i | P a g e

Table of Contents

APPENDIX A – MAJOR LEGAL AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................... 1091

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND DIRECTION............................................................................ 1097

APPENDIX C – VEGETATION MODELING........................................................................................................... 1163

APPENDIX D – MODELING LARGE STOCHASTIC WILDFIRES AND FIRE SEVERITY WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL............................................................................................................................... 1229

APPENDIX E – AIR QUALITY.............................................................................................................................. 1245

APPENDIX F – AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN ...................................................................... 1249

APPENDIX G – CLIMATE CHANGE ..................................................................................................................... 1295

APPENDIX H – FIRE AND FUELS ........................................................................................................................ 1305

APPENDIX I – FISHERIES ................................................................................................................................... 1333

APPENDIX J – BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES................................................................................................ 1345

APPENDIX K – LANDS AND REALTY .................................................................................................................. 1389

APPENDIX L – LIVESTOCK GRAZING.................................................................................................................. 1435

APPENDIX M – ENERGY AND MINERALS .......................................................................................................... 1447

APPENDIX N – RARE PLANTS AND FUNGI......................................................................................................... 1463

APPENDIX O – RECREATION............................................................................................................................. 1489

APPENDIX P – SOCIOECONOMICS .................................................................................................................... 1505

APPENDIX Q – PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATION GUIDELINES .......................................................... 1589

APPENDIX R – TRIBAL ...................................................................................................................................... 1613

APPENDIX S – OTHER WILDLIFE........................................................................................................................ 1651

APPENDIX T – NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL ........................................................................................................ 1737

APPENDIX U – WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SUITABILITY REPORT SUMMARY ....................................................... 1793

APPENDIX V – MONITORING PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED RMPS........................................................................ 1807

APPENDIX W – RESPONSES TO COMMENTS..................................................................................................... 1833

APPENDIX X – GUIDANCE FOR USE OF THE COMPLETED RMPS........................................................................ 1997
ii | P a g e

Table of Figures

FIGURE C-1. CVS PRIMARY SAMPLE UNIT DESIGN ..................................................................................................1167

FIGURE C-2. CVS PLOT LOCATIONS AND FOI UNITS ................................................................................................1168

FIGURE C-3. GRADIENT OF SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS AND REGENERATION HARVEST METHODS .........................1184

FIGURE C-4. STAND STRUCTURAL TYPES PRODUCED BY VARIOUS SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS................................1184

FIGURE C-5. CLEARCUT STAND IMMEDIATELY POST-HARVEST...............................................................................1187

FIGURE C-6. VARIABLE RETENTION (REGENERATION) HARVEST-IDEALIZED RETENTION PATTERNS......................1188

FIGURE C-7. UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT/SELECTION HARVEST – IDEALIZED HARVEST PATTERNS ..................1189

FIGURE C-8. NON-DECLINING EVEN-FLOW (TOP) AND NON-DECLINING DISCOUNTED FLOW (BOTTOM).............1220

FIGURE D-1. ANALYSIS AREA FOR MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 

HABITAT AND POPULATIONS FROM LARGE WILDFIRES (LEFT), AND BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN THE 

ANALYSIS AREA BY DISTRICT (RIGHT)..............................................................................................................1231

FIGURE D-2. ANNUAL AND DECADAL NUMBERS OF LARGE WILDFIRES (≥ 1,000 ACRES) IN THE ANALYSIS AREA 

(1970–2013)....................................................................................................................................................1233

FIGURE D-3. COMPARISON OF THREE DECADES OF OBSERVED LARGE WILDFIRE HISTORY FROM MONITORING 

TRENDS IN BURN SEVERITY FIRE OCCURRENCE DATA (LEFT) WITH THE FIRST THREE DECADES OF RANDOMLY 

GENERATED FIRE LOCATIONS (RIGHT)............................................................................................................1234

FIGURE D-4. HISTORICAL (1970–2013) WILDFIRE DISTRIBUTION BY FIRE SIZE WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE 

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL .............................................................................................................................1235

FIGURE D-5. COMPARISON OF ANNUAL PROPORTION OF AREA BURNED BY MAPPED FIRE SEVERITY FROM MTBS 

DATA FROM 1986 TO 2011 WITH MODELED SEVERITY BASED ON A THREE QUANTILE CLASSIFICATION OF THE 

FIRESEV MAP FOR THE FIVE DECADAL MODELS .............................................................................................1237

FIGURE D-6. TRENDS IN AREA BURNED BY FIRE SEVERITY CLASS ...........................................................................1238

FIGURE D-7. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AREA BURNED (BLACK SHADING) BY LARGE WILDFIRES FROM 1970 TO 2013 

(LEFT) WITH MODELED LARGE WILDFIRES OVER 5 DECADES (RIGHT) ...........................................................1239

FIGURE D-8. COMPARISON OF A LARGE WILDFIRE SUITABILITY MODEL BASED ON THE CURRENT CLIMATE NORMAL 

(LEFT) WITH SAME MODEL BASED ON PROJECTED CLIMATE NORMAL CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE AND 

PRECIPITATION BY 2060 (RIGHT) (FROM YANG ET AL. IN PREP.)....................................................................1241

FIGURE H-1. ANALYSIS AREA WITHIN THE STATE OF OREGON...............................................................................1305

FIGURE H-2. BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN THE ANALYSIS AREA.................................................................1306

FIGURE H-3. LANDSCAPE UNITS ..............................................................................................................................1313

FIGURE H-4. EXAMPLE LANDSCAPE UNIT (STRATA) DEPARTURE SUMMARY CALCULATION..................................1314

FIGURE H-5. BLM SUCCESSIONAL/STRUCTURAL STAGE (S-CLASS) DATA FOR BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE 

ANALYSIS AREA ...............................................................................................................................................1315

FIGURE H-6. GRADIENT NEAREST NEIGHBOR (GNN) S-CLASS DATA FOR THE ANALYSIS AREA ..............................1316

FIGURE H-7. BLM AND GNN S-CLASS DATA COMBINED..........................................................................................1317

FIGURE H-8. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE 

KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION IN 50 YEARS.................................................1323

FIGURE H-9. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE DRY FOREST ON THE 

MEDFORD DISTRICT FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION IN 50 YEARS.................................................................1324

FIGURE H-10. STAND-LEVEL FIRE RESISTANCE CATEGORIES IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE IN THE DRY FOREST ON 

THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT IN 50 YEARS ...........................................................................................................1325

FIGURE H-11. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE COOS BAY DISTRICT 

WITHIN THE WDA IN 2063..............................................................................................................................1326

FIGURE H-12. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE EUGENE DISTRICT WITHIN 

THE WDA IN 2063 ...........................................................................................................................................1326

FIGURE H-13. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD 

OFFICE WITHIN THE WDA IN 2063..................................................................................................................1327

FIGURE H-14. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE MEDFORD DISTRICT 

WITHIN THE WDA IN 2063..............................................................................................................................1327

FIGURE H-15. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT 

WITHIN THE WDA IN 2063..............................................................................................................................1328
iii | P a g e

FIGURE H-16. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD FOR ALL BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ON THE SALEM DISTRICT WITHIN 

THE WDA IN 2063 ...........................................................................................................................................1328

FIGURE H-17. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD IN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE 

COASTAL/NORTH IN 50 YEARS........................................................................................................................1329

FIGURE H-18. STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD IN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE IN THE DRY FOREST IN THE 

INTERIOR/SOUTH IN 50 YEARS........................................................................................................................1330

FIGURE I-1. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER STEELHEAD....1334

FIGURE I-2. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER CHINOOK SALMON

........................................................................................................................................................................1335

FIGURE I-3. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER CHUM SALMON

........................................................................................................................................................................1336

FIGURE I-4. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER COHO SALMON

........................................................................................................................................................................1337

FIGURE I-5. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER STEELHEAD......1338

FIGURE I-6. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF OREGON COAST COHO SALMON ..............1339

FIGURE I-7. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOUTHERN OREGON NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

COHO SALMON ...............................................................................................................................................1340

FIGURE I-8. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER SPRING CHINOOK 

SALMON..........................................................................................................................................................1341

FIGURE I-9. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF BULL TROUT IN THE MCKENZIE BASIN......1342

FIGURE I-10. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOST RIVER SUCKER ................................1343

FIGURE I-11. CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SHORTNOSE SUCKER...............................1344

FIGURE N-1. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ‘HOT SPOTS’ WITHIN THE DECISION AREA.................................................1463

FIGURE O-1. COOS BAY DISTRICT RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS................................................1498

FIGURE O-2. EUGENE DISTRICT RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS...................................................1499

FIGURE O-3. KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS ...............................1500

FIGURE O-4. MEDFORD DISTRICT RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS ...............................................1501

FIGURE O-5. ROSEBURG DISTRICT RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS ..............................................1502

FIGURE O-6. SALEM DISTRICT RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATIONS .....................................................1503

FIGURE T-1. FLOWCHART OF THE BLM MAXENT MODELING SEQUENCE...............................................................1741

FIGURE T-2. DISTRIBUTION OF HEXAGONS RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY SCORES AMONG VARIOUS BINS FROM 

2006 GNN MAXENT MODELS DEVELOPED BY THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE U.S. FOREST 

SERVICE ...........................................................................................................................................................1742

FIGURE T-3. BIVARIATE SCATTERPLOTS FOR SELECT 2006 GNN VARIABLES FOR THE THREE WESTERN OREGON

MODELING REGIONS (LEFT) AND 2013 WOODSTOCK VARIABLES FOR THE DECISION AREA (RIGHT) ...........1746

FIGURE T-4. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 8, 

ON THE DECISION AREA (A AND C), AND ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA 

CASCADES MODELING REGION (B) .................................................................................................................1748

FIGURE T-5. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 8 

(TOP) AND MODEL 9 (BOTTOM) ON THE DECISION AREA..............................................................................1750

FIGURE T-6. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 8 

(TOP) AND MODEL 9 (BOTTOM), ON THE DECISION AREA.............................................................................1751

FIGURE T-7. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 9 

(TOP) AND MODEL 10 (BOTTOM) ON THE DECISION AREA............................................................................1753

FIGURE T-8. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 8 

(TOP) AND MODEL 11 (BOTTOM) ON THE DECISION AREA............................................................................1755

FIGURE T-9. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTIONS OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 9 

(TOP) AND MODEL 12 (BOTTOM) ON THE DECISION AREA............................................................................1756

FIGURE T-10. NO TIMBER HARVEST: DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY BY DECADE FOR MODEL 9 

(TOP) AND MODEL 12 (BOTTOM) ON THE DECISION AREA............................................................................1757

FIGURE T-11. COMPARISONS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY AT THE HEXAGON SCALE, 

ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS (LEFT COLUMN), AND ALL LANDS (RIGHT COLUMN), IN THE OREGON AND 
iv | P a g e

CALIFORNIA KLAMATH, OREGON COAST RANGE AND THE OREGON AND CALIFORNIA CASCADES MODELING 

REGIONS (DESCRIBED BY DAVIS ET AL. 2011).................................................................................................1760

FIGURE T-12. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

2012 GNN MAXENT MODEL (LEFT) AND THE BLM 2013 WOODSTOCK MODEL 13 (RIGHT)...........................1761

FIGURE T-13. RANGEWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY VALUES AMONG TRAINING 

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL SITES FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1996 GNN MAXENT MODEL AND 

BLM’S 1996 GNN MODEL 13...........................................................................................................................1763

FIGURE T-14. RANGEWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY VALUES AMONG TEST NORTHERN 

SPOTTED OWL SITES FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 1996 GNN MAXENT MODEL AND BLM’S 1996 

GNN MODEL 13...............................................................................................................................................1763

FIGURE T-15. DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY VALUES AMONG TRAINING NORTHERN SPOTTED 

OWL SITES ON THE DECISION AREA FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2012 GNN MAXENT MODEL 

AND BLM’S 2013 WOODSTOCK MODEL 13 ....................................................................................................1765

FIGURE T-16. DISTRIBUTION OF RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY VALUES AMONG TEST NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 

SITES ON THE DECISION AREA FOR THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2012 GNN MAXENT MODEL AND 

BLM’S 2013 WOODSTOCK MODEL 13.............................................................................................................1765

FIGURE T-17. COMPARISON OF THE MEAN OF ESTIMATES OF TERRITORIAL NORTHERN SPOTTED OWLS ON EIGHT 

DEMOGRAPHIC STUDY AREAS ESTIMATED IN THE FIELD (EMPIRICAL ESTIMATES, N = MEAN OF THREE 

HIGHEST YEARS BETWEEN 1996 AND 2006) AND ESTIMATED USING THE BLM NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 

HEXSIM MODEL (MEAN FROM 20 REPLICATES OF HEXSIM AT TIME-STEP 59) ..............................................1785

FIGURE T-18. HYPOTHETICAL BARRED OWL CONTROL AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES’ PORTION OF THE NORTHERN 

SPOTTED OWL’S RANGE..................................................................................................................................1790

Table of Tables

TABLE B-1. EASTSIDE MANAGEMENT AREA – RIPARIAN RESERVE DISTANCES BY WATER FEATURE .....................1104

TABLE B-2. SNAG CREATION LEVELS WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE ................................................................1107

TABLE B-3. SNAG CREATION LEVELS WITHIN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE AND RIPARIAN RESERVE..........1115

TABLE B-4. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL RETENTION LEVELS WHEN IMPLEMENTING FUELS REDUCTION OR 

PRESCRIBED FIRE TREATMENTS WITHIN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE AND RIPARIAN RESERVE ........1115

TABLE B-5. RIPARIAN RESERVE DISTANCE BY WATER FEATURE..............................................................................1119

TABLE B-6. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS I SUBWATERSHEDS....................1119

TABLE B-7. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS II SUBWATERSHEDS...................1121

TABLE B-8. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS III SUBWATERSHEDS .................1122

TABLE B-9. RIPARIAN RESERVE DISTANCE BY WATER FEATURE..............................................................................1125

TABLE B-10. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS I SUBWATERSHEDS..................1125

TABLE B-11. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS II SUBWATERSHEDS.................1127

TABLE B-12. ZONE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR STREAMS IN CLASS III SUBWATERSHEDS................1128

TABLE B-13. CULTURAL USE ALLOCATIONS WITH DESIRED OUTCOMES AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ...............1132

TABLE B-14. ALLOTMENTS UNAVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING, COOS BAY DISTRICT....................................1138

TABLE B-15. ALLOTMENTS UNAVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING, KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE ...................1140

TABLE B-16. EXCLOSURES OR OTHER AREAS PREVIOUSLY CLOSED TO LIVESTOCK GRAZING, KLAMATH FALLS FIELD 

OFFICE.............................................................................................................................................................1140

TABLE B-17. ALLOTMENTS UNAVAILABLE FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING, MEDFORD DISTRICT ...................................1142

TABLE C-1. MODELING GROUPS USED TO DEVELOP STRATA..................................................................................1169

TABLE C-2. EXISTING STAND CONDITION CODING..................................................................................................1170

TABLE C-3. BLM WESTERN OREGON ACREAGE BY AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION AND SUSTAINED YIELD UNIT AS OF 

JANUARY 1, 2013 ............................................................................................................................................1173

TABLE C-4. BLM WESTERN OREGON ACREAGE BY AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION AND SUSTAINED YIELD UNIT AFTER 

2013 LARGE FIRE DATA ADJUSTMENT ............................................................................................................1173

TABLE C-5. PERCENTAGE OF SITE PRODUCTIVITY CLASSES WITHIN EACH SUSTAINED-YIELD UNIT .......................1174

TABLE C-6. STRATA REPRESENTATION WITH CVS SUBPLOTS..................................................................................1175
v | P a g e

TABLE C-7. RESULTS FROM NET INVENTORY COMPARISON (MMBF VOLUME)......................................................1176

TABLE C-8. EXAMPLE OF ONE FOI UNIT SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR UNIQUE AREAS .................................................1177

TABLE C-9. GIS DATA THEMES USED IN THE ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED RMP .................................................1178

TABLE C-10. MOIST VS. DRY FORESTED ACRES BY DISTRICT ...................................................................................1181

TABLE C-11. MOIST/DRY POTENTIAL VEGETATION TYPE CATEGORIZATION BY DISTRICT ......................................1181

TABLE C-12. SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS/HARVEST METHOD BY LAND USE ALLOCATION ........................................1185

TABLE C-13. SILVICULTURAL SYSTEMS SELECTED MODELING ASSUMPTIONS*......................................................1186

TABLE C-14. UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT MODELING STRATEGIES BY LAND USE ALLOCATION........................1196

TABLE C-15. TIMBER YIELD DEDUCTIONS DUE TO DEFECT AND BREAKAGE BY HARVEST STAND AGE...................1197

TABLE C-16. TIMBER YIELD DEDUCTIONS DUE TO SOIL COMPACTION...................................................................1198

TABLE C-17. TIMBER YIELD DEDUCTIONS DUE TO SNAG RETENTION BY LAND USE ALLOCATION .........................1199

TABLE C-18. TIMBER YIELD DEDUCTIONS DUE TO DOWN WOODY MATERIAL RETENTION BY THE PROPOSED RMP 

AND ALTERNATIVES AND LAND USE ALLOCATION .........................................................................................1200

TABLE C-19. TIMBER YIELD DEDUCTIONS FROM FOREGONE HARVEST VOLUME DUE TO GREEN TREE RETENTION BY 

LAND USE ALLOCATION ..................................................................................................................................1202

TABLE C-20. MINIMUM HARVEST AGE BY SITE PRODUCTIVITY CLASS FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...........1209

TABLE C-21. RESERVE HARVESTING CONSTRAINTS FOR ALTERNATIVE A ...............................................................1211

TABLE C-22. MINIMUM HARVEST AGE CONSTRAINTS BY 10-YEAR WOODSTOCK PERIOD FOR LOW INTENSITY 

TIMBER AREA AND MODERATE INTENSITY TIMBER AREA..............................................................................1213

TABLE C-23. MODELED HARVEST AND CONTRIBUTION TO ASQ.............................................................................1217

TABLE C-24. WOODSTOCK MODELING OUTPUT VARIABLES...................................................................................1221

TABLE D-1. PARAMETERS USED TO ASSIGN RANDOM POINTS A WILDFIRE SIZE BY BUFFERING THE POINT LOCATION

........................................................................................................................................................................1236

TABLE E-1. FUELS CHARACTERISTIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FUELBEDS USED IN EACH ANALYSIS GROUP TO 

ESTIMATE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM WILDFIRE...................................................................................1246

TABLE E-2. ACRES, FUEL MOISTURES, AND TARGETED CONSUMPTION RATES FOR LIVE WOODY FUELS IN EACH 

SEVERITY CLASS FOR PAST WILDFIRES............................................................................................................1247

TABLE F-1. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP.................................................................................................................................................................1251

TABLE F-2. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.............................1256

TABLE F-3. SPECIFIC RELEVANT AND IMPORTANT VALUES.....................................................................................1268

TABLE G-1. FUELS CHARACTERISTIC CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FUELBEDS USED IN EACH ANALYSIS GROUP TO 

ESTIMATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM WILDFIRE...........................................................................1302

TABLE G-2. ACRES, FUEL MOISTURES, AND TARGETED CONSUMPTION RATES FOR LIVE WOODY FUELS IN EACH 

SEVERITY CLASS FOR PAST WILDFIRES............................................................................................................1303

TABLE H-1. ILAP PVTS IN THE ANALYSIS AREA TO LANDFIRE BPS MODEL CROSSWALK .........................................1307

TABLE H-2. BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS BY S-CLASS IN TERMS OF SPECIES COMPOSITION, STAND STRUCTURE, AND

STAND AGE FOR EACH BIOPHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................................1309

TABLE H-3. NON-BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS BY S-CLASS IN TERMS OF SPECIES COMPOSITION, STAND STRUCTURE, 

AND STAND AGE FOR EACH BIOPHYSICAL SETTING .......................................................................................1310

TABLE H-4. REFERENCE CONDITION RANGE BY POTENTIAL VEGETATION TYPE (PVT)/BIOPHYSICAL SETTING (BPS)

........................................................................................................................................................................1312

TABLE H-5. ACRES OF CURRENT CONDITION FORESTED AND NON-FORESTED BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS WITHIN 

THE PLANNING AREA ......................................................................................................................................1319

TABLE H-6. BLM-DEFINED STRUCTURAL STAGES AND SUBDIVISIONS, RELATIVE STAND-LEVEL RESISTANCE TO 

REPLACEMENT FIRE RATINGS, AND ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING OVERALL FUEL PROFILE CONTINUITY, AND 

VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL FUEL CONTINUITY.............................................................................................1321

TABLE H-7. BLM-DEFINED STRUCTURAL STAGES AND SUBDIVISIONS, RELATIVE STAND-LEVEL FIRE HAZARD 

RATINGS AND ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING SURFACE FUEL LOADING, CANOPY BASE HEIGHT, AND CANOPY 

FUEL BULK DENSITY (CONTINUITY) AS THE BASIS FOR THE HAZARD RATING................................................1322

TABLE I-1. BUREAU SENSITIVE AND BUREAU STRATEGIC FISH SPECIES WITHIN THE DECISION AREA. ..................1333

TABLE J-1. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR ROADS AND LANDINGS..............................................................1348

TABLE J-2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR TIMBER HARVEST ACTIVITIES.....................................................1362
vi | P a g e

TABLE J-3. SOIL COVER BASED ON EROSION HAZARD RATINGS .............................................................................1365

TABLE J-4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PLANTING, PRE-COMMERCIAL THINNING, AND FERTILIZATION

........................................................................................................................................................................1366

TABLE J-5. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FIRE AND FUEL MANAGEMENT .................................................1366

TABLE J-6. WATER BAR SPACING BY GRADIENT AND EROSION CLASS....................................................................1371

TABLE J-7. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SURFACE SOURCE WATER FOR DRINKING WATER PROTECTION

........................................................................................................................................................................1371

TABLE J-8. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT.....................................................1373

TABLE J-9. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR LIVESTOCK GRAZING..................................................................1376

TABLE J-10. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR MINERALS (SALABLE) ...............................................................1378

TABLE J-11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SPILL PREVENTION AND ABATEMENT .....................................1379

TABLE J-12. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES........................................................1382

TABLE J-13. TIMBER PRODUCTION CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION SOIL CATEGORIES OF CONCERN........................1384

TABLE J-14. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SPECIFIC TO THE DRY FOREST (REFER TO TABLE J-13 FOR CATEGORY 

TYPE) ...............................................................................................................................................................1385

TABLE K-1. WITHDRAWAL TABLES LEGEND.............................................................................................................1391

TABLE K-2. WITHDRAWALS IN THE COOS BAY DISTRICT .........................................................................................1392

TABLE K-3. WITHDRAWALS IN THE EUGENE DISTRICT ............................................................................................1399

TABLE K-4. WITHDRAWALS IN THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE ........................................................................1403

TABLE K-5. WITHDRAWALS IN THE MEDFORD DISTRICT.........................................................................................1407

TABLE K-6. WITHDRAWALS IN THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT........................................................................................1417

TABLE K-7. WITHDRAWALS IN THE SALEM DISTRICT ..............................................................................................1421

TABLE K-8. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE COOS BAY DISTRICT...................................................................1425

TABLE K-9. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE EUGENE DISTRICT......................................................................1425

TABLE K-10. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE ................................................1426

TABLE K-11. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE MEDFORD DISTRICT ................................................................1427

TABLE K-12. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT ...............................................................1428

TABLE K-13. LAND TENURE ZONE 3 LANDS IN THE SALEM DISTRICT ......................................................................1429

TABLE K-14. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE COOS BAY DISTRICT ........................................................................1432

TABLE K-15. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE EUGENE DISTRICT............................................................................1432

TABLE K-16. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE ........................................................1433

TABLE K-17. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE MEDFORD DISTRICT ........................................................................1433

TABLE K-18. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT .......................................................................1433

TABLE K-19. COMMUNICATION SITES IN THE SALEM DISTRICT..............................................................................1434

TABLE L-1. AVAILABLE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE GRAZING ALLOTMENTS......................................................1436

TABLE L-2. AVAILABLE MEDFORD DISTRICT GRAZING ALLOTMENTS......................................................................1443

TABLE M-1. SALABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 10-YEAR SCENARIO FOR NEW OR EXPANDED QUARRY 

DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................................................1447

TABLE M-2. LOCATABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 10-YEAR SCENARIO NOTICES ..................................................1447

TABLE M-3. LOCATABLE MINERAL DEVELOPMENT 10-YEAR SCENARIO PLANS OF OPERATION ............................1448

TABLE M-4. RANKING OF DISTRICT-DESIGNATED RESERVE – LANDS MANAGED FOR THEIR WILDERNESS 

CHARACTERISTICS LANDS THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMENDED FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE 

MINERAL ENTRY..............................................................................................................................................1452

TABLE M-5. RANKING OF ELIGIBLE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND FOR 

WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY .......................................................................................1453

TABLE M-6. RANKING OF AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND FOR 

WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY .......................................................................................1454

TABLE M-7. RANKING OF SPECIAL RECREATIONAL MANAGEMENT AREAS THAT THE BLM WOULD RECOMMEND 

FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM LOCATABLE MINERAL ENTRY................................................................................1457

TABLE N-1. EXISTING CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND AGREEMENTS FOR BUREAU SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES

........................................................................................................................................................................1464

TABLE N-2. BLM SENSITIVE PLANTS AND FUNGI WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA (BLM OREGON/WASHINGTON STATE 

DIRECTOR’S SENSITIVE SPECIES LIST, JULY 2015)............................................................................................1465
vii | P a g e

TABLE N-3. SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES IN THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE......................................................1481

TABLE O-1. RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP.................................................................................................................................................................1489

TABLE P-1. PRICE DATA AND HARVEST VOLUME DATA, 2012 ................................................................................1507

TABLE P-2. SUMMARY STATISTICS ..........................................................................................................................1510

TABLE P-3. TOBIT MODEL OF DAILY TIME SPENT ON OUTDOOR RECREATION FOR WESTERN U.S. STATES IN THE 

YEARS 2007–2013, COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS..........................................................................1512

TABLE P-4. ELASTICITY OF DEMAND FOR SHIFT IN LAND FROM NON-RECREATIONAL TO RECREATIONAL 

MANAGEMENT ...............................................................................................................................................1513

TABLE P-5. RECREATION VISITATION ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES BY 

IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIO.........................................................................................................................1514

TABLE P-6. EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012 (JOBS).................................................1517

TABLE P-7. EARNINGS BY INDUSTRY BY DISTRICT MODEL AREA, 2012 (MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS)..................1518

TABLE P-8. EMPLOYMENT CONTRIBUTION OF BLM PROGRAMS TO DISTRICT MODEL AREAS BY INDUSTRY, 2012 

(JOBS)..............................................................................................................................................................1519

TABLE P-9. EARNINGS CONTRIBUTION OF BLM PROGRAMS TO DISTRICT MODEL AREAS BY INDUSTRY, 2012 

(MILLIONS OF 2012 DOLLARS) ........................................................................................................................1520

TABLE P-10. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE COOS BAY DISTRICT MODEL AREA FOR THE PROPOSED RMP

AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................1521

TABLE P-11. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE EUGENE DISTRICT MODEL AREA FOR THE PROPOSED RMP AND 

ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................................................1522

TABLE P-12. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE MODEL AREA FOR THE 

PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................1523

TABLE P-13. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE MEDFORD DISTRICT MODEL AREA FOR THE PROPOSED RMP 

AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................1524

TABLE P-14. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE ROSEBURG DISTRICT MODEL AREA FOR THE PROPOSED RMP

AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................................1525

TABLE P-15. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE SALEM-OTHER DISTRICT MODEL AREA*FOR THE PROPOSED 

RMP AND ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................................1526

TABLE P-16. EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN THE SALEM-PORTLAND MSA DISTRICT MODEL AREA*FOR THE 

PROPOSED RMP AND ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................................1527

TABLE P-17. STRATIFIED RANDOM SAMPLE OF COMMUNITIES BY POPULATION (SELECTED CITIES HIGHLIGHTED)

........................................................................................................................................................................1529

TABLE P-18. COMMUNITY CAPACITY/RESILIENCY BASELINE INPUTS......................................................................1530

TABLE P-19. SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR SELECTED CITIES IN WESTERN OREGON..........1531

TABLE P-20. SELECTED SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES WITH LAND IN THE 

PLANNING AREA, 2009 AND 2012 (1) .............................................................................................................1539

TABLE P-21. CITY OF COQUILLE INTERVIEW............................................................................................................1546

TABLE P-22. CITY OF GOLD BEACH INTERVIEW.......................................................................................................1549

TABLE P-23. CITY OF DRAIN INTERVIEW..................................................................................................................1551

TABLE P-24. CITY OF FLORENCE INTERVIEW ...........................................................................................................1554

TABLE P-25. CITY OF GRANTS PASS INTERVIEW......................................................................................................1556

TABLE P-26. CITY OF KLAMATH FALLS INTERVIEW..................................................................................................1559

TABLE P-27. JUNCTION CITY INTERVIEW.................................................................................................................1561

TABLE P-28. LINCOLN CITY INTERVIEW ...................................................................................................................1563

TABLE P-29. CITY OF MOLALLA INTERVIEW ............................................................................................................1565

TABLE P-30. CITY OF ROGUE RIVER INTERVIEW......................................................................................................1567

TABLE P-31. CITY OF ST. HELENS INTERVIEW. .........................................................................................................1569

TABLE P-32. CITY OF SUBLIMITY INTERVIEW...........................................................................................................1571

TABLE P-33. CITY OF WINSTON INTERVIEW............................................................................................................1573

TABLE P-34. CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE COMMUNITY OF OREGON INTERVIEW ..................1576

TABLE P-35. COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE INTERVIEW ..................................................................................................1578

TABLE P-36. MINORITY POPULATIONS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA.........................................1581
viii | P a g e

TABLE P-37. LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CRITERIA...................................1584

TABLE Q-1. CURRENT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA ........................1590

TABLE Q-2. PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS IN THE DECISION AREA .................................................1590

TABLE Q-3. COOS BAY DISTRICT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS ......................................................1591

TABLE Q-4. EUGENE DISTRICT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP.................................................................................................................................................................1594

TABLE Q-5. KLAMATH FALLS FIELD OFFICE PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP ..............................................................................................................................................1596

TABLE Q-6. MEDFORD DISTRICT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED 

RMP.................................................................................................................................................................1598

TABLE Q-7. ROSEBURG DISTRICT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE 

PROPOSED RMP ..............................................................................................................................................1600

TABLE Q-8. SALEM DISTRICT PUBLIC MOTORIZED ACCESS DESIGNATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROPOSED

RMP.................................................................................................................................................................1602

TABLE Q-9. CURRENT AUTHORIZED MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED TRAILS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA...1609

TABLE R-1. ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF TRIBAL LISTENING SESSIONS*....................................................................1631

TABLE R-2. LISTENING SESSION AGENDA AND FORMAT.........................................................................................1632

TABLE R-3. PLANTS OF CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE KLAMATH TRIBES..........................................................1641

TABLE R-4. COMMON CULTURAL PLANTS OF IMPORTANCE TO TRIBES IN WESTERN OREGON ............................1644

TABLE S-1. BALD EAGLE NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA .............................................1651

TABLE S-2. BALD EAGLE NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA............................................1651

TABLE S-3. GOLDEN EAGLE NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA ........................................1652

TABLE S-4. GOLDEN EAGLE NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA.......................................1652

TABLE S-5. EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA................................1653

TABLE S-6. EARLY SUCCESSIONAL FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA ..............................1653

TABLE S-7. STAND ESTABLISHMENT FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA ............................1653

TABLE S-8. STAND ESTABLISHMENT FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA...........................1654

TABLE S-9. YOUNG FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA .......................................................1654

TABLE S-10. YOUNG FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA ...................................................1654

TABLE S-11. MATURE FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA...................................................1655

TABLE S-12. MATURE FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA .................................................1655

TABLE S-13. STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA .......................1655

TABLE S-14. STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX FOREST HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA......................1656

TABLE S-15. EARLY SUCCESSIONAL, STAND ESTABLISHMENT, AND YOUNG STANDS WITH STRUCTURAL LEGACIES 

(1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3) IN THE DECISION AREA ......................................................................................................1656

TABLE S-16. MATURE AND STRUCTURALLY-COMPLEX STANDS WITH STRUCTURAL LEGACIES (4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3) IN 

THE DECISION AREA........................................................................................................................................1656

TABLE S-17. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE DECISION AREA BY STRUCTURAL GROUP ..........................1658

TABLE S-18. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE DECISION AREA BY STRUCTURAL STAGE ...........................1658

TABLE S-19. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICTS (COOS BAY, EUGENE, AND SALEM) BY 

STRUCTURAL GROUP ......................................................................................................................................1659

TABLE S-20. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICTS (COOS BAY, EUGENE, AND SALEM) BY 

STRUCTURAL STAGE........................................................................................................................................1659

TABLE S-21. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS (KLAMATH FALLS, MEDFORD, AND 

ROSEBURG) BY STRUCTURAL GROUP .............................................................................................................1660

TABLE S-22. SNAG DENSITY (TREES PER ACRE) IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS (KLAMATH FALLS, MEDFORD, AND 

ROSEBURG) BY STRUCTURAL STAGE...............................................................................................................1660

TABLE S-23. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE DECISION AREA BY STRUCTURAL GROUP ........................1661

TABLE S-24. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE DECISION AREA BY STRUCTURAL STAGE..........................1661

TABLE S-25. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICTS (COOS BAY, EUGENE, AND SALEM) BY 

STRUCTURAL GROUP ......................................................................................................................................1661

TABLE S-26. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICTS (COOS BAY, EUGENE, AND SALEM) BY 

STRUCTURAL STAGE........................................................................................................................................1662
ix | P a g e

TABLE S-27. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS (KLAMATH FALLS, MEDFORD, AND 

ROSEBURG) BY STRUCTURAL GROUP .............................................................................................................1662

TABLE S-28. DOWN WOODY MATERIAL COVER IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICTS (KLAMATH FALLS, MEDFORD, AND 

ROSEBURG) BY STRUCTURAL STAGE...............................................................................................................1663

TABLE S-29. SNAG AND DOWN WOODY MATERIAL TARGET LEVELS WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE ..............1664

TABLE S-30. SNAG AND DOWN WOODY MATERIAL TARGET LEVELS WITHIN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL RESERVE AND 

RIPARIAN RESERVE..........................................................................................................................................1664

TABLE S-31. SNAG AND DOWN WOODY MATERIAL DEFICITS (-) OR SURPLUS (+) WITHIN THE HARVEST LAND BASE

........................................................................................................................................................................1665

TABLE S-32. SNAG AND DOWN WOODY MATERIAL DEFICITS (-) OR SURPLUS (+) WITHIN THE LATE-SUCCESSIONAL 

RESERVE AND RIPARIAN RESERVE ..................................................................................................................1665

TABLE S-33. HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR BUREAU SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR SUSPECTED TO 

OCCUR IN THE DECISION AREA.......................................................................................................................1667

TABLE S-34. HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR BUREAU STRATEGIC WILDLIFE SPECIES DOCUMENTED OR SUSPECTED TO 

OCCUR IN THE DECISION AREA.......................................................................................................................1676

TABLE S-35. SURVEY AND MANAGE WILDLIFE SPECIES: HABITAT DEVELOPMENT.................................................1682

TABLE S-36. SURVEY AND MANAGE WILDLIFE SPECIES: LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF KNOWN SITES IN THE DECISION 

AREA................................................................................................................................................................1689

TABLE S-37. HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR LANDBIRD FOCAL SPECIES...................................................................1691

TABLE S-38. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER WITHIN 

THE RANGE OF THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION IN THE DECISION AREA ...................................1698

TABLE S-39. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED DEER WITHIN 

THE RANGE OF THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA .................................1698

TABLE S-40. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN CONIFER FOREST FOR THE COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED DEER WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY POPULATION IN THE DECISION AREA...........1699

TABLE S-41. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN CONIFER FOREST FOR THE COLUMBIAN WHITETAILED DEER WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA.........1699

TABLE S-42. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR DEER AND ELK IN THE DECISION AREA.........1700

TABLE S-43. HIGH-QUALITY FORAGE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT FOR DEER AND ELK IN THE PLANNING AREA .......1700

TABLE S-44. TOTAL FISHER HABITAT (DENNING, RESTING, FORAGING COMBINED) IN THE DECISION AREA ........1701

TABLE S-45. FISHER DENNING HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ............................................................................1701

TABLE S-46. FISHER RESTING HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ..............................................................................1701

TABLE S-47. FISHER FORAGING HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA...........................................................................1702

TABLE S-48. TOTAL FISHER HABITAT (DENNING, RESTING, FORAGING COMBINED) IN THE PLANNING AREA.......1702

TABLE S-49. FISHER DENNING HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA...........................................................................1702

TABLE S-50. FISHER RESTING HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA ............................................................................1703

TABLE S-51. FISHER FORAGING HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA.........................................................................1703

TABLE S-52. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ON BLMADMINISTERED LANDS....................................................................................................................................1704

TABLE S-53. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE A ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

........................................................................................................................................................................1705

TABLE S-54. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE B ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

........................................................................................................................................................................1706

TABLE S-55. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE C ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

........................................................................................................................................................................1707

TABLE S-56. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE D ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

........................................................................................................................................................................1708

TABLE S-57. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF FISHER HABITAT UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP ON BLM-ADMINISTERED 

LANDS .............................................................................................................................................................1709

TABLE S-58. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

OVER 50 YEARS (2013–2063)..........................................................................................................................1710

TABLE S-59. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER ALTERNATIVE A OVER 50 YEARS 

(2013–2063)....................................................................................................................................................1710
x | P a g e

TABLE S-60. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER ALTERNATIVE B OVER 50 YEARS 

(2013–2063)....................................................................................................................................................1710

TABLE S-61. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER ALTERNATIVE C OVER 50 YEARS 

(2013–2063)....................................................................................................................................................1710

TABLE S-62. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER ALTERNATIVE D OVER 50 YEARS 

(2013–2063)....................................................................................................................................................1711

TABLE S-63. FISHER HABITAT HARVESTED BY THE END OF EACH DECADE UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP OVER 50

YEARS (2013–2063).........................................................................................................................................1711

TABLE S-64. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE......................1711

TABLE S-65. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER ALTERNATIVE A .............................................1712

TABLE S-66. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER ALTERNATIVE B .............................................1712

TABLE S-67. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER ALTERNATIVE C .............................................1712

TABLE S-68. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER ALTERNATIVE D .............................................1712

TABLE S-69. FISHER POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP .....................................1713

TABLE S-70. FISHER POPULATION FORECAST IN THE PLANNING AREA UNDER THE NO TIMBER HARVEST REFERENCE 

ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................................1713

TABLE S-71. WOLF POPULATION, CONTROL, AND DEPREDATION IN OREGON......................................................1714

TABLE S-72. WOLF POPULATION, CONTROL, AND DEPREDATION IN THE NORTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

POPULATION...................................................................................................................................................1714

TABLE S-73. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA.............................1715

TABLE S-74. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA....1715

TABLE S-75. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA...........................1715

TABLE S-76. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA ..1716

TABLE S-77. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER THE NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ..............................................................................................1716

TABLE S-78. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER THE NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVE ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS.................................................................................1716

TABLE S-79. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE A ON BLMADMINISTERED LANDS....................................................................................................................................1717

TABLE S-80. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE A ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ...........................................................................................1717

TABLE S-81. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE B ON BLMADMINISTERED LANDS....................................................................................................................................1717

TABLE S-82. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE B ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ...........................................................................................1718

TABLE S-83. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE C ON BLMADMINISTERED LANDS....................................................................................................................................1718

TABLE S-84. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE C ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ...........................................................................................1718

TABLE S-85. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER ALTERNATIVE D ON BLMADMINISTERED LANDS....................................................................................................................................1719

TABLE S-86. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE D ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ...........................................................................................1719

TABLE S-87. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP ON 

BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ...........................................................................................................................1720

TABLE S-88. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF HIGH-QUALITY MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT UNDER THE 

PROPOSED RMP ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS ..........................................................................................1720

TABLE S-89. INTERPRETATION OF THE KAPPA STATISTIC........................................................................................1720

TABLE S-90. CROSS-TABULATION OF STRUCTURAL STAGES USED IN THE PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS COMPARED 

WITH HABITAT CLASSES FROM FALXA AND RAPHAEL (2015).........................................................................1722

TABLE S-91. CROSS-TABULATION OF MARBLED MURRELET HABITAT CLASS (FROM RACHAEL ET AL. 2015) HIGHQUALITY VS. NON-HIGH QUALITY NESTING HABITAT.....................................................................................1723
xi | P a g e

TABLE S-92. CROSS-TABULATION OF MARBLED MURRELET HABITAT CLASS (FROM RAPHAEL ET AL. 2015) HIGHQUALITY NESTING HABITAT, LOW-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT, AND NON-HABITAT....................................1723

TABLE S-93. CROSS-TABULATION OF MARBLED MURRELET HABITAT CLASS (FROM RAPHAEL ET AL. 2015) NESTING 

HABITAT VS. NON-HABITAT ............................................................................................................................1724

TABLE S-94. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE 

DECISION AREA ...............................................................................................................................................1725

TABLE S-95. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT IN THE DECISION AREA ....................................................................................................................1725

TABLE S-96. MARBLED MURRELET HIGH-QUALITY NESTING HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL 

HABITAT IN THE PLANNING AREA...................................................................................................................1725

TABLE S-97. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF DESIGNATED MARBLED MURRELET CRITICAL HABITAT ........................1726

TABLE S-98. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF DESIGNATED MARBLED MURRELET CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN ZONE 1

........................................................................................................................................................................1726

TABLE S-99. LAND USE ALLOCATIONS OF DESIGNATED MARBLED MURRELET CRITICAL HABITAT WITHIN ZONE 2

........................................................................................................................................................................1726

TABLE S-100. KNOWN MARBLED MURRELET SITES AND PAST SURVEY EFFORT IN THE PLANNING AREA .............1727

TABLE S-101. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...........................................................................................................1727

TABLE S-102. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A...................................................................................................................................1728

TABLE S-103. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE B...................................................................................................................................1728

TABLE S-104. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE C...................................................................................................................................1729

TABLE S-105. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE D ..................................................................................................................................1729

TABLE S-106. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES DISCOVERED OR LOST 

UNDER THE PROPOSED RMP ..........................................................................................................................1730

TABLE S-107. DECADAL FORECAST (2013–2063) OF MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITES EXPECTED UNDER THE 

NO HARVEST REFERENCE ANALYSIS................................................................................................................1730

TABLE S-108. NORTH OREGON COAST DPS OF THE RED TREE VOLE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE DECISION AREA

........................................................................................................................................................................1730

TABLE S-109. NORTH OREGON COAST DPS OF THE RED TREE VOLE HABITAT DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING 

AREA................................................................................................................................................................1731

TABLE S-110. NORTH OREGON COAST DPS OF THE RED TREE VOLE HABITAT IN THE HARVEST LAND BASE .........1731

TABLE S-111. RE-CLASSIFICATION OF NON-FOREST HABITATS FROM GNN............................................................1732

TABLE S-112. NON-FOREST HABITAT WITHIN THE DECISION AND PLANNING AREAS............................................1734

TABLE S-113. CROSS-WALK OF GNN STRUCCOND TO WOODSTOCK STRUCTURAL STAGES...................................1735

TABLE S-114. ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STRUCTURAL STAGES ON NON-BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS

........................................................................................................................................................................1736

TABLE T-1. MODEL 13 VARIABLES AND PERCENT CONTRIBUTIONS BY MODELING REGION..................................1758

TABLE T-2. METRICS, CALCULATED FROM DATA DEVELOPED BY DAVIS ET AL. (2011), USED TO FORECAST DECADAL 

(1996–2006) LOSSES OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL DISPERSAL AND NESTING-ROOSTING HABITAT FROM 

TIMBER HARVEST ON LANDS OTHER THAN BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA...............1768

TABLE T-3. CHANGES, CALCULATED FROM DATA DEVELOPED BY DAVIS ET AL. (2011), IN RELATIVE HABITAT 

SUITABILITY VALUES FROM TIMBER HARVESTS OCCURRING IN NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL HABITAT BETWEEN 

1996 AND 2006 BY PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE AND NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN LAND USE ALLOCATION..1770

TABLE T-4. A COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED ACRES OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL NESTING-ROOSTING HABITAT 

ON FEDERAL LANDS AS CALCULATED BY THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND THE BLM.......................................1772

TABLE T-5. A COMPARISON OF THE ESTIMATED ACRES OF NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL DISPERSAL HABITAT ON ALL 

LANDS IN WESTERN OREGON AS CALCULATED BY THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE AND BY THE BLM...................1774
xii | P a g e

TABLE T-6. A COMPARISON OF DECADAL RATES OF CHANGE IN RELATIVE HABITAT SUITABILITY VALUE ON NONFEDERAL LANDS FROM LARGE WILDFIRES, TIMBER HARVEST AND FOREST INGROWTH, BY STRENGTH-OFSELECTION CATEGORY AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE, USING FOUR METHODS DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT1779

TABLE T-7. BARRED OWL ENCOUNTER RATES USED BY THE BLM FOR THE DRAFT RMP/EIS AND PROPOSED 

RMP/FINAL EIS ................................................................................................................................................1787

TABLE U-1. ALL ELIGIBLE WILD AND SCENIC RIVER SEGMENTS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA................................1794

TABLE U-2. ELIGIBLE RIVERS WITHIN THE DECISION AREA THAT THE BLM IDENTIFIED AS MEETING SUITABILITY 

CRITERIA..........................................................................................................................................................1796

TABLE U-3. LITTLE NORTH SANTIAM RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ................................................................................1797

TABLE U-4. NORTH FORK SILETZ RIVER STUDY SEGMENT.......................................................................................1797

TABLE U-5. ROGUE RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ...........................................................................................................1797

TABLE U-6. SANDY RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ............................................................................................................1798

TABLE U-7. TABLE ROCK FORK MOLALLA RIVER STUDY SEGMENT .........................................................................1798

TABLE U-8. WEST FORK ILLINOIS RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ......................................................................................1798

TABLE V-1. EXAMPLE OF TABLE 1–FUNCTIONING CONDITION STATUS FROM USDI TR-1737-9 (1993) .................1813

TABLE V-2. DECADE 1 MODELED ACRES BY TREATMENT TYPE BY HARVEST LAND BASE SUB-ALLOCATION..........1825

TABLE V-3. DECADE 2 MODELED ACRES BY TREATMENT TYPE BY HARVEST LAND BASE SUB-ALLOCATION..........1826

TABLE V-4. MARBLED MURRELET SURVEY REPORTING ..........................................................................................1829

TABLE V-5. MARBLED MURRELET OCCUPIED SITE ..................................................................................................1829

TABLE V-6. MARBLED MURRELET NESTING HABITAT MODIFIED OR REMOVED WITHOUT SURVEYS ....................1829

TABLE V-7. SURVEY REPORTING FOR THE NORTH OREGON COAST DPS OF THE RED TREE VOLE..........................1830

TABLE W-1. COMPARISON OF NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN AQUATIC CONSERVATION STRATEGY OBJECTIVES AND 

THE PROPOSED RMP.......................................................................................................................................1842

Table of Maps

MAP F-1. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA...................................1250

MAP R-1. TRIBAL LANDS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COOS, LOWER UMPQUA, AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

........................................................................................................................................................................1616

MAP R-2. TRIBAL LANDS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF GRANDE RONDE .....................................................1618

MAP R-3. TRIBAL LANDS OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ INDIANS .......................................................1622

MAP R-4. ANCESTRAL HOMELANDS AND AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO THE COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE ............1625

MAP R-5. TRIBAL LANDS OF THE COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF INDIANS...........................................1627

MAP R-6. TRIBAL LANDS OF THE KLAMATH TRIBES ................................................................................................1630

MAP U-1. LITTLE NORTH SANTIAM RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ..................................................................................1799

MAP U-2. NORTH FORK SILETZ RIVER STUDY SEGMENT.........................................................................................1800

MAP U-3. ROGUE RIVER STUDY SEGMENT..............................................................................................................1801

MAP U-4. SANDY RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ..............................................................................................................1802

MAP U-5. TABLE ROCK FORK – MOLALLA RIVER STUDY SEGMENT.........................................................................1803

MAP U-6. WEST FORK ILLINOIS RIVER STUDY SEGMENT ........................................................................................1804
1091 | P a g e

Appendix A – Major Legal Authorities

The following is a list of the major legal authorities1that are relevant to the BLM land use planning 

process, including laws, executive orders, and secretarial orders: 

Laws

 The Oregon and California Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 1937 (O&C 

Act) as amended, (43 U.S.C. 1181a, et seq.) provides the legal authority for management of O&C 

lands by the Secretary of the Interior. The O&C Act requires that the O&C lands be managed “for 

permanent forest production, and the timber thereon shall be sold, cut, and removed in conformity 

with the principal (sic) of sustained yield for the purpose of providing a permanent source of 

timber supply, protecting watersheds, regulating stream flow, and contributing to the economic 

stability of local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.”

