Serving People	 Printed on Recycled Paper 
practiced here for at least a century.  We did not estimate the time since the last natural 
fire(s) in this area, but it has been many decades.  We made several stops in 
representative stands within the proposed project area.  These were primarily the 
densely-stocked pine stands.  We were not particularly concerned with the more open 
pine-woodlands, or the pine-juniper and pine-grasslands on shallow soil and exposed 
aspects. 
As a result of past disturbance, generalizations about existing stand structure can be 
made. Large, old single ponderosa pines are scattered throughout the area with a 
younger age class cohort of understory pines. Blackbark pines that are now 16 to 18” 
dbh were mostly advanced regeneration when the 1952 harvest was made.  These 
trees are now a co-dominant structure in the stand and clearly younger and smaller than 
the residual overstory. A third structure consists of the regeneration that resulted from 
the 1952 removals and these are now 4 to 8” dbh poles and small sawlogs.  We 
measured basal area in several locations and stocking averaged roughly about 240 
ft2/acre. 
Stockability of ponderosa pine is related to bark beetle risks.  Stands of pine with 
densities that are excessive for the productivity of the site such that trees are impacted 
by reduced vigor will be susceptible to bark beetle attack and beetle-caused mortality 
during low and moderate population levels of the beetles.  Natural disturbances such as 
periodic ground fire reduces stocking and helps to keep bark beetle risk low.  Managed 
stocking level control is widely used and the most accepted management strategy to 
reduce bark beetle risk in the absence of natural disturbances.  Recommended stocking 
is dependent upon a number of factors, and current state-of-the-art recommendations 
are given by Cochran and others (1994) and Powell (1999).  Stocking guidelines can be 
determined given the conifer species, quadratic mean stand diameter (QMD), plant 
community, and stand structure.  Table 1. gives examples of stocking recommendations 
for representative plant associations of the Claw Creek area for ponderosa pines in 
even-aged structure where the quadratic mean stand diameter is 14 inches dbh. 
Table 1. Recommended stocking bounds for ponderosa pine where quadratic mean 
stand diameter is 14” dbh in even-aged structure (Cochran et al. 1994; Powell 1999). 
Plant Association Upper Management Zone 
ft.2/acre basal area 
Lower Management Zone 
ft.2/acre basal area 
PIPO/CELE/CAGE 48 32 
PIPOPUTR/CARO 54 36 
PIPO/PUTR/CAGE 41 27 
PIPO/CAGE 48 32 
PIPO/CARU 90 60 
Potential stocking varies mostly by plant community and stands with larger diameter 
trees (quadratic mean stand diameters) are able to maintain higher stocking in terms of 
basal area, and stands with smaller trees similarly are able to maintain lower stocking.   
Table 1. shows rather consistent stocking guidelines for associations other than 
PIPO/CARU, which is substantially higher than the rest.  Regardless, all or nearly all 
stands in Claw Creek are overstocked, usually by a factor of several times. 
2 
 We recommend taking overstocked stands down to near the lower management zone 
designated for that plant association and quadratic mean stand diameter and 
scheduling stocking level control reentries or other treatment such as underburning, 
when stocking eventually exceeds the upper management zone.  In the Claw Creek 
area, target species and recommendations should be for ponderosa pine.  Removing 
trees under 10” diameter would decrease the basal area in most stands to 40-80ft2/acre, 
approximating the Lower Management Zone recommended by Cochran and others 
(1994). 
Risk to overstocked small sawlog-size ponderosa pine is highest with mountain pine 
beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). Larger individuals will often be attacked by western 
pine beetle (D. brevicomis), or a mix of western and mountain pine beetles.  Bark beetle 
activity can be expected to be sporadic during periods of low endemic populations 
under the existing stand conditions. However, the numbers of these insects are very 
cyclic on the landscape level and they will periodically build to high populations.  When 
plenty of susceptible hosts are available over a large area, they will eventually go into 
full-blown epidemic status and mortality will become extensive.  Retaining the existing 
conditions, the beetle activity can be expected to fluctuate, with pockets of mortality 
occurring in some years and the possibility of extensive mortality during an outbreak.  
Outbreaks can originate here or elsewhere in the southern Blue Mountains.  
There is some evidence that mountain pine beetle attacks begin in the more dense 
areas of ponderosa pine stands. Dense microcosms provide the optimum habitat for 
beetles to find suitable trees (Schmid & Mata, 2005).  Within these microcosms, the 
more susceptible trees receive the initial attacks.  Continued infestation appears to be 
dependent on trees per acre (over 200), basal areas between 150-250ft2/ac, 
intermediate QMD values, and low minimum dbh (Olsen et al., 1996). 
With uneven-aged stands, these pockets of mountain pine beetle-caused mortality will 
continue to contribute to small openings and patchy fuels.  Stocking level control that 
addresses these dense microcosms will reduce the level of endemic beetle activity as 
well as reduce the damage that will result if the beetles go into epidemic status on the 
landscape. Removing stocking from below will raise the minimum dbh, decreasing the 
proportion of highly susceptible trees in the stand. 
We noted a number of older bark beetle-caused mortality pockets throughout stands in 
Claw Creek (Figures 1 and 2). These consisted of 5 to 25 dead down and dead 
standing trees in mostly concise groups. As with most beetle pockets, trees showed 
evidence that they had died roughly about the same time based on degree of bark 
sloughing. While most of these pockets did not appear to have associated blackstain 
root disease (Leptographium wageneri), we checked and were unable to confirm any 
infection in those pockets investigated, although there is blackstain in similar stands in 
this portion of the Blue Mountains. 
Existing fuels, additional fuel loading which can be expected from beetle-caused 
mortality in the future if treatment is deferred, and treatment of project fuels, which will 
result from thinnings, all need to be addressed in this proposed project plan. 
There is a complex interrelationship between stand structure, historic fire effects, insect 
and disease activity and fuel loading.  This has been the subject of much research, 
3 
 numerous journal articles, and at least a few symposia.  Common consensus is that dry 
pine communities were frequently visited by light ground fires that kept stocking much 
lower than currently exists and fuel 
accumulations were generally light. Stand 
replacement fire events were infrequent 
because of the light fuel loading and widely-
spaced trees. Since bark beetles readily 
respond to overstocked conditions current 
conditions are believed to result in substantially 
greater bark beetle-caused mortality than 
historically occurred. Accelerated beetle-
caused mortality is increasing fuel loads. 
Higher fuels, especially vertical fuel, combined 
with higher accumulated fuels, gives the 
potential for fire events which are beyond the 
historical norm, resulting in hotter fires and often 
catastrophic fires (Agee 1994). 
Changes that have occurred in the incidence 
and severity of ponderosa pine diseases are 
less clear. Under current conditions, western 
dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) 
has increased in severity in those stands that  
are infested. In Claw Creek, we noted that dwarf mistletoe infested some of the stands.  
We did not have time to determine what stands were infected or estimate the severity of 
infection. This information could be collected during stand reconnaissance or treatment 
layout. It would certainly affect the treatment prescription. 
Western dwarf mistletoe 
affects its host in several 
ways. Growth and vigor is 
reduced relative to the 
severity of infection.  
Severely-infected pines on 
poor sites have substantially 
higher rates of mortality. 
Similar trees on better 
quality sites are less apt to 
be directly killed by 
infestation. Infected trees 
will develop brooms which 
often persist in the lower 
crown. These have higher 
resin content and will catch 
and retain needles and 
Figure 2.  More bark beetle-caused mortality. 
debris, making them rather flammable. Coupled with stagnation of growth, especially of 
smaller understory trees, fuel laddering tends to develop in these infested stands.  In 
short; mistletoe-infested stands have higher fuels and are structurally more prone to 
damage in the event of fire, especially if fire is long-overdue. 
Figure 1.  Bark beetle-caused mortality. 
4 
Stands that are most apt to develop severe infestation and be damaged are those pure 
pine stands that are mixed aged or have mixed canopy levels.  These stands will readily 
develop following selection harvests or partial removals where infected trees are left as 
residuals. Infected overstory residual trees overtop subsequent regeneration that 
develops and spread mistletoe seeds onto these smaller trees every year in the fall. 
For many years, recommended management for infected stands was a complete 
sanitation removal of infected trees, both large and small.  Retaining some broomed 
trees over the landscape is now recognized as benefiting birds and small mammals that 
use brooms as cover and for nesting sites. 