 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.), provides the authority for BLM land use planning. The following are the more relevant 

sections:

o Sec. 102 (a) (7) and (8) sets forth the policy of the United States concerning management 

of the public lands.

o Sec. 201 requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain an inventory of the 

public lands and their resource and other values, giving priority to areas of critical 

environmental concern (ACECs), and, as funding and workforce are available, to 

determine the boundaries of the public lands, provide signs and maps to the public, and 

provide inventory data to State and local governments.

o Sec. 202 (a) requires the Secretary, with public involvement, to develop, maintain, and 

when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide by tracts or areas for the use of the 

public lands.

o Sec. 202 (c) (1–9) requires that, in developing land use plans, the BLM shall use and 

observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; use a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach; give priority to the designation and protection of areas of 

critical environmental concern; rely, to the extent it is available, on the inventory of the 

public lands; consider present and potential uses of the public lands; consider the relative 

scarcity of the values involved and the availability of alternative means and sites for 

realization of those values; weigh long-term benefits to the public against short-term 

benefits; provide for compliance with applicable pollution control laws, including State 

and Federal air, water, noise, or other pollution standards or implementation plans; and 

consider the policies of approved State and tribal land resource management programs, 

developing land use plans that are consistent with State and local plans to the maximum 

extent possible consistent with Federal law and the purposes of this Act.

o Sec. 202 (d) provides that all public lands, regardless of classification, are subject to 

inclusion in land use plans, and that the Secretary may modify or terminate classifications 

consistent with land use plans.

o Sec. 202 (f) and Sec. 309 (e) provide that Federal, State, and local governments and the 

public be given adequate notice and an opportunity to comment on the formulation of 

standards and criteria for, and to participate in, the preparation and execution of plans and 

programs for management of the public lands.

 

1 This is not a complete list of all the legal authorities that direct BLM management.
1092 | P a g e

o Sec. 302 (a) requires the Secretary to manage BLM lands under the principles of multiple 

use and sustained yield, in accordance with available land use plans developed under Sec. 

202 of FLPMA. There is one exception: where a tract of the BLM lands has been 

dedicated to specific uses according to other provisions of law, it shall be managed in 

accordance with such laws.

o Sec. 302 (b) recognizes the entry and development rights of mining claimants, while 

directing the Secretary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands.

o Sec. 701 (b) provides that notwithstanding any provision of FLPMA, in the event of 

conflict with or inconsistency between FLPMA and the O&C Act, insofar as they relate 

to management of timber resources and disposition of revenues from lands and resources, 

the O&C Act shall prevail.

 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental 

impacts of major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

This includes consideration of alternatives and mitigation of impacts.

 The Clean Air Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7418), requires Federal agencies to comply 

with all Federal, State, and local requirements regarding control and abatement of air pollution. 

This includes abiding by requirements of State Implementation Plans.

 The Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251), establishes objectives to restore and 

maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water.

 The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, as amended (16 U.S.C. 6501), contains a variety of 

provisions to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of 

Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. It also provides other 

authorities and direction to help reduce hazardous fuels and restore healthy forest and rangeland 

conditions on lands of all ownerships.

 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1323), requires Federal 

land managers to comply with all Federal, State, and local requirements, administrative 

authorities, process, and sanctions regarding the control and abatement of water pollution in the 

same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

 The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 201), is designed to make the 

Nation’s waters ‘drinkable’ as well as ‘swimmable.’ Amendments in 1996 establish a direct 

connection between safe drinking water and watershed protection and management.

 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.):

o Provides a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species 

depend may be conserved and provides a program for the conservation of such 

endangered and threatened species (Sec. 1531 [b], Purposes).

o Requires all Federal agencies to seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and 

utilize applicable authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Endangered Species 

Act (Sec. 1531 [c] [1], Policy).

o Requires all Federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of any species 

that is listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, or destroying or 

adversely modifying its designated or proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536 [a], Interagency 

Cooperation).
1093 | P a g e

o Requires all Federal agencies to consult (or confer) in accordance with Sec. 7 of the ESA 

with the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that any Federal action (including land use 

plans) or activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species listed 

or proposed to be listed under the provisions of the ESA, or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated or proposed critical habitat (Sec. 1536 [a], 

Interagency Cooperation, and 50 CFR 402).

 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), decrees that all 

migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) are fully protected. The 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United States’

commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the 

protection of a shared migratory bird resource. 

 The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), requires Federal 

land management agencies to identify potential river systems, and then study these rivers for 

potential designation as wild, scenic, or recreational rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act also 

provides for agencies to manage designated rivers to protect their outstanding values.

 The Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), authorizes the President to 

make recommendations to Congress for Federal lands to be set aside for preservation as 

wilderness. The Wilderness Act also provides for agencies to manage designated wilderness to 

protect wilderness values.

 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. § 320301 et seq.), protects cultural resources on Federal 

lands and authorizes the President to designate National Monuments on Federal lands.

 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.), 

expands protection of historic and archaeological properties to include those of national, State, 

and local significance and directs Federal agencies to consider the effects of proposed actions on 

properties eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places. The National 

Historic Preservation Act also directs the pro-active management of historic resources.

 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq.), establishes a 

national policy to protect and preserve the right of American Indians to exercise traditional Indian 

religious beliefs or practices.

 The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to lease or convey BLM lands for recreational and public purposes 

under specified conditions.

 The Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 U.S.C. 201 (a) (3) (A) (i)), requires that 

coal leases be issued in conformance with a comprehensive land use plan.

 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.), requires 

application of unsuitability criteria prior to coal leasing and to proposed mining operations for 

minerals or mineral materials other than coal.

 The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), authorizes the 

development and conservation of oil and gas resources.
1094 | P a g e

 The Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), provides that a 

study be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences and the Comptroller General that 

results in recommendations for improvements which may be necessary to ensure the following are 

adequately addressed in Federal land use plans:

o Potential oil and gas resources are identified.

o The social, economic, and environmental consequences of exploration for and 

development of oil and gas resources are determined.

o Any stipulations to be applied to oil and gas leases are clearly identified.

 The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), allows the location, use, 

and patenting of mining claims on sites on public domain lands of the United States.

 The Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21a) establishes a policy of 

fostering the orderly development of economically stable mining and minerals industries and 

studying methods for reclamation and the disposal of waste.

 The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended, (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior “to establish grazing districts, or additions thereto and/or to modify the boundaries 

thereof of vacant, inappropriate and unreserved lands from any part of the public domain . . . 

which in his opinion are chiefly valuable for grazing and raising forage crops[.] . . .” The Act also 

provides for classification of lands for particular uses.

Executive Orders

 Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 (both titled Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands; 37 

FR 2877 and 42 FR 26959, respectively) establish policies and procedures to ensure that off-road 

vehicle use shall be controlled to protect public lands.

 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires Federal agencies to take action to 

minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural 

and beneficial values of wetlands.

 Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations; 49 FR 7629), requires that each Federal agency 

consider the impacts of its programs on minority and low-income populations.

 Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites; 61 FR 26771), requires Federal agencies to the 

extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions 

to:

o Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious 

practitioners; and

o Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.

 Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; 65 FR 

218) provides, in part, that each Federal agency shall establish regular and meaningful 
1095 | P a g e

consultation and collaboration with Indian tribal governments in developing regulatory practices 

on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.

 Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species; 64 FR 6183) provides that no Federal agency shall 

authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction 

or spread of invasive species unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has 

determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh 

the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to 

minimize risk or harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

 Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds; 66 FR 

3853) directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, in coordination with Federal agencies and Executive 

departments, to take certain actions to further the implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act in promoting conservation of migratory bird populations.

 Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation; 72 FR 

46537) provides, in part, that Federal agencies shall, consistent with agency missions evaluate the 

effects of agency actions on game species and their habitats; manage wildlife and wildlife habitats 

on public lands in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities; work 

collaboratively with State governments to manage and conserve game species and their habitats; 

and seek the advice of State fish and wildlife agencies.

 Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic 

Performance; 74 FR 52117) directs agencies to measure, manage, and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions toward agency-defined targets for agency actions such as vehicle fleet and building 

management.

 Executive Order 13653 (Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change) directs 

agencies to assess climate change related impacts on and risks to the agency’s ability to 

accomplish its missions, operations, and programs and consider the need to improve climate 

adaptation and resilience.

Secretarial Orders

 Secretarial Order 3175 (Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources), incorporated 

into the Departmental Manual at 512 DM 2, requires that if Department of the Interior (DOI) 

agency actions might impact Indian trust resources, the agency must explicitly address those 

potential impacts in planning and decision documents, as well as consult with the tribal 

government whose trust resources are potentially affected by the Federal action.

 Secretarial Order 3215 (Principles for the Discharge of the Secretary’s Trust Responsibility), 

incorporated into the Departmental Manual at 303 DM2, provides guidance to the employees of 

the DOI who are responsible for carrying out the Secretary’s trust responsibility as it pertains to 

Indian trust assets.

 Secretarial Order 3289A1 (Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, 

and Other Natural and Cultural Resources) establishes a Department-wide approach for applying 

scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective 

response to its impacts on tribes and on the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural 

heritage resources that the Department manages.
1096 | P a g e

 Secretarial Order 3308 (Management of the National Landscape Conservation System) seeks to 

further the purposes of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which established the 

National Landscape Conservation System under the jurisdiction of the BLM in order to conserve, 

protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, 

and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations, and the President’s initiative 

on America’s Great Outdoors. 

 Secretarial Order 3310 (Protecting Wilderness Characteristics on Lands Managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management) affirms that the protection of the wilderness characteristics of public lands 

is a high priority for the BLM, and is an integral component of its multiple use mission; provides 

direction to the BLM regarding its obligation to maintain wilderness resource inventories on a 

regular and continuing basis for public lands under its jurisdiction; and further directs the BLM to 

protect wilderness characteristics through land use planning and project-level decisions unless it 

is determined that impairment of wilderness characteristics is appropriate and consistent with 

other applicable requirements of law and other resource management considerations.

 Secretarial Order 3330 (Improving Mitigation Policies and Practices of the Department of the 

Interior) establishes a Department-wide mitigation strategy that will ensure consistency and 

efficiency in the review and permitting of infrastructure development projects and in conserving 

our Nation's valuable natural and cultural resources.

 Secretarial Order 3335 (Reaffirmation of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Federally 

Recognized Indian Tribes and Individual Indian Beneficiaries) sets forth guiding principles that 

bureaus and offices will follow to ensure that the DOI fulfills its trust responsibility.
1097 | P a g e

Appendix B – Management Objectives and 

Direction

This section identifies the management objectives and direction that would apply under the Proposed 

RMP. Appendix B of the Draft RMP/EIS includes management objectives and direction for action 

alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/EIS, which is incorporated here by reference.

Management objectives are descriptions of desired outcomes for BLM-administered lands and resources

in an RMP; the resource conditions that the BLM envisions or desires would eventually result from 

implementation of the RMP. As such, management objectives are not rules, restrictions, or requirements 

by which the BLM determines which implementation actions to conduct or how to design specific 

implementation actions. Through effectiveness monitoring, the BLM will assess whether implementing 

actions in accordance with the management direction is achieving the management objectives of the RMP 

(Appendix V).

Management direction identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed and what restrictions or 

requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve the objectives set for the BLMadministered lands and resources. Through implementation monitoring, the BLM will assess whether the 

BLM is implementing actions in accordance with management direction of the RMP (Appendix V).

Following approval of the RMP, the BLM will take actions that are specifically provided for in the RMP, 

or if not specifically mentioned, clearly consistent with the terms, conditions, and decisions of the RMP, 

consistent with 43 CFR 1601.0–5(b) and 43 CFR 1610.5–3.

Proposed RMP

The Proposed RMP includes management objectives and management direction for land use allocations 

and for resource programs. The management objectives and management direction described for land use 

allocations apply only within that land use allocation. The management objectives and management 

direction described for resource programs apply across land use allocations, unless otherwise noted.

In the Proposed RMP, the Harvest Land Base and Late-Successional Reserve have specific, mapped suballocations, some of which have differing management objectives or management direction. For these 

sub-allocations, the management objectives and management direction of the broader allocation apply, as 

well as the management objectives or management direction specific to that sub-allocation. For example, 

the Harvest Land Base includes three sub-allocations: Low Intensity Timber Area, Moderate Intensity 

Timber Area, and Uneven-Aged Timber Area. In each of these three sub-allocations, both the 

management objectives and management direction described below for the Harvest Land Base and the 

individual sub-allocation applies.

In addition, the Riparian Reserve has differing management objectives and management direction for 

Riparian Reserve west of Highway 97 (i.e., in the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem 

Districts, and the portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office west of Highway 97) and Riparian Reserve 

east of Highway 97 (i.e., within the Eastside Management Area in the Klamath Falls Field Office). 

Although the management objectives are the same for all of the Riparian Reserve west of Highway 97, 

the management direction varies among three classes of subwatersheds. In addition, for the Riparian 

Reserve west of Highway 97, some management direction varies for the sub-allocations of the Riparian 

Reserve – Moist and Riparian Reserve – Dry.
1098 | P a g e

The Proposed RMP requires the future allocation of marbled murrelet occupied stands2to the LateSuccessional Reserve for occupied sites identified3

after March 26, 2015 as a result of BLM marbled 

murrelet surveys in (1) all land use allocations within 35 miles of the Pacific Coast, and (2) LateSuccessional Reserve and Riparian Reserve between 35–50 miles from the Pacific Coast and outside of 

exclusion Areas C and D (shown in Figure 3-166). In addition, the Proposed RMP requires the future 

allocation of red tree vole “habitat areas”4to the Late-Successional Reserve for occupied sites identified 

as a result of BLM red tree vole surveys within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population 

Segment of the red tree vole north of Highway 20.

 

2 Marbled murrelet occupied stand refers to all forest stands, regardless of age or structure, within 1/4 mile (1,320 

feet) of the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy and not separated from the location of 

marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy by more than 328 feet of non-forest.

3

In this context, “identified after March 26, 2015,” means that survey data for occupied marbled murrelet sites was 

entered into the BLM corporate database after March 26, 2015.

4 Red tree vole “habitat areas” are described in the management direction below.
1099 | P a g e

Land Use Allocations

Congressionally Reserved Lands and the National Landscape 

Conservation System

Management Objectives

 Conserve, protect, and restore the identified outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values of 

the National Landscape Conservation System and other congressionally designated lands.

 Preserve the wilderness character of designated Wilderness Areas.

 Preserve wilderness characteristics in Wilderness Study Areas in accordance with non-impairment 

standards as defined under the management policy for Wilderness Study Areas (BLM Manual 6330 –

Management of BLM Wilderness Study Areas; USDI BLM 2012), until Congress either designates 

these lands as Wilderness or releases them for other purposes.

 Protect and enhance the free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values of 

eligible, suitable, and designated Wild and Scenic River corridors.5

 Provide protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors that are suitable for inclusion as components of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system until Congress makes a decision on designation.

 Provide protection to Wild and Scenic River corridors that are eligible but have not yet been studied 

for suitability as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers system pending suitability 

evaluations.

Management Direction

 In designated Wilderness Areas, exclude all prohibited uses of Wilderness (as defined in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 and BLM Manual 6340 – Management of Designated Wilderness (USDI 

BLM 2012)), unless they have been demonstrated to be the minimum necessary (using the minimum 

requirements decision guide) to administer the area for the purposes of the Wilderness Act.

 Provide for the enjoyment and appreciation of the resources, qualities, values, and associated settings 

and primary uses within National Trail rights-of-way (including those classified as Scenic, Historical, 

and Recreational) and for which National Trails are designated.

 Enhance, promote, and protect the scenic, natural, and cultural resource values associated with current 

and future designated National Scenic and Historic Trails.

 Conduct silvicultural treatments in National Trail management corridors (including those classified as 

Scenic, Historical, and Recreational) only as needed to protect or maintain recreation setting 

characteristics or to achieve recreation objectives.

 Conduct management actions, including but not limited to fuels treatments, invasive species 

management, riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, forest management, and trail construction, in 

Wild and Scenic River corridors only if consistent with designated or tentative classifications and if

any reductions in outstandingly remarkable values would be temporary and outstandingly remarkable 

values would be protected or enhanced over the long term. 

 Do not use ground-disturbing equipment or aerial application of non-fugitive retardant in areas visible 

from the river within Wild and Scenic River corridors during wildfire management operations, except 

where the wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety or private property, or where use is essential for 

wildfire control.

 Conserve and develop the scenic, natural, and historic values of the Yaquina Head Outstanding 

Natural Area, and allow the continued use of the area for the purposes for which it was designated.

 

5 Wild and Scenic River corridors include all of the river classifications – Wild, Scenic, and Recreational.
1100 | P a g e

District-Designated Reserves

Management Objectives

 Maintain the values and resources for which the BLM has reserved these areas from sustained-yield 

timber production.

Management Direction

 Manage constructed facilities and infrastructure, such as seed orchards, roads, buildings, quarries, 

communication sites, pump chances, heliponds, and maintenance yards, as needed for the purposes 

for which the BLM constructed them.

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Logs may be 

retained as down woody debris, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or 

removed through a commercial harvest.

 Manage seed orchards consistent with the Seed Orchard Records of Decision for Integrated Pest 

Management (Eugene, Medford, Salem Districts; USDI BLM 2005a, 2006, 2005b).

District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification

Management Objectives

 See District-Designated Reserves management objectives.

Management Direction

 Manage areas identified as unsuitable for sustained-yield timber production through the Timber 

Production Capability Classification system, for other uses if those uses are compatible with the 

reason for which the BLM has reserved these lands (as identified by the Timber Production 

Capability Classification codes (USDI BLM 1984)).

 Apply silvicultural or fuels treatments, including prescribed fire, that restore or maintain communitylevel structural characteristics, promote desired species composition, and emulate ecological 

conditions produced by historic fire regimes, in areas identified as unsuitable for sustained-yield 

timber production through the Timber Production Capability Classification system, 

 Designate additional lands as District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability 

Classification through updates to the Timber Production Capability Classification system and remove 

those lands from the Harvest Land Base when examinations indicate that those lands meet the criteria 

for reservation. 

 Un-designate lands as District-Designated Reserve – Timber Production Capability Classification and 

return those lands to the Harvest Land Base through updates to the Timber Production Capability 

Classification system when examinations indicate that those lands do not meet the criteria for 

reservation.
1101 | P a g e

District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics6

Management Objectives

 Protect wilderness characteristics (i.e., roadlessness, naturalness, opportunities for solitude and 

primitive unconfined recreation, and identified supplemental values), while allowing competing 

resource demands that do not conflict with preserving long-term wilderness characteristics.

Management Direction

 Allow mechanical vegetation treatment consistent with Visual Resource Management Class II for the 

purpose of improving ecological condition, contributing to threatened or endangered species 

recovery, or enhancing long-term wilderness characteristics.

 Do not construct new buildings or new temporary or permanent roads.

 Allow fuels treatments, invasive species management, riparian or wildlife habitat improvements, 

forest management, and other vegetation management only if any reductions in wilderness 

characteristics are temporary and wilderness characteristics are protected over the long term.

 Do not use ground-disturbing equipment or aerial application of non-fugitive retardant during wildfire 

management operations, except where the wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety or private 

property or where use is essential for wildfire control.

 For lands identified for protection of wilderness characteristics where the BLM-administered lands 

rely on adjoining Federal lands being managed to protect the same values to meet the size criteria 

(BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands; USDI BLM 

2012) and the agency managing the adjoining lands revises its land use plan to no longer protect 

wilderness characteristics, the BLM-administered lands will no longer meet the minimum size criteria 

and thus will no longer possess wilderness characteristics.

o The BLM will no longer protect wilderness characteristics on these lands and the accompanying 

land use plan allocations (e.g., right-of-way exclusion, Visual Resource Management Class II) 

applied specifically to protect the wilderness characteristics will automatically be dropped as part

of plan maintenance.

o The BLM will then manage these lands consistent with the land use allocations, management 

objectives, and management direction of comparable or adjacent BLM-administered lands.

Eastside Management Area

Eastside Management Area – Forested Lands

Management Objectives

 Manage forested lands on a sustainable basis for multiple uses including wildlife and riparian 

habitats, recreational needs, cultural resources, community stability, and commodity production, 

including commercial timber and other forest products.

 Promote development of fire-resilient forests.

 Offer for sale the probable sale quantity of 350 Mbf of timber per year.

 

6 These objectives and direction apply to lands outside of designated Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas 

that the BLM has identified as having wilderness characteristics and for which the BLM is proposing to manage for 

the protection of those wilderness characteristics.
1102 | P a g e

Management Direction

 Utilize uneven-aged management when managing forest stands. This will include use of harvesting 

methods such as thinning, single tree selection harvest, and group selection harvest.

 Conduct uneven-aged management harvests for the removal and sale of timber or biomass. Harvests 

will be applied to stands of any age, and throughout all diameters, for any of the following purposes:

o Maintain growth and vigor of the stand.

o Adjust stand composition or structure.

o Reduce stand susceptibility to natural disturbance such as fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation.

o Improve merchantability and value.

o Promote multi-structural conditions in forest stands.

 Retain an overstory component of trees in uneven-aged management harvest units to provide shade, 

reduce wind speed, and promote overall fire resiliency in the stand. Maintain relative density between 

15 and 55, but allow relative density to vary outside of this range based on vegetative type, site 

productivity, and fire risk factors such as slope, aspect, and elevation.

 Incorporate group selection harvest of up to 5 acres in size individually, and an aggregate level of up 

to 25 percent of the area of the treated stand within uneven-aged management harvest units.

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances as needed to recover economic value and to 

minimize commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees. Retain overstory trees as needed within 

regeneration harvest areas to provide for seedling shade, frost protection, seeding, or other 

silvicultural needs.

 Convert lands historically supporting conifer species (other than juniper) that are currently growing 

primarily brush or hardwoods to conifer species suitable to the site.

 Conduct prescribed burns, and mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or improve 

fire resilient conditions.

 Apply pre-commercial thinning to forest stands to achieve long-term management objectives.

 Apply pruning to enhance timber value and for fuels and disease management.

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down 

woody material.

 Create new snags when the existing level of snags > 16” DBH is less than 2 snags per acre on the 

average over the treatment stand, to meet this level. When the existing level of down woody debris 

over 12” in diameter and 12 feet in length is less than a total of 40 feet per acre on average over the 

treatment stand, create new down woody debris to meet this level. In addition:

o Snag and down woody material levels described above will be met by any combination of the 

creation of new snags and down woody material from live conifer trees and the retention of 

existing levels of snags (decay classes I and II) and down woody material (decay classes I and II)

(USDI BLM 2010). If existing levels of snags and down woody material are insufficient to meet 

these levels in a thinning project, the desired levels can be satisfied by including in the project 

decision the creation of snags and down woody material to meet these levels within 5 years after 

completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale or completion of associated fuels treatment.

o Snag and down woody material retention or creation levels will be met at the scale of the harvest 

unit and are not intended to be attained on every acre. Snag and down woody material retention 

will be variable per acre throughout the treatment area.
1103 | P a g e

o If the pre-harvest quadratic mean diameter of the stand is less than 16”, then the snags to be 

created or retained will be 2 snags per acre on average over the treatment stand with a diameter 

larger than the quadratic mean diameter of the stand.

Eastside Management Area – Non-forested Lands

Management Objectives

 Manage non-forested lands with the intent of maintaining or improving wildlife habitat and rangeland 

conditions based on ecological site parameters. Where conditions are currently late seral or potential 

natural community, maintain these conditions. Where conditions are early or mid seral, improve 

conditions towards late seral or potential natural community.

 Manage non-forested lands for multiple uses in addition to those listed above including recreational 

needs, community stability, and commodity production. Commodities include firewood, logs, 

biomass, chips, and other products and byproducts from juniper woodlands and rangelands.

 Promote development of fire-resilient woodlands and rangelands.

 Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status Species.

Management Direction

 Treat vegetation communities encroached by invasive juniper using prescribed fire, mechanical, 

chemical, and manual juniper removal treatments.

 Manage and retain juniper woodlands on sites they occupied historically (pre-European settlement), 

as identified by ecological site inventories or other methods.

 Cut encroaching juniper that hinders attainment of desired forage conditions to maintain and restore 

forage for big game and to restore unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat. Remove, utilize, 

or pile and burn cut juniper.

 Plant or seed native species to improve unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat

 Retain old-growth ‘legacy’ juniper when the BLM determines it meets the following definition:

Individual trees that likely originated in the pre-settlement period, before 1870. These trees are 

commonly found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and fire frequency is naturally low. The 

BLM will evaluate trees based on the following characteristics of old-growth juniper:

o Flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular crown (as opposed to the more pointed tops of younger 

trees) or dead “spike” top

o Numerous dead branches

o Coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia or wolf lichen) covered branches

o Large diameter lower branches

o Large diameter trunk relative to height

o Spirally twisted bark and deep furrows on the trunk

o Hollow trunk

Trees need not have all of these characteristics for the BLM to determine that the trees are old-growth

juniper.

 Apply prescribed burns, mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or improve

fire-resilient conditions.

 Manage unoccupied or historic greater sage-grouse habitat consistent with the Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon (ODFW 2011) and with the Oregon Sage-Grouse 

Action Plan (Sage-grouse Conservation Partnership 2015).

 Maintain or enhance wildlife habitat on rangelands.
1104 | P a g e

 Continue the existing road closures to motorized vehicles, except for administrative purposes, 

between November 1 and April 15 in the designated closure areas within the Interstate and Klamath 

Deer Winter Ranges. These seasonal road closures include South Gerber, Willow Valley, Harpold 

Ridge, Bryant Mountain, North Bryant, Windy Ridge, Stukel Mountain, and Lorella.

 Plant or seed native forage species for deer and elk along roadsides, skid trails, and on disturbed 

areas, or create forage plots when forage quality is determined to be a limiting factor in achieving the 

management goals of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Include forage retention 

requirements for wildlife when implementing silvicultural treatments or habitat management 

activities.

Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve

Management Objectives

 Provide for conservation of Bureau Special Status fish and other Bureau Special Status riparianassociated species.

 Provide for the riparian and aquatic conditions that supply stream channels with shade, sediment

filtering, leaf litter and large wood sources, and stream bank stability.

 Maintain and restore water quality and hydrologic functions.

 Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of aquatic species.

 Maintain and restore the proper functioning condition and ecological site potential of riparian and 

wetland areas.

Management Direction

Table B-1. Eastside Management Area – Riparian Reserve distances by water feature

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and/or perennial 

streams

150 feet on each side of a stream channel from the 

ordinary high water line or from the outer edge of the 

channel migration zone for low-gradient alluvial shifting 

channels.

Non-fish-bearing intermittent streams, all 

lakes, all natural ponds, constructed water 

impoundments > 1 acre, constructed ponds 

> 1 acre, and wetlands > 1 acre

100 feet on each side of the water feature from the 

ordinary high water line.

Wetlands < 1 acre, constructed water 

impoundments < 1 acre, and constructed 

ponds < 1 acre.

25 feet on each side of the water feature from the 

ordinary high water line.

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance.

All Water Features

 Implement instream and riparian restoration activities, such as gravel augmentation, aspen restoration, 

or placement of boulders and large wood in streams, including tree lining from adjacent riparian areas 

for all streams. Use manual or ground-based methods. Place an emphasis on streams that have high 

intrinsic potential for fish, high priority fish populations (such as those defined in recovery plans), or 

high levels of chronic sediment inputs.
1105 | P a g e

 Remove or modify human-caused fish passage barriers to restore access to stream channels for all life 

stages of aquatic species.

 Fall and move trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including, but not limited to, hazard 

tree removal, creation of yarding corridors, and road construction, improvement, or maintenance.

 Retain existing snags and down woody material during silvicultural treatment of stands, except for 

safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags felled for safety or operational reasons as 

down woody material.

 Apply vegetation treatments and prescribed burns as needed to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires.

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris.

 Manage livestock grazing at a level that meets Rangeland Health Standards (USDI BLM 1997) and 

allows for maintenance or development of an upward trend toward the proper functioning condition 

of riparian and wetland plant communities. Implement practices such as installing and maintaining 

livestock exclosures, managing season of use and intensity, developing off-stream watering facilities, 

and other techniques to attain this condition.

 Remove conifer encroachment where conifers are interfering with the natural vegetation community 

type, or where excessive erosion may occur.

 Apply Best Management Practices (BMPs) for roads, stream and riparian restoration work, and 

vegetation management as needed to maintain or restore water quality and hydrologic function 

(Appendix J).

Fish-bearing Streams and Perennial Streams

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments to accelerate the development of potential natural 

forest stand conditions including late-successional stand characteristics and native riparian shrub 

communities.

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based machinery within 

75 feet (slope distance) on either side of the edge of the stream channel, as measured from the 

ordinary high water line.

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based machinery on 

slopes > 35 percent, soils sensitive to displacement, rutting, or compaction, or in slide-prone areas.

 Retain and promote long-term site-potential shade conditions.

Non-fish-bearing Intermittent Streams

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments to speed the development of large trees to provide 

an eventual source of large woody material to stream channels.

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based machinery on 

slopes > 35 percent, soils sensitive to displacement, rutting, or compaction, or in slide-prone areas.

Lakes, Natural Ponds, and Wetlands

 Conduct thinning and other vegetation treatments within the Riparian Reserve to speed the 

development of potential natural vegetation communities.

 When conducting thinning or other vegetation treatments, do not use ground-based machinery within 

50 feet (slope distance) on each side of the ordinary high water line of the water feature, or seasonally 

saturated soils (whichever is greatest).
1106 | P a g e

Constructed Water Impoundments and Constructed Ponds

 Follow inspection guidelines for BLM infrastructure (e.g., dams and spillway structures), and 

implement maintenance and repair as needed.

 Dredge constructed water impoundments as necessary to maintain capacity.

 Maintain vegetation, access, and plumbing associated with sources of water for fire management 

purposes for all types of firefighting equipment (e.g., engines, aircraft, and tenders).

Harvest Land Base

Management Objectives

 Manage forest stands to achieve continual timber production that can be sustained through a balance 

of growth and harvest.

 Offer for sale the declared Allowable Sale Quantity of timber.

 Recover economic value from timber following disturbances, such as fires, windstorms, disease, or 

insect infestations.

 In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable trees appropriate to 

the site and enhance their growth.

 Enhance the economic value of timber in forest stands.

Management Direction

 Conduct silvicultural treatments to contribute timber volume to the Allowable Sale Quantity.

 Conduct silvicultural treatments to enhance timber values and to reduce fire risks and insect and 

disease outbreaks.

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbances to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees.

 During commercial harvest,7except timber salvage, retain existing—

o Snags > 20” DBH

o Snags 6–20” DBH in decay classes III, IV, and V (USDI BLM 2010)

o Down woody material > 20” in diameter at the large end and > 20’ in length

o Down woody material 6–20” in diameter at the large end and > 20’ in length in decay classes III, 

IV, and V (USDI BLM 2010)

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety 

or operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as 

down woody material.

 When implementing commercial harvest, except timber salvage, create new snags in the amounts and 

sizes specified in Table B-2 within 1 year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If 

insufficient trees are available in the pre-harvest stand in the size class specified, use trees from the 

 

7

In the context of management direction for the Harvest Land Base, commercial harvest means stand harvesting in 

which some or all of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber volume and a monetary value assessed. 

Commercial harvest in this context does not include the following:

o Individual tree falling

o Stand thinning in which all of the cut trees are left in the stand for restoration purposes or the cut trees are

removed for firewood or other non-commercial harvest

o Fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of without 

removal from the stand for timber

Commercial harvest may be implemented through a variety of mechanisms, including timber sale contracts,

stewardship agreements, or other types of contracts. 
1107 | P a g e

largest size class available. Meet snag creation levels as an average at the scale of the harvest unit; 

snag creation levels are not required to be attained on every acre. When creating the required number 

of snags, locate them according to the following criteria:

o Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

o Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain 

open after harvesting activities are complete.

o Concentrate the creation of snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate 

skidding or yarding will occur within 20 years. Meet snag creation levels with trees from any 

species.

Table B-2. Snag creation levels within the Harvest Land Base

District/

Field Office Province

Number of Snags/Acre Created

Within 1 Year of Yarding the Timber in the Timber Sale

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 1 - 1

Eugene

OR Coast Range 1 - 1

Western Cascades 1 - 1

Klamath Falls All 1 - 1

Medford All - - -

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 3 - 3

Western Cascades 3 3 6

Klamath - - -

Salem

OR Coast Range 1 - 1

Western Cascades 1 - 1

 Employ site preparation methods such as mechanical treatments (e.g., machine piling), manual 

treatments (e.g., brushing), and prescribed burns to prepare newly harvested and inadequately stocked 

areas for the regeneration of desirable tree species.

 Manually apply supplemental nutrients where necessary to enhance vigor and growth of desired 

vegetation. Do not use aerial application methods.

 If not suitable for commercial removal, make felled hazard trees available for habitat restoration 

purposes in any land use allocation, including off-site from the location where such hazard trees are 

felled.

Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area (LITA)

Management Objectives

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives.

 Provide complex early successional ecosystems.

 Develop diverse late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation.

 Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both spatially and temporally.
1108 | P a g e

Management Direction

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 Apply regeneration harvest8for any of the following reasons:

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity.

o Adjust the age class distribution in the LITA in each sustained-yield unit.

o Manage insect and disease infestations.

o Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine species persistence and regeneration.

o Produce complex early successional ecosystems.

o Reset stand development in overly dense stands that would not respond well to commercial 

thinning.

 In each regeneration harvest unit, retain 15–30 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees. 

Retain trees in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees. Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies 

were established prior to 1850, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational reasons

and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or practically feasible. The BLM 

identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as 

evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the 

BLM.

 After regeneration harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 130 trees per acre within 5 years of harvest.

 Conduct commercial thinning for any of the following reasons:

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity.

o Adjust stand composition or dominance.

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation.

o Improve stand merchantability and value.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity.

o Create growing space for the creation or augmentation of Bureau Special Status plant 

populations.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration.

 Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning above densities needed to occupy the site, but 

below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health.

o Conduct thinning to result in a stand average relative density between 25 percent and 45 percent 

after harvest.

o Leave untreated areas (skips) and create group selection openings9to provide structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. Leave at least 5 percent of the planned harvest unit in 

untreated areas. Do not exceed 10 percent of the planned harvest unit in group selection openings.

o Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were 

established prior to 1850, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational reasons and 

no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or practically feasible. The BLM 

identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such 

 

8

For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base – Low Intensity Timber Area, regeneration 

harvest does not include timber salvage, which has separate management direction.

9 Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤ 2 live trees ≥ 7” DBH per acre. Roads, landings, yarding 

corridors, and skid trails do not count as group selection openings.
1109 | P a g e

as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion 

of the BLM.

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that removal is 

economically viable.

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live 

trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, 

including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees.

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 130 trees per acre (including surviving 

trees) within 5 years of harvest.

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial regeneration 

to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 130 trees per 

acre (including surviving trees) within 10 years of the disturbance event, to the extent possible given 

safety and operational constraints.

Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area (MITA)

Management Objectives

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives.

 Provide complex early successional ecosystems.

 Develop diverse late-successional ecosystems for a portion of the rotation.

 Provide a variety of forest structural stages distributed both temporally and spatially.

Management Direction

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 Conduct regeneration harvest10 for any of the following reasons:

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity.

o Adjust the age class distribution in the MITA in each sustained-yield unit.

o Manage insect and disease infestations.

o Convert stands capable of supporting conifer species that are currently growing primarily 

hardwoods or shrubs to a mix of conifer and hardwood species suitable to the site.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine species persistence and regeneration.

o Produce complex early successional ecosystems.

o Reset stand development in overly dense stands that would not respond well to commercial 

thinning.

 In each regeneration harvest unit, retain 5–15 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live trees. 

Retain trees in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees. Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies 

were established prior to 1850, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational reasons

and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or practically feasible. The BLM 

identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such as 

 

10 For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base – Moderate Intensity Timber Area, 

regeneration harvest does not include timber salvage, which has separate management direction.
1110 | P a g e

evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion of the 

BLM.

 After regeneration harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre within 5 years of harvest.

 Conduct commercial thinning for any of the following reasons:

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity.

o Adjust stand composition or dominance.

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation.

o Improve stand merchantability and value.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity.

o Create growing space for the creation or augmentation of Bureau Special Status plant 

populations.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration.

 Maintain stand densities through commercial thinning above densities needed to occupy the site, but 

below densities that will result in loss of stand vigor and health.

o Conduct thinning to result in stand average relative density between 25 percent and 45 percent 

after harvest.

o Leave untreated areas (skips) and create group selection openings to provide structural 

complexity in the post-treatment stand. Leave at least 5 percent of the planned harvest unit in 

untreated areas. Do not exceed 10 percent of the planned harvest unit in group selection openings.

o Include among retained trees all trees that are both ≥ 40” DBH and that the BLM identifies were 

established prior to 1850, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational reasons and 

no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or practically feasible. The BLM 

identification of trees established prior to 1850 may be based on any of a variety of methods, such 

as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or increment coring, at the discretion 

of the BLM.

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that removal is 

economically viable.

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 5 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live 

trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, 

including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees.

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre (including surviving 

trees) within 5 years of harvest.

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial regeneration 

to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per 

acre (including surviving trees) within 10 years of the disturbance event, to the extent possible given 

safety and operational constraints.

Harvest Land Base – Uneven-aged Timber Area (UTA)

Management Objectives

 See Harvest Land Base management objectives.

 Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within and among the stands.
1111 | P a g e

Management Direction

 See Harvest Land Base management direction.

 Utilize integrated vegetation management11 in designing and implementing treatments. Conduct 

integrated vegetation management for any of the following:

o Produce timber to contribute to the attainment of the declared Allowable Sale Quantity.

o Promote the development and retention of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort stands.

o Develop diverse understory plant communities.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species.

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration.

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance.

o Adjust stand composition or dominance.

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation.

 In forest stands ≥ 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, harvest to result in 

stand average relative density between 20 percent and 45 percent after harvest.

o Do not create group selection openings more than 4 acres in size.

o Do not create group selection openings on more than 30 percent of the stand area.

o Leave untreated areas (skips) on at least 10 percent of the stand area.

 When regenerating group selection openings created from selection harvest or commercial thinning, 

use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to an 

average density across the opening of at least 150 trees per acre within 5 years of harvest.

 When treating stands with integrated vegetation management, retain dominant Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are both ≥ 36” DBH and that the BLM 

identifies were established prior to 1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer 

macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus spp.) trees > 24” DBH, except where removal is necessary for 

safety or operational reasons and no alternative harvesting method is economically viable or 

practically feasible.

o The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine trees established prior to 1850 may be based on 

any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or 

increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM.

o Protect and develop these retained trees by reducing competition to improve vigor and resistance 

to fire, drought, disease, and other disturbances and removing adjacent fuels to reduce risk of firerelated mortality.

 Apply prescribed fire for any of the following:

o Promote the development and retention of large, open-grown trees and multi-cohort stands.

o Develop diverse understory plant communities.

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity.

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status Species.

o Promote or enhance the development of stand structural complexity and heterogeneity.

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration.

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance.

o Adjust stand composition or dominance.

 

11 Integrated vegetation management includes the use of a combination of silvicultural or other vegetation 

treatments, fire and fuels management activities, harvest methods, and restoration activities. Activities include, but 

are not limited to, vegetation control, planting, snag creation, prescribed fire, biomass removal, thinning, single tree 

selection harvest, and group selection harvest. For the purpose of management direction for the Harvest Land Base –

Uneven-aged Timber Area, integrated vegetation management does not include timber salvage, which has separate 

management direction.
1112 | P a g e

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

 Treat fuels to improve, enhance, or maintain landscape and ecosystem resilience. Identify sites for 

fuels treatments based on risk of large-scale, high-intensity fire, operationally strategic locations, and 

near highly valued resources and assets. 

 Modify fuel loading to produce fire behavior and fire effects representative of the natural fire regime. 

Implement interim fuels treatments (e.g., hand pile and burn) in areas that are highly departed from 

natural conditions in order to facilitate prescribed fire in the future. 

 Implement prescribed fire in low/mixed severity or high-frequency fire regimes to emulate historic 

fire function and processes. Apply prescribed fire across the landscape to create a mosaic of spatial 

and temporal stand conditions and patterning (appropriate to the fire regime). 

 Implement timber salvage harvest after disturbance events to recover economic value and to minimize 

commercial loss or deterioration of damaged trees where the BLM determines that removal is 

economically viable. 

o In timber salvage harvest units, retain at least 5 percent of pre-harvest stand basal area in live 

trees or snags in individual harvest units. Retain trees and snags in a variety of spatial patterns, 

including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual trees. 

o After salvage harvest, use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species 

appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per acre (including surviving 

trees) within 5 years of harvest. 

 For areas without timber salvage harvest after disturbance events, use natural or artificial regeneration 

to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to a stand-level average of at least 150 trees per 

acre (including surviving trees) within 10 years of the disturbance event, to the extent possible given 

safety and operational constraints. 

Late-Successional Reserve 

Management Objectives 

 Maintain12 nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl and nesting habitat for the marbled 

murrelet. 

 

12 Maintain northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer 

forest stand but maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support the same northern 

spotted owl life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to support northern spotted owl nestingroosting. Scientific findings support the idea that conifer forest stands can be altered in a manner that does not 

necessarily change their use by northern spotted owls (see the summary in the Revised Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, USDI FWS 2011, p. III-15). Although structural characteristics vary across the northern 

spotted owl’s range, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat generally is characterized by conifer stands with a 

multi-layered, multispecies canopy dominated by large (> 30” DBH) conifer overstory trees, and an understory of 

shade-tolerant conifers or hardwoods, ≥ 60 percent canopy cover, substantial decadence in the form of large, live 

conifer trees with deformities (such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf mistletoe infections; numerous large snags), 

ground cover characterized by large accumulations of logs and other woody debris, and a canopy that is open 

enough to allow northern spotted owls to fly within and beneath it. Activities needed to protect the overall health of 

the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, and wildfire management 

actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl habitat. 

Maintain marbled murrelet habitat refers to a silvicultural activity that changes a conifer forest stand but 

maintains structural characteristics such that the stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting opportunities.

Activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and 

disease control, and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they remove marbled murrelet habitat. 
1113 | Page

 Promote the development of nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands that do not 

currently support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting. 

 Promote the development of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet in stands that do not currently 

meet nesting habitat criteria. 

 Promote the development and maintenance of foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl, including 

creating and maintaining habitat to increase diversity and abundance of prey for the northern spotted 

owl. 

Management Direction 

 Manage for large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters of 

reproducing spotted owls, are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to 

facilitate the movement and survival of spotted owls dispersing between and through the blocks. 

 In stands that are currently northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nesting-roosting 

habitat function, regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 

 Protect13 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. Such stands are a subset of, and 

represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 Undertake activities such as individual tree removal, including the felling of hazard trees and stream 

logs, and the construction of linear and non-linear rights-of-way or other facilities, including 

communication sites, as long as northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat continues to support 

northern spotted owl nesting and roosting at the stand level, and northern spotted owl dispersal habitat 

continues to support northern spotted owl movement and survival at the landscape level. 

 Protect marbled murrelet occupied stands. In this context, protect marbled murrelet occupied 

stands means to prohibit activities in the occupied stand except for the following: felling of live or 

dead hazard trees, felling trees for habitat restoration, and the construction or maintenance of linear 

and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the occupied 

stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Implement wildfire management actions and 

activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction 

and insect and disease control, as long as the occupied stand continues to support marbled murrelet 

nesting. 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing— 

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH 

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down 

woody material. 

 Cut individual green trees in the Late-Successional Reserve and move for placement in streams for 

fish habitat restoration. 

 

13 Protect older, structurally-complex conifer forest means to prohibit harvesting activities in a conifer forest 

stand except as provided in this definition. Harvesting activities are limited to the following: felling of live or dead 

hazard trees and logs for streams, the construction, modification, maintenance and removal of linear and nonlinear 

rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the forest stand continues to support the 

same northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to 

support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement 

and survival; and marbled murrelet nesting habitat continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Activities needed 

to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, 

and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl 

habitat or remove marbled murrelet habitat. 

1113 | Page

 Promote the development of nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands that do not 

currently support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting. 

 Promote the development of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet in stands that do not currently 

meet nesting habitat criteria. 

 Promote the development and maintenance of foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl, including 

creating and maintaining habitat to increase diversity and abundance of prey for the northern spotted 

owl. 

Management Direction 

 Manage for large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters of 

reproducing spotted owls, are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to 

facilitate the movement and survival of spotted owls dispersing between and through the blocks. 

 In stands that are currently northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nesting-roosting 

habitat function, regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 

 Protect13 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. Such stands are a subset of, and 

represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 Undertake activities such as individual tree removal, including the felling of hazard trees and stream 

logs, and the construction of linear and non-linear rights-of-way or other facilities, including 

communication sites, as long as northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat continues to support 

northern spotted owl nesting and roosting at the stand level, and northern spotted owl dispersal habitat 

continues to support northern spotted owl movement and survival at the landscape level. 

 Protect marbled murrelet occupied stands. In this context, protect marbled murrelet occupied 

stands means to prohibit activities in the occupied stand except for the following: felling of live or 

dead hazard trees, felling trees for habitat restoration, and the construction or maintenance of linear 

and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the occupied 

stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Implement wildfire management actions and 

activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction 

and insect and disease control, as long as the occupied stand continues to support marbled murrelet 

nesting. 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing— 

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH 

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down 

woody material. 

 Cut individual green trees in the Late-Successional Reserve and move for placement in streams for 

fish habitat restoration. 

 

13 Protect older, structurally-complex conifer forest means to prohibit harvesting activities in a conifer forest 

stand except as provided in this definition. Harvesting activities are limited to the following: felling of live or dead 

hazard trees and logs for streams, the construction, modification, maintenance and removal of linear and nonlinear 

rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the forest stand continues to support the 

same northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to 

support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement 

and survival; and marbled murrelet nesting habitat continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Activities needed 

to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, 

and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl 

habitat or remove marbled murrelet habitat. 

1113 | Page

 Promote the development of nesting-roosting habitat for the northern spotted owl in stands that do not 

currently support northern spotted owl nesting and roosting. 

 Promote the development of nesting habitat for the marbled murrelet in stands that do not currently 

meet nesting habitat criteria. 

 Promote the development and maintenance of foraging habitat for the northern spotted owl, including 

creating and maintaining habitat to increase diversity and abundance of prey for the northern spotted 

owl. 

Management Direction 

 Manage for large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat that support clusters of 

reproducing spotted owls, are distributed across the variety of ecological conditions, and are spaced to 

facilitate the movement and survival of spotted owls dispersing between and through the blocks. 

 In stands that are currently northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, maintain nesting-roosting 

habitat function, regardless of northern spotted owl occupancy. 

 Protect13 stands of older, structurally-complex conifer forest. Such stands are a subset of, and 

represent the highest value, northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat. 

 Undertake activities such as individual tree removal, including the felling of hazard trees and stream 

logs, and the construction of linear and non-linear rights-of-way or other facilities, including 

communication sites, as long as northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat continues to support 

northern spotted owl nesting and roosting at the stand level, and northern spotted owl dispersal habitat 

continues to support northern spotted owl movement and survival at the landscape level. 

 Protect marbled murrelet occupied stands. In this context, protect marbled murrelet occupied 

stands means to prohibit activities in the occupied stand except for the following: felling of live or 

dead hazard trees, felling trees for habitat restoration, and the construction or maintenance of linear 

and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the occupied 

stand continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Implement wildfire management actions and 

activities needed to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction 

and insect and disease control, as long as the occupied stand continues to support marbled murrelet 

nesting. 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing— 

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH 

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down 

woody material. 

 Cut individual green trees in the Late-Successional Reserve and move for placement in streams for 

fish habitat restoration. 

 

13 Protect older, structurally-complex conifer forest means to prohibit harvesting activities in a conifer forest 

stand except as provided in this definition. Harvesting activities are limited to the following: felling of live or dead 

hazard trees and logs for streams, the construction, modification, maintenance and removal of linear and nonlinear 

rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors or other facilities, as long as the forest stand continues to support the 

same northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet life history requirements: nesting-roosting habitat continues to 

support northern spotted owl nesting-roosting; dispersal habitat continues to support northern spotted owl movement 

and survival; and marbled murrelet nesting habitat continues to support marbled murrelet nesting. Activities needed 

to protect the overall health of the stand or adjacent stands, such as fuels reduction and insect and disease control, 

and wildfire management actions/activities may occur even if they downgrade or remove northern spotted owl 

habitat or remove marbled murrelet habitat. 
1114 | P a g e

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Logs may be 

retained as down woody debris, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or 

removed through a commercial harvest. 

 In stands that are not northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat, apply silvicultural treatments to 

speed the development of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat or improve the quality of 

northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat in the stand or in the adjacent stand in the long term. 

Limit such silvicultural treatments (other than forest pathogen treatments) to those that do not 

preclude or delay by 20 years or more the development of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting 

habitat in the stand and in adjacent stands, as compared to development without treatment. Allow 

silvicultural treatments that do not meet the above criteria if needed to treat infestations or reduce the 

spread of forest pathogens. 

 Utilize integrated vegetation management14 in designing and implementing treatments. Conduct 

integrated vegetation management for any of the following: 

o Promote the development and retention of large, open grown trees and multi-cohort stands. 

o Develop diverse understory plant communities. 

o Increase or maintain vegetative species diversity. 

o Restore and maintain habitat for Bureau Special Status species. 

o Promote or enhance the development of structural complexity and heterogeneity. 

o Create growing space for hardwood and pine persistence and regeneration. 

o Create and maintain areas for hardwood and shrub dominance. 

o Adjust stand composition or dominance. 

o Reduce stand susceptibility to disturbances such as a fire, windstorm, disease, or insect 

infestation. 

 In stands ≥ 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, 

o Conduct harvest to result in stand average relative density percent between 20 percent and 45 

percent after harvest. 

o Do not create group selection openings15 more than 4 acres in size. 

o Do not create group selection openings on more than 25 percent of the stand area. 

o Leave untreated skips on at least 10 percent of the stand area. 

 In stands < 10 acres treated with selection harvest or commercial thinning, do not create group 

selection openings more than 2.5 acres in size. 

 When regenerating group selection openings created from selection harvest or commercial thinning, 

use natural or artificial regeneration to reforest a mixture of species appropriate to the site to an 

average density across the group selection openings of at least 75 trees per acre within 5 years of 

harvest. 

 When conducting commercial harvest, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table 

B-3 within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If insufficient trees are 

available in the size class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Meet snag creation 

levels as an average at the scale of the harvest unit; snag creation levels need not be attained on every 

acre. When creating the required number of snags, locate them according to the following criteria: 

o Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees. 

o Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain 

open after harvesting activities are complete. 

 

14 Integrated vegetation management includes the use of a combination of silvicultural or other vegetation 

treatments, fire and fuels management activities, harvest methods, and restoration activities. Activities include but 

are not limited to vegetation control, planting, snag creation, prescribed fire, thinning, single tree selection harvest, 

and group selection harvest. 

15 Group selection openings are defined as areas with ≤ 2 live trees ≥ 7” DBH per acre. Roads, landings, yarding 

corridors, and skid trails do not count as group selection openings. 
1115 | Page

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table B-3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg 

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in 



 Table B-4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the scale of the treatment area 

following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on every acre. 

Table B-4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire 

treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg 

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.

1115 | Page

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table B-3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg 

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in 



 Table B-4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the scale of the treatment area 

following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on every acre. 

Table B-4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire 

treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg 

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.

1115 | Page

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table B-3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in 



 Table B-4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the scale of the treatment area 

following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on every acre. 

Table B-4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire 

treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.

1115 | Page

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table B-3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in 



 Table B-4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the scale of the treatment area 

following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on every acre. 

Table B-4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire 

treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.

1115 | Page

o Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. 

Table B-3. Snag creation levels within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Snags/Acre

> 20” DBH > 10” DBH Total Snags

Coos Bay All 5 5 10

Eugene OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

Klamath Falls All 2 5 7

Medford All 1 1 2

Roseburg

OR Coast Range 6 7 13

Western Cascades 6 25 31

Klamath 1 1 2

Salem OR Coast Range 5 5 10

Western Cascades 5 20 25

 When conducting fuels reduction or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels 

specified in 



 Table B-4 post-treatment. Meet down wood levels as an average at the scale of the treatment area 

following the treatment; down wood levels need not be attained on every acre. 

Table B-4. Down woody material retention levels when implementing fuels reduction or prescribed fire 

treatments within the Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve 

District/

Field Office Province Down Wood 

Percent Cover*

Coos Bay All 6%

Eugene OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath Falls All 3%

Medford All 2%

Roseburg 

OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

Klamath 2%

Salem OR Coast Range 6%

Western Cascades 10%

* Percent cover of down wood > 4” diameter.
1116 | P a g e

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris.

Late-Successional Reserve – Dry

Management Objectives

 See Late-Successional Reserve management objectives.

 Enable forests to: (1) recover from past management measures, (2) respond positively to climatedriven stresses, wildfire and other disturbance with resilience, (3) ensure positive or neutral ecological 

impacts from wildfire, and (4) contribute to northern spotted owl recovery.

 Reduce the risk of loss of key late-successional structure through the development of vertical and 

horizontal heterogeneity.

 Increase diversity of stocking levels and size classes within the stand and the landscape.

Management Direction

 See Late-Successional Reserve management direction.

 Apply selection harvest or commercial thinning treatments in Late-Successional Reserve – Dry in the 

South River Field Office of Roseburg District to at least 4,500 acres per decade.

 Apply selection harvest or commercial thinning treatments in Late-Successional Reserve – Dry in the 

Medford District to at least 17,000 acres per decade.

 When treating stands with integrated vegetation management, retain dominant Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and pine (Pinus spp.) trees that are ≥ 36” DBH and were established prior to 

1850 and madrone (Arbutus menziesii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and oak (Quercus spp.) 

trees > 24” DBH, except where removal is necessary for safety or operational reasons.

o The BLM identification of Douglas-fir and pine trees established prior to 1850 may be based on 

any of a variety of methods, such as evaluation of bark, limb, trunk, or crown characteristics, or 

increment coring, at the discretion of the BLM.

o Protect and develop these retained trees by reducing competition to improve vigor and resistance 

to fire, drought, disease, and other disturbances and removing adjacent fuels to reduce risk of fire 

related mortality.

 Treat fuels to improve, enhance, or maintain landscape and ecosystem resilience. Identify sites for 

fuels treatments based on risk of large-scale crown fire, operationally strategic locations, and potential 

for hazard reduction near highly valued resources.

 Modify fuel beds to produce characteristic fire behavior and fire effects representative of the fire 

regime. Implement interim fuels treatments (e.g., hand pile and burn) in areas that are highly departed 

from natural conditions in order to facilitate prescribed fire in the future.

 Apply prescribed fire in low/mixed severity or high-frequency fire regimes to emulate historic fire 

function and processes. Apply prescribed fire across the landscape to create a mosaic of spatial and 

temporal stand conditions and patterning (appropriate to the fire regime). Based on site-specific 

considerations, take measures to prevent and control fire regime altering species.

 Apply prescribed fire and mechanical or hand fuels treatments to reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic wildfires. Apply maintenance treatments at appropriate intervals to retain or improve

fire-resilient conditions.

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Logs may be 

retained as down woody debris, moved for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, removed 

through a commercial timber sale, or treated as necessary for fuels reduction.
1117 | P a g e

Riparian Reserve (West of Highway 97)

Riparian Reserve – Moist

Management Objectives

 Contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish species and their habitats and provide 

for conservation of Bureau Special Status fish and other Bureau Special Status riparian-associated 

species.

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics, processes, and the proper functioning condition of 

riparian areas, stream channels, and wetlands by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood 

recruitment, stream bank and channel stability, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, 

nutrient cycling, and cool and moist microclimates.

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources.

 Meet ODEQ water quality criteria.

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 303(d)-

listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds.

Management Direction

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Retain logs as down 

woody material or move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, unless removal of logs, 

including through commercial harvest, is necessary to accomplish removal of hazard trees or 

blowdown to maintain access to roads and facilities.

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road maintenance and 

improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically viable alternative to 

accomplish other resource management objectives.

 Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands.

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., sealed 

vault or similar).

 Do not operate ground-based machinery for timber harvest within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), 

except where machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry 

into the 50-foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream.

 Do not operate ground-based machinery on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks 

(e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater 

than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length 

determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)).

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length 

except for safety, operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or 

operational reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down 

woody material.

 Prohibit timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and other 

infrastructure clear of debris.

 Implement sudden oak death (SOD) eradication activities that do not exceed (at the HUC 10 

watershed scale)—
1118 | P a g e

o The removal of > 30 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length or removal 

of > 50 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.25 mile stream length for small perennial 

streams (active channel width < 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot separation of non-treatment between 

sequential contiguous treatments would be maintained;

o The removal of > 50 percent canopy cover over a contiguous 0.5 mile stream length for mediumlarge perennial streams (active channel width > 27 feet) where a 4,600-foot separation of nontreatment between sequential contiguous treatments would be maintained; and

o A limit of 3 miles of treatment for any 5-year period and 3 percent of the total Federal perennial 

stream miles.

Implement SOD eradication activities that exceed these limitations only consistent with existing ESA 

consultation documents that address SOD eradication activities in the decision area.

 Cut or tip individual green trees and move for fish habitat restoration.

 Cut or tip individual trees directly into the stream channel for fish habitat restoration.

 Tree tipping: When conducting commercial thinning16 in any portion of the Outer Zone in a stand in 

all watershed classes, fall or tip from 0 to 15 square feet of basal area per acre of live trees, averaged 

across the Riparian Reserve portion of the treated stand. Leave felled or tipped trees on site or yard, 

deck, and make felled or tipped trees available for fish habitat restoration. The felled or tipped trees 

can be of any size and come from any zone.

 Promote beaver habitat restoration where the presence of beaver and their associated dams would 

improve fish and aquatic habitat.

 Along ponds and wetlands < 1 acre and constructed water impoundments of any size, treat vegetation 

as needed for habitat restoration, access, or safety.

 For constructed water impoundments and constructed ponds:

o Follow inspection guidelines for BLM infrastructure (e.g., dams and spillway structures), and 

implement maintenance and repair as needed.

o Dredge constructed water impoundments as necessary to maintain capacity.

o Maintain vegetation, access, and plumbing associated with sources of water for fire management 

purposes for all types of firefighting equipment (e.g., engines, aircraft, and tenders).

 

16 In the context of management direction for the Riparian Reserve, commercial thinning means stand thinning in 

which any of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber volume. Commercial thinning in this context does 

not include individual tree falling or tipping or stand thinning in which all of the cut trees are left in the stand for 

restoration purposes, or fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of 

without removal from the stand for timber. Commercial thinning may be implemented through a variety of 

mechanisms, including timber sale contracts, stewardship agreements, or other types of contracts.
1119 | P a g e

Table B-5. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and perennial 

streams

One site-potential tree height distance from the ordinary high 

water line or from the outer edge of the channel migration 

zone for low-gradient alluvial shifting channels, whichever is 

greatest, on each side of a stream

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Class I and II subwatersheds: One site-potential tree height 

distance from the ordinary high water line on each side of a 

stream

Class III subwatersheds: 50 feet from the ordinary high water 

line on each side of a stream

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails

The extent of the unstable area; where there is a stable area 

between such an unstable area and a stream, and the unstable 

area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and 

logs to the stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the 

stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the 

unstable area

Lakes, natural ponds > 1 acre, and 

wetlands > 1 acre 100 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

Natural ponds < 1 acre and wetlands < 1 

acre (including seeps and springs), and 

constructed water impoundments of any 

size

25 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance

Table B-6. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 
1120 | P a g e

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Middle Zone (50–120 feet)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Remove cut trees only as needed for safety or operational reasons, or to meet the tree-tipping 

management direction described above.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.
1121 | P a g e

Table B-7. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (50 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.
1122 | P a g e

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Table B-8. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds 

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally-complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve. 

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 SOD treatments; and

 Individual tree falling or tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction 

associated with outer zone commercial thinning

Riparian Reserve – Dry 

Management Objectives 

 Contribute to the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed fish species and their habitats and provide 

for conservation of Bureau Special Status fish and other Bureau Special Status riparian-associated 

species. 
1123 | Page

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics and processes and the proper functioning condition of 

riparian areas, stream channels and wetlands by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood 

recruitment, stability of stream banks and channels, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, 

nutrient cycling and cool and moist microclimate. 

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

 Meet ODEQ water quality criteria. 

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 303(d)-

listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Management Direction 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Retain logs as down 

woody material, move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or treat as necessary for 

fuels reduction, unless removal of logs, including through commercial harvest, is necessary to 

accomplish removal of hazard trees or blowdown to maintain access to roads and facilities. 

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road maintenance and 

improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically viable alternative to 

accomplish other resource management objectives. 

 Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands. 

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., sealed 

vault or similar). 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where 

machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-

foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks 

(e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater 

than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length 

determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length except for safety, 

operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or operational 

reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody 

material. 

 In all subwatershed classes: 

o Apply low or moderate-severity prescribed burns where needed to invigorate native deciduous 

tree species. Moderate severity prescribed burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of 

area of Riparian Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

o Apply non-commercial tree thinning to adjust fuel loads as necessary to achieve desired fire 

effects prior to prescribed burning. 

 When conducting fuels or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels specified 

in 



 Table B-4. Down woody material retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of the 

treatment area, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris. 1123 | Page

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics and processes and the proper functioning condition of 

riparian areas, stream channels and wetlands by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood 

recruitment, stability of stream banks and channels, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, 

nutrient cycling and cool and moist microclimate. 

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

 Meet ODEQ water quality criteria. 

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 303(d)-

listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Management Direction 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Retain logs as down 

woody material, move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or treat as necessary for 

fuels reduction, unless removal of logs, including through commercial harvest, is necessary to 

accomplish removal of hazard trees or blowdown to maintain access to roads and facilities. 

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road maintenance and 

improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically viable alternative to 

accomplish other resource management objectives. 

 Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands. 

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., sealed 

vault or similar). 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where 

machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-

foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks 

(e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater 

than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length 

determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length except for safety, 

operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or operational 

reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody 

material. 

 In all subwatershed classes: 

o Apply low or moderate-severity prescribed burns where needed to invigorate native deciduous 

tree species. Moderate severity prescribed burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of 

area of Riparian Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

o Apply non-commercial tree thinning to adjust fuel loads as necessary to achieve desired fire 

effects prior to prescribed burning. 

 When conducting fuels or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels specified 

in 



 Table B-4. Down woody material retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of the 

treatment area, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris. 

1123 | Page

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics and processes and the proper functioning condition of 

riparian areas, stream channels and wetlands by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood 

recruitment, stability of stream banks and channels, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, 

nutrient cycling and cool and moist microclimate. 

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

 Meet ODEQ water quality criteria. 

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 303(d)-

listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Management Direction 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Retain logs as down 

woody material, move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or treat as necessary for 

fuels reduction, unless removal of logs, including through commercial harvest, is necessary to 

accomplish removal of hazard trees or blowdown to maintain access to roads and facilities. 

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road maintenance and 

improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically viable alternative to 

accomplish other resource management objectives. 

 Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands. 

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., sealed 

vault or similar). 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where 

machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-

foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks 

(e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater 

than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length 

determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length except for safety, 

operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or operational 

reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody 

material. 

 In all subwatershed classes: 

o Apply low or moderate-severity prescribed burns where needed to invigorate native deciduous 

tree species. Moderate severity prescribed burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of 

area of Riparian Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

o Apply non-commercial tree thinning to adjust fuel loads as necessary to achieve desired fire 

effects prior to prescribed burning. 

 When conducting fuels or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels specified 

in 



 Table B-4. Down woody material retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of the 

treatment area, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris. 

1123 | Page

 Maintain and restore natural channel dynamics and processes and the proper functioning condition of 

riparian areas, stream channels and wetlands by providing forest shade, sediment filtering, wood 

recruitment, stability of stream banks and channels, water storage and release, vegetation diversity, 

nutrient cycling and cool and moist microclimate. 

 Maintain water quality and streamflows within the range of natural variability, to protect aquatic 

biodiversity, provide quality water for contact recreation and drinking water sources. 

 Meet ODEQ water quality criteria. 

 Maintain high quality water and contribute to the restoration of degraded water quality for 303(d)-

listed streams.

 Maintain high quality waters within ODEQ-designated Source Water Protection watersheds. 

Management Direction 

 Maintain access to roads and facilities by removing hazard trees and blowdown. Retain logs as down 

woody material, move for placement in streams for fish habitat restoration, or treat as necessary for 

fuels reduction, unless removal of logs, including through commercial harvest, is necessary to 

accomplish removal of hazard trees or blowdown to maintain access to roads and facilities. 

 Allow yarding corridors, skid trails, road construction, stream crossings, and road maintenance and 

improvement where there is no operationally feasible and economically viable alternative to 

accomplish other resource management objectives. 

 Use site-specific BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality during land management actions, 

including discretionary actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands. 

 In new recreational developments, install sanitation systems that maintain water quality (e.g., sealed 

vault or similar). 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery within 50 feet of streams (slope distance), except where 

machinery is on improved roads, designated stream crossings, or where equipment entry into the 50-

foot zone would not increase the potential for sediment delivery into the stream. 

 Do not operate ground-based machinery on slopes > 35 percent. Mechanical equipment with tracks 

(e.g., excavators, loaders, forwarders, and harvesters) may be used on short pitch slopes of greater 

than 35 percent but less than 45 percent when necessary to access benches of lower gradient (length 

determined on a site-specific basis, generally less than 50 feet (slope distance)). 

 During silvicultural treatment of stands, retain existing—

o Snags ≥ 6” DBH

o Down woody material ≥ 6” in diameter at the large end and > 20 feet in length except for safety, 

operational, or fuels reduction reasons. Retain snags ≥ 6” DBH felled for safety or operational 

reasons as down woody material, unless they would also pose a safety hazard as down woody 

material. 

 In all subwatershed classes: 

o Apply low or moderate-severity prescribed burns where needed to invigorate native deciduous 

tree species. Moderate severity prescribed burns will be limited to no more than 20 percent of 

area of Riparian Reserve subwatershed (HUC 12) each year. 

o Apply non-commercial tree thinning to adjust fuel loads as necessary to achieve desired fire 

effects prior to prescribed burning. 

 When conducting fuels or prescribed fire treatments, retain down woody material at levels specified 

in 



 Table B-4. Down woody material retention standards would be met as an average at the scale of the 

treatment area, and is not intended to be attained on every acre.

 Do not conduct timber salvage, except when necessary to protect public safety, or to keep roads and 

other infrastructure clear of debris. 
1124 | P a g e

 Cut or tip individual green trees and move as necessary for fish habitat restoration. 

 Cut or tip individual green trees directly into the stream channel for fish habitat restoration. 

 Tree tipping: When conducting commercial thinning17 in any portion of the Outer Zone in a stand in 

all subwatershed classes, fall or tip from 0 to 15 square feet of basal area per acre of live trees, 

averaged across the Riparian Reserve portion of the treated stand. Leave felled or tipped trees on site 

or yard, deck, and make felled or tipped trees available for fish habitat restoration. The felled or 

tipped trees can be of any size and come from any zone within the Riparian Reserve. 

 Promote beaver habitat restoration where the presence of beaver and their associated dams would 

improve fish and aquatic habitat. 

 Along ponds and wetlands < 1 acre and constructed water impoundments of any size, treat vegetation 

as needed for habitat restoration, access, or safety. 

 For constructed water impoundments and constructed ponds: 

o Follow inspection guidelines for BLM infrastructure (e.g., dams and spillway structures), 

implement maintenance, and repair as needed. 

o Dredge constructed water impoundments as necessary to maintain capacity. 

o Maintain vegetation, access, and plumbing associated with sources of water for fire management 

purposes for all types of firefighting equipment (e.g., engines, aircraft, and tenders). 

 

17 In the context of management direction for the Riparian Reserve, ‘commercial thinning’ means stand thinning in 

which some or all of the cut trees are removed from the stand for timber. Commercial thinning in this context does 

not include individual tree falling or tipping or stand thinning in which all of the cut trees are left in the stand for 

restoration purposes, or fuels reduction treatments in which cut trees are burned, chipped, or otherwise disposed of 

without removal from the stand for timber. Commercial thinning may be implemented through a variety of 

mechanisms, including timber sale contracts, stewardship agreements, or other types of contracts. 
1125 | P a g e

Table B-9. Riparian Reserve distance by water feature

Feature Riparian Reserve Distance*

Fish-bearing streams and perennial 

streams

One site-potential tree height distance from the ordinary high 

water line or from the outer edge of the channel migration 

zone for low-gradient alluvial shifting channels, whichever is 

greatest, on each side of a stream

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Class I and II subwatersheds: One site-potential tree height 

distance from the ordinary high water line on each side of a 

stream

Class III subwatersheds: 50 feet from the ordinary high water 

line on each side of a stream

Unstable areas that are above or 

adjacent to stream channels and are 

likely to deliver material such as 

sediment and logs to the stream if the 

unstable area fails

The extent of the unstable area; where there is a stable area

between such an unstable area and a stream, and the unstable 

area has the potential to deliver material such as sediment and 

logs to the stream, extend the Riparian Reserve from the 

stream to include the intervening stable area as well as the 

unstable area

Lakes, natural ponds > 1 acre, and 

wetlands > 1 acre 100 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

Natural ponds < 1 acre and wetlands < 1 

acre (including seeps and springs), and 

constructed water impoundments of any 

size

25 feet extending from the ordinary high water line

* Reported distances are measured as slope distance.

Table B-10. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class I subwatersheds

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not conduct fuels

treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 50 percent canopy 

cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree falling/tipping 

for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer zone 

commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing 

crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre, expressed as an average across 

the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Make available for sale the merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments. When 

conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3 within 

one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size class 

specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Meet the snag creation amounts as an average at 
1126 | P a g e

the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, but may not be attained on every 

acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Use trees from any species to meet snag creation levels.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except as described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual 

tree falling/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer 

zone commercial thinning.

Middle Zone (50–120 feet)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an 

average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Remove cut trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, to reduce the risk of stand-replacing, crown 

fires, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction described above. Merchantable timber from 

thinning, fuels reduction, and other silvicultural treatments that must be removed for safety or operational 

reasons, to reduce the risk of stand-replacing, crown fires, or to meet the tree-tipping management 

direction described above may be made available for sale.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to ensure that stands are able to provide trees that would function as stable wood in 

the stream. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an average at the 

scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an 

average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 
1127 | P a g e

after harvesting activities are complete.

Table B-11. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class II subwatersheds

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not conduct fuels

treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 50 percent canopy 

cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree falling/tipping 

for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer zone 

commercial thinning

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an 

average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams

Inner Zone (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except for—

 Fuels treatments as needed to reduce the risk of stand-replacing crown fires; do not conduct fuels

treatments within 60 feet of fish-bearing or perennial streams. Retain at least 50 percent canopy 

cover per acre. Do not cut trees > 12” DBH.

 As described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual tree falling/tipping 

for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer zone 

commercial thinning
1128 | P a g e

Outer Zone (50 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve.

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an 

average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation:

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Table B-12. Zone-specific management direction for streams in Class III subwatersheds

Fish-bearing streams and perennial streams

Inner Zone (0–120 feet)

Do not thin stands, except as described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual 

tree falling/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer 

zone commercial thinning.

Outer Zone (120 feet to one site-potential tree height)

Thin stands as needed to promote the development of large, open grown trees, develop layered canopies 

and multi-cohort stands, develop diverse understory plant communities, and allow for hardwood vigor 

and persistence. Apply silvicultural treatments to increase diversity of riparian species and develop 

structurally complex stands. Maintain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as 

an average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve. 

Apply fuels reduction treatments, including prescribed fire, as needed to reduce the risk of standreplacing, crown fires. Retain at least 30 percent canopy cover and 60 trees per acre expressed as an 

average across the treated portion of the Riparian Reserve.

Merchantable timber from thinning and other silvicultural treatments may be made available for sale. 

When conducting commercial thinning, create new snags in the amounts and sizes specified in Table B-3

within one year of completion of yarding the timber in the timber sale. If trees are not available in the size 

class specified, use trees from the largest size class available. Snag creation amounts would be met as an 

average at the scale of the portion of the harvest unit within the Riparian Reserve, and need not be 

attained on every acre. For implementation—

 Create snags in a variety of spatial patterns, including aggregated groups, stringers, and individual 
1129 | P a g e

trees.

 Concentrate created snags in areas of the stand where the BLM does not anticipate skidding or 

yarding will occur within 20 years. Snag creation levels can be met with trees from any species.

Do not create snags within falling distance of power lines, structures, or roads that will remain open 

after harvesting activities are complete.

Intermittent, non-fish-bearing streams (0–50 feet)

Do not thin stands, except as described above in management direction for prescribed burns, individual 

tree falling/tipping for restoration, or to meet the tree-tipping management direction associated with outer 

zone commercial thinning.
1130 | P a g e

Administrative Actions

Management Objective

 Provide for the orderly and efficient management of resources.

Management Direction

 Implement administrative actions in any land use allocation to the extent consistent with land use 

allocation management direction. Administrative actions include but are not limited to the following 

actions:

o Competitive and commercial recreation activities

o Special forest product collection permit issuance

o Lands and realty actions (e.g., the issuance of grants, leases, and permits)

o Trespass resolution

o Facility maintenance

o Facility improvements

o Road maintenance

o Hauling permit issuance

o Recreation site maintenance

o Recreation site improvement

o Hazardous materials removal

o Abandoned Mine Land physical closure or removal and environmental remedial actions

o Law enforcement

o Legal land or mineral estate ownership surveys

o Cadastral and engineering surveys

o Field visits for the design of projects (including clearance inventories) and contract administration

o Tree sampling (including using the 3P fall, buck, and scale sampling method)

o Project implementation monitoring and plan effectiveness monitoring

o Incidental live or dead tree removal for safety or operational reasons

o Wildlife, fisheries, or plant community and population survey or monitoring
1131 | P a g e

Resource Programs

Air Quality

Management Objectives

 Protect air quality related values in Federal mandatory Class I areas.

 Prevent exceedances of national, State, or local ambient air quality standards.

Management Direction

 Comply with the Oregon Smoke Management Plan when implementing prescribed burning activities.

 Use BMPs (Appendix J) to reduce dust from unpaved road surfaces during extended management 

operations, such as timber sales and wildfire management actions/activities. Example practices 

include applying dust suppressants.

 Follow State Implementation Plan requirements for activities that could negatively affect the status of 

air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas.

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Management Objective

 Maintain or restore relevant and important values in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, 

including Research Natural Areas and Outstanding Natural Areas.

Management Direction

 Implement activities as necessary to maintain, enhance, or restore relevant and important values 

(Appendix F).

 Do not use ground-disturbing equipment or aerial application of non-fugitive retardant that would 

compromise important and relevant values during wildfire management operations, except where the 

wildfire is deemed a threat to human safety or private property, or where use is essential for wildfire 

control.

Cultural Resources

Management Objectives

 Preserve and protect significant cultural resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate 

uses by present and future generations.

 Reduce imminent threats and resolve potential conflicts from natural or human-caused deterioration 

or potential conflict with other resources by ensuring that all authorizations for land and resource use 

will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
1132 | P a g e

Management Direction

 Evaluate all documented cultural resources for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. For all 

sites that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, protect sites 

through avoidance or other protection measures.

 Conduct public education and outreach activities, and develop materials in order to educate and 

interpret for the public the cultural and historic resources within the decision area.

 Assign all cultural resources into one of the use allocations in Table B-13.

Table B-13. Cultural use allocations with desired outcomes and management actions

Use Allocation Desired Outcome Management Action

Scientific use Preserved until research potential 

is realized

Permit appropriate research 

including data recovery

Conservation for future use Preserved until conditions for use 

are met

Propose protection 

measures/designations

Traditional use Long-term preservation Consult with Tribes; determine 

limitations

Public use Long-term preservation, on-site 

interpretation

Determine limitations, permitted 

uses

Experimental use Protected until used Determine nature of experiments

Discharged from management No use after recordation, not 

preserved Remove protective measures

Fire, Fuels, and Wildfire Response

Management Objectives

 Respond to wildfires in a manner that provides for public and firefighter safety while meeting land 

management objectives by utilizing the full range of fire management options.

 Fire management strategies would be risk-based decisions that consider firefighter and public safety, 

values at risk, management objectives, and costs that are commensurate with the identified risk.

 Actively manage the land to restore and maintain resilience of ecosystems to wildfire and decrease 

the risk of uncharacteristic, large, high-intensity/high-severity wildfires.

 Manage fuels to reduce wildfire hazard, risk, and negative impacts to communities and infrastructure, 

landscapes, ecosystems, and highly valued resources.

 Manage fire, fuels, and wildfire response consistent with the National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy.

 Participate with communities bordering Federal lands in partnership with local, State, and Federal 

stakeholders to reduce the risks and threats from wildland fire.

Management Direction

 Take immediate action to suppress all human-caused ignitions at the lowest cost commensurate with 

the protection of firefighter and public safety and welfare, and resulting in the fewest negative 

consequences to natural and cultural resources.

 Apply the full range of fire management options in responding to natural ignitions or escaped 

prescribed fires. These fires may be used to achieve management objectives when expected fire 

behavior and potential effects of a fire, or a part of a fire, are aligned with the management objectives 

and direction of the underlying land use allocation and affected resources.
1133 | P a g e

 Conduct wildfire rehabilitation and restoration efforts to protect and sustain ecosystems, ecosystem 

services, public health and safety, and infrastructure adversely affected by fire management 

operations or direct fire effects.

 Treat both management activity fuels and natural hazardous fuels for any of the following reasons:

o Modify the fuel profile (e.g., raise canopy base heights or reduce surface and ladder fuels and 

crown bulk density)

o Reduce potential fire behavior (e.g., crown fire activity, wildfire spread, and intensity)

o Reduce potential fire severity

o Improve effective fire management opportunities within the Wildland Urban Interface18 or in 

close proximity to other highly valued resources

 Treat fuels in a way that increase intervals between future maintenance treatments.

 Create fuel beds or fuel breaks that reduce the potential for high-intensity fire spread within the 

wildland urban interface and in close proximity to other highly valued resources.

 Prior to applying prescribed fire, take necessary mitigation actions to reduce impacts to Bureau 

Special Status Species wildlife and plants and their habitats.

 Conduct necessary vegetation maintenance treatments to ensure that fire management operations are 

able to access existing natural and human-made strategic infrastructure (e.g., communication sites, 

pump chances and other wildfire management actions/activities water sources, key road systems, 

containment lines, fuel breaks, and helispots).

Fisheries

Management Objectives

 Improve the distribution and quantity of high-quality fish habitat across the landscape for all life 

stages of ESA-listed, Bureau Special Status Species, and other fish species.

 Maintain and restore access to stream channels for all life stages of aquatic species.

Management Direction

 Restore degraded spawning, rearing, and holding habitat for fish using a combination of accepted 

techniques including but not limited to log and boulder placement in stream channels, tree tipping, 

and gravel enhancement.

 Remove or modify human-caused fish passage barrier to restore access to stream channels for all life 

stages for aquatic species. 

Forest Management

Management Objectives

 Enhance the health, stability, growth, and vigor of forest stands.

 In harvested or disturbed areas, ensure the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation 

appropriate to the site.

 Facilitate safe and efficient forestry operations for the BLM, reciprocal right-of-way agreement 

holders, and permittees.

 

18 The Wildland Urban Interface includes wildland developed areas.
1134 | P a g e

Management Direction

 Promote the establishment and survival of desirable vegetation through stand maintenance treatments.

 Apply thinning or prescribed fire to forest stands to achieve appropriate stocking and density levels.

 Use genetically improved native trees for reforestation when available.

 Fall and move live or dead trees as needed for safety or operational reasons, including, but not limited 

to, the creation of yarding corridors or skid trails adjacent to nearby harvest units, hazard tree 

removal, and road construction, improvement, or maintenance.

 Allow road construction, maintenance, improvement, and decommissioning as well as construction of 

skid trails and yarding corridors based on operational needs and consistent with valid existing rights.

 Allow management activities in density management study sites (Cissel et al. 2006) that are 

compatible with study objectives.

Hydrology

Management Objective

 Maintain water quality within the range of natural variability that meets ODEQ water quality 

standards for drinking water, contact recreation, and aquatic biodiversity.

Management Direction

 Select and implement site-level BMPs (Appendix J) to maintain water quality for BLM actions 

(including, but not limited to, road construction, road maintenance, silvicultural treatments, recreation 

management, prescribed burning, and wildfire management actions/activities) and discretionary 

actions of others crossing BLM-administered lands.

 Design culverts, bridges, and other stream crossings for the 100-year flood event, including allowance 

for bed load and anticipated floatable debris. Culverts will be of adequate width to preclude ponding 

of water higher than the top of the culvert. Design stream crossings with ESA-listed fish to meet 

design standards consistent with existing ESA consultation documents that address stream crossings 

in the decision area.

 Implement road improvements, storm proofing, maintenance, or decommissioning to reduce or 

eliminate chronic sediment inputs to stream channels and waterbodies. This could include 

maintaining vegetated ditch lines, improving road surfaces, and installing cross drains at appropriate 

spacing.

 Suspend commercial road use where the road surface is deteriorating due to vehicular rutting or 

standing water, or where turbid runoff is likely to reach stream channels.

 Decommission roads no longer needed for resource management and are at risk of failure or are 

contributing sediment to streams, consistent with valid existing rights.

Invasive Species

Management Objectives

 Prevent the introduction of invasive species and the spread of existing invasive species infestations.

 Prevent the introduction and spread of sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infections.
1135 | P a g e

Management Direction

 Implement measures to prevent, detect, and rapidly control new invasive species infestations.

 Use manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, and biological treatments to manage invasive species 

infestations.

 Treat invasive plants and host species for invasive forest pathogens in accordance with the Records of 

Decision (RODs) for the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Impact 

Statement and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 

Oregon Environmental Impact Statement (USDI BLM 2010).

 Apply state-of-the art, integrated pest management prescriptions for the treatment of all identified 

sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) infection sites.

Lands, Realty, and Roads

Management Objectives

 Make land tenure adjustments to facilitate the management of resources and enhance public resource 

values.

 Provide legal access to BLM-administered lands and facilities to support resource management 

programs.

 Provide needed rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements over BLM-administered lands in a 

manner that is consistent with Federal and State laws.

 Protect lands that have important resource values or substantial levels of investment by withdrawing 

them, where necessary, from the implementation of nondiscretionary public land and mineral laws.

 Provide a road transportation system that serves resource management needs 

(administrative/commercial) and casual use needs (recreational/domestic) for both BLM-administered 

lands and adjacent privately owned lands.

Management Direction

 Retain lands in Land Tenure Zone 1 (Zone 1) under BLM administration. Lands in Zone 1 include 

existing and future—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River corridors;

o Wilderness Areas;

o Wilderness Study Areas;

o National Trail management corridors;

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands managed for their Wilderness Characteristics

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and Outstanding 

Natural Areas);

o Congressionally designated Outstanding Natural Areas; and

o Lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds.

 Make lands in Land Tenure Zone 2 (Zone 2) available for exchange to enhance public resource 

values, improve management capabilities, or reduce the potential for land use conflict. Zone 2 lands 

consist of all lands not listed in the descriptions of the other two Land Tenure Zones.

 Make lands in Land Tenure Zone 3 (Zone 3) available for disposal (identified in Appendix K) using 

appropriate disposal mechanisms. These lands include—

o Lands that are either not practical to manage, or are uneconomical to manage (because of their 

intermingled location and non-suitability for management by another Federal agency);

o Survey hiatuses; and

o Unintentional encroachments.
1136 | P a g e

 Assign to Zone 3 survey hiatuses and unintentional encroachments discovered in the future.

 Assign to Zone 3 patented lands with reversionary interests reserved by the United States that are 

relinquished back to Federal ownership.

 Assign to Zone 3 land boundary adjustments due to river movement discovered in the future, which 

meets the disposal criteria defined in Appendix K.

 The BLM may dispose of lands designated in Zones 2 and 3 that provide habitat for ESA-listed 

species, including critical habitat, only following consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

or National Marine Fisheries Service and upon a determination that such action is consistent with 

relevant law and maximizes public resource values.

 As required by the Oregon Public Lands Transfer and Protection Act (Pub. L. 105-321), do not reduce 

through disposal, exchange, or sale the acres of O&C lands of all classifications, and the acres of 

O&C and public domain lands that are available for harvesting.

 Acquire or dispose of lands to facilitate resource management objectives as opportunities occur. See 

the Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria section in Appendix K.

 Make available for disposal the public domain lands in Zones 2 and 3 that have been classified under 

Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

 Manage newly acquired lands for the purpose for which they were acquired or in a manner that is 

consistent with management objectives for adjacent BLM-administered lands or other BLMadministered lands having similar resource values. See Acquisition Criteria section in Appendix K.

 Where the BLM has administrative responsibility on lands managed by other agencies, the BLM will 

administer those lands in accordance with interagency agreements.

 Issue permits, as identified under the FLPMA (Section 302), for a variety of uses, such as, but not 

limited to, stockpile and storage sites and as tools to authorize unintentional trespass situations 

pending final resolution.

 Do not issue land use authorizations for landfills or other waste disposal facilities.

 Use land-use authorizations to resolve agricultural or occupancy trespasses, where appropriate.

 Recognize existing rights-of-way, permits, leases, and easements as valid uses.

 Limit withdrawals to the area needed and restrict only those activities needed to accomplish the 

purposes of the withdrawal.

 Process formal land withdrawals being relinquished by the BLM or other Federal agency according to 

the procedures stated under 43 CFR 2372. If the lands are found suitable for return to the public 

domain, the revocation order will recommend the management prescriptions developed in the 

environmental review. Manage the lands according to management prescriptions for those lands 

having the same or similar resource values in the same general area of the land withdrawal.

 Designate Right-Of-Way Exclusion Areas in—

o Lands designated as Wilderness;

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics;

o Wilderness Study Areas;

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Wild; and

o Visual Resource Management Class I areas.

In right-of-way exclusion areas, do not grant rights-of-way, except when mandated by law.

 Designate right-of-way avoidance areas in—

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and Outstanding 

Natural Areas);

o Recreation Management Areas (Special and Extensive);

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers classified as Scenic and Recreational; and

o Visual Resource Management Class II areas not included in right-of-way exclusion areas.

In right-of-way avoidance areas, grant rights-of-way only if the BLM determines that the right-ofway proposals are compatible with the protection of the values for which the land use was designated, 
1137 | P a g e

or when no feasible alternative route or designated right-of-way corridor is available as applicable 

with BLM laws and policy.

 Grant rights-of-way in utility corridors as the preferred location for energy transmission or 

distribution facilities. Corridors would generally be 1,000 feet on each side of the centerline. Grant 

the rights-of-way as the minimum necessary to accommodate a specific request. Do not permit 

development or management activities that would conflict with the construction, operation, or 

maintenance of facilities corresponding to the purpose of the utility corridor.

 Construct communication facilities on existing developed communication sites where they do not 

conflict with other management objectives. Require a site plan for applications for communication 

facilities on undeveloped communication sites (Appendix K, Table K-14 through Table K-19).

 Expand existing communication sites and develop new sites. Prioritize the use of existing sites and 

facilities for accommodating the need for additional capacity.

 Construct new permanent or temporary roads, which may include major culverts and bridges, where

needed to meet resource management objectives, to established BLM engineering design standards. 

Apply road location, design, and construction BMPs as needed (Appendix J).

 Maintain existing roads, including major culverts and bridges, to provide access for both resource 

management and casual use activities while protecting water quality and facility investments, and 

providing user safety, to established BLM maintenance standards. Apply road maintenance, road 

stormproofing, and wet-season road use BMPs as needed (Appendix J).

 Remove hazard and downed trees along roads for safety or operational reasons.

 Fully decommission or obliterate (permanent closure) roads with no future resource management 

need. Decommission (long-term closure) roads not currently needed for resource management but 

that will be used and maintained again in the future. Apply road closure BMPs as needed (Appendix 

J). Close roads only with the approval of affected permittees consistent with valid existing rights.

Livestock Grazing

Management Objectives

 Provide for livestock grazing consistent with other resource objectives while maintaining or 

improving the health of public rangelands.

 Prevent livestock from causing trampling disturbance to fish spawning beds where ESA-listed or 

Bureau Sensitive species occur.

Management Direction (All Districts)

 Authorize livestock grazing through management agreements, non-renewable grazing permits or 

leases, or special use permits on lands not available for livestock grazing through the issuance of a 

grazing lease or permit to control invasive plants, reduce fire danger, or accomplish other 

management objectives.

 Restrict livestock from streams with ESA-listed or Bureau Sensitive fish species during spawning, 

incubation, and until 30 days following the emergence of juveniles from spawning areas.

Management Direction (Coos Bay District)

 Lands within the grazing allotments identified on Table B-14 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease. The BLM will not authorize grazing under Section 15 

of the Taylor Grazing Act (Appendix A). The BLM may authorize grazing through management 
1138 | P a g e

agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the 

grazing regulations.

Table B-14. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Coos Bay District

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Bullock 20006 6 12

Kellogg 20007 2 6

Middle Creek 20001 5 5

New River 30001 530 97

Totals 543 120

Management Direction (Klamath Falls Field Office)

 Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (USDI BLM 1997). 

Figure 3-108 shows lands available for livestock grazing. Appendix L lists allotments available for 

livestock grazing.

 Maintain current livestock grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown in 

Appendix L. Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of monitoring 

data identify that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon 

and Washington.

 Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington, RMP objectives, or 

other allotment-specific objectives.

 Implement range improvement projects in adherence with the following:

o Conduct inventories and surveys for cultural resources, ESA-listed species, and Bureau Special 

Status Species prior to authorization of any project construction. Implement appropriate 

mitigations to reduce or eliminate potential effects to these resources.

o Design projects to minimize surface disturbance at all project sites.

o Rehabilitate disturbed soil to blend into the surrounding soil surface. Re-vegetate using seeds and 

plant materials that are genetically appropriate and native to the plant community or region, to the 

extent practicable, to replace ground cover, reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion, and 

discourage the potential establishment of any invasive plant species.

o Use existing roads and trails to access areas for range improvement construction to the extent 

practicable. If needed, create unimproved trails and tracks to reach construction sites and provide 

access for future maintenance of the improvements. Locate unimproved trails or tracks outside 

riparian management areas where workable.

o Limit brushing and tree limb removal to only that necessary for surveying, placement, and 

construction of improvements.

 Design livestock fencing to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement of 

wildlife. Wire and post spacing would follow these specifications where practicable:

o Construct 4-wire fences, with the bottom wire 16–18” off the ground with the sequence of the 

remaining 3-wires above this being 6”, 6”, and 12.” Do not exceed 42” total height (ground to top 

wire).

o Install 2-strand smooth wire, not barbed, for the bottom wire to facilitate antelope crossings.

o Install steel ‘t-posts’ no less than 16 feet and no more than 24 feet apart, depending on local 

conditions.
1139 | P a g e

o Construct a brace post, tree scab, or rock jack (rock crib) at least every 0.25 mile to enhance fence 

integrity.

 Do not construct woven wire ‘sheep’ livestock fences on public lands.

 Install gates or cattle guards where livestock fences cross over existing roads.

 Construct livestock fences outside of perennially or seasonally saturated soils, such as occur in wet 

meadows and alongside stream banks, to provide fence longevity and stability, where practicable.

 Fence spring sources to prevent livestock grazing and trampling, when necessary.

 Install escape ramps in all livestock water troughs to allow wildlife to escape.

 Install piping to divert overflow from livestock troughs away from the developed source area.

 Construct pit or dam livestock reservoirs to impound water for livestock and wildlife use in adherence 

with the following:

o Do not exceed water storage capacity of 3.0 acre-feet.

o Construct pits in dry lakebeds or other natural depressions. Pile excavated material from pits 

adjacent to the pit in a manner that eliminates potential for erosion of the excavated material into 

the pit. Stockpile topsoil to use to rehabilitate the borrow areas.

o Construct dams in drainages or to one side of a drainage, with a diversion ditch constructed into 

the impoundment area. Locate dams, when possible, to take advantage of natural spillway sites. 

When a natural spillway is not available, construct a spillway around the dam for the reservoir. 

Design spillway to withstand the 50-year flood flow without overtopping the dam and to direct 

the pass flow downstream to prevent erosion of the embankment.

o Construct dams a minimum ratio of 3:1 on the upstream face and minimum ratio of 2:1 on the 

downstream face. Minimum width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet.

o Clear all brush, stumps, roots, and organic matter from borrow areas and beneath dams.

o Use material from dam impoundment areas or borrow areas as fill material. Use only fill 

materials consisting of non-organic and cohesive soils adjusted in moisture to optimum water 

content for dam construction.

o Place fill material in thin layers parallel with the long axis of the dam. Do not exceed individual 

layer thickness of 8”. Compact layers with a sheepsfoot roller or similar equipment.