Recommended management strategies for mistletoe-infected stands have more 
recently focused on removing overstory sources of infection followed by the selection, 
spacing and release of least-infected individuals in the stand.  Dwarf mistletoe-infected 
pine stands should be reduced to a single canopy layer to be effectively treated.  At 
least, assure that overstory sources of infection are minimized as much as possible.  If 
overstory large trees that are infected are retained, treatment efficacy will be reduced.  
Trees to be retained should have no dwarf mistletoe infections in the upper one-third to 
one-half of the live crown. Spacing associated with removals and sanitation will 
increase the growing space for residuals.  Given recommended growing space, trees 
with the upper portion of their crowns free of dwarf mistletoe infection will grow similarly 
to uninfected trees with good form as well.  Schmitt (1996) thoroughly discusses 
western dwarf mistletoe biology and management.   
Western juniper encroachment into pine woodlands is well documented and contributes 
to changes in stand structure and distribution of ponderosa pine.  Pines growing on 
sites with an invading and enlarging juniper component will have increasingly less 
available moisture (Gedney and others 1999).  While associated pines are often killed 
by beetles, junipers seem relatively immune to insect and disease-caused mortality. 
Proposed treatments in the pine stands and possibly some of the pine woodlands 
tentatively involve a strategy to maintain and sustain the large old pine component.  
This would include removal of smaller (generally post-fire suppression vintage) trees 
from around the large older residuals. Large trees are widely scattered and the larger 
second growth pine that are 16 to 18” dbh would be retained.  Smaller trees in the 
understory would be deemed excess and removed.  No merchantable removals would 
be expected with this treatment prescription.  Project and existing fuels would be piled 
and burned. About 5 years later a broadcast burn would be done as well.  Research in 
recent years has established that reducing basal area around large old pines increases 
their vigor as well as their rates of growth (McDowell and others 2003; Latham and 
Tappeiner 2002). While not reported, longevity likely increases as well, as inferred from 
documented increase in vigor. 
We are available to assist the BLM with any insect/disease management issue.  
Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report. 
Craig  L.  Schmitt             Lia  H.  Spiegel  
Service Center Pathologist    Service Center Entomologist 
cc: 	 Jon Reponen, Burns BLM 
Bob Rock, Wallowa-Whitman NF 
 Don Scott 
5 
References and Literature Cited 
Agee, James K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the 
eastern Cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-320.  Portland, OR: USDA Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  52 p. (Everett, Richard L., assessment 
team leader; Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment; Hessburg, Paul F., Sr., 
science team leader and tech ed., Volume III: assessment.) 
Cochran, P.H., Geist, J.M., Clemens, D.L., Clausnitzer, R.R., and Powell, D.C.  
1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon 
and southeastern Washington. Research Note PNW-RN-513; USDA Forest 
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR 
Gedney, Donald R.; Azuma, David L.; Bolsinger, Charles L.; McKay, Neil.  1999. 
Western juniper in eastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-464. 
Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.  53 
p. 
Johnson, Jr., and Clausnitzer, R.R. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and 
Ochoco Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Report R6-FRW-TP-036-92 
Latham, P., Tappeiner, J. 2002.  Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in 
stand density in western Oregon Forests.  Tree Physiology 22: 137-146. 
McDowell, N., Brooks, J.R., Fitzgerald, S.A., and Bond, B.J.  2003. Carbon 
isotope discrimination and growth response of old Pinus ponderosa trees to 
stand density reductions. Plant, Cell and Environment 26: 631-644. 
Noble, I.R.; Slatyer, R.O. 1980. The use of vital attributes to predict successional 
changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio. 
43: 5-21. 
Olsen, W.K., Schmid, J.M., & Mata, S.A. (1996) Stand Characteristics Associated 
with Mountain Pine Beetle Infestations in Ponderosa Pine. Forest Science, 
42:310-326. 
Powell, David C. 1999. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in 
Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington: An implementation 
guide for the Umatilla National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
Northwest Region, Umatilla National Forest Rept. F14-SO-TP-03-99.  300p. 