 Obtain necessary water right permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department prior to 

construction. Coordinate water right applications with applicable agencies, irrigation districts, and 

interested parties.

 Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events (e.g., 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and rehabilitation 

projects). Resume livestock grazing after determining that soil and vegetation have recovered from 

the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing and maintain recovery from the initial disturbance. 

Exceptions would be for cases where such grazing would not impede site recovery, or where 

livestock are used as a tool to aid in achieving certain recovery objectives.

 Lands within the grazing allotments identified in Table B-15 will not be available for livestock 

grazing through the issuance of a grazing lease or permit. The BLM will not authorize grazing under 

Section 3 permits or Section 15 leases under the Taylor Grazing Act. The BLM may authorize 

grazing through management agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use 

permits consistent with the grazing regulations.
1140 | P a g e

Table B-15. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Edge Creek* 00102 42 -

Klamath River ACEC† 00102 5,908 -

Plum Hills 00813 160 20

Totals 6,110 20

* This portion of the Upper Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor within the Edge Creek Allotment will be made unavailable 

to livestock grazing. This portion of the allotment is not allocated any AUMs. The remainder of the allotment will be available 

for livestock grazing.

† These portions of the Upper Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor/ACEC, historically included in the Edge Creek, Chicken 

Hills, and Chase Mountain allotments, are unavailable to livestock grazing. There are no allocated AUMs associated with these 

acres.

 Close exclosures and other areas identified on Table B-16 to livestock grazing.

Table B-16. Exclosures or other areas previously closed to livestock grazing, Klamath Falls Field Office

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Area Closed

Edge Creek 00102 Hayden Creek Exclosures (2)

Fox Lake Exclosure

Buck Lake 00104 Tunnel Creek Exclosure

Surveyor Campground Exclosure

Dixie 00107 Dixie (Long Prairie Creek) Exclosure

Jeld-Wen 00822 Aspen Exclosure

Rodgers 00852 Van Meter Flat Reservoir Exclosure

Yainax 00861 Bull Spring Exclosure

Timothy Spring Exclosure

Bear Valley 00876 Holbrook Spring Exclosure

Bumpheads 00877 Bumpheads Reservoir Outlet Exclosure

Antelope Creek Exclosure

Horsefly 00882

Long Branch Exclosure

Caseview Spring Exclosure

Norcross Spring Exclosure

Boundary Spring Exclosure

Pankey Basin 00884 Pankey Creek Riparian Exclosure

Horse Camp Rim 00886 21 Reservoir Exclosure

Pitchlog 00887

Pitchlog Creek Exclosure

Willow Spring Exclosure

CCC Spring Exclosure

Willow Valley 00890

Duncan Spring Exclosure

Antelope Creek Exclosure

East Fork Lost River Exclosure
1141 | P a g e

Management Direction (Medford)

 Manage livestock grazing in accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington (USDI BLM 1997). 

Figure 3-108 shows lands available for livestock grazing. Appendix L lists allotments available for 

livestock grazing.

 Maintain current livestock grazing levels and management practices for the allotments shown in 

Appendix L. Make adjustments when rangeland health assessments and evaluations of monitoring

data identify that livestock grazing is a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon 

and Washington.

 Develop range improvements when needed to achieve the Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and Washington, RMP objectives, or 

other allotment-specific objectives.

 Implement range improvement projects in adherence with the following:

o Conduct inventories and surveys for cultural resources, ESA-listed species, and Bureau Special 

Status Species prior to authorization of any project construction. Implement appropriate 

mitigations to reduce or eliminate potential effects to these resources.

o Design projects to minimize surface disturbance at all project sites.

o Rehabilitate disturbed soil to blend into the surrounding soil surface. Re-vegetate using seeds and 

plant materials that are genetically appropriate and native to the plant community or region, to the 

extent practicable, to replace ground cover, reduce soil loss from wind and water erosion, and 

discourage the potential establishment of any invasive plant species.

o Use existing roads and trails to access areas for range improvement construction to the extent 

practicable. If needed, create unimproved trails and tracks to reach construction sites and provide 

access for future maintenance of the improvements. Locate unimproved trails or tracks outside 

riparian management areas where workable.

o Limit brushing and tree limb removal to only that necessary for surveying, placement, and 

construction of improvements.

 Design livestock fencing to prevent the passage of livestock without stopping the movement of 

wildlife. Wire and post spacing would follow these specifications where practicable:

o Construct 4-wire fences, with the bottom wire 16-18” off the ground with the sequence of the 

remaining 3-wires above this being 6”, 6”, and 12.” Do not exceed 42” total height (ground to top 

wire).

o Install 2-strand smooth wire, not barbed, for the bottom wire to facilitate antelope crossings.

o Install steel ‘t-posts’ no less than 16 feet and no more than 24 feet apart, depending on local 

conditions.

o Construct a brace post, tree scab, or rock jack (rock crib) at least every 0.25 mile to enhance fence 

integrity.

 Do not construct woven wire ‘sheep’ livestock fences on public lands.

 Install gates or cattle guards where livestock fences cross over existing roads.

 Construct livestock fences outside of perennially or seasonally saturated soils, such as occur in wet 

meadows and alongside stream banks, to provide fence longevity and stability, where practicable.

 Fence spring sources to prevent livestock grazing and trampling, when necessary.

 Install escape ramps in all livestock water troughs to allow wildlife to escape.

 Install piping to divert overflow from livestock troughs away from the developed source area.

 Construct pit or dam livestock reservoirs to impound water for livestock and wildlife use in adherence 

with the following:

o Do not exceed water storage capacity of 3.0 acre-feet.
1142 | P a g e

o Construct pits in dry lakebeds or other natural depressions. Pile excavated material from pits 

adjacent to the pit in a manner that eliminates potential for erosion of the excavated material into 

the pit. Stockpile topsoil to use to rehabilitate the borrow areas.

o Construct dams in drainages or to one side of a drainage, with a diversion ditch constructed into 

the impoundment area. Locate dams, when possible, to take advantage of natural spillway sites. 

When a natural spillway is not available, construct a spillway around the dam for the reservoir. 

Design spillway to withstand the 50-year flood flow without overtopping the dam and to direct 

the pass flow downstream to prevent erosion of the embankment.

o Construct dams a minimum ratio of 3:1 on the upstream face and minimum ratio of 2:1 on the 

downstream face. Minimum width of the top of all dams would be 12 feet.

o Clear all brush, stumps, roots, and organic matter from borrow areas and beneath dams.

o Use material from dam impoundment areas or borrow areas as fill material. Use only fill 

materials consisting of non-organic and cohesive soils adjusted in moisture to optimum water 

content for dam construction.

o Place fill material in thin layers parallel with the long axis of the dam. Do not exceed individual 

layer thickness of 8”. Compact layers with a sheepsfoot roller or similar equipment.

 Obtain necessary water right permits from the Oregon Water Resources Department prior to 

construction. Coordinate water right applications with applicable agencies, irrigation districts, and 

interested parties.

 Rest from livestock grazing those areas disturbed by natural and human-induced events (e.g., 

wildland fire, prescribed burns, timber management treatments, juniper cuts, and rehabilitation 

projects). Resume livestock grazing after determining that soil and vegetation have recovered from 

the initial disturbance to support livestock grazing and maintain recovery from the initial disturbance. 

Exceptions would be for cases where such grazing would not impede site recovery, or where 

livestock are used as a tool to aid in achieving certain recovery objectives.

 Lands with grazing allotments identified in Table B-17 will not be available for livestock grazing 

through the issuance of a grazing lease. The BLM will not authorize grazing under Section 15 of the 

Taylor Grazing Act. The BLM may authorize grazing through management agreements, 

nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, or special use permits consistent with the grazing 

regulations.

Table B-17. Allotments unavailable for livestock grazing, Medford District

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Pickett Mountain 00302 802 30

Glade Creek 00315 564 17

Cherry Gulch 00316 40 6

Trail Creek 10003 3,211 113

Longbranch 10004* 11,124 71

Antioch Road 10005 40 4

Roundtop Evans 10006 26,204 110

West Perry Road 10010 40 10

East Perry Road 10011 80 7

Upper Table Rock 10012 714 66

Clear Creek 10013 3,794 45

Obenchain Mountain 10014 121 12

Nichols Gap 10018 283 18

Eagle Point Canal 10020 443 55
1143 | P a g e

Allotment Name Allotment Number Public Land

(Acres)

Forage Allocation 

(AUMs)

Shady Branch 10025 321 32

Stiehl 10026 277 18

Fielder Creek 10028 83 5

Derby Station 10030 516 36

West Derby 10034 1,125 89

Emigrant Creek 10111 40 7

Baldy 10120 201 87

Lost Creek 10123 78 6

Cartwright 10127 40 4

Bybee Peak 10144 322 36

Sugarloaf/Greensprings 10158 3,008 210

Sterling Spring 10207 27,179 190

Del Rio 10216 42 5

Jump Off Joe 10303 55 8

Deer Creek 10308 1,172 77

Q Bar X 10310 13 3

Applegate 20201 25,415 294

Tunnel Ridge 20202 2,177 14

Billy Mountain 20203 4,977 175

Timber Mountain 20204 3,202 70

Sardine and Galls Creek 20205 3,323 158

Spencer Gulch 20208 2,109 150

Quartz Gulch 20209 670 9

Burton Butte 20212 10 2

Chapman Creek 20213 3,758 81

Ecker 20217 40 6

Stage Road 20218 40 4

Lomas Road 20222 643 50

Star 20223 121 24

Ferns Lease 20224 249 28

Reeves Creek 20309 1,665 95

Esterly Creek 20312 3,641 152

Totals 133,971 2,689

* These portions of the Longbranch Allotment will be made unavailable to livestock grazing. The remainder of the allotment will 

be available for livestock grazing (Appendix L).

 All areas that are currently without allotments will remain closed to livestock grazing through the 

issuance of a grazing lease.
1144 | P a g e

Minerals

Management Objectives

 Manage the development of leasable (including conventional and non-conventional hydrocarbon 

resources) minerals, locatable mineral entry, and salable mineral material disposal in an orderly and 

efficient manner.

 Maintain availability of mineral material sites needed for development and maintenance of access 

roads for forest management, timber harvest, local communities, rights-of-way for energy production 

and transmission, and other uses.

Management Direction

 Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.11(c)(6), the BLM is creating two exceptions to the requirement that a Plan 

of Operations is required for any mining activities that are greater than casual use (such as noticelevel operations) when the activities are located within lands or waters known to contain federally 

proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat. 

An operator is not required to submit a Plan of Operations for notice-level activities in the following 

two situations:

o When pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM determines that the notice-level activity 

will have no effect on federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their 

proposed or designated critical habitat.

o When the BLM has completed consultation to the extent required under section 7(a)(2) of the 

ESA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service has 

concurred with the BLM’s finding that the notice-level activity is not likely to adversely 

affect federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or 

designated critical habitat.

 A Plan of Operations will be required for mining proposals that the BLM determines would be likely 

to adversely affect federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or 

designated critical habitat.

 Proposals that require a Plan of Operations and are located within lands or waters known to contain 

federally proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical 

habitat continue to be governed by the standards in 43 CFR 3809 et seq.

 Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.31(b)(2), the operator must contact the BLM before beginning operations 

that involve the use of a suction dredge to determine whether the operator needs to submit a notice or 

a plan to BLM, or whether the activities constitute casual use. It is the operator's burden to determine 

the location of their activity relative to the location of lands or waters that contain federally proposed 

or listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat, in light of 

the operator’s potential liability under Section 9 of the ESA.

o Suction dredging activity proposed within lands or waters that contain federally proposed or 

listed threatened or endangered species or their proposed or designated critical habitat, 

regardless of the level of disturbance, must not begin until the BLM has completed 

consultation to the extent required under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

 Energy and mineral development can occur concurrently with some resource uses.

Leasable Minerals: Oil, Gas, or Coalbed Natural Gas Resources19

 Maintain all lands as open to leasable mineral development except where closed by legislation.

 

19 The Sustainable Energy section addresses Geothermal Resources.
1145 | P a g e

 Apply site-specific stipulations, such as no surface occupancy or conditional surface uses, based on 

resource protection needs in—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation);

o National Trail management corridors;

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics;

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (including Research Natural Areas and Outstanding 

Natural Areas where not already closed by legislation); and

o Recreation Management Areas (Special Recreation Management Areas/Extensive Recreation 

Management Areas).

 Apply site-specific stipulations as needed to protect ESA-listed species and their critical habitats.

Locatable Minerals

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation);

o National Trail management corridors; and

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics.

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Special Recreation Management Areas and 

Extensive Recreation Management Areas when mineral entry is not compatible with meeting 

recreation objectives or maintaining recreation setting characteristics.

 Recommend for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

with identified special management needs associated with locatable mineral entry (Appendix F).

 Retain all other areas not congressionally or secretarially withdrawn as open for locatable mineral 

entry.

Salable Minerals

 Close to salable mineral material disposal—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic River segments (where not already closed by 

legislation);

o National Trail management corridors; and

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics.

 Close Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas to salable 

mineral material disposal when not compatible with meeting recreation objectives or maintaining 

recreation setting characteristics.

 Close Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with identified special management needs to salable 

mineral material disposal (Appendix F).

 Maintain all other areas not closed through legislation as open to salable mineral material disposal.

 Appendix M provides a trends analysis that will be applied to disposals.

Paleontological Resources

Management Objectives

 Protect and preserve significant localities from natural or human-caused deterioration or potential 

conflict with other resources.
1146 | P a g e

 Provide appropriate scientific, educational, and recreational uses, such as research and interpretive 

opportunities, for paleontological resources.

Management Direction

 Protect all paleontological resources through avoidance or other protection measures, consistent with 

BLM Handbook 8270-1 – General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management

(USDI BLM 1998, pp. Chapter III).

 Conduct public education, outreach activities, and develop materials to educate the public on 

paleontological resources existing within the decision area.

Rare Plants and Fungi

Management Objectives

 Provide for conservation and contribute toward the recovery of plant species that are ESA-listed or 

candidates.

 Support the persistence and resilience of natural communities, including those associated with forests, 

oak woodlands, shrublands, grasslands, cliffs, rock outcrops, talus slopes, meadows, and wetlands. 

Support ecological processes and disturbance mechanisms to allow for a range of seral conditions.

 Provide for the conservation of Bureau Special Status plant and fungi species.

 Support the persistence and resilience of oak species within oak woodlands and within mixed 

hardwood/conifer communities.

Management Direction

 Manage ESA-listed species consistent with recovery plans, conservation agreements, species 

management plans, and designated critical habitat, and species-specific or project-specific 

conservation measured developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the protection 

and restoration of habitat, altering the type, timing, and intensity of actions, and implementing other 

strategies designed to recover populations of species.

 Manage ESA candidate and Bureau Sensitive species consistent with any conservation agreements or 

strategies including the protection and restoration of habitat, alteration of the type, timing, and 

intensity of actions, and other strategies designed to conserve populations of the species.

 Manage habitat to maintain populations of ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate plant species.

 Prior to implementing actions (other than fire management operations in response to unplanned

ignitions or escaped prescribed fires) that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance 

in the suitable habitat of any ESA-listed, proposed, or candidate plant species, or Bureau Sensitive 

plant species, conduct surveys to determine species presence. Utilize information on known sites of 

ESA-listed plants and wildlife when conducting fire management operations that could result in 

habitat modification or species disturbance. In addition to pre-project surveys, conduct additional 

surveys on BLM-administered lands for ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate plant species within 

suitable habitat as needed to find new populations.

 Maintain or restore natural processes, native species composition, and vegetation structure in natural 

communities through actions such as applying prescribed fire, thinning, removing encroaching 

vegetation, treating non-native invasive species, retaining legacy components (e.g., large trees, snags, 

and down logs), maintaining water flow to wetlands, and planting or seeding native species.

 When re-vegetating degraded or disturbed areas, utilize locally adapted seeds and native plant 

materials appropriate to the location and site-specific conditions, and meeting management objectives 
1147 | P a g e

for vegetation management and restoration activities. Use seeds and plant materials that are 

genetically appropriate and native to the plant community or region, to the extent practicable.

 Manage mixed hardwood/conifer communities to maintain and enhance oak (Quercus spp.) 

persistence and structure by removing competing conifers, thinning, and prescribed fire, to the extent 

consistent with management direction for the land use allocation.

 Manage mixed conifer communities to maintain and enhance ponderosa, Jeffrey, and sugar pine 

persistence and structure by removing competing conifers, thinning, and applying prescribed fire, to 

the extent consistent with management direction for the land use allocation.

 Create new and augment existing populations of ESA-listed, proposed, and candidate plant species 

and Bureau Sensitive plant and fungi species to meet recovery plan or conservation strategy 

objectives.

Recreation and Visitor Services

Management Objectives

 Provide a diversity of quality recreational opportunities.

 Meet legal requirements for visitor health and safety and mitigate resource user conflicts.

 Mitigate recreational impacts on natural and cultural resources. In land use allocations where 

management of other resources is dominant, provide recreational opportunities where they can be 

managed consistent with the management of these other resources.

 Develop new recreation opportunities to address recreation activity demand created by growing 

communities, activity groups, or recreation-tourism if—

o Recreation development is consistent with interdisciplinary land use plan objectives; and

o The BLM has secured commitments from partners (e.g., a cooperative management agreement, 

adopt-a-trail agreement, and memorandum of understanding).

Management Direction

 Manage Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas, 

identified in Appendix O, in accordance with their planning frameworks.

 Protect recreation setting characteristics within Special Recreation Management Areas to prohibit 

activities that would degrade identified characteristics.

 Pursue and prioritize public access to BLM-administered lands that have high recreational potential 

consistent with BLM designations and allocations.

 Allow the discharge of firearms for recreational target shooting on BLM-administered lands, outside 

areas with firearm use restrictions described in the RMA frameworks, if the firearm is discharged 

toward a proper backstop sufficient to stop the projectile’s forward progress.

 Issue discretionary Special Recreation Permits for a variety of uses that are consistent with resource 

and program objectives.

 Issue vending permits that complement visitor use or contribute to resource protection.

 Monitor activity participation and recreation setting characteristics annually during the primary use 

season of June through October.

 Use recreation management tools such as establishing an allocation system, applying group size limits 

for private and commercial recreation use, or implementing seasonal closures, if monitoring indicates 

that social recreation setting characteristics are not being protected, resource damage is occurring, or 

user conflicts need to be addressed.
1148 | P a g e

 Develop and maintain partnerships with recreation-based organizations and service providers. These 

partnerships should engage partners in the planning, implementation and monitoring of recreation 

opportunities and facilities on BLM-administered public lands.

Recreation and Visitor Services – Significant Caves20

Management Objective

 Manage significant caves to allow for appropriate access while protecting pristine and fragile 

resources, wildlife values, scientific and research values, and visitor safety.

Management Direction

 Manage significant caves to maintain the current level of remoteness from motorized and mechanized 

vehicles and to preserve the natural appearance of the cave. Prohibit construction of new facilities, 

roads, or trails to access the caves. Allow minor modifications (e.g., use of tape and signage and 

placing rescue caches) only for scientific purposes and to accommodate safe use. Maintain low 

evidence of use and other people.

 Manage visitor frequency, visitor numbers, and season of use through monitoring and subsequent 

implementation decisions described through cave management plans for each significant cave, group 

of caves, or complex of caves.

 Focus all management actions on specific activity outcomes for caving and research. Outcomes will 

be for participants to enjoy and learn about cave and karst resources. Specific benefit outcomes will 

be for environmental benefits, such as increased environmental stewardship, and the preservation and 

protection of unique biological, paleontological, archaeological, and mineralogical aspects. Social 

benefits will be to provide environmental education and appreciation of cave and karst systems.

 Provide appropriate access while addressing issues and concerns relating to visitor safety and 

preservation of the caves’ values. If issues or concerns arise, apply necessary managerial controls, 

such as closures, permits, trip requirements, and gating. Administer and authorize research, inventory, 

work projects, and digging trips. Provide informational and educational materials to authorized 

visitors. Do not market or promote cave and karst resources.

Recreation and Visitor Services – Formerly Used Defense Sites

Management Objective

 Prevent and reduce risks to public health and the environment where hazards may exist resulting from 

military defense activities.

Management Direction

 Manage the portion of the Modoc Aerial Gunnery and Bombing Range located within the Klamath 

Falls Field Office to avoid or limit exposure to areas that may contain hazards associated with 

munitions and explosives of concern. Munitions and explosives of concern may include unexploded 

ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents when munitions constituents are 

present in high enough concentrations to pose an explosive hazard. The site may also be contaminated 

with munitions constituents that are not present in high enough concentrations to represent an 

explosive hazard, but in high enough concentrations to be a toxicity hazard in soil, groundwater, 

surface water, or air.

 

20 The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 describes significant caves.
1149 | P a g e

 Coordinate uses on BLM-administered lands within formerly used defense sites with State and 

Federal military agencies to prevent and reduce risks to public health and the environment. Develop, 

as needed, cooperative agreements or Memorandums of Understanding to ensure communication, 

coordination, and safe use of public lands within formerly used defense sites.

 Take appropriate measures, such as signing, fencing, removal, and remediation, to protect the public 

from known unexploded ordnance locations on BLM-administered lands.

Soil Resources

Management Objectives

 Maintain or enhance the inherent soil functions (e.g., ability of soil to take in water, store water, 

regulate outputs for vegetative growth and stream flow, and resist erosion or compaction) of managed 

ecosystems.

 Provide landscapes that stay within natural soil stability failure rates during and after management 

activities.

Management Direction

 Apply BMPs (Appendix J) as needed to maintain or restore soil functions and soil quality, and limit 

detrimental soil disturbance.

 Limit detrimental soil disturbance from forest management operations to a total of < 20 percent of the 

harvest unit area. Where the combined detrimental soil disturbance from implementation of current 

forest management operations and detrimental soil disturbance from past management operations 

exceeds 20 percent of the unit area, apply mitigation or amelioration to reduce the total detrimental 

soil disturbance to < 20 percent of the harvest unit area. Detrimental soil disturbance can occur from 

erosion, loss of organic matter, severe heating to seeds or microbes, soil displacement, or compaction.

 Avoid road construction and timber harvest on unstable slopes where there is a high probability to 

cause a shallow, rapidly moving landslide that would likely damage infrastructure (e.g., BLM or 

privately owned roads, State highways, or residences) or threaten public safety.

 Do not till soils where tillage will cause soils to become unstable due to increasing the soil moisture 

content.

Sustainable Energy

Management Objectives

 Develop sustainable energy resources to the maximum extent possible without precluding other land 

uses.

Management Direction

 Exclude from sustainable energy development areas that are part of the National Landscape 

Conservation System (e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

National Historic and Scenic Trails), Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and DistrictDesignated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics.
1150 | P a g e

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to, the following:

o Control outdoor lighting with motion or heat sensors to the maximum extent practicable.

o Use hooded outdoor lighting directed downward to minimize horizontal and skyward illumination 

to the maximum extent practicable.

o Minimize the use of high-intensity lighting.

o Establish non-disturbance buffer zones to protect sensitive habitats or areas of high risk for 

species of concern.

o Control any pets of operations staff kept on-site to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife.

o Use existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent feasible; minimize the number and

length/size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas.

o Minimize traffic volumes to the maximum extent practicable; maintain roads adequately to 

minimize associated impacts.

o Install and maintain permanent fencing around electrical substations, emergency generators, and 

other areas potentially hazardous to human health.

o Consolidate necessary infrastructure requirements wherever possible, including electric power 

transmission lines, pipelines and market access corridors, and support utility infrastructure.

o Keep energy conversion sites clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; 

minimize the accumulation of scrap heaps, dumps, and storage yards.

o Design facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion, and transmission to 

discourage the perching or nesting by birds.

o Integrate facilities used for sustainable energy harvesting, conversion and transmission with the 

surrounding landscape including minimizing the profile of ancillary structures, burial of cables, 

prohibition of commercial symbols, and lighting.

o Provide secondary containment for all on-site hazardous materials and waste storage, including 

fuel.

Sustainable Energy – Biomass Energy Development

Management Objectives

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction

 Offer slash in excess of soil stabilization needs as biomass energy feedstock.

Sustainable Energy – Wind Energy Development

Management Objectives

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives

Management Direction

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to, the following:

o Lock turbine tower access doors to limit public access.

o Locate turbines away from landscape features known to attract raptors.
1151 | P a g e

o Locate turbines away from colonies where bats hibernate, breed, and raise their young; locate 

turbines outside of bat migration corridors or flight paths between colonies and feeding areas

o Encompass specific design elements for turbine arrays and turbine design including visual 

uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, non-reflective paints, and 

prohibition of commercial messages on turbines.

o Repair, replace, or remove inoperative turbines in a timely manner.

o Exclude designated areas that are part of the National Landscape Conservation System (e.g., 

Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and 

Scenic Trails) and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern from wind energy site monitoring 

and testing and development.

o Incorporate wildlife-compatible design standards when fencing is necessary.

o Avoid the use of guy wires on communication towers and meteorological towers at wind energy 

project sites.

o Keep the installation of meteorological towers on a project site to a minimum; do not locate these 

towers in sensitive habitats or in areas where ecological resources known to be sensitive to human 

are present.

o Light only a portion of the turbines within a wind project; fix all pilot warning lights to fire 

synchronously.

o Do not add any wildlife habitat enhancements or improvements (e.g., ponds, guzzlers, rock piles, 

brush piles, bird nest boxes, nesting platforms, wildlife food plots) that would attract small 

mammals to wind energy facilities.

o Use only shielded, separated, or insulated electrical conductors that minimize electrocution risk to 

avian wildlife.

Sustainable Energy – Geothermal Energy Development

Management Objectives

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.

Management Direction

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to, the following:

o Minimize impacts to livestock operations from geothermal energy drilling and development.

o Incorporate certified weed-free mulch into the reclamation of the land disturbed during the 

development of geothermal resources.

o Raise above-ground piping on-site for sufficient wildlife passage.

o Isolate any liquid that is at elevated temperatures or contains contaminants that are toxic or 

harmful to fur or feathers from wildlife access with fencing, netting or complete enclosure.

Sustainable Energy – Sustainable Energy Transmission Corridors

Management Objectives

 See Sustainable Energy management objectives.
1152 | P a g e

Management Direction

 Site development will include practices as needed to reduce or avoid impacts to other resource uses. 

Appropriate practices will be applied based on site-specific conditions and include, but are not limited 

to, the following:

o Site overhead lines away from areas where bird crossings are frequent.

o Mark overhead lines in accordance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee collision 

guidelines.

o Install overhead lines such that the conductors parallel tree lines, employ bird flight diverters, or 

are otherwise screened so that bat and bird collision risk is reduced.

o Where pipeline right-of-way clearings can be incorporated into a strategic system of fire breaks, 

make clearings sufficiently wide to be effective as fire breaks.

o Raise pipelines constructed above ground sufficiently high enough to allow wildlife passage 

where needed and avoid potential alterations to predator/prey dynamics.

Trails and Travel Management

Management Objectives

 Maintain a comprehensive travel network that best meets the full range of public use, resource 

management, and administrative access needs.

 Protect fragile and unique resource values from damage by public motorized vehicle use.

 Provide public motorized vehicle use opportunities where appropriate.

Management Direction

 Develop public motorized and non-motorized travel routes and trails in a manner designed to 

minimize conflicts between public motorized vehicle use and other existing (or proposed) recreational 

uses of the same, or neighboring, public lands. Design in a manner to ensure the compatibility of such 

uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into account noise and other factors.

 Manage public motorized vehicle use in Recreation Management Areas (Special Recreation 

Management Area/Extensive Recreation Management Area) according to interim management 

guidelines until subsequent comprehensive implementation-level travel management plans are 

completed.

 Develop closed or abandoned roads to provide additional public motorized and non-motorized trail 

opportunities, where feasible and compatible with other resource objectives.

 Prohibit public motor vehicle travel within areas designated as closed for public motorized access. 

Where the BLM has public access, allow public access by means other than motorized vehicle, such 

as mechanized or non-motorized use. Allow travel required for valid existing rights.

 Restrict public motorized vehicle travel within areas designated as limited for public motorized 

access. Until completion of implementation-level travel management planning, limit public motorized 

vehicle travel to existing routes where the BLM has public access. After completion of 

implementation-level travel management planning, limit public motorized vehicle travel in 

conformance with the resultant Travel Management Plan. Allow travel required for valid existing 

rights.
1153 | P a g e

Visual Resource Management

Management Objectives

 Protect scenic values on public lands where visual resources are an issue or where high-value visual 

resources exist.

 Prohibit activities that would disrupt the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource 

Management Class I areas.

 Retain the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource Management Class II areas.

 Partially retain the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource Management Class III 

areas.

 Allow for major modification of the existing character of the landscape in Visual Resource 

Management Class IV areas.

Management Direction

 Only allow activities that are found to meet visual management objectives using the Visual Resource 

Contrast Rating system.

 Visual Resource Management Class I includes—

o Wilderness Areas;

o Wilderness Study Areas; and

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Wild.

Manage Visual Resource Management Class I areas in accordance with natural ecological changes. 

Prohibit activities that would lower the Visual Resources Inventory class of Visual Resource 

Management Class I areas. The level of change to the characteristic landscape will be very low and 

will not attract attention. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

 Visual Resource Management Class II includes—

o Designated and suitable Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic;

o Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic outside of the Harvest Land Base;

o National Trail management corridors;

o District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics;

o Special Recreation Management Areas that fall within the Primitive and Backcountry category of 

the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; and

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Visual Resource Inventory Class II outside of the 

Harvest Land Base.

Manage Visual Resource Management Class II areas for low levels of change to the characteristic 

landscape. Management activities will be seen but will not attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

 Visual Resource Management Class III includes—

o Designated, suitable, and eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Recreational;

o Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers that are classified as Scenic within the Harvest Land Base;

o Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas that fall 

within the Middle country category of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum; and

o Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in Visual Resource Inventory Class III, and in Visual 

Resource Inventory Class II inside the Harvest Land Base.

Manage Visual Resource Management Class III areas for moderate levels of change to the 

characteristic landscape. Management activities will attract attention but will not dominate the view 

of the casual observer. Changes will repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, texture, and scale 

found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
1154 | P a g e

 Visual Resource Management Class IV includes all lands that are not designated as Visual Resource 

Management Classes I, II, or III. Manage Visual Resource Management Class IV areas for high levels 

of change to the characteristic landscape. Management activities may dominate the view and will be 

the major focus of viewer attention.

Wildlife

Management Objectives

 Conserve and recover species that are ESA-listed, proposed, or candidates, and the ecosystems on 

which they depend.

 Implement conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau Sensitive species to 

minimize the likelihood of and need for the ESA-listing of these species.

 Conserve or create habitat for species addressed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act and the ecosystems on which they depend.

Management Direction

 Manage habitat for species that are ESA-listed, or are candidates for listing, consistent with recovery 

plans, conservation agreements, and designated critical habitat.

o Existing conservation agreements include:

 Conservation Agreement for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa) in the Klamath Basin 

of Oregon (May 7, 2010)

 Implement conservation measures to mitigate specific threats to Bureau Sensitive species during the 

planning of activities and projects. Conservation measures include altering the type, timing, location, 

and intensity of management actions.

 Manage naturally occurring special habitats to maintain their ecological function including seeps, 

springs, wetlands, natural ponds, vernal pools/ponds, natural meadows, rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, 

talus slopes, mineral licks, oak savannah/woodlands, sand dunes, and marine habitats.

 Manage human-made special habitats as wildlife habitat when compatible with their engineered 

function, including bridges, buildings, quarries, pump chances/heliponds, abandoned mines, and 

reservoirs, to the extent possible consistent with safety and legal requirements.

 Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District: maintain or enhance Bureau Special Status Species

wildlife habitat on rangelands.

 Prior to implementing actions that could result in habitat modification or species disturbance in 

habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly, Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, 

streaked horned lark, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Oregon spotted frog, Lower Columbia River distinct 

population segment of Columbian white-tailed deer, or western snowy plover, conduct surveys to 

determine species presence.

 Do not approve, fund, or implement actions that would adversely affect the Fender’s blue butterfly, 

Oregon silverspot butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, streaked horned lark, vernal pool fairy 

shrimp, Oregon spotted frog, Lower Columbia River distinct population segment of Columbian 

white-tailed deer, or western snowy plover, except when done in accordance with an approved 

recovery plan, conservation agreement, species management plan, survey and monitoring protocol, or 

critical habitat rule, and when the action is necessary for the conservation of the species.

 Do not approve, fund, or implement actions that would adversely affect the designated critical 

habitats of the vernal pool fairy shrimp, Oregon spotted frog, or western snowy plover, except when 

done in accordance with an approved recovery plan, conservation agreement, species management 
1155 | P a g e

plan, survey and monitoring protocol, or critical habitat rule, and when the action is necessary for the 

conservation of the species.

Wildlife – Bald and Golden Eagles

 Protect known bald eagle or golden eagle nests (including active nests and alternate nests) and bald 

eagle winter roosting areas. Prohibit activities that will disrupt bald eagles or golden eagles that are 

actively nesting.

o Continue routine use and maintenance of existing roads and other facilities to where such use predates the eagles’ successful nesting activity.

o Do not remove overstory trees within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests.

o Do not conduct timber harvest operations (including road construction, tree felling, and yarding) 

during the breeding season within 660 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests. Decrease the 

distance to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, including nests that were 

attended during the current breeding season but not used to raise young, or after eggs laid in 

another nest within the territory have hatched.

o Prohibit operation of off-highway vehicles within 330 feet of bald eagle or golden eagle nests 

during the breeding season. In areas without forest cover or topographic relief to provide visual 

and auditory screening, prohibit operation of off-highway vehicles within 660 feet of bald eagle 

or golden eagle nests during the breeding season.

o Prohibit activities that will disrupt roosting bald eagles or golden eagles at communal winter 

roosts.

Wildlife – Bats

 Protect known maternity colonies and hibernacula for Bureau Sensitive bat species within caves, 

abandoned mines, bridges, and buildings with a 250-foot buffer:

o Maintain existing habitat conditions and protect the site from destruction or species disturbance, 

to the extent possible consistent with safety and legal requirements.

o Prohibit blasting

o Implement hazard fuel reduction treatments to protect the site from wildfire or to maintain site 

conditions conducive to the colony.

 Prohibit blasting during periods of reproduction and hibernation within 1 mile of known maternity 

colonies and hibernacula for Bureau Sensitive bat species within caves, abandoned mines, bridges, 

and buildings.

 Where white-nose syndrome is found in the bats residing within caves and abandoned mines, bridges, 

and buildings, prohibit human access except for monitoring, education, or research purposes.

Wildlife – Deer or Elk Management Areas (Klamath Falls Field 

Office, Medford District, and Salem District)

 For the Medford and Salem Districts, restrict motor vehicle use within designated deer or elk 

management areas between November 1 and April 15. For the Klamath Falls Field Office, restrict 

motor vehicle use within the Pokegama management area between November 20 and April 1. Use 

techniques such as gating or signing to impose the restrictions. Allow administrative use of roads, as 

needed, on a year-round basis.

 Plant native forage species along roadsides, skid trails, and on disturbed areas, or create forage plots 

where forage for deer or elk is limited within designated deer or elk management areas.

 For designated deer or elk management areas in the Klamath Falls Field Office and Medford District:
1156 | P a g e

o Cut encroaching juniper that hinders attainment of desired forage conditions to maintain and 

improve forage for big game. Remove, utilize, or pile and burn cut juniper.

o Retain old-growth ‘legacy’ juniper when the BLM determines it meets the following definition:

Individual trees that likely originated in the pre-settlement period, before 1870. These trees are 

commonly found in rocky areas where vegetation is sparse and fire frequency is naturally low. 

The BLM will evaluate trees based on the following characteristics of old-growth juniper:

 Crown is flat, rounded, broad at top, or irregular crown (as opposed to the more pointed tops 

of younger trees) or dead “spike” top

 Numerous dead branches

 Branches covered with coarse, bright yellow-green lichen (Letharia or wolf lichen)

 Large diameter lower branches

 Large diameter trunk relative to height

 Spirally twisted bark and deep furrows on the trunk

 Hollow trunk

Trees need not have all of these characteristics for the BLM to determine that the trees are oldgrowth juniper.

Wildlife – Fisher

 Do not approve, fund, or carry out actions that would disrupt normal fisher behaviors (e.g., foraging, 

resting, or denning) associated with known natal or maternal denning sites, except when done in 

accordance with an approved recovery plan, conservation agreement, species management plan, 

survey and monitoring protocol, or critical habitat rule, and when the action is necessary for the 

conservation of the species.

 Within stands where fisher natal or maternal denning or dens are documented, do the following:

o Maintain ≥ 80 percent canopy cover within at least 50 feet of documented fisher natal and 

maternal dens.

o Maintain sufficient canopy cover on the remainder of the stand to support fisher denning postproject.

o Protect fisher denning structures ≥ 24” diameter (snags, down woody material, and live trees with 

cavities) within the stand. In this context, protect fisher denning structures means to retain the 

structure in the stand and if, for safety concerns, it is necessary to fall snags or live trees with 

cavities then those structures would remain on-site as additional down woody material.

o Retain untreated portions within the stand.

 Within 5th field-watersheds (HUC 10) where fisher are documented to occur, favor retaining trees that 

have structures (e.g., cavities, mistletoe, and rust brooms) that are typically used as denning or resting 

sites by fisher.

 The above management direction may be modified in conference or consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service based on new information.

Wildlife – Gray Wolf

 Restrict activities that create noise or visual disturbance(s) above ambient conditions within one mile 

of known active gray wolf dens from April 1 to July 15.

 In accordance with 43 CFR 4110, modify grazing leases, as appropriate, to include the following 

measures when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1) determines gray wolf occupancy of a BLM 

grazing allotment, and (2) recommends the implementation of these measures as part of its wolf 

conservation strategy:
1157 | P a g e

o Remove, bury, or otherwise dispose of livestock carcasses found on areas of the allotment where 

they would attract wolves to a potential conflict situation with other livestock (such as a salting 

ground, water source, or holding corral) such that the carcass will not attract wolves.

o Move sick or injured livestock from the allotment so wolves do not target them.

o Limit allotment management activities by humans near active wolf den sites during the denning 

period (April 1 to July 15) to avoid human disturbance of the site. Determine the distance on a 

site-specific basis, depending primarily on topography around the den site.

o Do not place salt or other livestock attractants near known wolf dens or rendezvous sites to 

minimize livestock use of these sites. If a new den or rendezvous site is discovered, relocate any 

previously established salt or attractant location as necessary to minimize livestock use of these 

sites.

Wildlife – Marbled Murrelet

 Except as stated under Option 3, below, and except when needed to protect human safety and 

property, prohibit activities that disrupt21 marbled murrelet nesting at occupied sites within 35 miles 

of the Pacific Coast within all land use allocations and between 35–50 miles of the Pacific Coast 

within reserved land use allocations. 

 Before modifying nesting habitat or removing nesting structure in (1) all land use allocations within 

35 miles of the Pacific Coast, and (2) Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve between 35–

50 miles from the Pacific Coast and outside of exclusion Areas C and D (shown in Figure 3-166),—

 Assess the analysis area for marbled murrelet nesting structure.22 The analysis area 

consists of the proposed project and lands within 726 feet of the project boundary. This area 

includes all habitat that would be examined by a 5-acre moving circle (526 feet in diameter) 

whose inner edge (i.e., the edge closest to the center of the project area) is within 200 feet of 

the project area boundary. The analysis area includes all nesting structures that could be 

affected by habitat modification.

 If the analysis area contains no nesting structure, no further consideration of marbled murrelet 

habitat is required.

 

21 Disruption is a type of disturbance that that creates the likelihood of injury to ESA-listed species to such an extent 

as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or 

sheltering (see 50 CFR 17.3). An action that would disrupt the normal behavior of an ESA-listed species may affect, 

and would be likely to adversely affect, the species and would cause the taking of affected individual(s). In contrast, 

disturbance is a human action that may affect an ESA-listed animal species by the addition, above ambient 

condition, of noise or human intrusion, or the mechanical movement of habitat (e.g., the shaking of the forest canopy 

from helicopter rotor wash). Disturbance is temporary/short term (minutes to days) and does not modify habitat 

structure, or water/air flow or quality. (Disturbance should not be confused with “surface disturbance,” which refers 

to an action that modifies soil, water, or vegetation). Disturbance requires the presence of an ESA-listed animal. 

Disruption is a subset of disturbance.

22 Marbled murrelet nesting structure is a conifer tree with all of the following characteristics (which are not 

always visible from the ground):

 A DBH of at least 19.1” and a height greater than 107 feet

 A nest platform at least 32.5 feet above the ground (a nest platform is a relatively flat surface at least 

4” wide, with nesting substrate (e.g., moss, epiphytes, duff), and an access route through the canopy 

that a murrelet could use to approach and land on that platform)

 A tree branch or foliage, either on the tree with potential structure or on an adjacent tree, which 

provides protective cover over the platform

Note: Nesting structure does not have to be occupied by nesting marbled murrelets.
1158 | P a g e

 Before modifying forest stands in any 5-acre portion of the analysis area that contains at least 6

trees with nesting structure, implement Option 1, 2, or 3.

Option 1. Survey for the marbled murrelet using a protocol with a defined methodology and 

a resultant probability of detection:

 If no occupancy is determined, no further consideration of marbled murrelet habitat is 

required.

 If occupancy is determined, do not conduct activities within the occupied stand23

and all forest within 300 feet of the occupied stand.

 The following are exceptions that may be implemented as long as the stand continues 

to support nesting:

o Felling of hazard trees and trees for instream restoration projects

o Construction of linear and nonlinear rights-of-way, spur roads, yarding corridors, 

or other facilities

 As needed to protect the overall health of the occupied stand, the following activities 

would be implemented as long as the stand continues to support nesting:

o Wildfire suppression

o Fuels reduction

o Insect and disease control

o Other activities to improve the health of the stand or adjacent stands

Option 2. Exclude nesting structure from the project area by doing all of the following:

 Do not remove or damage nesting structure. This includes trees with nesting structure 

and adjacent trees with branches that interlock the branches of any tree with nesting 

structure.

 Do not conduct timber harvest and associated ground disturbing activities during the 

murrelet nesting period (April 1 – September 15) unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service concurs that disturbances would not adversely affect nesting marbled 

murrelets.

 Maintain a 150-foot un-thinned buffer around all trees with nesting structure. Within 

this buffer, do not remove trees for any reason associated with timber harvest, 

including the placement of roads, landings, or yarding corridors. Other activities are 

permitted if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that such activities would not 

adversely affect nesting marbled murrelets.

 Maintain an average canopy cover of at least 60 percent post-project (averaged over 

each 40-acre area) in the zone between 150 feet and 300 feet of all trees with nesting 

structure.

 Include additional, site-specific prescriptive measures to maintain or enhance habitat 

conditions, as needed, in the zone between 150 feet and 300 feet from all trees with 

nesting structure. In this context, maintain marbled murrelet habitat means to 

maintain stand structural characteristics such that, following habitat modification, the 

stand could support marbled murrelet nesting.

 Maintain an average canopy cover of at least 40 percent post-project (averaged over 

each 40-acre area) within the project area beyond 300 feet from all trees with nesting 

structure.

 

23 Marbled murrelet occupied stand refers to all forest stands, regardless of age or structure, within 1/4 mile (1,320 

feet) of the location of marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy and not separated from the location of 

marbled murrelet behavior indicating occupancy by more than 328 feet of non-forest.
1159 | P a g e

Option 3. With concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manage nesting 

structure in a manner that would not adversely affect nesting marbled murrelets, except when 

taking actions that are necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden oak death. Take 

actions necessary to treat or protect stands from sudden oak death, including actions that may 

adversely affect nesting marbled murrelets.

 Before modifying forest stands in any 5-acre portion of the analysis area that contain 1–5 trees 

with nesting structure, implement Options 1, 2, 3, or 4.

Option 4. Protect nesting structure within the project area by doing all of the following:

 If the nesting structure is within 20 miles of the coast—

o Between April 1 and August 5, stand modification would not occur;

o Between August 6 and September 15, stand modification activities would not 

begin until 2 hours after sunrise and would conclude 2 hours before sunset.

 Design projects in accordance with Late-Successional Reserve management 

direction.

 Do not remove or damage nesting structure.

 Design habitat modifications that occur within one site-potential tree height of 

nesting structure to protect and improve future habitat conditions. Examples 

include—

o Protecting the roots of trees with nesting structure

o Removing suppressed trees

o Removing trees that might damage nesting structure during wind storms

o Removing trees that compete with key adjacent trees that are, or will be, 

providing cover to potential nest platforms

 Implement management actions that aid development of limbs and adjacent cover.

 Prohibit the creation of any opening (i.e., a gap ≥ 0.25 acre in size) within a distance 

equal to one site-potential tree height of nesting structure.

Wildlife – Northern Spotted Owl

 Manage habitat conditions for northern spotted owl movement and survival between and through 

large blocks of northern spotted owl nesting-roosting habitat.

 Do not authorize timber sales that would cause the incidental take of northern spotted owl territorial 

pairs or resident singles from timber harvest until implementation of a barred owl management 

program consistent with the assumptions contained in the Biological Opinion on the RMP has begun.

Wildlife – North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of the 

Red Tree Vole

 Survey proposed projects within the range of the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment of 

the red tree vole north of Highway 20 that could degrade or remove habitat using a protocol with a 

defined methodology that includes detection probabilities. Habitat that requires surveys prior to 

modification includes stands containing Douglas-fir, grand fir, Sitka spruce, or western hemlock and 

meet the following:

o Stands with a QMD ≥ 16” based on the Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 3.0 (Huff 

et al. 2012, p. 9) and
1160 | P a g e

o Either (a) conifer-dominated stands that are ≥ 80 years old or (b) conifer-dominated stands that 

have ≥ 60 percent canopy cover and have ≥ 2 superdominant conifer trees24 per acre

 The following types of projects are exempt from the above direction to survey for red tree voles prior 

to project implementation:

o Projects in stands < 80 years old

o Culvert replacements on roads that are in use and part of the road system; culvert removals if the 

road is temporary or to be decommissioned

o Riparian and stream improvement projects where the work is riparian planting, obtaining material 

for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work 

is the placement of large wood, channel and flood plain reconstruction, or removal of channel 

diversions

o Portions of hazardous fuels treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portion of a hazardous 

fuels treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to survey requirements 

except for projects in stands < 80 years old

 If surveys north of Highway 20 indicate red tree voles from the North Oregon Coast Distinct 

Population Segment occupy that habitat, establish a ‘habitat area’ for each cluster of nests that are not 

isolated from one another by more than 330 feet and include at least one active nest.

o Establish habitat areas at least 10 acres in size and include 1.0 acre per nest if there are more than 

10 red tree vole nests (e.g., establish a 15-acre habitat area for a cluster with 15 red tree vole 

nests).

o Within habitat areas, do not remove or modify nest trees.

o Within habitat areas, do not create barriers or strong filters to red tree vole movement through the 

canopy by—

 Maintaining at least 75 percent canopy cover within habitat areas;

 Retaining all nest trees (including active and inactive nest trees); and

 Retaining trees with crowns directly interlocking the crowns of nest trees.

Allow routine maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities in habitat areas (including the 

felling of hazard trees) that does not meet the above criteria.

 South of Highway 20 within the North Oregon Coast Distinct Population Segment, establish and 

manage habitat areas as described above for known sites of red tree voles in the Late-Successional 

Reserve and Riparian Reserve.

Wildlife – Oregon Spotted Frog

 Manage livestock grazing at sites occupied by Oregon spotted frogs to prevent direct impacts to eggs, 

tadpoles, or adults.

Wildlife – Siskiyou Mountains Salamander

 Manage the Siskiyou Mountains salamander consistent with the Conservation Agreement for the 

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi) in Jackson and Josephine Counties of Southwest 

Oregon; and in Siskiyou County of Northern California (August 17, 2007), as amended and as long as 

in effect.

 

24 Superdominant conifer trees typically have crowns that extend above the general stand canopy and have large 

branches in the upper canopy of the dominant trees in the stand. Superdominant trees may be remnant trees from an 

earlier cohort, or they may be trees from the dominant cohort that were more open grown and have become much 

larger than the rest of the trees in the stand.
1161 | P a g e

Wildlife – Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp

 Do not authorize or construct additional discretionary roads and trails within designated critical 

habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp or within vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.

Wildlife – Pacific Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Western 

Snowy Plover

 Do not authorize or construct additional discretionary roads and trails within designated critical 

habitat or within western snowy plover habitat.

 Restore snowy plover nesting habitat.

 Restrict the timing and location of beach access or activities to avoid disruption of normal snowy 

plover nesting and nesting behaviors.

Wild Horses

Management Objective

 Manage and maintain a healthy population of wild and free-roaming horses in the Pokegama Herd 

Management Area of the Klamath Falls Field Office.

Management Direction

 Gather horses to maintain the appropriate management level of 30–50 head. During gathers, the 

number of horses will normally be reduced to the low end of the appropriate management level, and 

then allowed to increase to the top end of the appropriate management level before another gather 

occurs. The BLM will remove horses from private land per private landowner request. Horses 

straying outside the herd management area will be removed or returned to the herd management area.

 Maintain existing water developments to provide season-long water for wild horses within the herd 

management area. Consider new developments to assist in meeting the herd management objectives.

 Provide periodic repair and maintenance of fences to protect riparian areas from concentrated use by 

wild horses.

 Protect Bureau Sensitive plant habitat from concentrated use by wild horses, including constructing 

and maintaining fences as necessary.

 Adjust the appropriate management level if monitoring data identifies a change in long-term forage 

availability or rangeland health assessments and evaluations determine that wild horse numbers or 

patterns of grazing use are a contributing factor toward not meeting one or more of the Standards for 

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management for Public Lands in Oregon and 

Washington.

 Introduce wild horses from other herd areas periodically to maintain the viable genetic diversity of the 

herd.
1162 | P a g e

References

Cissel, J., et al. 2006. BLM Density Management and Riparian Buffer Study: Establishment Report and Study Plan. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/plans/files/DMS_Study_Plan.pdf.

Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis, and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 

3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 52 p. Available: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/files/spRedTreeVole-v3-0-2012-11.pdf.

ODFW. 2011. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Assessment and Strategy for Oregon: A Plan to Maintain and Enhance 

Populations and Habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bend, OR. 221 pp. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/sagegrouse/docs/20110422_GRSG_April_Final%2052511.pdf.

Sage-grouse Conservation Partnership. 2015. The Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan. Governor’s Natural Resources Office. 

Salem, OR. http://oregonexplorer.info/content/oregon-sage-grouse-action-plan?topic=203&ptopic=179.

USDI BLM. 1984. BLM Manual 5251 – Timber Production Capability Classification. 7 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.74631.File.dat/Re

formatted%205251%20Timber%20Production%20Capabability%20Classification.pdf.

---. 1997. Standards for rangeland health and guidelines for livestock grazing management for public lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in the states of Oregon and Washington. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/csnm/files/rangeland_standards.pdf.

---. 1998. BLM Handbook H-8270-1 – General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/coop_agencies/paleontology_library.Par.7

8212.File.dat/h8270-1.pdf.

---. 2005a. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Travis Tyrell Seed Orchard, Lorane, Lane County, 

OR. BLM Eugene District, Springfield, OR. 56 pp.

---. 2005b. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management Program, BLM Walter H. Horning Tree Seed Orchard, BLM Salem 

District, Salem, OR.

---. 2006. Record of Decision: Integrated Pest Management. Provolt Seed Orchard, Grants Pass, OR, and Charles A. Sprague 

Seed Orchard, Merlin, OR. BLM Medford District, Medford, OR. 82 pp. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/Provolt-Sprague_eis_ROD_acc.pdf.

---. 2010. Records of Decision (RODs) for the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Environmental Impact Statement 

and the Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Oregon Environmental Impact 

Statement.

---. 2010b. BLM Forest EcoSurvey Field User Guide. Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 105 pp. May 21, 2010. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/salem/files/blm_ecosurvey.pdf.

---. 2012. BLM Manual 6340 – Management of Designated Wilderness. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.22269.File.dat/63

40.pdf.

---. 2012b. BLM Manual 6310 – Conducting Wilderness Characteristics Inventory on BLM Lands. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.38337.File.dat/63

10.pdf.
1163 | P a g e

Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling

Introduction

The BLM contracted with the forestry consulting firm of Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. of Portland, 

Oregon, to jointly develop and build the model described in this appendix. Personnel from both of these 

entities constituted the Modeling Team, and they are listed at the end of this appendix.

The BLM considered alternatives in this Proposed RMP/Final EIS that encompassed a range of 

approaches for managing BLM-administered forestlands to respond to the purpose and need for the 

action. The BLM did this by varying the land allocations and intensity with which the BLM would 

manage these forests. These different management approaches would result in a range of outcomes in 

terms of the forest structural stages and types of habitat over time and the sustained-yield timber harvest 

levels. The Modeling Team used models in this analysis to simulate the application of the land use 

allocations, management action, and forest development assumptions to characterize forest conditions 10, 

20, 30, 40, 50, and 100+ years into the future. The Modeling Team also used models to determine the 

timber harvest level that the BLM would be able to sustain over time. The BLM used the outputs from 

modeling to provide a relative basis for comparing and evaluating these different land management 

strategies.

The vegetation modeling in this analysis is composed of three primary vegetation models:

 ORGANON version 9.1 – an individual tree growth model that the BLM used for the 

development of growth and yield projections for the major species groups on BLM-administered 

lands; Oregon State University developed ORGANON 

(http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/ORGANON/). In this appendix, ORGANON refers to 

the generic model available in the public domain.

 Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 2002, revised 2014) – an individual tree, distanceindependent growth model that the BLM used for projections of northern spotted owl habitat 

and marbled murrelet habitat variables

 Remsoft Spatial Planning System (Woodstock) (version 2012.12.0) – a forest management model 

that the BLM used to project the forest conditions over time by simulating the land allocations 

and management action of the alternatives; Woodstock is proprietary software created by Remsoft 

Corp. http://www.remsoft.com.

All three of these models have been in use and under continued development for at least 20 years. These 

models provide a framework to bring the data and assumptions together to simulate these management 

scenarios.

This appendix provides an overview of the following key components used in formulating the models:

 BLM Forest Inventory

 Use of inventory data in modeling

 GIS – defining the land base and spatial projections

 Moist versus dry delineation

 Forest growth and yield modeling

 Forest

 Woodstock modeling

 Woodstock products
1164 | P a g e

BLM Forest Inventory

The Modeling Team used three inventories in the vegetation modeling for this analysis:

 GIS vegetation mapping with stand level attributes

 Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC)

 Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) – measured permanent plot data

GIS Vegetation Mapping – Forest Operations Inventory and 

Micro*Storms

The Forest Operations Inventory (FOI) is a GIS layer that delineates vegetation polygons across BLMadministered lands within the planning area. There are approximately 77,000 identified stands that 

average 32 acres in size. The BLM has set the minimum mapping feature size at 5 acres, but some finer 

scale non-forest vegetation and harvest features are identified. The BLM delineated polygons based on 

the vegetation attributes of cover condition, size class, density of trees, and age.

The Micro*Storms database contains the attributes for the FOI polygons. The vegetation classification 

represents stand average characteristics, which include:

 Cover condition – conifer, hardwood, mixed, or non-forest

 Single or multi-canopy layer stands

 Species – top five tree species with percent occupancy within a stand layer and listing of 

other species present

 Stocking class

 Size class – diameter of the tree species by stand layer in 10” groupings

 Diameter class

 Birthdate of the stand layer

 Ten-year age class of the managed stand layer

The BLM records land management treatment history in Micro*Storms for the FOI polygons. These 

treatments include timber harvest, site preparation, planting, stand maintenance/protection, precommercial thinning, fertilization, pruning, and a variety of other treatments.

The BLM updates data on stand characteristics on a regular basis as the BLM implements treatments and 

as conditions change. The FOI and its companion database, Micro*Storms, are operational datasets that 

are in daily use by the BLM offices for planning and tracking purposes.

The FOI and Micro*Storms data, as used in this analysis, reflects the conditions of the BLM-administered 

lands as of January 2013. The FOI data is the spatial representation of the forest conditions, while the 

Micro*Storms database provides a complete listing of treatments, conditions, and surveys that have 

occurred on that stand. The Modeling Team used these data to develop logical groupings called ‘strata’ 

that were the building blocks for the growth and yield curves. The Modeling Team stratified the 

Micro*Storms data by existing stand condition, modeling group, site productivity, age, and species 

groups.

Timber Production Capability Classification

The Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC) is a classification of BLM-administered lands 

based on the physical and biological capability of the site to support and produce commercial forest 

products on a sustained-yield basis. The BLM classifies each TPCC unit based on four assessments:

 Forest/Non-forest

o Forest – capable of 10 percent tree stocking
1165 | P a g e

o Non-forest

 Commercial Forestlands

o Commercial forestlands – capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per year of 

commercial species

o Non-commercial forestlands – not capable of producing 20 cubic feet of wood per year of 

commercial species

o Suitable Woodland – Non-commercial species or low site

 Fragile Conditions

o Non-fragile – forest yield productivity is not expected to be reduced due to soil 

erosion, mass wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture supplying 

capacity, and or the rise of ground water

o Fragile – forest yield productivity may be expected to be reduced by soil erosion, mass 

wasting, reduction in nutrient levels, reduction in moisture supplying capacity, and or the 

rise of ground water table

o Fragile sites are classified as:

 Restricted – Special harvest and or restricted measures are required.

 Non-suitable Woodland – Future production will be reduced even if special 

harvest and or restricted measures are applied due to the inherent site factors. 

These lands are not biologically and or environmentally capable of supporting a 

sustained yield of forest products.

 Reforestation

o Problem – Sites where environmental, physical, and biological factors have the potential 

to reduce the survival and or growth of commercial tree seedlings. These factors include 

light, temperature, moisture, frost, surface rock, animals, and disease

o Non-Problem – Sites that can be stocked to meet or exceed target stocking levels, of 

commercial species, within 5 years of harvest, using standard practices

o Restricted – Commercial forestland where operational reforestation practices in addition 

to standard practices are necessary to meet or exceed the minimum stocking levels of 

commercial species within 5 years of harvest

o Suitable Woodland – Operational practices will not meet or exceed minimum stocking 

levels of commercial species within 5 years of harvest. These sites are biologically 

capable of producing a sustained yield of timber products

The TPCC Handbook (BLM Manual 5251 – Timber Production Capability Classification; USDI BLM 

1984) provides the standards for the TPCC Classification.

There are approximately 66,000 TPCC units mapped in GIS on the BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area. The minimum mapping feature is generally 5 acres, but the BLM identifies some finer 

scale non-forest features in the data. The BLM did the initial classification of all BLM-administered lands 

in the planning area in the late 1980s. The BLM updates the data as needed when new lands are acquired, 

or new information is obtained through field examination.

The data, as used in this analysis, reflects the classification of the BLM-administered lands as of 

January 2013. For this analysis, the Modeling Team used TPCC data to identify what portions of the 

BLM-administered lands would contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity under each alternative and 

the Proposed RMP. The BLM does not include non-forest, suitable woodlands, and non-suitable 

woodland categories in the lands contributing to the Allowable Sale Quantity under the current plan.

Current Vegetation Survey – Measured Plot Inventory

The Current Vegetation Survey (CVS, Max et al. 1996) provides comprehensive information on 

vegetative resources on BLM-administered lands within western Oregon. The BLM did the initial data 
1166 | P a g e

collection during the years 1997–2001. The BLM then did a complete re-measurement from 2001 to 

2011. This analysis utilizes the re-measurement data. The CVS plot design consists of four 3.4-mile grids 

of field plots that are offset from one another to produce a single 1.7-mile grid across BLM-administered 

lands for 1,376 plots. The primary sampling unit is 1 hectare (approximately 2.5 acres) with 5, fixedradius sets of nested subplots for measuring trees by size class:

 0 to 2.9” DBH on the 11.8 feet radius subplot

 3.0 to 12.9” DBH on a 24.0 feet radius subplot

 13.0 to 47.9” DBH on a 51.1 feet radius subplot

 48.0” DBH and larger on the 1/5-hectare (approximately 0.5-acre) nested subplots

There is one subplot located at the plot center and four subplots each in a cardinal direction and 133.9 feet 

from the center of the plot (Figure C-1). In addition, the BLM determines potential natural vegetation at 

each subplot using plant indicator keys, and the BLM measures down woody material along two 

transects. For specific information on the attributes that the BLM collects, refer to USDI BLM (2010).
1167 | P a g e

Figure C-1. CVS primary sample unit design

The location of the plot centers have differentially corrected GPS coordinates. Because the BLM located 

each subplot center at a precise distance from the plot center, the BLM calculated the coordinates for the 

subplot centers and included them in a GIS layer. The CVS inventory provides an independent, unbiased 

estimate of the forested BLM-administered lands in the planning area. In the graphic below (Figure C-2), 

the crosshair dot symbols are examples of CVS plot center locations on a 1.7-mile grid on top of the FOI 

units.
1168 | P a g e

Figure C-2. CVS plot locations and FOI units

Use of the Inventory Data in the Modeling

Introduction

The Modeling Team divided the FOI and the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) data into 1,582 unique 

categories, called ‘strata,’ and classified each stand (FOI unit) by the characteristics listed below. The 

CVS plots that overlay an FOI represent that FOI and all the FOI found in that stratum. The Modeling 

Team averaged the CVS tree lists for each stratum and developed a stand table from these average tree 

lists. The Modeling Team used four components to derive each of the stratums: modeling group, species 

group, ten-year age class, and site productivity class.

1) Modeling Groups

The purpose of these groups is to identify broad classes of stands that are sufficiently similar for growth 

and yield modeling (Table C-1). The Modeling Team placed each of the existing stands in to 79 different 

categories, based on their ‘existing condition’ (Table C-2). The existing stand condition (ESC) describes 

the type of harvest, the tree density, and other silvicultural information. The Modeling Team then further 

collapsed the existing stand condition categories into 16 different modeling groups that are shown in 

Table C-1.
1169 | P a g e

Table C-1. Modeling groups used to develop strata.

2013 

Modeling 

Group

Modeling Group–Definition and Description

MG_A

Pre-Northwest Forest Plan regeneration harvest units with target or greater level of stocking. Also 

includes age class 30 stands with past thinning (CT or DM), and unmanaged, well-stocked stands, age 

class < 50 (< 70) without legacy.

MG_B

Pre-Northwest Forest Plan regeneration harvest units with below target level of stocking. Also 

includes age class < 50 (< 70) stands from ESC 52 (no past management) categorized as having as low 

density and without legacy trees.

MG_C

Northwest Forest Plan regeneration harvest units with the full range of retention tree levels. Stand data 

merged across stock types (genetic vs. non-improved), stocking levels, and retention levels. Also 

includes age class < 50 stands with no past management and with a legacy tree component, similar to 

Northwest Forest Plan regeneration harvest structure.

MG_D1 DM and CT stands in age classes 40–90. Stands treated age 80+, now age class > 100 (mostly Salem), 

merged with no past management stands (MG_E)

MG_D2 DF species group only, DM and CT units (Roseburg and Medford), age class 40–90. Stands treated 

age 80+, now age class > 100, merged with no past management (MG_E).

MG_D3 Primarily Klamath Falls DM stands. Model all species groups together, and use age bands for low 

acreage age classes above 120 and below 50

MG_E1

No past management, limited mortality salvage, or conifer non-suitable woodlands; Non-conifer 

(hardwood) stands were merged with (red alder) stand conversions units in Northwest Oregon (MG_F) 

or with hardwood suitable woodlands in Southwest Oregon (MG_G).

MG_E2 Northwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature single story.

MG_E3 Southwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature single story.

MG_E4 Northwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature multi-story.

MG_E5 Southwest Oregon stands with no past management, mature multi-story.

MG_F Northwest Oregon stand conversion opportunities or stands extracted from ESC 51 (no past 

management and essentially all red alder species group).

MG_G

Hardwood woodlands for all Southwest Oregon species groups; includes woodlands categorized as 

suitable, non-suitable, and non-commercial forest land. Also includes stands from ESC 51 (no past 

management) with hardwood species group or hardwood cover condition. The 6 FOIs from Northwest 

Oregon may be best modeled using Southwest Oregon growth curves.

MG_H Conifer suitable woodlands; includes stands from ESCs 68 and 70 (hardwood suitable woodlands) 

identified with a conifer species group designation. 

MG_J

Non-commercial forest land conifer suitable woodlands; conifer species groups only, including stands 

extracted from ESCs 68 and 70 (hardwood suitable woodlands), and stands with a juniper species 

group stands from any ESC code.

MG_X Non-forest; Also includes stands from other ESCs with inconsistent cover condition or species group 

data, which denotes a non-forest unit.

CT = Commercial thinning

DM = Density management

ESC = Existing stand condition

DF = Douglas-fir

FOI = Forest Operations Inventory
1170 | P a g e

Table C-2. Existing stand condition coding

Category Description of Existing Stand Condition

Total 

Category 

Area 

(GIS 

Acres)

- No category 8

1 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 361,885

2 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (unimproved TI); fertilized 98,712

3 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) and 150–249 TPA density (unimproved TI) 118,539

4

GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) and 150–249 TPA density (unimproved TI); 

fertilized 25,021

5 GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) and 50–149 TPA density (unimproved TI) 18,846

6 GFMA overstocked/over-dense and> 400 TPA density (unimproved TI) 31,492

7 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 22,543

8 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (TI genetic stock); fertilized 3,005

9 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) and 150–250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 8,368

10 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) and 150–250 TPA density (TI genetic stock); 

fertilized 443

11 GFMA below minimum stocking (< 60%) and 50–149 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 1,457

12 GFMA overstocked/over-dense and > 400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) 3,634

13 6–8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 2,594

14 6–8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 242

15 6–8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 662

16 6–8 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard, needs PCT (TI genetic stock) 845

17 6–8 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 19,188

18 6–8 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 6,497

19 6–8 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 2,312

20 6–8 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard, needs PCT (unimproved stock) 2,451

21 12–18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 480

22 12–18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 358

23 12–18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 130

24 12–18 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard, needs PCT (TI genetic stock) 8

25 12–18 retention trees - at GFMA target stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 1,091

26 12–18 retention trees - at GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 189

27 12–18 retention trees - below GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock 

TI) 108

28 12–18 retention trees - overstocked GFMA standard, needs PCT (unimproved stock TI) 518

30 Density Management at age class 30 1,310

31 Density Management at age class 40 7,251

32 Density Management at age class 50 12,964

33 Density Management at age class 60 14,625

34 Density Management at age class 70 8,562

35 Density Management at age class 80 6,594

36 Density Management at age class 90 Plus 49,611

37 Commercially thinned at age class 30 1,415

38 Commercially thinned and fertilized at age class 30 132

39 Commercially thinned at age class 40 11,323

40 Commercially thinned and fertilized at age class 40 689
1171 | P a g e

Category Description of Existing Stand Condition

Total 

Category 

Area 

(GIS 

Acres)

41 Commercially thinned at age class 50 33,402

42 Commercially thinned and fertilized at age class 50 4,644

43 Commercially thinned at age class 60 29,265

44 Commercially thinned and fertilized at age class 60 3,000

45 Commercially thinned at age class 70 21,726

46 Commercially thinned and fertilized at age class 70 505

47 Commercially thinned at age class 80 14,883

48 Commercially thinned at age class 90 8,541

49 Commercially thinned at age class 100 3,605

50 Commercially thinned at age class 110 9,928

51 Mortality Salvaged or Sanitation Cut 40,280

52 56–500 years old, no past silvicultural treatment 974,320

53 Brush field, hardwood, non-commercial conifer or backlog conversion opportunity 22,871

55 Cut, needs site preparation 139

57 Non-forest 126,922

58 > 18 (Southwest Oregon) or > 15 (Northwest Oregon) retention trees/acre - at GFMA 

target stocking and density (TI genetic stock) 149

62 > 18 (Southwest Oregon) or > 15 (Northwest Oregon) retention trees/acre - at GFMA 

target stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 496

63 > 18 (Southwest Oregon) or > 15 (Northwest Oregon) retention trees/acre - at GFMA 

minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 31

64 > 18 (Southwest Oregon) or > 15 (Northwest Oregon) retention trees/acre - below 

GFMA minimum stocking and density (unimproved stock TI) 78

66 Hardwood-suitable woodland commercial forest land 2,642

67 Conifer-suitable woodland commercial forest land 78,034

68 Hardwood-non-suitable woodland commercial forest land 3,628

69 Conifer-non-suitable woodland commercial forest land 45,148

70 Hardwood-suitable woodland non-commercial forest land 34,426

71 Conifer-suitable woodland non-commercial forest land 152,345

72 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (unimproved TI); pruned 8,887

73 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (unimproved TI); fertilized; 

pruned 3,333

74 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) – 150–249 TPA density (unimproved TI) ; pruned 3,353

75 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) – 150 –249 TPA density (unimproved TI); 

fertilized; pruned 3,719

76 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (TI genetic stock) ; pruned 1,372

77 GFMA target stocking (≥ 80%) and 250–400 TPA density (TI genetic stock); fertilized; 

pruned 47

78 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) – 150–250 TPA density (TI genetic stock) ; pruned 946

79 GFMA minimum stocking (60–79%) – 150–250 TPA density (TI genetic stock); 

fertilized; pruned 96

Totals 2,478,864

GFMA = General Forest Management Area

TPA = Trees per acre

PCT = Pre-commercial thinning
1172 | P a g e

2) Species Groups for RMP Modeling

The Micro*Storms database has a listing of the top five species within each stand layer, with a ranking of 

relative abundance. The Modeling Team utilized this data to classify each FOI into five broad groups—

Douglas-fir, true fir, mixed conifer, conifer/hardwood mix, and hardwood—attributed by north or south 

within the planning area. In this context north includes the Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts, and 

the Roseburg District’s Swiftwater Field Office. South includes the Klamath Falls Field Office, the 

Medford District, and Roseburg District’s South River Field Office. The Modeling Team applied the 

northwest Oregon version of ORGANON to the northern species groups, and the southwest Oregon 

version of ORGANON to model the southern species groups. The Modeling Team modeled ponderosa 

pine and juniper species groups in southern Oregon only.

Douglas-fir (DF) – Stands with single species Douglas-fir and stands with minor quantities of other 

conifers or hardwoods. They would typically be ‘FCO’ stands (forest conifer), and have either 

single or multiple sizes and ages indicated.

Northern true fir (N_TF) – Noble or Silver fir are dominant, but other species are mixed in, such as 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, or western red cedar.

Northern mixed conifer (N_MX_CON) – Stands with single species of western hemlock, western 

red cedar, Sitka spruce, or mixed conifer stands where Douglas-fir is not dominant. They would 

typically be ‘FCO’ stands (forest conifer).

Northern conifer/hardwood mix (N_CON_HWD) – These stands have both conifer and hardwood 

species listed, but they are dominated by neither. Conifers or hardwoods could be indicated in the 

dominant or secondary position. Hardwoods would include big leaf maple and red alder mixed 

with conifer species. Many FMX stands (forest conifer and hardwoods) would be located here.

Northern hardwood (N_HWD) – Maple/alder mixes and pure alder are here. Pure or nearly-pure 

alder stands, with limited maple fractions. FHD stand (forest-hardwoods) descriptions are here.

Southern mixed conifer (S_MX_CON) – Stands containing incense cedar, sugar pine, ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir and white fir in varying fractions, but not including pure types without any 

secondary species indicated; may include some hardwood, but less than the southern 

conifer/hardwood mix.

Southern conifer/hardwood mix (S_CON_HWD) – Stands with mixed conifer species and a 

component of southern hardwoods such as oak, madrone, tanoak, and myrtle that may be in the 

majority or minority. FMX types (forest-conifer and hardwoods) are here.

Southern hardwood (S_HWD) – Southern hardwood species are dominant with limited mixed 

conifer component. Hardwoods are the dominant species, possibly FHD types (forest conifer and 

hardwoods).

Southern true fir (S_TF) – This type includes Shasta red fir and white fir types. White fir types 

could have other secondary species such as Douglas-fir.

Ponderosa pine (PP) – Ponderosa pine is dominant; may include Douglas-fir, juniper or other 

species, but not as the dominant species.

Juniper (J) – This type is juniper dominant, but contains limited pine, occurs on dry, low site lands.

Depending on the district and the ORGANON variant used, lodgepole pine and knobcone pine types 

would go into northern mixed conifer or southern mixed conifer. Jeffery pine would go into a low site 

Ponderosa pine type. Mountain hemlock would go into northern true fir. Port-Orford-cedar would go into 

southern mixed conifer.

3) Ten-year Age Classes

Table C-3 displays forest stand ten-year age classes from Micro*Storms database as of January 1, 2013. 

Stand age is derived from the birth year of a stand, and uses the most recent source stand layer that is 

designated for management. If the stand has multiple tree layers, an assignment is made of the stand layer 

designated for management. These stand ages reflect the conditions of the forest at the beginning of the 

analysis period and were used for the modeling of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis, No Action 
1173 | P a g e

alternative, Alternatives A–D, and Sub-alternatives B and C. The Modeling Team did not assign stand 

ages to the Eastside Management lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office for vegetation modeling 

purposes.

Table C-3. BLM western Oregon acreage by age class distribution and sustained yield unit as of January

1, 2013

10-year 

Age

Coos Bay

(Acres)

Eugene

(Acres)

Klamath 

Falls

(Acres)

Medford

(Acres)

Roseburg

(Acres)

Salem

(Acres)

Total Area

(GIS Acres)

Non-forest 20,206 13,841 167,312 66,556 24,477 24,765 317,157

≤ 10 3,288 2,669 4,656 17,555 3,187 2,406 33,762

20 24,281 18,455 1,159 37,409 35,366 20,426 137,097

30 27,727 27,480 2,025 46,037 33,084 32,210 168,562

40 39,740 32,952 451 22,672 38,470 36,446 170,731

50 36,309 38,225 1,896 42,766 44,666 45,334 209,196

60 25,366 32,545 3,301 23,975 20,410 44,157 149,754

70 17,852 41,702 3,124 25,965 9,084 33,833 131,560

80 9,007 22,302 3,693 21,373 7,276 24,002 87,654

90 3,884 8,026 5,304 29,789 6,284 14,335 67,622

100 4,395 5,057 5,182 32,715 5,758 13,233 66,340

110 4,083 6,171 3,927 55,621 15,789 13,181 98,773

120 9,318 8,004 1,519 33,784 6,335 21,855 80,814

130 10,406 6,219 1,477 44,408 8,041 21,080 91,632

140 6,967 1,597 2,905 48,694 10,584 9,358 80,105

150 8,287 1,201 1,064 39,172 25,877 7,349 82,950

160 8,138 2,083 1,297 35,847 1,723 1,867 50,956

170 2,523 404 525 24,123 8,098 2,787 38,460

180 2,190 433 235 42,019 788 454 46,119

190 1,769 3,989 375 14,781 1,908 156 22,978

200+ 58,499 37,707 2,657 101,414 116,433 29,923 346,634

Totals 324,236 311,063 214,084 806,675 423,640 399,157 2,478,856

During the summer of 2013, several large fires burned within the Klamath Falls Field Office and the 

Medford and Roseburg Districts, within the planning area and changed the stand conditions. These 

changes were incorporated into the stand ages for the Proposed RMP, reflecting the conditions of the 

forest at the beginning of the analysis as used for modeling of the Proposed RMP. In total, 22,712 acres 

were burned in either medium-, or high-severity fire, resulting in changes to acres in varying stand age 

classes on these districts. 

Table C-4 shows the forest stand ten-year age classes used for the Proposed RMP.

Table C-4. BLM western Oregon acreage by age class distribution and sustained yield unit after 2013 

large fire data adjustment

10-year 

Age

Coos Bay

(Acres)

Eugene

(Acres)

Klamath 

Falls

(Acres)

Medford

(Acres)

Roseburg

(Acres)

Salem

(Acres)

Total Area

(GIS Acres)

Non-forest 20,206 13,841 167,312 66,556 24,477 24,765 317,157

10 3,288 2,669 5,442 22,889 4,490 2,406 41,184 

20 24,281 18,455 1,179 36,885 35,153 20,426 136,380
1174 | P a g e

10-year 

Age

Coos Bay

(Acres)

Eugene

(Acres)

Klamath 

Falls

(Acres)

Medford

(Acres)

Roseburg

(Acres)

Salem

(Acres)

Total Area

(GIS Acres)

30 27,727 27,480 2,469 46,242 32,932 32,210 169,060

40 39,740 32,952 451 22,002 38,444 36,446 170,035

50 36,309 38,225 1,701 42,110 44,635 45,334 208,313

60 25,366 32,545 2,999 23,795 20,402 44,157 149,264

70 17,852 41,702 2,944 25,625 9,084 33,833 131,040

80 9,007 22,302 3,387 20,808 7,268 24,002 86,775

90 3,884 8,026 5,920 33,319 6,658 14,335 72,141

100 4,395 5,057 4,868 32,446 5,280 13,233 65,280

110 4,083 6,171 3,645 55,429 15,774 13,181 98,283

120 9,318 8,004 1,500 33,515 6,261 21,855 80,452

130 10,406 6,219 1,417 44,340 8,041 21,080 91,504

140 6,967 1,597 2,759 48,104 10,461 9,358 79,247

150 8,287 1,201 1,014 38,597 25,877 7,349 82,325

160 8,138 2,083 1,297 35,452 1,723 1,867 50,561

170 2,523 404 525 23,464 8,091 2,787 37,794

180 2,190 433 235 40,915 788 454 45,016

190 1,769 3,989 363 14,407 1,908 156 22,591

200+ 58,499 37,707 2,657 99,776 115,893 29,923 344,456

Totals 324,236 311,063 214,084 806,675 423,640 399,157 2,478,856

4) Site Productivity Classes

The distribution of site class on each sustained-yield unit came directly from the measured site index trees 

on the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) subplots. The Modeling Team assigned five site classes from 

highly productive (Site Class 1) to low productivity (Site Class 5). The Modeling Team used King (1966) 

Douglas-fir site index for the geographic area where the Northwest Oregon version of ORGANON was 

applicable, and the Hann and Scrivani (1987) Douglas-fir site index for areas where the Southwest 

Oregon version of ORGANON was appropriate. Table C-5 shows the distribution of productivity classes 

within each sustained yield unit. The Modeling Team assigned a site class to each FOI based on the 

following order of priority:

1. Measured tree data from the CVS inventory associated with a FOI

2. Continuous forest inventory (CFI) data associated with a FOI

3. EcoSurvey (stand exam) data with site index averages associated with a FOI

4. Soil-type based classification from Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping or 

imputation based on climate variables (Latta et al. 2009)

The Modeling Team held the FOI unit-level productivity assignments constant for the Woodstock 

modeling under the Proposed RMP, and all alternatives and sub-alternatives.

Table C-5. Percentage of site productivity classes within each sustained-yield unit

Site Productivity Class Coos Bay

(Percent)

Eugene

(Percent)

Klamath Falls

(Percent)

Medford

(Percent)

Roseburg

(Percent)

Salem

(Percent)

Site Class 1 20% 28% - - 7% 15%
1175 | P a g e

Site Productivity Class Coos Bay

(Percent)

Eugene

(Percent)

Klamath Falls

(Percent)

Medford

(Percent)

Roseburg

(Percent)

Salem

(Percent)

Site Class 2 42% 56% - 6% 23% 48%

Site Class 3 25% 13% 22% 20% 32% 27%

Site Class 4 10% 2% 46% 43% 25% 6%

Site Class 5 1% - 32% 30% 11% 3%

Note: Numbers have been rounded

Strata to Stand Table

Of the 1,582 unique strata that include all FOI polygons, 601 strata had at least 1 overlaying CVS plot 

(Table C-6). These strata represent 83 percent of the forested BLM-administered acres. The Modeling 

Team modeled the remaining 981 strata, 17 percent of the forested BLM-administered acreage, using the 

‘most similar’ CVS tree list. By broadening FOI site class, species groups, or stand age classes, the 

Modeling Team developed a decision matrix to determine which tree list was most similar for unmatched 

strata. Each stratum has a stand table that the Modeling Team developed from at least one CVS subplot 

tree lists. Each stratum represented by more than one tree list had an average tree list developed to 

represent that stratum. The Modeling Team modeled all of the FOIs in a particular stratum using the same 

stand table.

Table C-6. Strata representation with CVS subplots

Current Vegetation Survey 

Subplot Coverage

Strata

(Count)

Forested

BLM-administered Land

(Acres)

Stratum with CVS subplots 601 1,775,011

Stratum with no CVS subplots 981 353,671

Totals 1,582 2,128,682

Application of the Stratification in Growth and Yield Modeling

The consulting firm Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. (MBG) projected the stand table for each stratum in the 

ORGANON growth and yield model utilizing a software program called YTGTools, which is MBG’s 

proprietary software. MBG used YTGTools to batch multiple ORGANON runs and convert the outputs 

into Woodstock-compatible yield tables. MBG modeled each stand table’s growth for a 200-year planning 

horizon to simulate future development with and without future silvicultural treatments.

ORGANON Comparison to Measured CVS Growth

In an effort to understand how comparable the tree growth on BLM stands was with the ORGANON 

model, the first step was to test actual tree growth with the projected growth from ORGANON. The 

Modeling Team did this by comparing projected tree growth on 2,609 CVS subplots with the actual 

growth recorded on those subplots, between their first and second measurements. The Modeling Team 

compared two metrics: stand basal area and volume (Scribner Mbf) per acre. On average, the model 

predicted 95 percent of the basal area actual growth, and 102 percent of the actual Mbf per acre. The 

results of the basal area projection reflect the ability of the model to predict tree mortality and diameter 

growth. The volume growth projection reflects mortality rates and growth in both height and diameter. 

The Modeling Team did not make any adjustments to the ORGANON model, as the Modeling Team 

considered these differences to be minor, and the time frames used to make the estimates fairly short.
1176 | P a g e

Comparison of Stratified Inventory to Regional Permanent Plot Inventories

The Modeling Team compared the net and gross total volume estimates from the stratified inventory data 

with the unbiased total inventory estimate from both the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plots and 

the CVS plots within that are located on BLM-administered lands within the planning area (Table C-7). 

The stratified total and net volume estimate, as represented by the No Timber Harvest modeling run 

(explained later in this appendix), was within one 95 percent confidence interval of both estimates, from 

both regional inventories.

Table C-7. Results from net inventory comparison (MMbf volume)

Inventory Comparison

CVS Plot 

Calculations

(MMbf)

FIA Plot 

Calculations

(MMbf)

No Timber

Harvest Run

(MMbf)

Net volume 2013 76,766 79,100 73,961

95% CI Upper 80,698 87,100

95% CI Lower 72,833 71,100

CVS = Current Vegetation Survey

FIA = Forest Inventory and Analysis

MMbf = million board feet

GIS – Defining the Land Base and Spatial Projections

Introduction

The Modeling Team used the Geographic Information System (GIS) data to develop a set of polygons 

with unique identifiers (RMPWO_ID), which cover the BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

The Modeling Team defined the attribute data for each these polygons as well as the land base for 

application of modeling rules for simulation of the Proposed RMP, and alternatives and sub-alternatives. 

The Modeling Team used GIS data for mapping the Woodstock projections’ results of forest conditions 

over time. This section provides an overview of the GIS process and the data the Modeling Team used for 

analyzing the Proposed RMP and alternatives. The BLM recorded the details of the GIS processing and 

datasets with GIS metadata.

Defining BLM-administered Lands

The Land Lines Information theme (LLI) is the BLM corporate GIS layer for land status – O&C lands, 

public domain, acquired, and Coos Bay Wagon Road lands. The FOI is the spatial vegetation layer used 

for the Woodstock modeling. The FOI and LLI themes are not vertically integrated in GIS, which results 

in slivering in the areas of misalignment. For analytical purposes, BLM-administered lands are defined by 

the area in which the FOI and LLI overlap. This FOI and LLI mask was subsequently used to minimize 

the slivers from all GIS layers used in the analysis.

Intersection vs. Majority Rules

Where the subdivision of the FOI was important for simulating different modeling rules within each stand 

(e.g., the Riparian Reserve and roads), the BLM intersected the data layers in GIS to create unique areas. 

Some data layers came from external sources that were captured at coarser scales than the FOI mapping 

and do not align well with BLM checkerboard ownership (e.g., northern spotted owl critical habitat units). 

In these situations, the BLM performed a majority rules analysis, where 50 percent or more of the FOI 

unit would need to coincide with the data theme, such as critical habitat, to receive the designation. The 
1177 | P a g e

BLM applied this majority rules process to themes where spatial subdivision of FOI polygons was 

unnecessary and stand level designation was sufficient for the analysis.

Rasterizing and Unique ID Assignment

To facilitate GIS processing, the BLM converted all vector GIS data layers to 10  10 m raster cells (1 

cell = 0.025 acres – UTM zone 10, NAD83) and partitioned the data into tiles, which were based on 

1:24,000 U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle grids (approximately 35,000 acres, 6 miles east/west by 8.5 

miles north/south). Within each tile, the BLM intersected every unique combination of GIS data layers 

with the FOI. The BLM gave each resulting polygon a unique identifier (RMPWO_ID). The example in 

Table C-8 illustrates one FOI unit (840369) being subdivided into four unique areas based on how the 

Riparian Reserve and roads intersected the forest stand. This GIS subdivision of the forest stands allows 

the Woodstock model to simulate how each portion of the stand would develop.

Table C-8. Example of one FOI unit subdivided into four unique areas

RMPWO_ID FOI # GIS 

Acres

Riparian 

Reserve

Road 

Buffer Description

124000005 840369 28.84 N N

Outside Riparian Reserve; outside of road 

buffer

124000008 840369 0.99 N Y Outside Riparian Reserve; within road buffer

124000004 840369 10.90 Y N Inside Riparian Reserve; outside of road buffer

124000013 840369 0.49 Y Y Inside Riparian Reserve; within road buffer

The unique ID (RMPWO_ID) carries through the Woodstock modeling projections for tracking each 

spatial entity. The Modeling Team stored the resultant information in 10  10 m pixels. The Modeling 

Team combined those pixels with the same information to form polygons. The Modeling Team returned 

Woodstock classification of allocations or projections of forest conditions to GIS as attributes with the 

unique IDs, which were linked back to the original grid to produce spatial products.

Data Vintage

The Modeling Team captured a snapshot of the Forest Operations Inventory (FOI), land use allocation 

(LUA), Timber Production Capability Classification (TPCC), occupied marbled murrelet sites (OMMS), 

and the Land Lines Information (LLI) data for this analysis. Many data layers were ‘frozen’ at the 

beginning of the analysis in 2013. Table C-9 displays the GIS data themes that the Modeling Team used 

in the analysis for the Proposed RMP. Those data layers that have been updated to reflect changed 

conditions since 2013 are displayed in italics.
1178 | P a g e

Table C-9. GIS data themes used in the analysis for the Proposed RMP

Source Data (Vector and Raster) GIS Data Theme Description

pol_dob_a_v2_poly BLM District

fst_foi_a_v3_poly Forest Operation Inventory coincident with 

BLM ownership

trn_highways_aoi_a_v1_arc , trn_roads_aoi_a_v1_arc Roads buffered 22.5 feet per side

hyd_waterbody_aoi_a_v1_poly , 

hyd_areas_aoi_a_v1_poly Surface water (no buffers)

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly No Timber Harvest-Harvest Land Base (N,X,Y)

fst_foi_a_v3_poly Unique FOI identification

Microstorms (flat file) Yield Strata identification

Microstorms (flat file) Model Group by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) Species Group by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) Site Class by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) Ten-year Age Class by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) BLM District name by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) AgeInPeriods_TS (Starting Age by OI unit)

Microstorms (flat file) Township/Range/Section by OI unit

Microstorms (flat file) ORGANON variant by OI unit

lch_MoistDry_a_aoi_v2_poly Moist/Dry by OI unit

fir_Predicted_FireSeverity_10m_a_v1_rst Predicted fire severity decade 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly TPCC primary management

fst_tpc_a_v2_poly TPCC primary class

hyd_wbd_hu10_a_v2_poly HUC 10 watersheds

hyd_wbd_hu12_a_v2_poly HUC 12 watersheds

smg_ond_a_v2_poly Other national designations

trn_pacificcresttrail_a_v1_arc Pacific Crest Trail (25 feet buffer per side)

lsc_provphys_a_v2_poly Physiographic Provinces

smg_wilderness_a_v2_poly Wilderness

smg_wsrcorr_a_v2_poly Wild and Scenic River corridors, designated

pol_cob_a_v2_poly County Name

smg_wsa_a_v1_poly Wilderness Study Areas

Rr_SR2 Inner, Middle, Outer Riparian Reserve SR2 (1, 

2, 3)

EML_ripres_dis Eastside Riparian Reserve

RR_Lakwet Riparian Reserve areas from lakes and wetlands 

smg_WildernessCharacteristics_a_aoi_v1_poly Wilderness Characteristics

smg_wsrcorr_a_v2_poly Wild and Scenic River corridors, designated, 

type

pol_ownership_blm_aoi_a_v3_poly Land Status (OC, PD, CBWR, AQ)

FLORA_CHUs Flora Critical Habitat Areas

Wld_FaunaCHUs_a_v2_polys Fauna Critical Habitat Areas

wld_mmz_5mi_a_v1_poly Marbled Murrelet zones w/ 5-mile bands

GB_FLORA_SITES Flora Survey and Manage species 2001 list, 

buffered

GB_FAUNA_SITES Fauna species group report units

lup_MAMU_predicted_SR2_a_v1_poly Predicted Marbled Murrelet

lup_rtv_predicted_a_SR2_v1_poly Predicted Red Tree Voles

GB_FAUNA_SITES Fauna special status T&E species, buffered
1179 | P a g e

Source Data (Vector and Raster) GIS Data Theme Description

lup_ueamgt_a_altc_v1_poly Uneven-aged Management, Alt. C/D

MSTDRYVDRY Moist/Dry/VeryDry

wld_SR2_NSO_Large_Block_Reserves_poly SR2 NSO large block reserves

lup_RA32_OldForest_a_SR2_v1_poly RA32 old forest, SR2 version

smg_acec_aa_a_v1_poly ACECs SR2, unique identifier per ACEC

Fir_2013_Fire_Severities_10m_a_v1_rst Raster Fire Occurrence, 2013

SR3_RMAs_rst Recreation Management Areas

fst_swissneedlecast_a_v1_poly Swiss Needle Cast

min_fragile_soils_a_v1_poly Fragile soils action alternatives

atm_frost_prone_med_a_v1_poly Frost prone areas

lup_Kfalls_EastsideLands_a_v1_poly Eastside Management Lands

pol_rab_a_v3_poly Resource Area Name and Code

lsc_NWFP_NSO_MRegions_aoi_a_v1_poly Northern Spotted Owl Modeling Groups

fir_2013_Fire_Severities_x_FOI Moderate and Severe Fire Occurrence, 2013

wld_marbledmurrelet_chu_a_2011_v1_poly Marbled Murrelet critical habitat

wld_nsochu_a_2013_v1_poly Northern Spotted Owl critical habitat

Note: Italics indicate updated data layers.

FOI = Forest Operations Inventory

OI = operations inventory

TPCC = Timber Production Capability Classification

HUC = hydrologic unit code

SR = sensitivity run

OC = Oregon and California Railroad Act lands

PD = public domain lands

CBWR = Coos Bay Wagon Road lands

AQ = acquired lands

RA32 = Recovery Action 32 (northern spotted owl)

See the modeling rules section for further description of the GIS data themes used in the modeling.

Moist vs. Dry Delineation of BLM-administered Lands in the 

Planning Area

Moist vs. Dry Forests

The Modeling Team recognizes that forested lands fall within two broad categories—moist forests and 

dry forests—that are relevant to management decisions and analysis. The Modeling Team recognizes that 

the spectrum from moist to dry is more accurately described along a continuous gradient from moist to 

dry rather than a ‘one or the other’ binary classification. However, the Modeling Team has made these 

discrete classifications to facilitate specifying management objectives and direction based on mapped land 

use allocations. Recognizing and managing both moist and dry forests within the range of the northern 

spotted owl is a major underpinning in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 

FWS 2011, pp. III-17 – III-41).

Moist forests are typically highly productive, often with deep, nutrient-rich soils, abundant precipitation, 

and relatively cool, temperate climates. Historically, these forests have experienced relatively infrequent, 

high- or mixed-severity fires. Moist forests are concentrated in the coastal/northern districts (the Coos 

Bay and Eugene Districts, the north half of the Roseburg District, and the Salem District). Moist forests 

also occur in the southern/interior districts (the Klamath Falls Field Office, the Medford District, and the 
1180 | P a g e

southern half of the Roseburg District), but they are less abundant, often on northern aspects, in higher 

elevations, or in coastal influence zones.

Dry forests are typically lower productivity forests, occurring in warmer and drier environments, and 

often on shallower, nutrient-poor soils when compared to moist forests. Historically, these forests have 

experienced frequent, low- to mixed-severity fires. Dry forests are concentrated in southern/interior 

districts (the southern half of the Roseburg District, Medford District, and the Klamath Falls Field 

Office). Dry forests also occur in the coastal/northern districts, but they are less abundant, often on 

southern aspects, ridge tops, and low-elevation valley margins.

The distinction between moist forests and dry forests represents a complicated relationship between 

climate, species, topography, soils, and disturbance history. For this reason, a map based on any one of 

these factors would likely create an incorrect representation of the spatial arrangement of these forests. 

Fortunately, the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service has collected and compiled data on Plant Association 

Groups (PAG), which are also the product of climate, species, topography, soils, and disturbance history. 

Therefore, the Modeling Team can use PAG to determine whether a forest stand is moist or dry (Franklin 

et al. 2013, pp. 12–23). Trained professionals in the field can readily make Plant Association Group 

determinations, and large spatial mapping datasets are available for many parts of the planning area.

The following plant association series and groups are generally considered moist (Franklin and Johnson 

2012): western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western redcedar (Thuja 

plicata), Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), subalpine firEngelmann spruce (Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmanni), moist grand fir (Abies grandis), and moist white 

fir (Abies concolor).

The following plant association series and groups are generally considered dry (Franklin and Johnson 

2012): ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana), Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), dry grand fir (Abies grandis), and dry white fir 

(Abies concolor).

These very general categories provided the Modeling Team with a starting point for categorization of 

forested lands in the planning area. The Modeling Team produced a set of PAG moist/dry categorizations 

that were distributed to U.S. Forest Service regional ecologists and BLM experts for review. Based on 

this evaluation and review, the Modeling Team labeled each PAG in the planning area as either moist or 

dry.