Schimpf, D.J.; Henderson, J.A.; MacMahon, J.A. 1980. Some aspects of 
succession in the spruce-fir forest zone of northern Utah. Great Basin 
Naturalist. 40(1): 1-26. 
Schmid, J.M. & Mata, S.A. (2005) Mountain Pine Beetle-Caused Tree Mortality in 
Partially Cut Plots surrounded by Unmanaged Stands. USDA Forest Service 
Proceedings, RMRS-RP-54. 
6 
Schmitt, Craig L. 1996. BMPMZ Management Guide: Management of 
ponderosa pine infected with western dwarf mistletoe in Northeastern 
Oregon. Rept. BMZ-96-07.  Baker City, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific 
Northwest Region Blue Mountains Pest Management Zone, Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest.  24 p. 
7 
APPENDIX D 
Proposed Action Activity Descriptions 
Prescribed Burning 
Prescribed burning would be used to varying degrees in all four dominant vegetative 
communities. These treatments would include activities such as broadcast burning, piling and 
burning, jackpot burning, and underburning. 
Burning prescriptions1 would vary depending on specific management objectives and would only 
allow fire behavior adequate to reduce the stocking of fully and partially developed juniper 
woodlands on rangelands, or reduce natural and activity generated fuels in pine dominated 
forests and woodlands. Broadcast and jackpot burning would be the most widely applied 
burning activities under the proposed action in mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass communities 
that are being encroached upon by juniper. Broadcast burning is the most cost-effective method 
of reintroducing fire as a disturbance process over large areas where it can safely carry through 
surface and ladder fuels. Jackpot burning would be applied during treatments in which it is an 
objective to reduce only fine fuels and small diameter fuels while preserving desirable 
understory species, limiting the size of burned patches, and minimizing impacts on soils.  
Jackpot burning may also be utilized as pre-treatment before a broadcast burn in order to protect 
fire-sensitive assets such as a range improvements or cultural resources, or to improve the 
effectiveness of holding actions2 near a unit or property boundary.  Pile burning would most 
often be applied in areas where it is an objective to substantially reduce heavy fuels while 
limiting the size of burned patches and/or retaining a majority of existing understory plants.  All 
treated forested areas will probably receive piling burning treatments.  Treated forested areas are 
also likely to receive an underburning treatment 5 to 7 years after the mechanical treatments. 
Although the target treatment areas consist of the sections of the Claw Creek and Skull Creek 
Grazing Allotments that form the project areas, there are areas adjacent to project area 
boundaries where burning is allowable without declaration of a wildfire.  In the event that fire 
spread beyond a targeted area, the burn boss and resource advisors onsite would determine if 
suppression actions are warranted. 
1 Prescription: A plan specifying management objectives to be obtained, and air temperature, humidity, season, wind direction 
and speed, fuel and soil moisture conditions under which a fire will be started or allowed to burn.  
2 Holding Action:  Any action taken to stop the spread of fire. 
Tools such as drip torches, fusees, All Terrain Vehicle ignition, aerial ignition, and other firing 
devices are typically used to ignite prescribed burns.  Roads, natural barriers or landforms, and 
mechanically constructed fireline would be utilized as fire breaks at the boundaries of burning 
units. Two track 4-wheel drive roads that are positioned along burn unit boundaries may be 
bladed to improve their ability to function as a control line.  Broadcast burning operations would 
be monitored to ensure that project design elements are properly observed and objectives are 
achieved. Once treatment objectives are attained within targeted vegetation communities, no 
remaining acres within that community type would be treated within the burn units.  All burn 
plans would include an escaped fire suppression plan and a smoke management plan.  Use of 
petroleum products during ignition would be monitored to ensure that any spill was immediately 
contained and neutralized. 
Broadcast Burning 
Broadcast burning is a type of prescribed burning, where fire is intentionally ignited and allowed 
to spread over a large predetermined area within well-defined boundaries during specific 
environmental conditions in order to attain resource management or fuels reduction objectives.  
Broadcast burning would be use an optional treatment method in mountain big 
sagebrush/bunchgrass communities. 
Portions of these communities that are in the middle to late juniper woodland transitional stages 
would require a mechanical pre-treatment in order to generate heat sufficient to kill mature trees.  