The next challenge was to categorize forested stands in the decision area as either moist or dry. While 

PAG data is available for many regions, there is not a seamless coverage available for the entire decision 

area for this planning effort. However, the Integrated Landscape Assessment Project (ILAP) had derived a 

single, seamless coverage of Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) for the entire decision area. This PVT map 

consists of a raster grid to a 30-m pixel size derived from underlying PAG and necessary interpolation. 

The Modeling Team updated the southwest Oregon portion of the map to reflect the most up-to-date PAG 

information for the region. Then, the Modeling Team labeled each FOI unit (stand) in the database as 

either moist or dry based on the PVT map and a majority rules process. The Modeling Team labeled 

stands exactly split between moist and dry, an occurrence, which was very rare, as dry.

The Modeling Team sent these maps to BLM offices for review by experienced local experts. The BLM 

corrected mapping errors by location where the maps did not accurately reflect local knowledge of 

conditions on the ground. The accuracy of PVT for the Salem District was not satisfactory because they 

had very few dry forest acres. The Salem District BLM experts used a combination of biophysical setting 

data and local knowledge to select manually dry stands from their operational land base.
1181 | P a g e

This mapping effectively produced a seamless, spatial moist/dry classification scheme for the entire 

decision area (Table C-10). Table C-11 is a representation of the final categories that the BLM offices 

selected, prior to area corrections being applied. Roseburg N refers to the Roseburg District outside of the 

Klamath East or Klamath West modeling region, while Roseburg S refers to the Roseburg District inside 

of those modeling regions. The Modeling Team customized these calls based on local knowledge and 

spatial coverage for each district by local BLM ecological vegetation experts. Very Dry forests are a 

subset of dry forests that the Modeling Team modeled as uneven-aged management where they reside in 

the Harvest Land Base in Alternatives C and D, and Sub-alternative C.

Table C-10. Moist vs. dry forested acres by district

Forest

Category

Coos Bay

(Acres)

Eugene

(Acres)

Klamath Falls

(Acres)

Medford

(Acres)

Roseburg

(Acres)

Salem

(Acres)

Totals

(Acres)

Dry 2,300 1,010 43,043 715,509 170,588 6,851 939,300

Moist 301,837 296,212 4,968 24,610 228,575 367,690 1,223,893

Totals 304,137 297,222 48,011 740,119 399,163 374,541 2,163,193

Table C-11. Moist/dry potential vegetation type categorization by district

Plant Vegetation Type 

(PVT)

Coos Bay 

(Moist/Dry)

Eugene 

(Moist/Dry)

Klamath 

Falls 

(Moist/Dry)

Medford 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg N 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg S 

(Moist/Dry)

Salem 

(Moist/Dry)

Douglas-fir–Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Douglas-fir–Moist Moist Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Moist

Douglas-fir–White oak Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Douglas-fir–Xeric Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Grand fir–Valley Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Grand fir–Warm/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Grand fir–Cool/Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Mixed Conifer–Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist Moist Moist

Mixed Conifer–Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist

Mixed Conifer–Cold/Dry Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist

Mixed Conifer–Dry (pumice 

soils) Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Dry Moist

Mountain hemlock–Cold/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Mountain hemlock–Cold/Dry 

(Coastal/W. Cascades) Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Mountain hemlock–

Intermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Mountain hemlock–Wet Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Oregon white oak Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Oregon white oak-Ponderosa 

pine Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Pacific silver fir–

Intermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Pacific silver fir–Warm Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Ponderosa pine–Dry Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist

Ponderosa pine–Xeric Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist

Shasta red fir–Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist
1182 | P a g e

Plant Vegetation Type 

(PVT)

Coos Bay 

(Moist/Dry)

Eugene 

(Moist/Dry)

Klamath 

Falls 

(Moist/Dry)

Medford 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg N 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg S 

(Moist/Dry)

Salem 

(Moist/Dry)

Shasta red fir–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Sitka spruce Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Subalpine fir Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Subalpine fir–Cold/Dry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Subalpine parkland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Dry Moist Moist Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist

Tan oak–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Dry Dry Moist

Western hemlock–Coastal Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–Cold Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–Hyperdry Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–

Intermediate Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–Moist 

(Coastal) Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western hemlock–Wet Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Western red cedar/Western 

hemlock–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

White fir–Cool Moist Moist Very Dry Very Dry Moist Moist Moist

White fir–Intermediate Moist Moist Dry Dry Dry Dry Moist

White fir–Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

White fir–Warm Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Lodgepole pine Moist Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist

Ultramafic Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Moist

Other Non-forest Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Jeffrey Pine Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry

Lodgepole pine–Cold Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry

Not Modeled Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Barren Moist Dry Very Dry Very Dry Dry Very Dry Moist

Wetland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Water or Ice Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Subalpine meadows-Green 

Fescue Moist Moist Moist Moist

Bitterbrush–With Juniper - - Very Dry -

Idaho fescue-Prairie 

junegrass - - Very Dry -

Low Sage-Mesic–No juniper - - Very Dry -

Low Sage-Mesic–With 

juniper - - Very Dry -

Montane and canyon 

shrubland - - Very Dry Dry

Mountain big sagebrushWith juniper - - Very Dry -

Mountain Mahogany - - Very Dry -
1183 | P a g e

Plant Vegetation Type 

(PVT)

Coos Bay 

(Moist/Dry)

Eugene 

(Moist/Dry)

Klamath 

Falls 

(Moist/Dry)

Medford 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg N 

(Moist/Dry)

Roseburg S 

(Moist/Dry)

Salem 

(Moist/Dry)

Ponderosa Pine–Dry, with 

juniper - - Very Dry -

Ponderosa pine-Lodgepole 

pine - - Very Dry -

Salt desert shrub-lowland - - Very Dry -

Western juniper woodland - - Very Dry -

Wetland Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist Moist

Wyoming big sagebrush–No 

juniper - - Very Dry -

Wyoming big sagebrush–

With juniper - - Very Dry -

Forest Growth and Yield Modeling

Introduction

This section describes the silvicultural systems, practices, modeling tools, and modeling assumptions for 

forest growth simulations at the stand level. The purpose of simulating forest stand growth and 

development is to permit analysis of the effects of different silvicultural systems and silvicultural 

practices (e.g., on timber yield, stand structural class, wildlife habitat, hydrologic function, and carbon 

budgets). The Modeling Team used the simulated growth and yield output tables described in this section 

in the Woodstock model to help answer the analytical questions for different resources identified in this 

RMP for each of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP.

Silvicultural Systems, Practices, and General Modeling Approaches

Silvicultural Systems and Associated Regeneration Harvest Types

A silvicultural system is a planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and re-establishing a stand 

to meet specific management objectives (i.e., a set of treatments that could be repeated in perpetuity). The 

system name is commonly based on the number of age classes created within a stand (Tappeiner et al. 

2007). The regeneration harvest method associated with a particular silvicultural system defined by age 

class has such a decisive influence on stand form and development that the harvest method name is also 

commonly applied to the silvicultural system (Smith 1962). For example, the terms uneven-aged and 

selection system are often used interchangeably to characterize the same silvicultural system.

Within a land use allocation being managed with a particular silvicultural system, the planned series of 

treatments are fine-tuned to meet the specific conditions and growth potential of individual stands or 

modeling group. These more specific combination and sequence of treatments is called a silvicultural 

prescription or management regime.

The Modeling Team used three recognized silvicultural systems in simulating forest stand development 

and timber harvest on lands identified as contributing to sustained-yield management. These are evenaged (clearcut and shelterwood), two-aged (variable retention), and uneven-aged (selection). Two-aged 

and uneven-aged systems are described collectively as multi-aged (O’Hara 2014). The systems analyzed 

for this analysis exhibit a gradient of timber harvest intensity (Figure C-3) and stand structural 

complexity (Figure C-4). The system used depends on the land use allocation’s objectives of each 

alternative and the Proposed RMP (Table C-12 and Table C-13).
1184 | P a g e

Figure C-3. Gradient of silvicultural systems and regeneration harvest methods 

Figure C-4. Stand structural types produced by various silvicultural systems 

Note: Figure adapted from USDA FS NCRS (no date). 
1185 | P a g e

Table C-12. Silvicultural systems/harvest method by land use allocation 

Land Use Allocation LUA 

Abbreviation

No Action

(Method)

Alt. A

(Method)

Alt. B

(Method)

Alt. C

(Method)

Alt. D

(Method)

PRMP

(Method)

General Forest Management 

Area GFMA Two-aged - - - - -

Adaptive Management Area* AMA Two-aged - - - - -

Moderate Intensity Timber Area MITA - - Two-aged - Two-aged Two-aged

Connectivity/Diversity Block CONN Two-aged - - - - -

Low Intensity Timber Area LITA - - Two-aged - - Two-aged

Southern General Forest 

Management Area SGFMA Two-aged - - - - -

Uneven-aged Timber Area UTA - Uneven-aged Uneven-aged Uneven-aged Uneven-aged Uneven-aged

Owl Habitat Timber Area OHTA - - - - Uneven-aged -

High Intensity Timber Area HITA - Even-aged - Even-aged - -

Late-Successional Reserve LSR Thinning Thinning‡ Thinning/

Uneven-aged§

Thinning/

Uneven-aged§

Thinning/

Uneven-aged§

Thinning/

Uneven-aged§

Adaptive Management Reserve† AMR Thinning - - - - -

Riparian Reserve RR Thinning Thinning‡ Thinning Thinning Thinning Thinning

* Adaptive Management Area is represented by the General Forest Management Area in subsequent tables 

† Adaptive Management Reserve is represented by the Late-Successional Reserve in subsequent tables 

‡ No commercial harvest, cut trees are left on-site 

§ Varies by moist forest (Thinning)–dry forest (Uneven-aged) classifications 
1186 | P a g e

Table C-13. Silvicultural systems selected modeling assumptions* 

Land Use 

Allocation

Regeneration 

Harvest 

Method†

Target 

Stand 

Structure

Type

Alternative/

Proposed 

RMP

Primary 

Regeneration 

Method and 

Simulation 

Timing‡

Pre-commercial 

Thinning Residual 

Density 

(Trees/Acre)

Genetic 

Improvement§

Commercial 

Thinning Fertilize

GFMA VRH Two-aged No Action Plant–15 200-260 X X X

MITA VRH Two-aged D Plant–15 260 X X X

MITA VRH Two-aged PRMP Plant–15 260 X X X

MITA VRH Two-aged B Plant–30 260

CONN VRH Two-aged No Action Plant–15 150-220 X

LITA VRH Two-aged B Natural–30 220 X

LITA VRH Two-aged B Natural–30 100

LITA VRH Two-aged B None 0

LITA VRH Two-aged PRMP Plant–15 260 X

SGFMA VRH Two-aged No Action Plant–15 260 X

UTA Selection Uneven-aged A, B, C, D Plant–15 260 X

UTA Selection Uneven-aged PRMP Plant–15 260 X

OHTA Selection Uneven-aged D Plant–15 260 X

HITA Clearcut Even-aged A, C Plant–15 260 X X X

LSR Variable by Alternative/Proposed RMP

RR N/A Multi-aged All Natural 120

RR N/A Multi-aged PRMP Natural 120

* Actions that are applicable outside of fire scenario areas 

† VRH = variable retention harvest 

‡ ‘Natural’ indicates that no artificial regeneration (tree planting) is permitted; ‘Plant’ indicates a planting cost applies. The number following the primary regeneration method is 

the number of years post-harvest that a tree list representing 15-year-old trees is added to the growth simulation at a density reflecting post-pre-commercial thinning, or if less than 

150 the assumed density reflecting stand density if below target density for that land use allocation. 

§ Refer to use of genetically improved Douglas-fir seedlings for reforestation and use of growth modifiers in ORGANON simulations. 
1187 | P a g e

The even-aged system uses the clear-cutting or shelterwood harvest method to regenerate existing stands. 

Clear-cutting essentially removes all trees from an area in a single harvest operation (Figure C-5). 

Shelterwood harvest initially retains a number of ‘shelter’ trees to protect new tree regeneration by 

mitigation of detrimental on-site environmental conditions (e.g., heat or frost). Immediately post-harvest, 

a shelterwood has the appearance of a two-aged stand resulting from a variable retention harvest (Figure 

C-3). However, unlike the two-aged system, the shelter trees are only temporarily retained (approximately 

10–20 years) and are harvested when they no longer required for protection of the new tree regeneration.

Figure C-5. Clearcut stand immediately post-harvest

Note: Figure adapted from USDA FS NCRS (no date).

The two-aged system uses a variable retention harvest method to achieve the goal of establishing new tree 

regeneration (Figure C-3 and Figure C-4). At regeneration harvest, live trees are retained long-term 

(reserved from harvest) to facilitate the development of a two-aged stand structure. The retained trees may 

be left in a dispersed, aggregated, or mixed spatial pattern (Figure C-6). For modeling purposes, the 

Modeling Team assumed dispersed retention for variable retention harvests in the No Action alternative, 

Alternatives B and D, and the Proposed RMP.
1188 | P a g e

Figure C-6. Variable retention (regeneration) harvest-idealized retention patterns 

Note: Figure adapted from USDA FS NCRS (no date). 

The uneven-aged system uses selection harvests to establish new regeneration. Trees are harvested singly 

and/or in groups with the objective of creating an uneven-aged multi-story (canopy) stand structure 

(Figure C-3, Figure C-4, and Figure C-7). Classically defined uneven-aged management assumes that 

over time the entire area of the stand is harvested. A feature of the uneven-aged system in the action 

alternatives and the Proposed RMP is the long-term retention or reservation from harvest of a portion of 

each stand similar to retention concept of the two-aged system. 

Uncut Stand

Dispersed Retention

Aggregate Retention
1189 | P a g e

Figure C-7. Uneven-aged management/selection harvest – idealized harvest patterns 

Note: Figure adapted from USDA FS NCRS (no date). 

In addition to being used in simulating forest stand development and timber harvest on lands identified as 

contributing to sustained yield management, the Modeling Team modeled uneven-aged management in 

the ‘dry forest’ portions of the Late-Successional Reserve in the action alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP. 

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvests on portions of land use allocations managed for emphases 

other than timber. For example, the Late-Successional Reserve would employ a harvest approach 

commonly referred to as variable-density thinning (Harrington et al. 2005). Variable-density thinning 

employs elements of commercial thinning and selection harvest of the uneven-aged system to promote 

stand heterogeneity through the development of a multi-story stand. Provision of conditions conducive to 

the initiation and growth of regeneration is an objective of variable-density thinning to encourage 

understory development to contribute to stand heterogeneity. Variable-density thinning in the context of 

the analyzed alternatives and the Proposed RMP is not a silvicultural system as such, since silvicultural 

treatments are assumed to end by a specified stand age (i.e., there is no assumption of a repeatable cycle 

of treatments in perpetuity). The Modeling Team modeled variable-density thinning as a series of 

proportional commercial thinnings with simulated tree regeneration following the thinning harvests in the 

Riparian Reserve in all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, Late-Successional Reserve in the No Action 

alternative, and ‘moist forest’ areas in the Late-Successional Reserve in the action alternatives and the 

Proposed RMP. 

Silvicultural Practices and Modeling Assumptions 

For each modeling group, the Modeling Team may plan a variety of practices in addition to harvesting for 

specific periods in the life of the stand. These practices act to keep forest stands on desired developmental 

trajectories. The type and timing sequence of those practices vary by the current and the desired future 

condition of the stand or modeling stratum. 

The other major silvicultural practices besides regeneration harvesting that affect forest stand growth, 

value and structure are site preparation, regeneration (reforestation), stand maintenance and protection, 

pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, fertilization, and pruning. The Modeling Team derived 
1190 | P a g e

estimates of the proportion of future treatment needs from historical experience in individual BLM offices 

and the specifics of the Proposed RMP and various alternatives.

Of these practices, the Modeling Team simulated regeneration harvest, regeneration, pre-commercial 

thinning, commercial thinning, and fertilization implementation in the growth and yield projections.

Site Preparation

The BLM conducts site preparation to prepare newly harvested or inadequately stocked areas for tree 

planting, artificial seeding, or natural regeneration. Objectives of site preparation are to provide physical 

access to planting sites, fuels management, influence the plant community that redevelops on the site, and 

influence or control animal populations. The types of site preparation techniques are prescribed burning, 

mechanical, and manual methods.

Regeneration (Reforestation)

Following a regeneration harvest or wildfire, the BLM establishes tree regeneration by artificial and 

natural regeneration. Artificial regeneration includes tree planting or seeding (or a combination of both). 

Natural regeneration is obtained from natural seed fall from adjacent forest stands of seed-bearing age or 

retention trees reserved at the time of timber harvest. Where available, the BLM may emphasize the 

planting of genetically improved seedlings for even-aged and two-aged systems with low levels of greentree retention. Genetic improvements include increased growth (e.g., Douglas-fir and western hemlock) or 

disease resistance (e.g., sugar pine, western white pine, and Port-Orford-cedar). The BLM would plant 

trees outside of the Harvest Land Base to supplement, or in lieu of natural regeneration to enhance 

development of complex stand structure.

The Modeling Team based tree lists representing the tree regeneration component of future stands 

following a major stand disturbing event, such as a timber harvest or wildfire on an analysis done for the 

2008 FEIS of the Current Vegetation Survey (CVS) plots in the then 5- to 20-year-old age classes (USDI 

BLM 2008). The Modeling Team stratified plots by species group and site class where possible. The 

Modeling Team assumed that future young reforested stand species composition would be similar to that 

of current young stands.

The ORGANON model lacks a ‘regeneration component’ to generate small seedlings (< 4.5 feet tall) that 

simulates a reforestation action. However, an ‘ingrowth’ function in the model permits the insertion of a 

regeneration tree list into a simulation when trees are larger than the minimum. For modeling purposes, 

the Modeling Team developed tree lists of species mix and size range appropriate to the various modeling 

groups from the database described above for the 2008 FEIS. The Modeling Team considers that these 

same lists are still appropriate for use in this analysis. The Modeling Team simulated a reforestation event 

by adding the regeneration tree lists with an YTGTools procedure, 15–35 years after a regeneration 

harvest or wildfire in the modeling sequence. The wide range in timing reflects varying assumptions of 

the Proposed RMP and alternatives on the level of residual live overstory trees present following harvest 

or wildfire, site productivity differences, lag time for natural regeneration, administrative delays in 

salvage harvest situations, and intensity of stand maintenance actions.

Regeneration for the Low Intensity Timber Area and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area of Alternative 

B were special cases. Management direction for the Low Intensity Timber Area would allow only natural 

regeneration for reforestation purposes. Management direction for the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

would require delayed reforestation to maintain open stand conditions (≤ 30 percent tree canopy cover) 

for thirty years after a regeneration harvest. The Modeling Team could not readily develop assumptions 
1191 | P a g e

on reforestation success using natural regeneration from existing BLM data, so the Modeling Team used 

regionwide data instead.

Reliance on natural regeneration following regeneration harvests on BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon was common until about 1960. Around 1960, the BLM shifted to a paradigm of prompt 

reforestation by artificial seeding and tree planting. The BLM reforestation records from the earlier era of 

natural regeneration emphasis are spotty. However, pre-1960 regional studies and reports are available for 

approximating potential levels of natural regeneration success. Data in the pre-1960 literature on postharvest natural regeneration (Isaac 1943, Lavender et al. 1956, USDA FS 1958) characterizes 

reforestation success in categories, which correspond closely to BLM stocking groupings of target (260 

trees per acre), minimum/understocked (100 trees per acre), and non-stocked (0 trees per acre). The 

Modeling Team assumed that reforestation outcomes in the Low Intensity Timber Area in Alternative B 

would approximate proportions of 60 percent of harvested acres would achieve target stocking, 30 percent 

minimum/understocked, and 10 percent non-stocked. After regeneration harvest, the Modeling Team 

apportioned acres harvested as stated above and simulated further stand development. The Modeling 

Team doubled the lag time before inserting a regeneration tree list into the ORGANON growth 

simulations for natural regeneration, compared to prompt planting. This doubled lag time represented an 

extended seed-in period.

In the Moderate Intensity Timber Area in Alternative B, the Modeling Team assumed target stocking 

levels for all acres harvested but doubled the lag time before inserting a regeneration tree list in the 

growth simulations.

Newer literature on natural regeneration following wildfire was considered for evaluating reforestation 

success, but was rejected for this analysis. The reason is that un-salvaged wildfire stands, by virtue of fire 

effects and the generally high number of residual dead standing trees, create different microclimate 

conditions for natural regeneration than a harvested area.

Stand Maintenance and Protection

The BLM conducts stand maintenance and protection treatments after planting or seeding to promote the 

survival and establishment of trees and other vegetation by reducing competition from undesired plant 

species. Maintenance and protection techniques include mulching, cutting, or pulling of unwanted 

vegetation species, placing plastic tubes or netting over seedlings to protect from animal damage, and 

animal trapping.

The effects of past maintenance and protection treatments are reflected in the current condition of existing 

young forest stands. The Modeling Team assumed in the simulation of future regenerated stands that the 

same types and level of treatments would occur as in the current young existing stands that were used to 

derive the initial regeneration tree lists. Herbicides for stand maintenance were not available to the BLM 

during the time in which the current young stands developed, and the Modeling Team did not model 

herbicide use for stand maintenance in the Proposed RMP or any of the action alternatives. Therefore, the 

initial conditions of the future tree lists derived from current stands attributes should exhibit the effects of 

non-herbicide stand maintenance treatment methods only.

Pre-commercial Thinning

The BLM conducts pre-commercial thinning to reduce the densities of tree and shrubs, manipulate 

species composition, and promote dominance and growth of selected species. The BLM usually 

implements treatments during the mid-range of the stand establishment structural stage. For modeling 

purposes, the Modeling Team assumed pre-commercial thinning would occur at the time a regeneration 
1192 | P a g e

tree list is inserted into the ORGANON simulation. Pre-commercial thinning enhances the growth and 

vigor of the residual trees by reducing inter-tree and shrub competition. The average number of trees 

remaining following treatment can vary by land use allocation and modeling group.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial thinnings are intermediate harvests implemented to recover anticipated mortality, control 

stand density for maintenance of stand vigor, provide revenue, and to alter or maintain stands on 

developmental paths so that desired stand characteristics result in the future. The BLM schedules

commercial thinnings when stands reach a combination of relative density stem diameter and timber 

volume to permit an economical harvest entry.

The Modeling Team used the same basic silvicultural prescriptions developed for the 2008 FEIS for all 

silvicultural systems (USDI BLM 2008). The BLM formulated these prescriptions from iterative 

ORGANON simulations with four evaluation criteria:

1. Stand relative density (Curtis 1982)

2. Attainment of minimum average stand diameter

3. Minimum harvest volumes

4. Residual canopy cover (Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserve only)

The Modeling Team based relative density (RD) thresholds on published recommendations, including 

Curtis and Marshall (1986), Hayes et al. (1997), Chan et al. (2006), and professional judgment. The 

Modeling Team scheduled thinning when relative density met or exceeded a minimum of 45–55, 

depending on the land use allocation objectives.

The Modeling Team based minimum diameter and volume thresholds for economically viable thinning 

sales on historical BLM timber sales experience. The Modeling Team assumed the minimum diameter to 

be 12”, measured at breast height, and minimum volume thresholds of 8,000 board feet per acre on the 

Coos Bay, Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and 5,000 board feet per acre on the Klamath Falls 

Field Office and the Medford District.

Relative density rules can vary by land use allocation within alternatives and the Proposed RMP. For 

example, the Modeling Team modeled commercial thinning prescriptions for land use allocations with 

higher timber production emphasis goals—Northern General Forest Management Area (No Action 

alternative), High Intensity Timber Area (Alternatives A and C), and Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

(Alternatives B and D and the Proposed RMP)—to maintain relative densities between approximately 35 

and 55. The Modeling Team designed the timing and degree of the final thinning so that relative density 

would recover to a minimum of 55 at the long-term rotation age. The Modeling Team modeled thinnings 

for late-successional habitat development objectives within a lower range of relative density thresholds of 

25–50 RD.

Commercial thinnings promote the establishment of conifer regeneration in the understory of thinned 

stands (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998). The Modeling Team simulated the recruitment of this regeneration in 

the growth simulations to reflect expected stand dynamics following commercial thinning harvests. The 

ORGANON growth and yield model (Hann 2011) uses ‘diameters at breast height’, which is the tree’s 

diameter at 4.5 feet from the ground, to measure and calculate tree growth. As such, ORGANON does not 

recognize trees with heights less than 4.5 feet as part of forest stand calculations. Therefore, the Modeling 

Team developed regeneration tree lists using existing CVS data and growth relationships from current 

published and unpublished studies. The Modeling Team added regeneration trees to ORGANON 

simulations 20–25 years after any commercial thinning. The time lag represents the estimated time for all 

trees in the regeneration tree list to reach a minimum height of at least 4.5 feet where then they are 

recognized by ORGANON.
1193 | P a g e

Fertilization

Stand growth in western Oregon is often limited by the supply of available nutrients, particularly 

nitrogen. The supply of soil nutrients can be augmented through fertilization (Miller et al. 1988). The 

Modeling Team modeled fertilization assuming the application of 200 pounds of fertilizer in the form of 

urea-based prill (46 percent available nitrogen). Occasionally, fertilizer may be applied in a liquid ureaammonia form or with a mixture of other nutrient elements in addition to nitrogen. The Modeling Team 

simulated fertilization in the Harvest Land Base after a thinning action in stands that would be managed 

with even-aged or two-aged with low green tree retention, contain 80 percent or more Douglas-fir by 

basal area, and have a total stand age ≤ 70 years old.

Pruning

The objectives for pruning are the improvement of wood quality, disease mitigation (e.g., white pine 

blister rust), and fuels management. Pruning for wood quality usually removes the live and dead limbs on 

selected trees up to height of about 18 feet. The BLM generally implements pruning treatments as a twophase process or ‘lifts’ between stand ages of approximately 15–40 years old. Timing varies by site 

productivity (i.e., treatments occur earlier on stands of higher site productivity). Removal of up to onethird to one-half of the live tree crown at each lift would not substantially affect diameter growth at breast 

height or height growth (Staebler 1963, Stein 1955, BCMOF 1995). Because the BLM would typically 

implement pruning treatments within this range and therefore would not have a substantial effect on tree 

growth, the Modeling Team did not simulate pruning in ORGANON.

Stand Modeling Process

The prediction of forest stand development requires the projection of growth of BLM’s existing forest 

stand types into the future, with and without further silvicultural treatments, and the simulation of stands, 

which represent future stands (i.e., new stands created following future timber harvest or natural 

disturbance). Depending on the management direction of the alternatives and Proposed RMP, both 

existing and future stands may be subject to different intensities of silvicultural treatments. The Modeling 

Team used two linked computer models, ORGANON and YTGTools, to project the growth and 

development of forest stands under various silvicultural systems.

ORGANON Model Description

ORGANON is an individual-tree, distance-independent model developed by Oregon State University 

from data collected in western Oregon forest stands (Hann 2011). The architecture of the model makes it 

applicable for simulations of traditional and non-traditional silviculture (Hann 1998). Three variants of 

ORGANON are available for use in western Oregon. The Modeling Team used the northwest Oregon 

variant (NWO-ORGANON) to project the growth of forest stands located on the Coos Bay, Eugene, 

Roseburg (partial), and Salem Districts. The basic data underpinning of this variant of the model is from 

predominantly conifer forest stands with ages ranging from about 10–120 years old breast height age 

(Hann 2011). The Modeling Team used the southwest Oregon variant (SWO-ORGANON) to project 

forest stand growth on the Medford and Roseburg (partial) Districts, and the Lakeview District’s Klamath 

Falls Field Office. The original basic data underpinning this variant of the model is from mixed-conifer 

forest stands with ages of the dominant trees ranging from about 13–138 years old breast height age 

(Ritchie and Hann 1985). Subsequently, additional new data has extended the applicability of the model 

to stands with older trees, higher proportions of hardwoods, and more complex spatial structure (Hann 

and Hanus 2001).
1194 | P a g e

Simulations of the silvicultural prescriptions used in the alternatives and Proposed RMP extend beyond 

the ORGANON model’s range of data for both variants. However, the timing of harvests and other 

silvicultural treatments generally occur within the range of the model’s validated height growth projection 

and volume prediction capabilities. Height growth is the primary driving function in ORGANON (Ritchie 

1999). Hann (1998) found that the SWO-ORGANON height growth equations can be extended to up to 

245 years without loss of accuracy or precision.

The standard ORGANON configuration is not conducive to the efficient processing of large numbers of 

individual tree lists representing forest stands within a stratum. It is not configured to merge multiple 

simulation results to into average timber yield functions. In addition, the standard model does not produce 

specific stand structural characteristics that have utility for effects analysis on resources other than timber 

production, or for the incorporation of factors to simulate growth improvement of trees due to genetic 

improvement programs. To overcome these shortcomings, the Modeling Team linked ORGANON with 

the YTGTools computer program.

YTGTools

YTG Tools is a proprietary computer software program designed to create and analyze yield tables in 

conjunction with a growth and yield simulation model that flow into the Woodstock harvest scheduling 

model. MBG designed YTGTools to automate the process of simulating large amounts of management 

regime projections for many stand conditions and to facilitate analyzing and reporting attributes of the 

resulting yield tables. The Modeling Team used YTGTools in conjunction with a growth and yield model 

to project future timber yields and stand attributes under the various management regimes applied to 

different forest inventory strata (Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 2006).

Existing Stands Modeling Description

The land base consists of existing forest stands that are the result of past harvests and natural 

disturbances, of various ages, structures, past management histories and potential for forest management. 

The Modeling Team stratified tree lists from CVS inventory subplots into modeling groups as described 

previously in this appendix. Using ORGANON and YTGTools, the Modeling Team used these modeling 

groups for depicting current stand condition and simulating future development with and without future 

silvicultural treatments. The Modeling Team applied the same base silvicultural prescription to each 

subplot within a modeling group.

Future Stands Modeling Description

The Modeling Team developed modeling groups and tree lists for forest stand types or silvicultural 

prescriptions for which little or no specific CVS data existed using tree lists developed for the 2008 FEIS 

(USDI BLM 2008). Stand projections of ‘future’ stands formed the basis for initiating new stands 

following regeneration harvests in all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The future stands category 

includes ‘existing’ stand types created because of regeneration harvest prescriptions with green-tree 

retention under the current RMPs, which is due to the low number of CVS subplots representing this 

condition. The Modeling Team applied the same base silvicultural prescription to strata average stand 

tables within a modeling group.

Special Case – Swiss Needle Cast Zone (Salem District)

For all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the Modeling Team developed a special subset of yield tables 

for modeling future stands within geographic areas currently identified with a high incidence of Swiss 

needle cast disease on the Salem District. The Modeling Team based future tree list species composition 
1195 | P a g e

in the Swiss needle cast zone on an assumption of higher proportions of disease-resistant species (e.g., 

cedar and hemlock) being used for the reforestation of future harvested areas.

Special Case – Wildfire Modeling (All Districts)

For all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the Modeling Team simulated future wildfire occurrence and 

severity (Appendix D). For growth and yield projections, the Modeling Team modeled two fire severity 

regimes – high and moderate. The Modeling Team did not model a low-severity regime, because the 

stand disturbance would not affect stand structural development enough to merit separate modeling. The 

Modeling Team assumed 90 percent tree mortality in the high-severity fire regime and 50 percent tree 

mortality in the moderate-severity fire regime. The Modeling Team modeled salvage of live and dead 

trees following both high-severity and moderate-severity fires in those alternatives and the Proposed RMP 

that would allow salvage, subject to management direction for green-tree, snag, and down wood retention.

The Modeling Team simulated four different conditions associated with wildfire. These include: (1) highintensity fire with salvage, (2) high-intensity fire without salvage, (3) moderate-intensity fire with 

salvage, and (4) moderate-intensity fire without salvage. In an effort to reduce the unwieldy number of 

yield tables in the Woodstock growth model, the Modeling Team used the existing two-aged overstory 

tree lists in modeling for land use allocations with green-tree retention requirements in conjunction with 

their corresponding regeneration tree list. The Modeling Team modeled salvaged stands in the High 

Intensity Timber Area as clearcut harvests. The Modeling Team modeled stands that would experience 

moderate-intensity fire but would not be salvaged as thinning harvests and assumed tree regeneration 

ingrowth similar to that described under the commercial thinning section.

Types of Growth and Yield Tables

The ORGANON simulations produced two types of tables or curves for further use by the Woodstock 

model – simple and composite tables.

Simple Growth and Yield Tables

Simple tables are produced from simulations representing a single sequence of silvicultural actions 

applied to an entire forest stand within a land use allocation. In other words, the entire area of the stand 

receives the same prescribed treatment at the same time. Simple tables were produced for all land use 

allocations with the exception of those where an uneven-aged management system was used.

Composite Growth and Yield Tables

Uneven-aged management treatments required the construction of composite growth and yield tables. 

Simulating uneven-aged management requires subdividing the stand into four or five separate 

components, depending on the land use allocation. The Modeling Team simulated growths in each of 

these stand components separately in ORGANON. The components have the same starting condition, but 

diverge over time due to the difference in the timing of harvest treatments applied to each one 

independently. The Modeling Team created two separate varieties of uneven-aged management.

The first variety of uneven-aged management emphasizes the development of fire-resilient stand 

structures over time. The Modeling Team simulated this variety in the Uneven-aged Timber Area land use 

allocation. For modeling purposes, the Modeling Team divided stands into four separate components. The 

Modeling Team modeled three stand components, each comprising 30 percent of the stand area, to be 

available for harvest at repeating intervals. The Modeling Team modeled a fourth stand component, 

comprising 10 percent of the stand area, which would be reserved from future treatments.
1196 | P a g e

The second variety of uneven-aged management primarily emphasizes the development and maintenance 

of northern spotted owl habitat. The Modeling Team simulated this variety in the Owl Habitat Timber 

Area and Late-Successional Reserve–Dry land use allocations. For modeling purposes, the Modeling 

Team divided stands into five separate components. The Modeling Team modeled four stand components, 

each comprising 15 percent of the stand area, to be available for harvest at repeating intervals. The 

Modeling Team modeled a fifth stand component, comprising 40 percent of the stand area, which would 

be reserved from future treatments.

The Modeling Team modeled the application of a combination of group selection (patch cut) harvests and 

thinning to various stand components at intervals of 40–50 years, depending on site productivity.

The Modeling Team created composite uneven-aged stand tables by combining the source stand tables in 

the proportions appropriate for each individual component’s simulation. The Modeling Team created a 

single composite stand table with YTGTools that describes an ‘average’ condition across the stand. For 

some table attributes, such as trees per acre and timber volume, the combined data equals the weighted 

average of the components. Other outputs, such as canopy layers and conifer canopy cover, are a function 

of some stand parameters, and the calculation for the combined table does not equal the weighted average 

of the components.

Within both varieties of uneven-aged management, there are two kinds of silvicultural pathways. All 

eligible strata have a silvicultural prescription that begins with a group selection harvest if the initial 

relative density is too low to trigger a commercial thinning or the stand exceeds 80–90 years old. Strata 

less than 80–90 years old have a regime that starts with a commercial thinning if the initial relative 

density is high enough to trigger a thinning treatment and then is followed by group selection harvests. 

Table C-14 shows stand component allocations for each land use allocation.

Table C-14. Uneven-aged management modeling strategies by land use allocation

Stand 

Component 

Number

Owl Habitat Timber Area* Uneven-aged Timber Area

Percent of 

Stand Option A Option B Percent of Stand Option A Option B

1 40% Grow only Grow only 10% Grow only Grow only

2 15% 1

st GS CT then 1st GS 30% 1st GS CT then 1st GS

3 15% 2

nd GS CT then 2nd GS 30% 2nd GS CT then 2nd GS

4 15% 3

rd GS CT then 3rd GS 30% 3rd GS CT then 3rd GS

5 15% 4

th GS CT then 4th GS N/A N/A N/A

* Also Late-Successional Reserve – Dry

GS = Group selection (patch cut) harvest

CT = Commercial thinning harvest

Growth and Yield Adjustments

The Modeling Team adjusted ORGANON projections of timber yields to account for the effects of 

genetic tree improvement and Swiss needle cast disease through direct inputs of growth modifiers to the 

ORGANON model. The Modeling Team accounted for other factors that could substantially affect 

recoverable commodity volumes as a percent reduction in volume. The Modeling Team applied reduction 

factors in the YTGTools program for timber defect and breakage, endemic insects and disease, soil 

compaction, future snag creation, future coarse woody debris creation, and green tree retention.
1197 | P a g e

Tree Improvement (Genetics)

The BLM has selected Douglas-fir and western hemlock for genetically controlled characteristics such as 

high growth rates and tree form. The BLM, in cooperation with other landowners, has established field 

test sites using progeny from the selected trees. The BLM has established seed orchards to produce 

locally adapted seed from these selected trees for reforestation. The Modeling Team accounted for the 

increase in growth and yield from the planting of genetically improved Douglas-fir seedlings by the use of 

the regeneration tree lists and ORGANON growth modifiers of seven percent for height growth and eight 

percent for diameter growth. The Modeling Team used the tree lists to simulate tree planting following a 

regeneration harvest. After insertion of a tree list into a growth simulation, the growth modifiers act to 

increase the growth of Douglas-fir trees in the tree list (USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team applied 

these growth modifiers only to Douglas-fir trees within the General Forest Management Area (No Action 

alternative), High Intensity Timber Area (Alternatives A and C), and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

(Alternatives B and D, and the Proposed RMP).

Defect and Breakage

A proportion of harvested trees can contain defects, which reduce their utility from a commodity 

standpoint. In addition, damage can occur during harvesting that reduces recoverable timber volume. The 

proportion of volume that is not recoverable for commodity use increases with stand age. The Modeling 

Team reduced ORGANON-generated timber volumes by district-specific factors derived from historical 

timber sale cruise and scale data. Table C-15 shows the district-specific deductions for defect and 

breakage applicable to all alternatives and the Proposed RMP.

Table C-15. Timber yield deductions due to defect and breakage by harvest stand age

Stand

Age

(Years)

Coos Bay

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

Eugene

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

Klamath Falls

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

Medford

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

Roseburg

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

Salem

Timber

Yield

Deduction 

(Percent)

30 3% - - - 5% 4%

40 3% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5%

50 4% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5%

60 4% 5% 2% 2% 5% 5%

70 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 6%

80 5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 6%

90 5% 7% 5% 5% 5% 7%

100 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 8%

110 6% 9% 7% 7% 7% 9%

120 7% 10% 8% 8% 8% 10%

130 7% 11% 9% 9% 9% 11%

140 7% 12% 9% 9% 9% 12%

150 8% 13% 9% 9% 9% 13%

160 9% 14% 10% 10% 10% 14%

170 9% 15% 11% 11% 11% 15%

180 10% 16% 12% 12% 12% 16%

190 12% 17% 13% 13% 13% 17%

>200 17% 23% 20% 20% 20% 23%
1198 | P a g e

Soil Compaction

The Modeling Team calculated district-specific deductions to timber yield from soil compaction based on 

assumptions of the proportion of harvest types and associated forested area lost to new road construction. 

The Modeling Team modeled the same percentage deductions in all alternatives and the Proposed RMP. 

Table C-16 shows the assumed proportion of harvest types and soils deduction by district.

Table C-16. Timber yield deductions due to soil compaction

District/

Field Office

Proportion of Timber Harvest

Yarding System Types

Total Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Cable and Helicopter

(Percent)

Ground-based

(Percent)

Coos Bay 95% 5% 1%

Eugene 94% 6% 2%

Klamath Falls 6% 94% 9%

Medford 81% 19% 4%

Roseburg 82% 18% 3%

Salem 69% 31% 4%

Snag Retention

The Modeling Team modeled the yield impact of retaining varying amount of green trees for the creation 

of future snags by applying a percent volume reduction to meet the minimum snag requirements at the 

time of harvest. Retention requirements vary by alternative and the Proposed RMP, land use allocation, 

and district or field office. Error! Reference source not found. shows the deductions applied to the action 

lternatives and Proposed RMP. The Modeling Team based the reduction per retained tree on analysis for 

the 2008 FEIS for the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP (USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team 

assumed a reduction for snags in the No Action alternative of one and one-half percent of the regeneration 

harvest volume for all districts.
1199 | P a g e

Table C-17. Timber yield deductions due to snag retention by land use allocation Alternative/PRMP

Land Use Allocation

Coos Bay

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Eugene

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Klamath 

Falls

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Medford

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Roseburg

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Salem

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Alt. A

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Riparian Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Alt. B

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Low Intensity Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Late-Successional Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%

Riparian Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%

Alt. C

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Riparian Reserve 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

Alt. D

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Owl Habitat Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Late-Successional Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%

Riparian Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%

PRMP

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Low Intensity Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Uneven-aged Timber Area 2% 3% 2% - 3% 2%

Late-Successional Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%

Riparian Reserve 10% 12% 7% 2% 10% 11%
1200 | P a g e

Down Woody Material Retention

The Modeling Team modeled the yield deductions of retaining varying amounts for future down woody 

material as a percent volume reduction at the time of harvest. Retention requirements vary by alternative 

and the Proposed RMP, land use allocation, and district or field office.

Table C-18 shows the deductions applied to the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The Modeling 

Team based reduction per retained tree on analysis for the 2008 FEIS for the action alternatives and

Proposed RMP (USDI BLM 2008). The Modeling Team assumed a down woody material deduction for 

the No Action alternative as a flat 300 cubic feet per acre for the Coos Bay District, the Klamath Falls 

Field Office, and the Medford and Roseburg Districts, and 600 cubic feet per acre for the Eugene and 

Salem Districts.

Table C-18. Timber yield deductions due to down woody material retention by the Proposed RMP and 

alternatives and land use allocation Alternative/PRMP

Land Use Allocation

Coos Bay

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Eugene

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Klamath 

Falls

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Medford

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Roseburg

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Salem

Timber

Yield

Deduction

(Percent)

Alt.

A

Uneven-aged Timber Area 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Riparian Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Alt. B

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area - - - - - -

Low Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Uneven-aged Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve - - - - - -

Riparian Reserve - - - - - -

Alt. C

Uneven-aged Timber Area 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

High Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Riparian Reserve 5% 4% 4% 5% 5% 4%

Alt. D

Moderate Intensity Timber 

Area - - - - - -

Uneven-aged Timber Area - - - - - -

Owl Habitat Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve - - - - - -

Riparian Reserve - - - - - -

PRMP

Low Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -

Uneven-aged Timber Area - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve - - - - - -

Riparian Reserve - - - - - -

Low Intensity Timber Area - - - - - -
1201 | P a g e

Stocking Irregularity

A stand may contain non-stocked openings of a size sufficient to affect timber yield. These openings fall 

into two categories: openings permanently incapable of growing commercial tree species and openings 

temporarily unoccupied by desirable trees. Portions of stands may contain permanent areas of nonproductive rock or other areas incapable of growing commercial tree species. The Modeling Team 

partially accounts for these openings through reductions in the Harvest Land Base as a result of the 

Timber Production Capability Classification. Temporarily non-stocked areas occur due to variation in 

reforestation success from a variety of non-permanent factors, such as vegetative competition or logging 

slash.

The ORGANON model accounts for stocking variation by assuming that the degree of local competition 

experienced by a tree is reflected in its crown size. Trees growing next to openings have longer crowns 

and poor growth reflected as stem taper which reduces the volume of a tree next to the opening, compared 

to a similar size tree with shorter crown in an area with more uniform tree distribution. As long as the 

crown characteristics of sample trees are measured, then any long-term spatial variation within the stand 

will be modeled appropriately (FORsight 2006). Since existing CVS data used for existing stands and the 

development of future stands modeling groups contain the necessary crown measurement, the Modeling 

Team applied no external adjustment for stocking irregularity to ORGANON yields.

Green-tree Retention

Green-tree retention is the long-term reservation of live trees within the context of a regeneration harvest 

to provide for various ecological functions. Green-tree retention has two effects from a stand growth and 

yield standpoint. First, otherwise harvestable volume is foregone for commodity use at the time of 

harvest. Second, retention trees compete for growing space with the newly regenerated trees (Di Lucca et 

al. 2004).

The Modeling Team modeled the first effect of retained trees on foregone harvest volume as a percent 

volume deduction applied to volume outputs. These yield deductions were the same ones calculated for 

the No Action alternative for the 2008 FEIS: the retention of 7–16 conifers over 20” in diameter at an 

average harvest age of 100 years old.

Table C-19 shows the deductions applied at the time of a regeneration harvest by land use allocation by 

alternative and the Proposed RMP for trees reserved from harvest.
1202 | P a g e

Table C-19. Timber yield deductions from foregone harvest volume due to green tree retention by land 

use allocation

Land Use Allocation

Timber Yield Deduction

No 

Action 

(Percent)

Alt. A

(Percent)

Alt. B

(Percent)

Alt. C

(Percent)

Alt. D

(Percent)

PRMP

(Percent)

General Forest Management Area 11% - - - - -

Moderate Intensity Timber Area - - 11% - 11% 11%

Connectivity/Diversity Block 18% - - - - -

Low Intensity Timber Area - - 18% - - 18%

Southern General Forest 

Management Area 24% - - - - -

Uneven-aged Timber Area* - 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%

Owl Habitat Timber Area* - - - - 11% -

High Intensity Timber Area* - - - - - -

Late-Successional Reserve†- 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%

Riparian Reserve - - - - - -

* The Modeling Team applied green-tree deductions in Uneven-aged Timber Area and Owl Habitat Timber Area to reflect edge 

effect competition on regeneration in group selection and retention of some green trees in the larger group selection areas.

† Applies to uneven-aged management in the Late-Successional Reserve–Dry only

The Modeling Team modeled the second effect within ORGANON through retention of overstory trees 

when a stand is regeneration harvested. The retained trees slow the growth of the new understory 

regeneration trees relative to the amount of retained overstory trees. The Modeling Team used modeling 

group-specific (Table C-1) overstory tree lists to suppress regeneration growth and provide structural 

complexity. The Modeling Team used the same overstory tree lists for the General Forest Management 

Area in the No Action alternative, and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area in Alternatives B and D, and 

the Proposed RMP; and the Connectivity/Diversity Blocks in the No Action alternative, and the Low 

Intensity Timber Area in Alternative B and the Proposed RMP.

Disease

Portions of the Salem District are located in an area with a moderate to high occurrence of Swiss needle 

cast disease, a foliage disease specific to Douglas-fir caused by the fungal pathogen Phaeocryptopus 

gaeumannii, that reduces growth rates. It does not affect the growth of other tree species. The Modeling 

Team used a growth modifier in ORGANON to reflect the estimated growth reductions for Douglas-fir in 

the Swiss needle cast zone. For the 2008 FEIS, the BLM calculated a mean foliage retention value 

modifier of 2.41 for the Swiss needle cast zone. The Modeling Team considers this modifier to be 

adequate for modeling the impacts of Swiss needle cast disease for this analysis. See the 2008 FEIS 

(USDI BLM 2008) for more details.

The Modeling Team assumed that the effects of endemic levels of insects and disease other than Swiss 

needle cast on timber yields are reflected in part in the defect and breakage allowance described 

previously and the additional overstory mortality factor described below. In addition to those factors, the 

Modeling Team assumed a further reduction by adjusting timber yields down by a percent volume 

reduction. These factors generally vary from about 1–3 percent, increasing with stand age and are based 

on literature and professional judgment.
1203 | P a g e

Constraint on Maximum Stand Density Index

Maximum values of basal area observed in preliminary simulations of various strata commonly exceeded 

values reported in empiric yield tables for well-stocked stands at later periods in the simulations. The 

probable cause is that the ORGANON model may be underestimating tree mortality from causes other 

than inter-tree competition, such as insects, disease, windthrow, and stem breakage (Tappeiner et al.