Individual trees would be periodically felled against standing trees and allowed to cure in order 
to create a ladder that allows ground fire to move into the canopies of standing uncut trees.  Sites 
that do not support the large trees typical of communities in the latter stages of juniper woodland 
development would not require any form of mechanical treatment prior to the application of 
prescribed fire. Other pre-treatment activities that may occur within or near broadcast burn units 
include wetlining3, blacklining4, and handline construction around leave interior leave islands 
and fire-sensitive assets such as range improvements or cultural resources.  Holding operations 
near property boundaries may be accomplished with pre-treatment using small amounts of 
jackpot burning, conifer cutting, and/or piling and burning.  Broadcast burns are generally 
implemented in the fall (September, October) to moderate undesirable fire behavior. 
3 Wetline: A line of water, or water and chemical retardant, sprayed along the ground, which serves as a temporary control line 
from which to ignite or stop a low-intensity fire. 
4 Blackline:  Preburning of fuels adjacent to a control line before igniting a prescribed burn.  Blacklining is usually done in 
heavy fuels adjacent to a control line during periods of low fire danger to reduce heat on holding crews and lessen chances for 
spotting across control line. 
The scheduling of the burning during the implementation period is dependent upon weather, fuel 
conditions, project funding, and agreements with grazing permittees and cooperating 
landowners. Broadcast burning operations require one growing season of grazing rest prior to 
treatment and two growing seasons of rest following treatment.  These factors, especially 
weather, make it difficult to accurately project the number of acres burned in a given year. 
Underburning 
Underburning is the application 
of low intensity prescribed fire to 
surface fuels beneath a forested 
canopy. Burning is prescribed to 
reduce stocking density of small 
diameter (less than 8 inches in 
diameter) conifer trees and to 
reduce ground fuels (duff, litter, 
twigs, branches <3 inches). 
Underburning would be applied 
primarily in the treated forested 
stands. Underburning would 
occur during the spring or fall. 
Pre-treatment of the burning 
areas could be necessary to 
reduce the risk of escapement or 
resource damage during 
underburning. The pre-treatment 
would include activities such as 
Figure 1:  Example of low intensity forest underburn. 
establishing blacklines or constructing handline around the perimeter of leave islands or adjacent 
to burn unit boundaries. Pretreatment activities may also include the raking or removal of duff 
around large trees, snags, and downed wood. 
Pile Burning 
Mechanical piling and/or hand piling would be used to reduce fuel loading and continuity 
primarily in areas where conifers have been cut manually.  Machine piles are usually 8 to 12 feet 
tall by 16 to 22 feet wide and would be constructed of previously cut pine and/or juniper by 
grapple equipped excavators or dozers. Hand piles are usually constructed of bucked5 up slash 
on ground where machine piles cannot be constructed due to excessive slope or other resource 
reasons. Hand piles are generally 3 to 5 feet tall by 3 to 5 feet wide.  All piles would be burned 
within 2 years of construction during the fall or winter months of the year (September to 
December).  Burning hand piles and machine piles would be an activity that would occur in the 
treated forested. Piling and burning may be implemented as a secondary treatment under the 
mountain big sagebrush/bunchgrass treatment areas.  Any rangelands impacted by a piling and 
burning activity would require perennial grass seeding to guard against an invasion of exotic 
species. 
5 Bucking: Cutting tree boles and branches to lengths that can be moved by hand. 
Figure 2:  Results of an early season jackpot burning treatment. 
Jackpot Burning 
Jackpot burning is the 
application of prescribed 
fire to concentrations of 
fuels. Typically, it is 
applied during the time of 
year when the probability of 
fire spread is very low and 
in situations where fuels 
reduction is not a primary 
objective. Jackpot burning 
is the method used in units 
where residual activity 
created fuels or natural fuels 
are discontinuous. Jackpot 
burning would be 
implemented in the late fall, 
winter, or spring seasons 
(October to March) when 
soil and live fuel moistures 
are elevated and existing 
shrubs are more likely be maintained. 
Jackpot burning would be the principal activity employed under the low/stiff sagebrush 
communities. It would also be one of the principal activities in mountain big 
sagebrush/bunchgrass communities especially where mountain mahogany and bitterbrush are 
prevalent. Mechanically cutting and jackpot burning the slash will remove the encroaching 
vegetation while retaining desirable existing shrubs and herbaceous species.   