1997). This type of mortality is often irregular or episodic in nature, and is inherently difficult to predict 

the exact time in which it will occur (Franklin et al. 1987). Mortality from inter-tree competition becomes 

less significant as stands age, and irregular mortality caused by other factors becomes more substantial 

(Franklin et al. 2002).

Through sensitivity analysis, the Modeling Team determined that by setting the maximum stand density 

index (SDI) to 500 in ORGANON, the maximum basal area values were generally constrained below 400 

square feet per acre. Simulation results with an SDI maximum of 500 were more in accordance with 

published normal and empiric yield tables at older ages (Chambers and Wilson 1978, Chambers 1980, 

McArdle et al. 1961, Schumacher 1930, Dunning and Reineke 1933).

Forest Structural Stage Classification

For this analysis, the Modeling Team classified forested land within the decision area in a five-stage 

structural classification:

 Early Successional

 Stand Establishment

 Young

 Mature

 Structurally-complex

The Modeling Team further sub-divided these five structural classes by additional structural divisions and 

by the moist/dry designation as described below.

Classification:

1. Early Successional–Moist

Forests that are ≤ 30 years old, with < 30 percent canopy cover.

1.1 (ES–WSL) with structural legacies

≥ 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

1.2 (ES–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

Early Successional–Dry

Forests that are ≤ 50 years old, with < 30 percent canopy cover.

1.1 (ES–WSL) with structural legacies

≥ 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

1.2 (ES–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

2. Stand Establishment–Moist
1204 | P a g e

Forests that are ≤ 30 years old, with ≥ 30 percent canopy cover.

2.1 (SE–WSL) with structural legacies

≥ 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

2.2 (SE–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

Stand Establishment–Dry

Forests that are ≤ 50 years old, with ≥ 30 percent canopy cover.

2.1 (SE–WSL) with structural legacies

≥ 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

2.2 (SE–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 6 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH

3. Young–Moist

Forests that are over 30 years old

Young–High Density

Relative density (Curtis RD)25 ≥ 25

3.1 (YHD–WSL) with structural legacies

< 24 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10”26 ≥ 0.35

3.2 (YHD–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 24 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” < 0.35

Young–Low Density

Relative density (Curtis RD) < 25

3.3 (YLD–WSL) with structural legacies

<2 4 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” ≥ 0.35

3.4 (YLD–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 24 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” < 0.35

Young–Dry

Forests that are over 50 years old

Young–High Density

 

25 Curtis Relative Density = stand basal area/square root of the quadratic mean diameter.

26 The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” = standard deviation of the DBH/mean diameter breast 

height.
1205 | P a g e

Relative density (Curtis RD) ≥ 25

3.1 (YHD–WSL) with structural legacies

< 12 trees per acre ≥ 2020” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” ≥ 0.35

3.2 (YHD–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 12 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” < 0.35

Young–Low Density

Relative density (Curtis RD) < 25

3.3 (YLD–WSL) with structural legacies

< 12 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” ≥ 0.35

3.4 (YLD–WOSL) without structural legacies

< 12 trees per acre ≥ 20” DBH and the coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 

10” < 0.35

4. Mature–Moist

Forests that are over 30 years, ≥ 24 trees per acre, ≥ 20” DBH

4.1 (M–Single) Single-layered canopy

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” < 0.35

4.2 (M–Multi) Multi-layered canopy

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” ≥ 0.35 and < 4.7 trees per acre ≥ 40” 

DBH

Mature–Dry

Forests that are over 50 years, ≥12 trees per acre, ≥ 20” DBH

4.1 (M–Single) Single-layered canopy

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” < 0.34

4.2 (M–Multi) Multi-layered canopy

The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” ≥ 0.34 and < 2.1 trees per acre ≥ 40” 

DBH

5. Structurally-complex

5.1 (SC–Dev) Developed Structurally-complex – Moist

Forests that are over 30 years old, ≥ 24 trees per acre that are ≥ 20” DBH, and ≥ 4.7 trees 

per acres ≥ 40” DBH. The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” ≥ 0.35

Developed Structurally-complex – Dry

Forests that are over 50 years old, ≥ 12 trees per acre that are ≥ 20” DBH, and ≥ 2.1 trees 

per acres ≥ 40” DBH. The coefficient of variation of tree diameters over 10” ≥ 0.34
1206 | P a g e

5.2 (SC–OF) Existing Old Forest

Stands currently ≥ 200 years old, but < 400 years old.

5.3 (SC–VOF) Existing Very Old Forest

Stands currently ≥ 400 years old

Woodstock Modeling

The Woodstock Model

The Woodstock model is at the heart of the Remsoft Spatial Planning System. Woodstock is a planning 

system used for decision support analyses and planning projects. It uses inventory and growth and yield 

data, and business rules to project forest growth and development over time, subject to management 

objectives and resource allocation constraints.

The Woodstock model is a linear programming model, which is inherently different from a simulation or 

scenario-based model such as the OPTIONS model that the BLM used for the 2008 FEIS (USDI BLM 

2008). In a simulation model, the user decides what prescriptions to implement, and determines what 

order to implement them. In a linear programming (LP) model, the user decides what kind of outcome is 

desired, and the model determines the best means of accomplishing that objective.

Because there are many constraints that influence the management of BLM-administered lands within the 

planning areas, for this project, the Woodstock model functioned as an optimization model within a 

tightly controlled set of limitations. The Modeling Team used the optimization function primarily within 

the Harvest Land Base, to maximize the amount of sustainable volume produced through the 200-year 

modeling period.

The Woodstock system uses spatial data (ESRI geodatabases) to provide inputs to the model and to 

display maps of management schedules and forest conditions. It has been in use for over 20 years and is 

regularly updated and improved by the Remsoft Corporation. Remsoft software is currently being used 

for forest management planning by all ten Canadian provinces, six U.S. states, as well as the U.S. Army. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources recently used Remsoft Spatial Planning to revise their 

management plans to create better northern spotted owl habitat in the long term and generate more 

revenue in the short-term without a significant decrease in the long-term sustainable harvest.

Woodstock Model Overview

Each Woodstock model has an objective function–the mathematical expression of what the model will 

optimize. The Modeling Team chose the objective function to maximize the sum of allowable sale 

quantity timber volume production over the full 200-year planning horizon. Within the constraints that the 

Modeling Team provided in the GIS-based modeling rules and the landscape-level modeling rules, the 

Woodstock model produced a solution with the highest possible level of timber volume production.

While this objective function works well for the goals and objectives of the Harvest Land Base, it is not 

appropriate for the reserve thinning in either the Riparian Reserve or the Late-Successional Reserve. In 

both of these land use allocations, the Modeling Team applied specific constraints for both acres and 

volume, to provide a realistic level of harvest, given the management direction of the alternative or 

Proposed RMP, and the extensive experience the BLM has with reserve thinning. These specific 

constraints varied by alternative and the Proposed RMP, and are presented later in this appendix.
1207 | P a g e

The Woodstock model determines the timing and type of management activities needed to optimize the 

constrained objective function within a BLM sustained yield unit. Land management units are created in a 

GIS process that combines multiple layers of resource information and objectives into a single resultant 

layer. Examples of these resource layers include FOI units, administrative boundaries, Riparian Reserve, 

Late-Successional Reserve, and Visual Resource Management areas.

The Modeling Team built strata-based Woodstock models that respond to the modeling instructions. The 

Modeling Team developed Woodstock models for each BLM office and each alternative and the 

Proposed RMP. For each alternative and the Proposed RMP, the Modeling Team developed a model for a 

single ‘test’ district first. Once the Modeling Team checked and confirmed the test model outputs, the 

Modeling Team applied its essential structure to new Woodstock models for the other BLM offices. 

Using this methodology, the Modeling Team was able to develop adaptively modeling guidelines that 

represented the management direction in alternatives and the Proposed RMP.

The BLM and MBG conducted extensive quality control and quality assurance on each Woodstock 

model. In total, the Modeling Team developed 49 final Woodstock models for the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis, No Action alternative, Alternatives A, B, C, and D, Sub-alternatives B and C, and the 

Proposed RMP. All of these Woodstock models had at least two iterations.

In the final step in the modeling process, the Modeling Team took the results from the strata-based 

models and allocated them back into the spatially explicit GIS polygons that represent the decision area. 

The Modeling Team used the Spatial Woodstock software for this final task. The Modeling Team then 

combined the results from Spatial Woodstock into Microsoft Access databases and pivot tables that the 

interdisciplinary team used for their analyses.

The Modeling Team used a 200-year planning horizon for the modeling runs, and all results were 

reported in 10-year periods. The Modeling Team chose this time length because it represents a long-term 

view for sustained yield calculations. The dataset behind the ORGANON growth and yield curves 

provides reasonable modeling results for this period.

Management Activities and Rules

Management Activities

Within the Woodstock model, forest management activities can occur on a stand level or landscape level. 

These management activities occur by either defining constraints or targets. Constraints are used to 

control the flow of outputs on a period-by-period basis. For example, even-flow of timber volume would 

force the model to keep a constant volume level over the planning horizon. Targets are specific goals that 

the model is trying to reach: for example, a specified number of Riparian Reserve acres to be harvested in 

a specific period. The Modeling Team defined each one of these different sets of instructions used within 

the model.

Stand-level silvicultural treatments include planting, pre-commercial thinning, pruning, and fertilization. 

Stand-level harvesting activities include commercial thinning, two-age harvest, selection harvest, salvage 

harvest, and clearcut harvest. Each one of these activities had specific controls within the ORGANON 

model or modifiers within the Woodstock model. The Modeling Team limited the number of potential 

pathways that any strata could have, as well as ‘hardwired’ certain treatments for certain strata. This was 

to limit the complexity of options that could be considered, in order to efficiently utilize the model 

resources and have the models run more quickly. For example, the BLM always included pre-commercial 

thinning in some strata and limited most thinning to stands less than 80 years old in the moist forest. The 

part of this appendix on Growth and Yield Modeling provides more detail on this topic.
1208 | P a g e

Landscape-level constraints applied to all of the polygons within a particular region. For example, in the 

No Action alternative, the Modeling Team placed a constraint on each 5th field watershed to not harvest 

any older forest until at least 15 percent of the watershed was composed of older forest to reflect 

management direction in the 1995 RMPs.

The model would not apply specific silvicultural treatments unless all eligibility criteria were met for that 

treatment.

GIS-based Modeling Rules

This section will describe, by topic area, the modeling rules and GIS data as applied by the Modeling 

Team to simulate the alternatives and the Proposed RMP within the Woodstock model. The Woodstock 

model uses attributes associated with the GIS spatial data to identify where the modeling rules are applied.

The Modeling Team applied the following modeling rules to all alternatives and the Proposed RMP:

 Sustained Yield Units – The Modeling Team divided the decision area into sustained yield units 

for the purpose of defining the area in which the model would determine the allowable sale 

quantity. The Sustained Yield Units are the BLM-administered lands within the district 

boundaries for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the western 

portion of the Lakeview District’s Klamath Falls Field Office (all land west of Highway 97). The 

eastern portion of the Klamath Falls Field Office does not contain any O&C lands, and is not a 

designated sustained yield unit. The Modeling Team used the district attribute in the FOI data as 

the basis for the sustained yield units in the Woodstock modeling. The Modeling Team used land 

use allocation data to segregate the Klamath Falls Field Office into the Klamath Falls Sustained 

Yield Unit and the Eastside Management Lands. The Modeling Team did provide an estimate of 

the sustainable harvest level for the Eastside Management Lands as part of this analysis.

 Minimum Commercial Thinning Volumes – The Modeling Team derived the minimum 

commercial thinning volumes from historical BLM data for economically viable timber sales. 

The definition of minimum commercial thinning volumes for a harvest removal varied by 

ORGANON variant:

o Northwest ORGANON variant: northern Coos Bay, Eugene, north Roseburg, and Salem–

8 Mbf/acre gross volume

o Southwest ORGANON variant: southern Coos Bay, Klamath Falls, Medford, and 

southern Roseburg–5 Mbf/acre gross volume

 Structural Stage Calculations – The Forest Structural Stage Classification section earlier in this 

appendix describes the structural stage calculations for moist and dry forests.

 Swiss Needle Cast (SNC) – The Modeling Team used specific SNC yield tables and harvest 

yield tables in the Swiss Needle Cast zone, which are described in Forest Growth and Yield 

section earlier in this appendix.

 Timing of Reporting Actions – The model reported all actions in the period that they would 

occur. For example, if a thinning would occur in period 2, the harvest acres and volumes would 

be reported for period 2 after harvest. Modeled outputs are reported in 10-year periods.

 Wildfire Modeling - Appendix D – Modeling Large Stochastic Wildfires and Fire Severity 

within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl describes how the BLM modeled wildfire. The 

location and intensity of the modeled wildfire did not vary among alternatives or the Proposed 

RMP, but the specific silvicultural prescriptions modeled in each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP did change in the wildfire areas. The Forest Growth and Yield section earlier in this 

appendix provides more information on wildfire modeling.
1209 | P a g e

 Riparian Reserve Thinning – For all of the action alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

divided the Riparian Reserve into inner zones and outer zones. The Modeling Team did not 

model timber harvest in the inner zone, and did model harvest in the outer zone in both moist and 

dry forests consistent with alternative-specific management direction. The Modeling Team 

modeled harvest in the Riparian Reserve as commercial thinning and included stands from 30 to 

80 years old. The number of acres harvested and the volume removed varied by district and 

alternative. In the Woodstock model, constraints specified the maximum amount of average 

volume that could be removed. In Alternative A, the harvest in the outer zone of the moist 

Riparian Reserve did not produce any non-ASQ volume, consistent with Alternative A 

management direction. For the Proposed RMP, the Modeling team divided the Riparian Reserve 

into inner, middle, and outer zones. Inner and outer zones were treated similarly to the description 

above. The middle zone was treated similarly to the harvest modeled in the outer zone in 

Alternative A.

Modeling Direction Specific to the No Action Alternative

Connectivity/Diversity Blocks

The Modeling Team aggregated Connectivity/Diversity blocks based on BLM field office boundaries. 

The Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest unless at least 25 percent of the forest acres in the 

block were in stands age 80 years or older. For each block, a maximum of 1/15 of the acres could be in 

age zero (regenerated) in any one decade of the projection to simulate the area control requirement.

15 Percent Standard and Guideline

Within each 5th field watershed, the Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest until at least 15 

percent of the forested area was in stands 80 years and older. In those watersheds that were in deficit, the 

Modeling Team earmarked the oldest stands for recruitment to meet the 15 percent target. Until the 

watershed reached the 15 percent level, the Modeling Team modeled only commercial thinning.

Minimum Harvest Age

The Modeling Team did not model regeneration harvest in stands below the minimum harvest ages 

described in Table C-20. The Modeling Team set these minimum ages by site productivity class 1 

through 5, as shown in the following table.

Table C-20. Minimum harvest age by site productivity class for the No Action alternative

Location*

Site Productivity Class

5

(Minimum 

Harvest Age)

4

(Minimum 

Harvest Age)

3

(Minimum 

Harvest Age)

2

(Minimum 

Harvest Age)

1

(Minimum 

Harvest Age)

Northern Districts 110 100 90 90 80

Southern Districts 150 120 110 110 100

* Northern districts include the Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts; southern districts include the Klamath Falls Field Office 

and the Medford and Roseburg Districts. 

Coos Bay – Projection of Future Marbled Murrelet Sites

The Modeling Team modeled all existing stands 120 years and older within approximately 4 townships of 

the coast as no harvest to simulate future occupied marbled murrelet sites.
1210 | P a g e

Bald Eagle Management Areas (BEMA)

The Modeling Team modeled Bald Eagle Management Areas as available for commercial thinning only 

in stands less than 80 years old.

Salem Adaptive Management Area (AMA)

The Modeling Team modeled the Salem Adaptive Management Area with commercial thinning in stands 

less than 110 years old and no regeneration harvest.

Reserve Northern Spotted Owl Pair Areas

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest in the northern spotted owl habitat classified as suitable and next 

best dispersal categories within the reserve pair areas in the Salem District. The Modeling Team modeled 

no regeneration harvest in the northern spotted owl habitat classified as non-suitable dispersal, and nonhabitat within the reserve pair areas in the Salem District.

Salvage Harvesting

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvest in the Harvest Land Base after high-, moderate-, or 

multiple high-severity fires. The salvage harvest occurred in the same decade as the fire and contributed 

to the ASQ.

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative A

Riparian Reserve

The Modeling Team modeled harvest in the outer zone of the Riparian Reserve differently in the moist 

and the dry forest. In the moist forest, the density management harvest treatment does not produce any 

volume. In the dry forest, harvest did contribute to non-ASQ timber volume. The Modeling Team 

modeled thinning up to age 80 in both the moist and dry forest. The Modeling Team assumed that 15 

percent of the outer zone acreage would be eligible for thinning, and assumed an average volume 

harvested of 10 Mbf/acre.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Late-Successional Reserve consists of five different components: large block reserves–moist, large 

block reserves–dry; older forest reserves, occupied marbled murrelet sites, and existing red tree vole sites 

in the North Coast DPS. The Modeling Team modeled harvest only in the large block reserves, with 

different harvest treatments in the moist and the dry forests. In the dry forests, the harvest counted 

towards non-ASQ volume. The Modeling Team assumed no age limit on harvest in the dry forest. In the 

moist forest, the harvest did not count towards non-ASQ volume (assuming that cut trees would not be 

removed). The Modeling Team assumed that non-commercial thinning would occur up to age 80 in the 

moist forest. The Modeling Team assumed that older forest reserves, the occupied marbled murrelet sites, 

and the existing red tree vole sites would not have any harvest.

Table C-21 shows the volume and percent of eligible acre constraints in the Late-Successional Reserve 

and Riparian Reserve for Alternative A. The constraints were different for northern and southern districts 

within the Late-Successional Reserve and different for moist and dry forests. The target percentage of 

eligible treatment acres was met over the entire modeling period (20 decades) with the following 
1211 | P a g e

exception: for Late-Successional Reserve–Dry, the target was met in the first five modeling periods 

(decades) in the Medford District and the Klamath Falls Field Office, and in the first four modeling 

periods in the Roseburg District.

Table C-21. Reserve harvesting constraints for Alternative A

Land Use Allocation (Region) Maximum Average Volume

(Mbf/Acre)

Eligible Acres Treated

(Percent)

Riparian Reserve

Northern District* 10 15

Southern District†10 15

Late-Successional Reserve

Northern District* Moist 10 15

Northern District* Dry N/A N/A

Southern District† Moist 10 15

Southern District†,‡ Dry 15 50

* Salem, Eugene, Coos Bay

† Roseburg, Medford, Klamath Falls

‡ Dry LSR has 2 constraints. The first constraint is that the maximum volume for the first 5 decades was 15 Mbf, and after 5 

decades, it can be higher. The second constraint is that on the Roseburg District, 50 percent of the eligible acres were treated 

during the first 4 decades, and in the Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office, 50 percent of the eligible acres were 

treated in the first 5 decades.

Harvest Land Base

The Harvest Land Base consists of two components, the Uneven-aged Timber Area and the High 

Intensity Timber Area. All harvest in the Harvest Land Base would contribute to the ASQ. The Modeling 

Team modeled that all acres in Uneven-aged Timber Area would be harvested within the first eight 

modeling periods (decades).

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the High Intensity Timber Area using 

an even-flow constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to 

decade. The Modeling Team modeled the Uneven-aged Timber Area using an even-flow constraint where 

it composed 10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area. Where the Unevenaged Timber Area composed greater than 10 percent of the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit 

area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow 

timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a nondeclining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow 

constraint for the first four decades.

The Modeling Team applied a minimum regeneration harvest age of 50 years in the High Intensity 

Timber Area.

In the High Intensity Timber Area, the Modeling Team set a target of applying regeneration harvest on 8–

17 percent of acres in the High Intensity Timber Area per decade. Because of this goal, the average 

rotation ages trended between 60–120 years.

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvest in the Harvest Land Base after high-, moderate-, or 

multiple, high-severity burns. The salvage harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and 

contributed to the ASQ.
1212 | P a g e

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative B

Scenarios

The Modeling Team modeled Alternative B and Sub-alternative B as two scenarios of the same 

alternative because of their overall similar design. Scenario 1 corresponds to Sub-alternative B, in which 

all known and historic northern spotted owl sites are included in the Late-Successional Reserve. Scenario 

2 corresponds to Alternative B, in which some known and historic northern spotted owl sites are included 

in the Harvest Land Base.

Riparian Reserve

The Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the outer zone Riparian Reserve would be eligible for 

thinning in both the moist and dry forest, and assumed an average volume harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the 

northern districts and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest activities in the older forest reserve, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, occupied red tree vole sites, and within known or historic northern spotted owl sites. In the large 

block reserves, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the Late-Successional Reserve – Moist 

that is less than or equal to 80 years old would be eligible for thinning, and that 50 percent of the LateSuccessional Reserve – Dry would be eligible for uneven-aged management regardless of age. The 

Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts and 15 

Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

The Modeling Team modeled the Late-Successional Reserve – Dry with two specific constraints. The 

Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvest of 15 Mbf for the first 5 decades, after which it 

could increase. Second, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the Roseburg 

District would treated during the first four decades, and that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the 

Medford District and the Klamath Falls Field Office would be treated in the first five decades.

Harvest Land Base

The Harvest Land Base consists of three components: the Uneven-aged Timber Area, the Moderate 

Intensity Timber Area, and the Low Intensity Timber Area, each with different silvicultural prescriptions. 

The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 8–17 percent of the area in the Moderate 

Intensity Timber Area in each decade. The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 6–

10 percent of the area in the Low Intensity Timber Area in each decade.

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the Low Intensity Timber Area and 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area using an even-flow constraint, in which timber harvest from this 

allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The Modeling Team modeled the Uneven-aged Timber 

Area using an even-flow constraint where it composed 10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base by 

sustained yield unit area. Where the Uneven-aged Timber Area composed greater than 10 percent of the 

Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow 

constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade

to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a non-declining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced 

the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow constraint for the first four decades.
1213 | P a g e

The Modeling Team used the minimum harvest age constraints in the model shown in Table C-22. These 

constraints allowed the BLM to transition a relatively young land base to long rotations without 

excessively reducing the acreage available for short-term harvesting.

Table C-22. Minimum harvest age constraints by 10-year Woodstock period for Low Intensity Timber 

Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area

Area (Intensity Type) Periods 1 through 7

(Minimum Harvest Age)

Periods 8 through 20

(Minimum Harvest Age)

Northern Districts*

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 50 90

Low Intensity Timber Area 50 110

Southern Districts†

Moderate Intensity Timber Area 50 120

Low Intensity Timber Area 50 140

* Coos Bay, Eugene, Salem

† Klamath Falls, Medford, Roseburg

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvest in the Harvest Land Base after high-, moderate-, or 

multiple, high-severity burns. The salvage harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and 

contributed to the ASQ.

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative C

Riparian Reserve

The Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the outer zone would be eligible for thinning in both the 

moist and dry forest, and assumed an average volume harvested of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts 

and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest activities in the older forest reserve, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, occupied red tree vole sites. In the large block reserves, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent 

of the Late-Successional Reserve–Moist that is less than or equal to 80 years old would be eligible for 

thinning, and that 50 percent of the Late-Successional Reserve–Dry would be eligible for uneven-aged 

management regardless of age. The Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvested of 20 

Mbf/acre in the northern districts and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

The Modeling Team modeled the Late-Successional Reserve – Dry with two specific constraints. The 

Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvest of 15 Mbf for the first five decades, after which it 

could increase. Second, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the Roseburg 

District would treated during the first four decades, and that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the 

Medford District and Klamath Falls Field Office would be treated in the first five decades.

The Modeling Team also modeled salvage harvest in the Late-Successional Reserve after high-severity 

fire events.
1214 | P a g e

Harvest Land Base

The Harvest Land Base consists of two components, the Uneven-aged Timber Area and the High 

Intensity Timber Area. All harvest in the Harvest Land Base would contribute to the ASQ. The Modeling 

Team modeled that all acres in the Uneven-aged Timber Area would be harvested within the first eight 

modeling periods (decades).

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest on the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the High Intensity Timber Area using 

an even-flow constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to 

decade. The Modeling Team modeled the Uneven-aged Timber Area using an even-flow constraint where 

it composed 10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area. Where the Unevenaged Timber Area composed greater than 10 percent of the Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit 

area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow 

timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a nondeclining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow 

constraint for the first four decades.

The Modeling Team applied a minimum regeneration harvest age of 50 years in the High Intensity 

Timber Area.

In the High Intensity Timber Area, the Modeling Team set a target of applying regeneration harvest on 8–

17 percent of acres in the High Intensity Timber Area per decade. Because of this goal, the average 

rotation ages trended between 60–120 years.

The Modeling Team modeled salvage harvest in the Harvest Land Base after high-, moderate-, or 

multiple, high-severity burns. The salvage harvest occurred in the same decade as the burn and 

contributed to the ASQ. 

Modeling Direction Specific to Alternative D

Riparian Reserve

The Modeling Team assumed that 15 percent of the outer zone Riparian Reserve acreage would be 

eligible for thinning, and assumed an average volume harvested of 10 Mbf/acre.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Modeling Team assumed no harvest in the Late-Successional Reserve.

Harvest Land Base

The Harvest Land Base consists of six components: predicted marbled murrelet sites, predicted red tree 

vole sites, the home ranges of known and historic northern spotted owl sites, the Owl Habitat Timber 

Area, the Uneven-aged Timber Area, and the Moderate Intensity Timber Area.

The Modeling Team assumed no harvest in the predicted marbled murrelet sites or the predicted red tree 

vole sites, as surveys for these species are required under Alternative D and newly discovered sites would 

be included in the Late-Successional Reserve.

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest in the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 
1215 | P a g e

using an even-flow constraint, in which timber harvest from this allocation does not vary from decade to 

decade. The Modeling Team modeled the Owl Habitat Timber Area, Uneven-aged Timber Area, and the 

home ranges of known and historic northern spotted owl sites using the discounted non-declining flow 

constraint.

The Modeling Team used the minimum harvest age constraints for the Moderate Intensity Timber Area as 

shown for the Moderate Intensity Timber Area in Table C-22.

Modeling Direction Specific to the Proposed RMP

Riparian Reserve

The Modeling Team assumed that 15 percent of the stands that are 80 years or less in the middle zone 

Riparian Reserve would be eligible for non-commercial thinning, and assumed an average volume 

harvested of 10 Mbf/acre.

The Modeling Team modeled outer zone Riparian Reserve treatments differently in the moist and dry 

forest. The Modeling Team assumed in the dry forest that 50 percent of the stands that are less than or 

equal to 80 years old would be eligible for thinning, and assumed an average volume harvest of 10 

Mbf/acre.

The Modeling Team assumed in the moist forest that 26 percent of the stands less than or equal to 80 

years old would be eligible for thinning. The Modeling Team set the constraint for the average volume 

harvested in the northern districts as 20 Mbf/acre and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Modeling Team modeled no harvest activities in the older forest reserve, occupied marbled murrelet 

sites, and occupied red tree vole sites. In the large block reserves, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 

percent of the Late-Successional Reserve–Moist that is less than or equal to 80 years old would be 

eligible for thinning, and that 80 percent of the Late-Successional Reserve–Dry would be eligible for 

uneven-aged management regardless of age. The Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvested 

of 20 Mbf/acre in the northern districts and 15 Mbf/acre in the southern districts.

The Modeling Team modeled the Late-Successional Reserve–Dry with two specific constraints. The 

Modeling Team assumed an average volume harvest of 15 Mbf for the first 5 decades, after which it 

could increase. Second, the Modeling Team assumed that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the Roseburg 

District would treated during the first four decades, and that 50 percent of the eligible acres in the 

Medford District and the Klamath Falls Field Office would be treated in the first 5 decades.

Harvest Land Base

The Harvest Land Base consists of three components: the Uneven-aged Timber Area, the Moderate 

Intensity Timber Area, and the Low Intensity Timber Area, each with different silvicultural prescriptions. 

The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 7–18 percent of the area in the Moderate 

Intensity Timber Area in each decade. The Modeling Team modeled regeneration harvest to occur on 6–

10 percent of the area in the Low Intensity Timber Area in each decade.
1216 | P a g e

The Modeling Team modeled timber harvest in the Harvest Land Base using a combination of nondeclining and even flow constraints. The Modeling Team modeled the Low Intensity Timber Area and 

Moderate Intensity Timber Area using an even-flow constraint, in which timber harvest from this 

allocation does not vary from decade to decade. The Modeling Team modeled the Uneven-aged Timber 

Area using an even-flow constraint where it composed 10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base by 

sustained yield unit area. Where the Uneven-aged Timber Area composed greater than 10 percent of the 

Harvest Land Base by sustained yield unit area, the Modeling Team used only a non-declining flow 

constraint. Non-declining flow constraints allow timber harvest to increase but not decrease from decade 

to decade. Where the Modeling Team used a non-declining flow constraint, the Modeling Team forced 

the timber harvest to also meet an even-flow constraint for the first four decades.

The Modeling Team used the minimum harvest age constraints for the Moderate Intensity Timber Area 

and Low Intensity Timber Area in the model as shown in Table C-22. These constraints allowed the 

BLM to transition a relatively young land base to long rotations without excessively reducing the acreage 

available for short-term harvesting.

GIS Data – Modeled Harvest and Contribution to ASQ

Table C-23 provides a summary of how the Modeling Team modeled each category of GIS data and 

which categories contribute to the Allowable Sale Quantity. A data code of X = non-forested; N=forested, 

modeled without any harvest; P= forested, modeled with non-ASQ harvest; Y=forested, modeled with 

ASQ harvest; S= forested, modeled with no harvest; L=forested, modeled with harvest does not 

contribute to either ASQ or non-ASQ harvest; and N/A = not applicable.
1217 | P a g e

Table C-23. Modeled harvest and contribution to ASQ

GIS Modeling Data Category No Action

(Code)

Alt. A

(Code)

Alt. B

(Code)

Alt. C

(Code)

Alt. D

(Code)

PRMP

(Code)

Roads X X X X X X

Water X X X X X X

TPCC Non Forest X X X X X X

TPCC Non Suitable Woodlands N N N N N N

TPCC Suitable Woodlands–Low Site and Non 

Commercial Species N N N N N N

TPCC Suitable Woodlands–Reforestation N N N N N N

Recreation Sites–Existing N N N N N N

Recreation Sites–Proposed N/A N N N N N

Visual Resource Management Class I N N N N N N

Visual Resources Management Class II N N N N N N

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern–Existing N N N N N N

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern–Proposed Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P

Occupied Marbled Murrelet Sites N N N N N N

Simulated Future Murrelet Sites N N N N N N

Known Owl Activity Centers N N N N N N

Reserve Pair Areas (Salem only) N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Survey and Manage Species N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Special Status Species N/A N N N N N

Species Management Areas N N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–Riparian Reserve P P/L/N P/N P/N P P/L/N

LUA–Congressionally Reserved N N N N N N

LUA–Administratively Reserved N N N N N N

LUA–Late-Successional Reserve P P/L/N P/N P/N N P/N

LUA–Adaptive Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–Adaptive Management Reserve P N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–Harvest Land Base N/A Y Y Y Y/S Y

LUA–General Forest Management Areas Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–Connectivity Diversity Blocks Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–Southern General Forest Management Area Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

LUA–District-Designated Reserve N N N N N N

Burned Areas N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P

LUA–Eastside Management Lands X X X X X X

Fauna Critical Habitat N/A N N N N N

Flora Critical Habitat N/A N N N N N

Existing Red Tree Vole Sites N/A N N N N N

Predicted Red Tree Vole Sites N/A N N N N N

Pacific Crest Trail N/A N N N N N

Wild and Scenic Rivers, Designated Corridors N N N N N N

Wild and Scenic Rivers, eligible and suitable N N N N N N

Wilderness N N N N N N

Wilderness Study Areas N N N N N N

LUA–District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed 

for their Wilderness Characteristics N/A N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P N/Y/P

Note: Green and dark blue cells indicate codes contributing to ASQ.

X = non-forested

N = forested, modeled without any harvest

P = forested, modeled with non-ASQ harvest

Y = forested, modeled with ASQ harvest

S = forested, modeled with no harvest

L = forested, modeled with harvest does not contribute to either ASQ or non-ASQ harvest

N/A = not applicable
1218 | P a g e

Reference Analysis and Sub-alternative Modeling Rules

No Timber Harvest

The Modeling Team tested and calibrated the data and the model by running the first model for 150 years 

without any management. This run provided the Modeling Team with a baseline for comparison to the 

action alternatives and the Proposed RMP. The Modeling Team conducted the No Timber Harvest 

reference analysis run both with and without wildfire. The Modeling Team modeled a full range of 

outputs, including stand structure, stand metrics, wildlife modeling metrics, and growth and yield. BLM 

inventory specialists reviewed the results to determine that attributes from GIS and strata were properly 

applied to the modeling and that stand metrics and projections were reasonable. In all, the Modeling Team 

completed five iterations of the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. As a result of these reviews, the 

Modeling Team made several revisions to the modeling process:

 Capped maximum stand density index (SDI) at 500 to prevent unrealistically high growth and 

volume projections

 Calculated canopy cover using ORGANON equations in addition to FVS

 Revised stand structural classifications to ‘hardwire’ reversion to early seral stages after 

regeneration harvests or fire, despite significant legacy retention

 Re-set stand age to zero after high-severity fire

 Tracked stands that are currently over 200 years old as a separate structural class, ‘old’, and 

currently over 400 years as ‘very old’27

Sub-alternative B

The Modeling Team developed Sub-alternative B to provide a comparison for the effects of precluding 

harvest in the home ranges of the known and historic northern spotted owl sites. The BLM provided one 

input database to MBG that had the variables for both Alternative B and Sub-alternative B. This database 

had two sets of land use allocations, two sets of harvest modeling codes, and two sets of harvest modeling 

pieces28.

Sub-alternative C

The Modeling Team developed Sub-alternative C to provide a comparison to Alternative C that precluded 

harvest in stands 80 years and older. The BLM provided one input database to MBG for both modeling 

runs.

Establishing Harvest Levels

The Modeling Team based harvest volume projections on the lands available for harvest, under the 

assumptions of each alternative and the Proposed RMP, within each sustained-yield unit. Due to the 

assumed timber management limitations, harvest from moist forest reserves (i.e., Late-Successional 

Reserve and Riparian Reserve) would diminish as stands grew past the conditions suitable for thinning 

and would not produce a sustainable harvest over time. The Modeling Team assumed that timber volume 

 

27 Throughout the modeling process, no new stands were allowed to grow into the ‘old’ and ‘very old’ classes. The 

purpose of this modification was for transparency of the fate of all stands currently over 200 years of age.

28 Harvest modeling codes were applied to land use allocations or sub-allocations in the model and were used to 

direct the model in where the vegetation would be grown, where harvest would occur, and if the harvest counted 

toward ASQ. Harvest modeling pieces were used to assign specific forest management prescriptions, such as 

uneven-aged or even-aged management, to harvest modeling codes where harvest would occur.
1219 | P a g e

from selection harvesting in Late-Successional Reserve–Dry would continue perpetually where the BLM 

would use timber harvest to maintain fire-resilient conditions.

The Modeling Team modeled the sustained-yield harvest level from the land base supporting the ASQ 

separately from the harvest volume from the reserves. Segregating the land base and modeling of harvest 

volume in this manner eliminated the interaction of these two types of allocations.

Within the Harvest Land Base, the Modeling Team applied two different harvest flow constraints. These 

include a non-declining, even-flow strategy and a non-declining discounted flow constraint. In the evenflow constraint, the harvest is constant throughout the planning horizon. In the non-declining flow 

constraint, the harvest in any period must be equal to or greater than harvest in the prior period. To find 

the non-declining flow harvest schedule that maximized the harvest in the early part of the planning 

horizon, we maximized discounted harvest over the planning horizon. The Modeling Team always 

applied the non-declining even-flow strategies to the High Intensity Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber 

Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The Modeling Team also applied this same non-declining, 

even-flow strategy to the Uneven-aged Timber Area and Owl Habitat Timber Area where they comprised 

10 percent or less of the Harvest Land Base within a sustained yield unit (Figure C-8).
1220 | P a g e

Figure C-8. Non-declining even-flow (top) and non-declining discounted flow (bottom)

Where the Uneven-aged Timber Area or Owl Habitat Timber Area comprised more than 10 percent of the 

Harvest Land Base in a sustained yield unit, the Modeling Team applied a non-declining discounted flow 

strategy, because it provided––

 A relatively even distribution of both selection harvest and even-aged harvest across the Harvest 

Land Base through time;

 A predictable, even-flow harvest in the even-aged components of the Harvest Land Base; and

 A relatively high level of ASQ in the selection harvest in the Harvest Land Base.

The selection prescriptions in Uneven-aged Timber Area and Owl Habitat Timber Area increased the 

amount of harvest volume that would be removed through time with successive entries. Without being 

able to adjust harvest levels in the course of the 200-year modeling horizon, it would not be possible to 

implement the management direction for the Uneven-aged Timber Area and Owl Habitat Timber Area.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Net ASQ (Mbf/Year)

10-Year Modeled Periods

Non-Declining Even Flow

Even Age (Y2) Uneven Age (Y1)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Net ASQ (Mbf/Year)

10-Year Modeled Periods

Non-Declining Discounted Flow

Even Age (Y2) Uneven Age (Y1)
1221 | P a g e

Woodstock Products

The final product from all Woodstock modeling runs was a Microsoft Access relational database, 

covering the entire project area, and containing all of the output variables for each individual polygon 

(RMPWO_ID) (Table C-24). The model generated outputs for time steps: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 20 (i.e., 

2013, 2023, 2033, 2043, 2053, 2063, 2113, and 2213).

Table C-24. Woodstock modeling output variables

Table Field Name Description Wildlife

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9)

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon Identification Number

GIS_ACRES Area in acres

Platforms1_yr2013 Murrelet platforms(1) per acre in period 0–after treatment

Platforms2_yr2013 Murrelet platforms(2) per acre in period 0–after treatment

QMDCON_yr2013 Quadratic mean diameter of all live conifers in centimeters in 

period 0–after treatment

StructBLM_yr2013 Structural stage code in period 0–after treatment

StructBLM_CurrentAge_yr2013 Current age of stand used for structural stage code in period 0

StructBLM_StartingAge_yr2013 Starting age of stand used for structural stage code in period 0

StructBLM_TPA20_yr2013 Trees per acre of trees ≥ 20” DBH used for structural stage code in 

period 0–after treatment

StructBLM_TPA40_yr2013 Trees per acre of trees ≥ 40” DBH used for structural stage code in 

period 0–after treatment

StructBLM_CV_yr2013 Current Vegetation of the DBH of all trees used for structural 

stage code in period 0–after treatment

StructBLM_RD_yr2013 Curtis relative density used for structural stage code in period 0–

after treatment

StructBLM_Height_yr2013 Average height of reported trees greater or equal to 7” DBH, 

structural stage code–after treatment

StructBLM_CanopyCover_yr2013 ORGANON Canopy cover from all trees used for structural stage 

code in period 0–after treatment

DDivBLM_yr2013 Diameter Diversity Index in period 0–after treatment

TPHaLgCon_yr2013 Trees per hectare of large conifers (≥ 30”) in period 0–after 

treatment

TFir_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in subalpine fir species list in period 0–

after treatment

Pine_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in pine species list in period 0–after 

treatment

Oak_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in oak species list in period 0–after 

treatment

EvgHdw_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in evergreen hardwoods species list in 

period 0–after treatment

Redwd_PCT_yr2013 Percent of total basal area in redwood (always 0) in period 0–after 

treatment

CCovCon_FVS_PCT_yr2013 Forest Vegetation Simulator canopy cover of all live conifers in 

percent in period 0–after treatment

CCovCon_ORG_PCT_yr2013 ORGANON canopy cover of all live conifers in percent in period 

0–after treatment

CCovHdw_FVS_PCT_yr2013 FVS canopy cover of all live hardwoods in percent in period 0–

after treatment

CCovHdw_ORG_PCT_yr2013 ORGANON canopy cover of all live hardwoods in percent in 

period 0–after treatment
1222 | P a g e

Table Field Name Description

VegCl_1011_yr2013 Gradient Nearest Neighbor Vegetation Class code in period 0–

after treatment 

TCanopyLyr_yr2013 Number of tree canopy layers present in period 0–after treatment

StndDomHt_yr2013 Average height of dominant and co-dominant trees in meters in 

period 0–after treatment

Harvest

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9)

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon Identification Number

GIS_ACRES Area in acres

CurrPeriod_yr2013 Current period in 2013 = 0

GrossToNet_yr2013 Adjustment factor for gross to net inventory volume in period 0

TenYrAge_yr2013 Forest operations inventory 10-year age in years in period 0

TotNetInv_yr2013 Net inventory volume per acre (Mbf/acre) commercial species 16 

feet scale in period 0

TotNetInv_Extended_yr2013 Net inventory total volume (Mbf) commercial species 16 feet scale 

(TotNetInv_yr2013  GIS_ACRES) in period 0

BlmTotGross_yr2013 Gross inventory volume per acre (Mbf/acre) all species 16 feet 

scale in period 0–after treatment

BlmTotGross_Extended_yr2013 Gross inventory total volume (Mbf) all species 16 feet scale 

(BlmTotGross_yr2013  GIS_ACRES) in period 0

ASQ_yr2013 Gross inventory volume per acre (Mbf/acre) commercial species 

16 feet scale in period 0–after treatment

TPA_yr2013 Trees per acre in period 0–before treatment

BA_yr2013 Basal area in square feet per acre in period 0–before treatment

QMD_yr2013 Quadratic mean diameter in inches, all species in period 0–before 

treatment

thin_acres Acres of thinning in period 0

clearcut_acres Acres of clearcut in period 0 (NRTA only)

selection_acres Acres of selection (uneven-aged) harvest in period 0 (LSUMA 

prescription, UEMA, Owl Habitat Timber Area)

salvage_acres

Acres of salvage harvest in period 0 (General Forest Management 

Area (No Action), Harvest Land Base in action alternatives and 

Proposed RMP, Late-Successional Reserve in Alt. C)

thin_vol Volume of thinning in period 0 (Alt. A only)

clearcut_vol Volume of clearcut harvest in period 0 (NRTA)

selection_vol Volume from selection (uneven-age) harvest in period 0 (net 

volume, 16 feet scale)

salvage_vol Volume of salvage harvest in period 0 (net volume, 16 feet scale)

restoration_acres Acres of restoration harvest in period 0 (Alt. A only)

restoration_vol Volume from restoration harvest (gross, does not count towards 

allowable sale quantity) Alt. A only

2-age_acres 

Acres of 2-age harvest in period 0 (General Forest Management 

Area, Connectivity SGFMA, LRTA and MRTA)

2-age_vol Volume from 2-age harvest in period 0 (net volume, 16 feet scale)

Grade_1_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 1 in period 0 (net volume, 16

feet scale)

Grade_2_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 2 in period 0 (net volume, 16 

feet scale)

Grade_3_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 3 in period 0 (net volume, 16 

feet scale)
1223 | P a g e

Table Field Name Description

Grade_4_vol Volume harvested in size/grade class 4 in period 0 (net volume, 16

feet scale)

ASQ_harv_vol Total volume harvested that counts towards allowable sale 

quantity (net volume, 16 feet scale)

nonASQ_harv_vol Total volume harvested that doesn’t count towards allowable sale 

quantity (net volume, 16 feet scale)

Baseline

District District name (Woodstock Theme 9)

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon Identification Number

GIS_ACRES Area in acres

SUBJ_FOI Forest operations inventory Stand Identification Number

YieldStrataID Timber stratification Yield Strata Identification Number 

(Woodstock Theme 1)

Modeling_Group Timber stratification Modeling Group (Woodstock Theme 2)

Species_Group Timber stratification Species Group (Woodstock Theme 3)

Site_Class Timber stratification Site Class (Woodstock Theme 4)

Age_Group Timber stratification Age Group (Woodstock Theme 5)

LandUseAllocation_init Land Use Allocation (Woodstock Theme 6)

Regine_GrowOnly Management regime; GrowOnly or Fire (Woodstock Theme 7)

HarvestLandBaseCodes Harvest Land Base code; Y, N, or X* (Woodstock Theme 8)

Rotation Current rotation; EX or RE† (Woodstock Theme 10)

StartingTenYearAge Forest Operations Inventory Ten Year Age in years in 2013 

(Woodstock Theme 11)

StartingAge_inPeriods Timber stratification age in periods in 2013 (Woodstock Theme 

12)

Swiss_Needle_Cast Swiss needle cast presence; Yes or No (Woodstock Theme 13)

Burn_Regime Burn regime timing and severity in periods (Woodstock Theme 

14)

Wet_Or_Dry_Site Wet or dry site; W or D (Woodstock Theme 15)

Economic

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon Identification Number

GIS_ACRES Area in acres

oG_RevCC$ Gross Revenue from Clearcutting ($)

oG_RevSL$ Gross Revenue from 2-Age ($)

oG_Rev2A$ Gross Revenue from Selection ($)

oG_RevThn$ Gross Revenue from Thins ($)

oG_RevTot$ Total Gross Revenue ($)

oLog_CC$ Clearcut Logging Cost ($)

oLog_2A$ 2-Age Logging Cost ($)

oLog_SL$ Selection Logging Cost ($)

oLog_Thn$ Thin Logging Cost ($)

oLog_Tot$ Total Logging Costs ($)

oUnd_Brn$ Underburn/Broadcast Burn Cost ($)

oHnd_Brn$ Hand pile/Burn Cost ($)

oLnd_Brn$ Landing Pile/Burn Cost ($)

oMchn_Brn$ Machine Pile/Burn Cost ($)

oSlsh_Sct$ Slashing/Lop/Scatter Cost ($)

oMstctn$ Mastication Cost ($)

oPlant$ Planting Cost ($)

oManClear$ Manual Clearing Cost ($)

oManCut$ Manual Cutting Cost ($)
1224 | P a g e

Table Field Name Description

oMulch$ Mulching Cost ($)

oTubing$ Leader Protection Cost ($)

oShading$ Shading Cost ($)

oTrapping$ Trapping Cost ($)

oScalp$ Scalping Cost ($)

oHerb$ Herbicide Cost ($)

oBlstCtrl$ Blister Rust Control Cost ($)

oPCT$ Pre-commercial Thin Cost ($)

oFert$ Fertilization Cost ($)

oPrune$ Pruning Cost ($)

oConversn$ Stand Conversion Cost ($)

oTotCosts$ Total Costs ($)

oNetRev$ Net Revenue ($)

Silviculture

RMPWO_ID Unique polygon Identification Number

GIS_ACRES Area in acres

oUnd_Brn_Ac Underburn/Broadcast Burn Acres

oHnd_Brn_Ac Hand pile/Burn Acres

oLnd_Brn_Ac Landing Pile/Burn Acres

oMchn_Brn_Ac Machine Pile/Burn Acres

oSlsh_Sct_Ac Slashing/Lop/Scatter Acres

oMstctn_Ac Mastication Acres

oPlant_Ac Planting Acres

oManClear_Ac Manual Clearing Acres

oManCut_Ac Manual Cutting Acres

oMulch_Ac Mulching Acres

oTubing_Ac Leader Protection Acres

oShading_Ac Shading Acres

oTrapping_Ac Trapping Acres

oScalp_Ac Scalping Acres

oHerb_Ac Herbicide Acres

oBlstCtrl_Ac Blister Rust Control Acres

oPCT_Ac Pre-commercial Thin Acres

oFert_Ac Fertilization Acres

oPrune_Ac Pruning Acres

oConversn_Ac Stand Conversion Acres

* Y = forested, modeled with ASQ harvest; N = forested, modeled without any harvest; X= non-forest

Mbf = thousand board feet
1225 | P a g e

Vegetation Modeling Team and Interdisciplinary Team Members

Modeling Team

Carolina Hooper Forester and Vegetation Modeling Coordinator

RMPs for Western Oregon Core Team

BLM Oregon State Office

Mark Rasmussen Forester and Manager

Principal, Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Kendrick Greer Woodstock Modeler

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Henk Stander Forester/Woodstock Modeler

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Douglas Larmour Programmer

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Zach Dewees Forester

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Brandon Vickery Forester

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.