Mechanical Thinning and Cutting 
Variable density thinning would be the primary activity applied in the forested units.  Variable 
density thinning involves a combination of commercial and noncommercial thinning techniques 
that results in retention of trees grouped in small dispersed patches with ladder fuels and crown 
fuels that are substantially reduced.   
Commercial and/or noncommercial thinning may result in opportunities for biomass removal and 
utilization under stewardship contracts.  Increasing attention toward biomass utilization is driven 
by environmental, social, and market considerations.  The current primary and exploratory uses 
for biomass are in electricity generation, and conversion to a renewable fuel such as ethanol,  
bio-methane, and hydrogen. 
Noncommercial Thinning 
Noncommercial thinning involves manually cutting nonmerchantable trees (less than 11 inches 
diameter) to reduce fuel laddering and/or help achieve specific resource objectives.  
Noncommercial thinning would be accomplished with chainsaws or hand tools.  The activity 
fuels generated by this activity would be piled or possibly burned as jackpots unless removed for 
biomass utilization. 
Commercial Thinning 
Commercial thinning removes merchantable trees (greater than or equal to 11 inches diameter) to 
reduce the fuels in a forested canopy that allow for the development of high intensity crown 
fires. It can also improve the health and growth rate of trees remaining in a stand following 
treatment. 
Commercial harvest activities would be performed using ground-based equipment such as 
mechanical harvesters, tractors, and rubber-tired skidders.  Slash generated by the commercial 
harvest would be removed to a landing for disposal by burning or for biomass utilization if 
economically feasible.  Otherwise, activity fuels generated by commercial harvest would be piled 
within treatments units for burning.  Commercial thinning within the project area would be 
conducted under stewardship contracts. 
Conifer Cutting – Fall and Leave or Lop and Scatter (No burning) 
In some situations, conifers (most likely juniper and/or ponderosa pine trees) could be felled, 
lopped, and scattered under the proposed action.  There would be no follow-up burning when 
this treatment is applied.  A conifer cutting only treatment may be applied in mountain big 
sagebrush and low/stiff sagebrush communities that are in early stages of transition to juniper 
woodland or as a strategy to reduce juniper encroachment within stands of mountain mahogany 
or bitterbrush while maintaining existing shrubs.  It may also be applied to reduce the density of 
pine woodlands. This treatment would only be applied where risks associated with hazardous 
fuels are considered to be low. 
Appendix E 
The Five Fire Regimes 
I) 0-35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less 
than 75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 
II) 0-35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than  
75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 
III) 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 percent of the dominant 
overstory vegetation replaced); 
IV) 35-100+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than  
75 percent of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); 
V) 200+ year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity. 
Fire Regime Condition Classes  (from Hann and Bunnell 2001). 
FRCC DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL RISKS 
Condition Class 1 Within the natural (historical)range of 
variability of vegetation characteristics; 
fuel composition; fire frequency, 
severity and pattern; and other 
associated disturbances 
Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are 
similar to those that occurred prior to fire exclusion 
(suppression) and other types of management that do not 
mimic the natural fire regime and associated vegetation and 
fuel characteristics. 
Composition and structure of vegetation and fuels are similar 
to the natural (historical) regime. 
Condition Class 2 Moderate departure from the natural 
(historical) regime of vegetation 
characteristics; fuel composition; fire 
frequency, severity and pattern; and 
other associated disturbances 
Risk of loss of key ecosystem components (e.g., native 
species, large trees, and soil) are low. 
Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are 
moderately departed (more or less severe). 
Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are 
moderately altered. 
Uncharacteristic conditions range from low to moderate; risk 
of loss of key ecosystem components is moderate. 
Condition Class 3 High departure from the natural 
(historical) regime of vegetation 
characteristics; fuel composition; fire 
frequency, severity and pattern; and 
other associated disturbances 
Fire behavior, effects, and other associated disturbances are 
highly departed (more or less severe). 
Composition and structure of vegetation and fuel are highly 
altered. 
Uncharacteristic conditions range from moderate to high. 
Risk of loss of key ecosystem components are high.