Abe Wheeler IDT member: Forest Management and Silviculture

BLM Roseburg District

Craig Kintop IDT member: Forest Management and Silviculture

BLM Roseburg District

Inventory Specialists

Hugh Snook Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Salem District

Joe Graham Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Eugene District

Chris Schumacher Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Coos Bay District 

Terry Fairbanks Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Medford District

Kevin Carson Forester (retired)

BLM Roseburg District

Robert Pierle Forester (retired)

BLM Eugene District

Madelyn Campbell Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Lakeview District

Dan Couch Forester (Inventory Specialist)

BLM Roseburg District

GIS Team

Arthur Miller Lead GIS Specialist

BLM Oregon State Office

Craig Ducey GIS Specialist/NSO Modeling

BLM Oregon State Office

Gerald (Jay) Stevens GIS Specialist

BLM Oregon State Office
1226 | P a g e

References

Bailey, J. D., and J. C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands 

in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108(1–2): 99–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00216-3.

BCMOF. 1995. Pruning guidebook. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Practices Code. 

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/pruning/pruntoc.htm.

Chambers, C. J., and F. M. Wilson. 1978. Empirical growth and yield tables for the western hemlock zone. DNR Report No. 22R. 

State of Washington, Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/frc/DNR_EmpiricalYieldTables/DNR%2022R_Hemlock.pdf.

Chambers, C. J. 1980. Empirical growth and yield tables for the Douglas-fir zone. DNR Report No. 41. State of Washington, 

Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.

ftp://ww4.dnr.wa.gov/frc/DNR_EmpiricalYieldTables/DNR%2041_Douglas-fir.pdf.

Chan, S., D. Larson, K. Maas-Hebner, W. Emmingham, S. Johnston, and D. Mikowski. 2006. Overstory and understory 

development in thinned and underplanted Oregon Coast Range Douglas-fir stands. Can. J. For. Res. 36(10): 2696–2711.

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/x06-151.

Curtis, R. O. 1982. A simple index of stand density for Douglas-fir. Forest Science 28(1): 92–94.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/olympia/silv/publications/opt/232_Curtis1982.pdf.

Curtis, R. O., and David D. Marshall. 1986. Levels-of-growing-stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir. Report No. 8 – The 

LOGS Study: 20-Year Results. Research Paper PNW-RP-356. USDA Forest Service. Portland, OR.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/pnw_rp356/.

Di Lucca, M. C., J. W. Goudie, and S. C. Stearns-Smith. 2004. Variable retention yield adjustment factors for TIPSY. Extension 

Note No. 69. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Science Program. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/En/En69.pdf.

Dixon, G. E. 2002, revised July 2014. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service, 

Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 244 pp.

Dunning, D., and L. H. Reineke. 1933. Preliminary yield tables for second-growth stands in the California pine region. Technical 

Resource Bulletin No. 354. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 23 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/dunning/psw_1933_dunning001.pdf.

FORsight. 2006. How to handle non-uniform stand density (clumpiness) in ORGANON. The FORsight Resource 3(3): 1–2. 

FORsight Resources LLC, Vancouver, WA.

Franklin, J. F., and K. N. Johnson. 2012. A restoration framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 

110(8): 429–439. http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-006.

Franklin, J. F., K. N. Johnson, D. J. Churchill, K. Hagmann, D. Johnson, and J. Johnston. 2013. Restoration of dry forests in 

eastern Oregon: a field guide. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 202 pp.

Franklin, J. F., H. H. Shugart, and M. E. Harmon. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process. BioScience 37(8): 550–556.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1310665.

Franklin, J. F., T. A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A. B. Carey, D. A. Thornburgh, D. R. Berg, D. B. Lindenmayer, M. E. Harmon, W. S. 

Keeton, D. E. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest ecosystems with 

silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. Forest Ecology and Management 155(2002): 399–423.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2002_franklin001.pdf.

Hann, D. W. 1998. Extending southwest Oregon’s dominant height growth equation to older ages. Research Contribution 18. 16 

pp. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7733/rc18.pdf?sequence=1.

---. 2011. ORGANON user’s manual: Edition 9.1. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 147 

pp.

Hann, D. W., and M. L. Hanus. 2001. Enhanced mortality equations for trees in the mixed conifer zone of southwest Oregon. 

Research Contribution 34. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 34 pp. 

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7871/RC34.pdf?sequence=1.

Hann, D. W., and J. A. Scrivani. 1987. Dominant-height growth and site-index equations for Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine in 

southwest Oregon. Research Bulletin 59. Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 13 pp.

http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fr/research/organon/pubs/FRL_RB59.pdf.

Harrington, C. A., S. D. Roberts, and L. C. Brodie. 2005. Tree and understory response to variable-density thinning in western 

Washington. In: Balancing ecosystem values: innovative experiments for sustainable forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR635. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_harrington002.pdf.

Hayes, J. P., S. S. Chan, W. H. Emmingham, J. C. Tappeiner, L. D. Kellogg, and J. F. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife responses to 

thinning in young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 95: 28–33.

Isaac, L. 1943. Reproductive habits of Douglas-fir. Charles Lathrop Pack Foundation, Washington, D.C. 107 pp.

King, J. E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser For. Pap. 8. Centralia, WA. 

Weyerhaeuser Company, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center. 49 pp.

Latta, G., H. Temesgen, and T. M. Barrett. 2009. Mapping and imputing potential productivity of Pacific Northwest forests using 

climate variables. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 39(6): 1197–1207.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2009_latta001.pdf.
1227 | P a g e

Lavender, D., M. Bergman, and L. Calvin. 1956. Natural regeneration on staggered settings. Research Bulletin 10. Oregon 

Department of Forestry. Salem, OR. 36 pp.

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7799/RB_no_10.pdf?sequence=1.

Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc. 2006. YTGTools Yield Table Generator User Manual. 48 pp.

Max, T. A., H. T. Schreuder, J. W. Hazard, D. D. Oswald, J. Teply, and J. Alegria. 1996. The Pacific Northwest region vegetation 

and inventory monitoring system. Research Paper PNW-RP-493. 19 pp. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp493.pdf.

McArdle, R. E., W. H. Meyer, and D. Bruce. 1961. The yield of Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service 

Technical Bulletin 201 (rev.). 74 pp. http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/downloads/forestry/yield_tables/YieldOfDouglasfirInPacificNorthwest05011961.pdf.

Miller, R. E., G. W. Clendenen, and D. Bruce. 1988. Volume growth and response to thinning and fertilizing of Douglas-fir 

stands in southwestern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-221. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 38 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr221.pdf.

O’Hara, K. 2014. Multiaged silviculture. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 213 pp.

Remsoft Spatial Planning System. Version 2012.12.0. http://www.remsoft.com.

Ritchie, M. W., and D. W. Hann. 1985. Equations for predicting basal area increment in Douglas-fir and grand fir. Research 

Bulletin 51. Oregon State University, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 9 pp.

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7944/RB_no_51.pdf?sequence=1.

Ritchie, M. W. 1999. A compendium of forest growth and yield simulators for the Pacific Coast states. General Technical Report 

PSW-GTR-174. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 59 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr174/psw_gtr174.pdf.

Schumacher, F. X. 1930. Yield, stand and volume tables for Douglas-fir in California. Bulletin No. 491. Agricultural Experiment 

Station, Berkeley, CA. https://archive.org/details/yieldstandvolume491schu.

Smith, D. M. 1962. The practice of silviculture. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 578 pp.

Staebler, G. R. 1963. Growth along the stems of full-crowned Douglas-fir trees after pruning to specified heights. Journal of 

Forestry 61(2): 124–127. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/1963/00000061/00000002/art00008.

Stein, W. I. 1955. Pruning to different heights in young Douglas-fir. Journal of Forestry 53(5): 352–355.

Tappeiner, J. C., D. Huffman, D. Marshall, T. A. Spies, and J. D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages, and growth rates in old growth and 

young forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 27(5): 638–648.

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/14373/Tappeiner_etal97.pdf?sequence=1.

Tappeiner, J. C., D. A. Maguire, and T. B. Harrington. 2007. Silviculture and ecology in western U.S. forests. Oregon State 

University Press, Corvallis, OR. 440 pp.

USDA FS. 1958. Timber resources for America’s future. Forest Resource Report No. 14. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

713 pp.

USDA FS NCRS. No date. Forest management 101: A handbook to forest management in the North Central Region. USDA FS, 

North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 49 pp. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fmg/nfmg/docs/fm101_silv.pdf (last accessed 

March 03, 2015).

USDI BLM. 1986. BLM Manual 5251 – Timber Production Capability Classification. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_manual.Par.74631.File.dat/Re

formatted%205251%20Timber%20Production%20Capabability%20Classification.pdf.

---. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon. 

Appendix R - Vegetation Management. BLM Districts, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

---. 2010. Inventory and Monitoring System Current Vegetation Survey, Field Procedures version BLM 4.5 Final. Oregon State 

Office, Portland, OR. 229 pp. July 12, 2010.

USDI FWS. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 258 pp.

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/USFWS2011RevisedRecoveryPlanNorthernSpottedOwl.pdf.
1228 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1229 | P a g e

Appendix D – Modeling Large Stochastic Wildfires

and Fire Severity within the

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

Raymond Davis, Louisa Evers, Yanu Gallimore, Jena Volpe, and C. Belongie

Introduction

Wildfire is a natural process within the identified range for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina), especially in the southern and eastern portions of the range. While the bird has adapted to 

wildfire and its effects in an intact landscape, human development and land use have reduced and 

fragmented habitat and populations in large portions of the region (Davis and Lint 2005, Davis et al. 

2011). One result has been an increase in the potential for adverse effects of large, high severity wildfires 

on remnant northern spotted owl habitats and populations. Over the past two decades, large wildfires have 

accounted for the majority of northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat losses on federally 

managed forests (Davis et al. 2011). In addition, fire suppression, inadequate levels of natural or 

prescribed fire, and climate change are believed to have created conditions considered more favorable for 

frequent, higher severity, and larger wildfires (Westerling et al. 2006, Littell et al. 2009, Dillon et al. 

2011a, Miller et al. 2012).

In 2008, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) attempted to revise six resource management plans in 

western Oregon, but subsequently withdrew the decisions. A scientific review of that effort noted that one 

significant weakness was the failure to account for the potential effects of high severity wildfire on habitat 

for the northern spotted owl, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the 

review stated that the models overestimated amounts of owl habitat and did not assume that any would be 

lost to high severity wildfire during the projected modeling timeline (Drake et al. 2008). To address that 

weakness under the current planning effort, BLM assembled a team of northern spotted owl experts, fire 

ecologists, silviculturists, and modelers to develop an approach to model and analyze the potential effects 

on northern spotted owl habitat and populations from large wildfires.

29 For this analysis, the BLM 

predicted future wildfire effects based upon historic fire frequency, size, and severity.

This effort also supports a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service request for the BLM to evaluate whether the 

resulting plan would provide sufficient habitat to assure persistence of the northern spotted owl for the 

next 50 years. This estimation of the quantity of habitat affected by fire over the next five decades better 

informs the development of land management strategies for the BLM-administered lands in western 

Oregon. This report describes the methods used to determine potential burned area and fire severity, and 

the results of that analysis. Subsequent modeling will evaluate the potential results on habitat availability 

 

29 The BLM panel of experts includes listed authors: Raymond Davis, USFS, spotted owl and modeling expertise; 

Louisa Evers, BLM, fire modeling and climate change expertise; Yanu Gallimore, BLM, fire and fuels management

expertise; and Jena Volpe, BLM, fire modeling and fuels management expertise; and C. Belongie, USFS, GIS 

analysis expertise. These authors conducted the analysis on behalf of the BLM. In addition to these authors, the 

panel of experts assembled includes: Craig Ducey, BLM, forest stand dynamics modeling expertise; Joe Graham, 

BLM, forest structure modeling expertise; Richard Hardt, BLM, forest ecology expertise; Bruce Hollen, BLM, 

northern spotted owl expertise; Carolina Hooper, BLM, Woodstock attribute modeling expertise; Rex McGraw, 

BLM, forest ecology expertise; Arthur Miller, BLM, forest stand modeling expertise; Eric Greenquist, BLM, 

northern spotted owl expertise; Bruce Marcot, USFS, northern spotted owl and northern spotted owl modeling 

expertise; Betsy Glenn, USFWS, northern spotted owl expertise; Jim Thrailkill, USFWS, northern spotted owl 

expertise; Brendan White, USFWS, northern spotted owl expertise; Jeffery Dunk, Humboldt State University, 

northern spotted owl habitat modeling expertise; and David LaPlante, Natural Resource-Geospatial, northern spotted 

owl population response to habitat change expertise.
1230 | P a g e

for the northern spotted owl. Since the BLM conducted this analysis in direct support of the analysis of 

environmental effects in conjunction with an environmental impact statement, model parameters are 

constrained by the ‘reasonably foreseeable’ criteria in BLM’s planning regulations.

Analysis Area

The range of the northern spotted owl used in this analysis extends from the Canadian border through 

northern California and from the west coast to the eastern foothills of the Cascade and Klamath Mountain 

ranges. The BLM used the entire range of the northern spotted owl for the analysis area to maintain 

consistency with the previous fire analyses conducted within the range of the northern spotted owl. The 

BLM planning area for western Oregon comprises 19,647,000 acres, or approximately 34 percent, of the 

lands within this range and is located within the core of that range, divided among six Districts (Salem, 

Eugene, Roseburg, Coos Bay, Medford, and Lakeview) (Figure D-1). The majority of BLM-administered

lands consist of a so-called ‘checkerboard’ pattern (alternating square mile sections), largely intermingled 

with privately owned industrial and non-industrial forests, along with state-owned lands, and a limited 

amount of U.S. Forest Service National Forest System lands and Tribal lands. Large contiguous blocks of 

BLM-administered lands are rare within the range of the northern spotted owl. The largest concentration 

of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon occurs on the Medford and Roseburg Districts in 

southwestern Oregon.
1231 | P a g e

Figure D-1. Analysis area for modeling and analysis of potential effects on northern spotted owl habitat 

and populations from large wildfires (left), and BLM-administered lands within the analysis area by 

district (right)

Forest types within the analysis area range from dry mixed evergreen forests in California and 

southwestern Oregon to temperate rainforests along the coast and in much of western Washington. The 

climate ranges from maritime in western Washington, northwestern Oregon, and the coast; to 

Mediterranean in southwestern Oregon and northern California. Soils are highly variable in texture, depth, 

and other characteristics, and derive primarily from volcanic parent materials with ultramafic soils 

common in southwestern Oregon.

Methods

The BLM used the entire range of the northern spotted owl as the analytical framework to provide 

sufficient data to capture the potential range of annual area burned and fire severity proportions. This 

more accurately reflects impacts to northern spotted owl habitat, unaffected by arbitrary divisions along 

biologically irrelevant lines such as state, ownership, and administrative boundaries. The modeling 

regions used in this analysis were similar to those used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the 

revised Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and designation of critical habitat (USDI FWS 2011 and 

2012).
1232 | P a g e

The median northern spotted owl territory size ranges from 1,300 to 11,800 acres, depending on 

geographic location (Appendix B in Davis et al. 2011), thus it takes a rather large wildfire to have a 

substantial effect on one owl territory (Davis and Lint 2005). As such, this analysis evaluates larger 

wildfires in identifying effects to northern spotted owls using the large wildfire suitability model 

(LWSM). Developed as part of the 15-year monitoring report for the Northwest Forest Plan (Chapter 4, in 

Davis et al. 2011), the LWSM model is based on large wildfires (≥ 1,000 acres) from 1970 through 2002, 

and validated against large wildfires that occurred from 2003 through 2009. The LWSM represents a 

relative probability surface for large wildfire occurrence within the range of the northern spotted owl that 

has continued to predict the locations of nearly all large wildfires that have occurred since 2009.

Using the regional wildfire history from 1970 through 2013 (4.4 decades), the BLM modeled large 

wildfires five decades into the future using a three-step process to determine wildfire: 1) number and 

location, 2) size distribution, and 3) severity.

Step 1 - Estimating Number and Location of Future Large 

Wildfires

Records for large wildfire occurrence from 1970 through 2013 show a marked increase in the occurrence 

of large wildfires in the last decade of this timeframe (Figure D-2). While the decadal totals suggest the 

number of large wildfires is increasing, the short period of record and the influence of the phase and 

annual sign of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are confounding factors in identifying a definite trend. As 

such, this analysis used the decadal average of 100 large wildfires to generate 500 potential large 

wildfires over the next 5 decades. To do this, the BLM used the ‘Generate Random Points’ tool in 

Geospatial Modeling Environment (GME version 0.7.2.1) software (Beyer 2012) to produce five sets of 

randomly placed points (n=100) for each decade, using the LWSM as a relative probability surface for 

point placement. Points could occur anywhere, but were more likely to occur where the probability of a 

large wildfire (i.e., wildfire suitability) was higher (Figure D-3).
1233 | P a g e

Figure D-2. Annual and decadal numbers of large wildfires (≥ 1,000 acres) in the analysis area (1970–2013)

39

95

83

183

0

40

80

120

160

200

197019751980198519901995200020052010

Number of Fires ≥ 1,000 Acres

Year

Annual Decade Total
1234 | P a g e

Figure D-3. Comparison of three decades of observed large wildfire history from Monitoring Trends in 

Burn Severity fire occurrence data (left) with the first three decades of randomly generated fire locations 

(right)
1235 | P a g e

Reburning has been observed within the analysis area on several occasions. For example, the Biscuit Fire 

in 2002 reburned nearly all of the 1987 Silver Fire, and a portion of this area burned again in 2013. 

Portions of the 1933 Tillamook Fire area reburned as many as five times before 1960. To account for 

reburns, the BLM calibrated the model by comparing the area burned by projected large wildfires to the 

actual area burned by past large wildfires. Initially, the model projected much more reburning than has 

been observed. To correct for this over-prediction, the BLM added a decadal constraint parameter on 

reburning by preventing the placement of random points within 5 km of fire ‘perimeter’ locations from 

the prior decade. In subsequent decades, and consistent with historical observations, random points could 

occur within or adjacent to previous modeled fire perimeters. Subsequent model runs produced similar 

levels of acres burned, and proportion of area reburned, as the observed record.

Step 2 - Estimating Size of Future Large Wildfires

The LWSM generates an estimate of the number and location of future large wildfires, but does not 

generate sizes of these future wildfires. To determine acres of future large wildfires, the BLM applied the 

historical trends in fire size to predict future large wildfire sizes (1970–2013). In the analysis area, the 

majority (85 percent) of large wildfires burned less than 15,000 acres, and only 1 percent of them 

exceeded 100,000 acres in size (Figure D-4). Using this information, the BLM created eight large 

wildfire size class bins to represent the occurrence of future large wildfires (Figure D-4).

Figure D-4. Historical (1970–2013) wildfire distribution by fire size within the range of the northern 

spotted owl

Because this analysis was more concerned with the overall potential loss of habitat than with accurately 

representing fire shapes, modeling simply represented wildfires as circles associated with the median 

sizes. The BLM used the median fire size for each size-class bin to determine the appropriate radius for 

creating a circular fire perimeter for modeling (Table D-1).

41%

20%

15%

9%

7% 5% 2% 1%

0%

15%

30%

45%

1–2.5 2.5–5 5–10 10–15 15–25 25–50 50–100 > 100

Percentage of All Fires

Fire Size ( 1,000 Acres)
1236 | P a g e

Table D-1. Parameters used to assign random points a wildfire size by buffering the point location

Simulated Wildfire Size

(Acres)

Fire Perimeter Radius

(Miles)

Simulated Decadal 

Number of Future 

Large Wildfires 

(Random Points)

1,250 0.79 41

3,750 1.37 20

7,500 1.93 15

12,500 2.55 9

20,000 3.15 7

37,500 4.32 5

75,000 6.11 2

100,000 7.05 1

The BLM then used the underlying LWSM probability layer to apply a fire size to the random points 

generated by the GME software. The higher the underlying LWSM probability value, the more likely a 

random point would ‘burn’ more acres, although smaller fires could also occur in the higher probability 

areas. Beginning with random points having the lowest wildfire suitability value, the BLM assigned the 

smallest radius to each point; ending with assignment of the largest radius to the last random point of the 

highest wildfire suitability score (Table D-1). To establish the hypothetical fire perimeters, the BLM 

buffered each random point by the assigned radii. The resulting individual and overlapping circles 

represented that decade’s ‘footprint’ of large wildfires. The BLM repeated this process for each decade.

Step 3 - Estimating Fire Severity of Future Large Wildfires

After determining potential future wildfire locations and sizes, the BLM estimated fire severities within 

their perimeters. Analysis relied on data from the Severe Fire Potential Map (Dillon et al. 2011a and 

2011b, Dillon et al. 2012) portion of the Fire Severity Mapping Tools (FIRESEV) project (Keane et al. 

2013) to assign fire severities within each decadal wildfire footprint. The FIRESEV data reflect spatial 

predictions of the conditional likelihood of high severity fire. The FIRESEV project based these 

projections on statistical models relating topographic, vegetation, and fire weather variables to empirical 

satellite-derived wildfire severity from 1984 to 2007 as mapped by the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity (MTBS) program (Eidenshink et al. 2007). The FIRESEV model’s spatial predictions use 90th

percentile fuel moisture conditions for dryness, although actual fuel moistures often varied over the 

spatial and temporal extent of any given large fire (Dillon et al. 2011a and 2011b, Miller et al. 2012).

Since the FIRESEV only estimated the probability for high severity fire, the BLM classified this 

probability into three quantile classes. The BLM assumed that lower severity fires would occur in areas 

modeled as having a lower probability for high severity fire and that high severity fires would most likely 

occur in areas modeled as high probability. These three quantile classes served as our low, moderate, and 

high severity map classification for assignment of fire severity to the fire footprints created in Step 2. To 

test this assumption, the BLM compared relative proportions of observed wildfire severity (based on 

MTBS severity mapping from 1986–2011) to the classified FIRESEV model from the five decadal maps.

Comparisons found similar proportions between observed and modeled wildfire severities indicating that 

the assumption was a valid one and would produce proportions of area burned by low to high severity that 

were similar to the observed record (Figure D-5).
1237 | P a g e

Figure D-5. Comparison of annual proportion of area burned by mapped fire severity from MTBS data 

from 1986 to 2011 with modeled severity based on a three quantile classification of the FIRESEV map 

for the five decadal models

Note: Labels show modeled estimates of proportion of area burned by severity class.

Finally, the BLM also examined the MTBS data for any obvious temporal trends in wildfire severity, but 

did not detect a strong signal (Figure D-6). Over the course of 25 years, there appears to be a slight 

increase in the percentage of area burned by low and moderate severity wildfire, and a slight decrease in 

the percent of area burned in high severity wildfire, although these trends are not statistically significant. 

Analysis also noted that the variability for area burned in the different severity classes has declined since 

about 2002, but it is not certain why this apparent smoothing has occurred. Given the non-significance of 

the observed trends and the uncertainty over whether these slight trends will continue into the future, the 

BLM did not attempt to model any fire severity trends in our framework.

60.4%

21.2% 18.4%

57.6%

21.6% 20.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low–Unburned Moderate High

Area (Percent)

Fire Severity Class

1986–2011 Modeled
1238 | P a g e

Figure D-6. Trends in area burned by fire severity class

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Total Area Burned (Percent)

Year

Low Severity Moderate Severity High Severity

2 Periods Moving Average (Low) 2 Periods Moving Average (Moderate) 2 Periods Moving Average (High)
1239 | P a g e

Results 

The analysis resulted in five decadal maps of potential large wildfire ‘footprints’, including potential 

wildfire severities, over the entire range of the northern spotted owl. Given an average of 100 large 

wildfires per decade, the model estimated that approximately 4.4 million acres would burn within the 

range of the northern spotted owl over the next 50 years, with 10 percent of the area burning twice and 0.2 

percent burning three times. On BLM-administered lands only, the model estimated that approximately 

192,000 acres would burn, with 10 percent burning twice and no areas burning three times. In 

comparison, approximately 4.4 million acres have burned within the range of the northern spotted owl 

over the past 44 years (1970–2013), with 16 percent of the area burning twice and 1.6 percent burning 

three times. In that same time span, approximately 153,500 acres burned on BLM-administered lands, 

with 16 percent burning twice. Both spatially (Figure D-7) and from the burned area comparisons above, 

the model produced a plausible scenario based on recent observed wildfire history for potential future 

large wildfires both rangewide and on BLM-administered lands in western Oregon over the next five 

decades. 

Figure D-7. Comparison of actual area burned (black shading) by large wildfires from 1970 to 2013 (left) 

with modeled large wildfires over 5 decades (right) 
1240 | P a g e

Discussion

For the given analysis period (5 decades), the model projected relatively minor changes in potential 

burned area within the range of the northern spotted owl generally and on Oregon BLM-administered

lands within that range. While the observed decadal trends suggest an increasing trend in the number of 

large fires over time (Figure D-2), it is not clear that this increasing trend will continue. The observed 

large wildfire history records contain a small number of anomalous years that may distort the data. 

Particular stand-out years are 1987, 2002, and 2008. The 1987 fire season was particularly severe in 

southwest Oregon and northwest California, while 2002 was particularly severe in southwest Oregon, and 

2008 particularly severe in northwest California. An unusually high number of wildfire starts 

characterized all three years, and an unusually high number of acres burned. Miller et al. (2012) did find 

an trend of increasing numbers of large fires in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, but 

this same trend is not apparent in the analysis area as a whole (Littell et al. 2009, supplemental 

information). The BLM notes that the current decade (2010–2020) is not quite half over, yet 67 large 

wildfires have burned as of 2013. It is possible that future decades might incur more than the 100 large 

wildfires per decade used in this analysis; however, selection of a higher number would be speculative 

and the BLM instead based the analysis on observations from recent decades.

While several studies have indicated that high severity fires are increasing across the western United 

States (e.g., Westerling et al. 2006, Dillon et al. 2011a, Miller et al. 2012), no such trends were apparent 

in the observed record within the range of the northern spotted owl (Figure D-6). The observed trends in 

increasing fire severity in various studies appear to be scale-dependent in that these trends were typically 

for the western United States as a whole. Much of the observed change is either occurring in areas not 

encompassed by the range of the northern spotted owl or becomes apparent only when analyzing a larger 

area that provides a much larger sample size. In such cases, many small changes that are difficult to detect 

at finer scales can add up to larger, detectable changes for the aggregate area, reflective of how the 

aggregate number of small emissions of greenhouse gases cumulatively are affecting global climate. In 

part, trends for area burned as high severity is a function of total area burned – the more area burned, the 

greater the amount of high severity fire (Dillon et al. 2011a, Miller et al. 2012). In the absence of any 

clear trends, The 50-year projection, presented here, falls within a range of reasonably expected 

outcomes.

Given the uncertainty surrounding trends in frequency, size, and severity, model results may prove, with 

time, to either underestimate or overestimate potential fire sizes and severity because of several 

confounding factors not included in the model, such as extreme weather events and interactions with 

insect outbreaks, management affects to vegetation composition and structure, and climate change. Forest 

management in particular has potential to alter the outcomes of wildfires (Pollet and Omi 2002, Prichard 

et al. 2010, Kennedy and Johnson 2014, Wimberly and Liu 2014, Stevens-Rumann et al. 2013), although 

it is less clear if forest management can effectively alter the size distribution of large fires (Cochrane et al. 

2012). Historically, extremely large wildfires have occurred outside of the areas modeled as highly 

suitable for large wildfires, consistently associated with either extreme weather events, such as the severe 

drought and east wind event that preceded the initial Tillamook Burn in 1933, or with heavy, continuous, 

dry fuels, such as following an insect outbreak (McClure 2005, Morris 1935). The large wildfires that do 

occur in areas of low suitability west of the Cascade crest tend to be infrequent, but extremely large and 

severe and typically associated severe drought and high winds (Agee 1993, Littell et al. 2009, Davis et al. 

2011). The above management affects to vegetation, stochastic disturbance other than wildfire, extreme 

environmental variables, and fire occurrence datasets reflective of long fire return interval timelines were 

not included in this modeling effort.

It was far less clear how to incorporate projected climate changes into the model. The BLM can estimate 

how the large wildfire suitability area may change as climate changes (Figure D-8), based on ensemble 
1241 | P a g e

climate model results, since LWSMs include climate parameters. However, to what extent these changes 

may influence the frequency of large wildfires is uncertain. Additionally, large wildfires, particularly in 

moist forests, in the Pacific Northwest, are at least modestly associated with the phase of the Pacific 

Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and not associated with the phase of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 

(Hessl et al. 2004, Gedalof et al. 2005). Interannual variability within a given PDO phase appears to have 

a stronger influence than the interdecadal variability, as well (Gedalof et al. 2005). Hessl et al. (2004) 

also found about a 5-year lag between PDO and regional fire years in eastern Washington. The period of 

record used for this large wildfire analysis includes the latter stages of a cool phase PDO that ended in 

about 1977 and a warm phase that began in 1977 and appears to have ended around 2005 with 

considerable interannual variability between circa 1998 and 2005 (Gedalof et al. 2005, 

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/). Given that PDO has apparently entered a cool phase, the number 

of fires and acres burned should be lower for one or two decades unless the current climate forcing from 

greenhouse gas emissions ‘over-rides’ the PDO signal. The apparent increase in number of fires and acres 

burned may be more a reflection of the combined influences of increasing fuel loadings due to land use 

changes, the PDO phase, and the sign of PDO in a given year than of a trend useful for predicting future 

losses of northern spotted owl habitat from wildfire.

Figure D-8. Comparison of a large wildfire suitability model based on the current climate normal (left) 

with same model based on projected climate normal changes in temperature and precipitation by 2060 

(right) (from Yang et al. in prep.)
1242 | P a g e

Most climate change projections that discuss wildfire indicate that fires are expected to get larger and 

more severe. Several studies have found that as the climate warms in forested ecosystems, burned area 

increases (Westerling et al. 2006, Halofsky et al. 2011, Loudermilk et al. 2013) with large increases 

projected by mid-century within the range of the northern spotted owl (McKenzie et al. 2004, Spracklen 

et al. 2009, Littell et al. 2009 and 2010, Rogers et al. 2011). Many of these same studies indicate an 

increase in overall fire severity as well. However, projections in burned area do not inform how to adjust 

the potential number of fires, the relative distribution of the size classes, or the proportion burned in the 

different severity classes over time. If these projections are accurate, model results could underestimate 

the potential of adversely affected northern spotted owl habitat, particularly towards the end of the 

analysis period.

Lastly, climate change is not linear. Natural variability in the climate system is still an important factor. 

Thus, overall changes in burned area until mid-century would also not be linear. Experts expect to 

continue to experience considerable variability in fire season severity (number of fires, acres burned, and 

extent of high severity fire). Despite the inability to include these confounding factors, the model 

successfully predicted the locations of many of the large wildfires that occurred in 2013, which were 

included in the final analysis.

Conclusions

Over the next 50 years, large wildfires will continue to affect suitable northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting habitat on BLM-administered lands. However, wildfires do not always remove 

nesting/roosting habitat; often low to moderate severity wildfire alters habitat such that it may still be 

suitable for nesting and roosting. Some spotted owl studies show that low to moderate severity wildfire 

may actually benefit the owl, perhaps due to changes in prey species habitat (Bond et al. 2002, Ganey et 

al. 2014). However, extensive high severity wildfire usually removes nesting/roosting habitats, decreasing 

survival and occupancy rates related to loss and fragmentation of suitable nesting and roosting habitat 

(Clark et al. 2011 and 2013, Tempel et al. 2014).

Although the relationship between large wildfire frequency and severity on owl demography is not fully 

understood, habitat loss was the primary reason for the bird’s decline and subsequent listing as threatened

under the Endangered Species Act (USDI FWS 1990). The BLM used the underlying data for the maps 

produced from this modeling effort as input into the vegetation modeling process (Appendix C) to inform 

the effects of disturbance on habitat loss and recruitment over the next 5 decades. The BLM used the 

results of the vegetation modeling efforts in the northern spotted owl population analysis for these RMP 

revisions, which will inform management decisions on lands administered by the BLM in western 

Oregon.
1243 | P a g e

References

Agee, J. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 493 pp.

Beyer, H. L. 2012. Geospatial modelling environment (version 0.7.2.1) (software). http://www.spatialecology.com/gme.

Bond, M. L., R. J. Gutiérrez, A. B. Franklin, W. S. LaHaye, C. A. May, and M. E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires 

on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(4): 1022–1028.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784267.

Clark, D. A., R. G. Anthony, and L. S. Andrews. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of 

southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 45(1): 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3356/JRR-10-42.1.

---. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 77(4): 672–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.523.

Cochrane, M. A., C. J. Moran, M. C. Wimberly, A. D. Baer, M. A. Finney, K. L. Beckendorf, J. Eidenshink, and Z. Zhu. 2012. 

Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(4): 357–367.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2012_cochrane_m001.pdf.

Davis, R., and J. Lint. 2005. Habitat status and trend. In: Lint, J., tech. coord. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–

2003): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-648. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. pp. 21–82.

Davis, R. J., K. M. Dugger, S. Mohoric, L. Evers, and W. C. Aney. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994–2008): 

status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-850. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 147 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr850.pdf.

Dillon, G. K., Z. A. Holden, P. Morgan, M. A. Crimmins, E. K. Heyerdahl, and C. H. Luce. 2011a. Both topography and climate 

affected forest and woodland burn severity in two regions of the western US, 1984 to 2006. Ecosphere 2(12): article 30.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_dillon_g001.pdf.

Dillon, G. K., P. Morgan, and Z. Holden. 2011b. Mapping the potential for high severity wildfire in the western United States. 

Fire Management Today 71(2): 25–28. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2011_dillon_g002.pdf.

Dillon, G. K., J. M. Herynk, Z. A. Holden, P. Morgan, and R. P. Silverstein. 2012. FIRESEV severe fire potential, forest and 

woodland settings, 90th percentile 1,000-hour fuel moisture index. Raster digital data. http://www.frames.gov/firesev.

Drake, D., J. Hagar, C. Jordan, G. Lettman, C. Sheridan, T. Spies, and F. Swanson. 2008. Western Oregon Plan Revision Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement: Science Team Review. Unpublished report. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/files/Science_Team_Review_DEIS.pdf.

Eidenshink, J., B. Schwind, K. Brewer, Z. L. Zhu, B. Quayle, and B. and S. Howard. 2007. A project for monitoring trends in 

burn severity. Fire Ecology 3: 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0301003.

Ganey, J. L., S. C. Kyle, T. A. Rawlinson, D. L. Apprill, and J. P. Ward. 2014. Relative abundance of small mammals in nest 

core areas and burned wintering areas of Mexican spotted owls in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. The Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 126(1): 47–52. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_ganey_j002.pdf.

Gedalof, Z., D. L. Peterson, and N. J. Mantua. 2005. Atmospheric, climatic, and ecological controls on extreme wildfire years in 

the northwestern United States. Ecological Applications 15(1): 154–174.

http://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=38800&content=PDF.

Halofsky, J. E., D. C. Donato, D. E. Hibbs, J. L. Campbell, M. Donaghy Cannon, J. B. Fontaine, J. R. Thompson, R. G. Anthony, 

B. T. Bormann, L. J. Kayes, B. E. Law, D. L. Peterson, and T. A. Spies. 2011. Mixed-severity fire regimes: lessons and 

hypotheses from the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion. Ecosphere 2(4): Article 40.

http://lterdev.fsl.orst.edu/lter/pubs/pdf/pub4659.pdf.

Hessl, A. E., D. McKenzie, and R. Schellhaas. 2004. Drought and Pacific Decadal Oscillation linked to fire occurrence in the 

inland Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications 14(2): 425–442. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4493549.

Keane, R. E., P. M. Morgan, G. K. Dillon, P. G. Sikkink, E. C. Karau, S. A. Drury, and Z. A. Holden. 2013. A fire severity 

mapping system for real-time fire management applications and long-term planning: the FIRESEV project. Final Report: 

JFSP-09-1-07-4. 18 pp. http://www.firescience.gov/index.cfm.

Kennedy, M. C., and M. C. Johnson. 2014. Fuel treatment prescriptions alter spatial patterns of fire severity around the wildlandurban interface during the Wallow Fire, Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 318: 122–132.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2014_kennedy001.pdf.

Littell, J. S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned in western U.S. 

ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecological Applications 19(4): 1003–1021.

http://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=34676&content=PDF.

Littell, J. S., E. E. Oneil, D. McKenzie, J.A. Hicke, J.A. Lutz, R.A. Norheim, and M.M. Elsner. 2010. Forest ecosystems, 

disturbance, and climate change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 102(1–2): 129–158.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2010_littell001.pdf.

Loudermilk, E. L., R. M. Scheller, P. J. Weisberg, J. Yang, T. E. Dilts, S. L. Karam, and C. Skinner. 2013. Carbon dynamics in 

the future forest: the importance of long-term successional legacy and climate-fire interactions. Global Change Biology 

19(11): 3502–3515. http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/psw/partnerships/tahoescience/documents/p049_Loudermilk2013.pdf.

McClure, R. 2005. Washington’s “awful conflagration”— The Yacolt Fire of 1902. Fire Management Today 65(1): 24–27.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire and conservation. Conservation Biology

18(4): 890–902. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3589163.
1244 | P a g e

Miller, J. D., C. N. Skinner, H. D. Safford, E. E. Knapp, and C. M. Ramirez. 2012. Trends and causes of severity, size and 

number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications 22(1): 184–203.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/skinner/psw_2012_skinner001.pdf.

Morris, W. G. 1935. The details of the Tillamook fire from its origin to the salvage of the killed trees. Unpublished report. On file 

with: National Archives Records Admin., Pacific Alaska Region, 6125 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115–7999. 26 

pp.

Pollet, J., and P. Omi. 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1–10. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WF01045.pdf.

Prichard, S. J., D. L. Peterson, and K. Jacobson. 2010. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer 

forest, Washington, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 40(8): 1615–1626.

http://pubag.nal.usda.gov/pubag/downloadPDF.xhtml?id=45309&content=PDF.

Rogers, B. M., R. P. Neilson, R. Drapek, J. M. Lenihan, J. R. Wells, D. Bachelet, and B. E. Law. 2011. Impacts of climate 

change on fire regimes and carbon stocks of the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences 

116(G3). http://terraweb.forestry.oregonstate.edu/pubs/Rogers_2011.pdf.

Spracklen, D. V., L. J. Mickley, and J. A. Logan. 2009. Impacts of climate change from 2000 to 2050 on wildfire activity and 

carbonaceous aerosol concentrations in the Western United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 

114(D20). http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010966.

Stevens-Rumann, C., K. Shive, P. Fulé, and C. H. Sieg. 2013. Pre-wildfire fuel reduction treatments result in more resilient forest 

structure a decade after wildfire. Int. J. Wildland Fire 22(8): 1108–1117.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2013_stevens_rumann_c001.pdf.

Tempel, D., R. J. Gutiérrez, S. Whitmore, M. Reetz, R. Stoelting, W. Berigan, M. E. Seamans, and M. Z. Peery. 2014. Effects of 

forest management on California spotted owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological 

Applications 24(8): 2089–2106. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/13-2192.1.

USDI FWS. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. 

Federal Register 55: 26114–26194.

---. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 

258 pp. http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pdf.

---. 2012. Modeling and analysis procedures used to identify and evaluate potential critical habitat networks for the northern 

spotted owl, submitted to the Federal Register November 21, 2012. USFWS Region 1, Portland, OR. 48 pp. Unpublished 

manuscript available at 

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/species/data/northernspottedowl/Documents/MODEL_SUPP_Dunk2012AppC.pdf.

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U.S. 

forest fire activity. Science 313: 940–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1128834.

Wimberly, M. C., and Z. Liu. 2014. Interactions of climate, fire, and management in future forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.043.

Yang, Z., R. Davis, A. Yost, C. Belongie, and W. Cohen. (In prep). The Normal Fire Environment-Modeling Large Wildfire 

Suitability using Past, Present, and Future Climate Normals for Oregon and Washington, USA. Manuscript in preparation. 

33 pp.
1245 | P a g e

Appendix E – Air Quality

Estimating Emissions from Wildfires

Wildfire emissions are much more difficult to estimate compared to fuels treatments since there are no 

records of how much material any given fire consumes. Due to differences in the type of available data, 

BLM used two different methods for estimating particulate emissions from past and future wildfires.

Past Wildfires

The BLM downloaded records of all wildfires for the Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, 

and Salem Districts from the FAMWEB site (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/), imported 

them into FireFamily Plus 4.1, extracted all wildfires 100+ acres in size and exported this information to 

an Excel Spreadsheet. Using a variety of methods, the BLM deleted as many fires as could be identified 

that burned in the Lakeview Field Office to select just the data for the Klamath Falls Field Office. The 

BLM combined the data for Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem into one group and the data for Medford and 

Roseburg into another group. Over the 34-year period of record (1980–2013), 7,763 acres burned in the 

Coos Bay-Eugene-Salem group, 277,605 acres in the Medford-Roseburg group, and 29,447 acres in 

Klamath Falls Field Office.

The BLM downloaded assessments of burn severity for individual large fires that originated on BLMadministered lands between 1984 and 2012, the latest year available, from the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity website (http://mtbs.gov/data/individualfiredata.html). The BLM averaged acres burned in the 

difference categories of unburned to low, low, moderate, high, increased greenness, and mask, and 

calculated the proportion for each category. Mask areas consist of features such as clouds, water and rock 

as well as missing lines of image data. The BLM combined high, increased greenness, and mask into a 

single high severity category; and unburned to low and low into a single low severity category. The 

resulting proportions of area burned were 59.1 percent low severity, 21.8 percent mixed severity (i.e., 

moderate), and 19.0 percent high severity. Because the documented fire severity record is sparse, the 

BLM used these same severity proportions across the planning area.

Since preburn fuel loadings are not known, BLM used the Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) 

module in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and UW 2014) to select representative fuelbeds (Table E-1). Since 

the BLM did not know the relative proportion of each fuelbed included in each analysis group, it 

weighted all fuelbeds equally. In order to assess emissions from the different burn severities, BLM 

multiplied the total number of acres burned in each group by the proportional amount in the low, mixed, 

and high severity classes and created separate units in Fuel & Fire Tools. For example, the group 

comprised of Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts had three units labeled low, mixed, and high with 

assigned acres equaling the proportion estimated for each severity class (Table E-2). Each unit consisted 

of the set of fuelbeds selected through FCCS. The Consume module in Fuel & Fire Tools used this 

information to calculate greenhouse gas emissions for CO2 and CH4. Since the Consume module only 

uses 1000-hour and duff fuel moisture to drive the consumption algorithms, the BLM could not fully meet 

the intent of adjusting the amount of live fuel consumed.
1246 | P a g e

Table E-1. Fuels Characteristic Classification System fuelbeds used in each analysis group to estimate 

particulate emissions from wildfire

District/

Field Office Fuelbed Number Fuelbed Name Coos Bay 

– Eugene 

– Salem

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir

5 Douglas-fir – white fir

8 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – western redcedar/vine maple

9 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – western redcedar/vine maple

10 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – Sitka spruce

11 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – Sitka spruce

18 Douglas-fir/oceanspray

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

52 Douglas-fir – Pacific ponderosa pine/oceanspray

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir

322 Sitka spruce – western hemlock

Klamath Falls

20 Western juniper/curl-leaf mountain mahogany

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

25 Pinyon – Utah juniper

53 Pacific ponderosa pine

55 Western juniper/sagebrush

58 Western juniper/sagebrush

67 Interior ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

210 Pinyon – Utah juniper

Medford 

– Roseburg

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir

4 Douglas-fir/Ceanothus

5 Douglas-fir – white fir

6 Oregon white oak – Douglas-fir

7 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak

15 Jeffrey pine – red fir – white fir/greenleaf - snowbrush

16 Jeffrey pine – ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir – California black oak

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

37 Ponderosa pine – Jeffrey pine

38 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak

39 Sugar pine – Douglas-fir – oak

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir

215 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak

239 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak
1247 | P a g e

Table E-2. Acres, fuel moistures, and targeted consumption rates for live woody fuels in each severity 

class for past wildfires

Live Woody Fuels

Low Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

Mixed Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

High Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

1,000-hour Fuel Moisture 20% 10% 6%

Duff Moisture 200% 100% 10%

Shrub Black - 50% 100%

Crown Black - 50% 100%

District/

Field Office

Low Severity

(Acres)

Mixed Severity

(Acres)

High Severity

(Acres)

Coos Bay – Eugene – Salem 1,475 1,692 4,588

Klamath Falls 5,595 6,419 17,403

Medford – Roseburg 52,745 60,518 164,065

Large fires that originate on BLM-administered lands typically burn onto other lands. However, the future 

wildfire acres burned applied only to BLM-administered lands. In order to provide an appropriate 

comparison, BLM had to adjust the emissions from past fires downward. BLM calculated the average 

number of acres burned using the data for fires that originated on BLM-administered lands and compared 

that to the average number of acres burned just on BLM-administered lands as reported in Davis et al. 

(2014, p. 7), resulting in a reduction of 62 percent.

Future Wildfires

The Woodstock harvest model included wildfire under all alternatives and the Proposed RMP, with the 

number of polygons affected and the type of fire held constant. The BLM modeled only high- and mixedseverity fire. To estimate particulate emissions from future wildfires, the BLM used the estimated acres 

burned in mixed and high severity fires each period from the Woodstock model. Using the same set of 

FCCS fuelbeds from Table E-1 and the same fuel moistures and targeted consumption rates from Table 

E-2, the BLM used Consume to estimate the per acre emissions for particulate matter. Since low-severity 

fire was not included in Woodstock under the assumption that there was no impact to volume, BLM 

assumed no change in the proportional relationship between low-, mixed-, and high-severity fire and used 

the acres burned in mixed and high severity combined to estimate the acres burned in low severity fire. 

The BLM summarized the results on an average annual basis for each decade analyzed.

Estimating Emissions from Fuels Treatment

Past Fuels Treatments

The BLM based estimates of particulate emissions from past prescribed burning on estimated tons of 

biomass consumed as reported to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) under the State’s smoke 

management plan (http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/smp/smkmgtannualrpts.aspx). ODF’s reports 

include prescribed burns on BLM-administered lands in the Other Federal category, which includes U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and consolidates prescribed burns for both Lake 

and Klamath Counties into a single number. The BLM conducts most of prescribed burning in the Other 

Federal category, as indicated by the harvest records. The BLM calculated the particulates emitted from 
1248 | P a g e

burning wood by multiplying the tons consumed with standardized emission factors for PM10 and PM2.5

(Hardy et al. 2001, p. 100).

Future Fuels Treatments

The BLM used two different methods to estimate emissions from future prescribed burning. For pile 

burning (hand piles, machine piles, and landing piles), the BLM used a standard description for each type 

of pile (size, shape, and composition) and a standard estimate of the number of piles per acre to estimate 

emissions per acre using the pile utility in Consume. The BLM then multiplied these estimates by the 

number of acres treated by piling. The Woodstock model provided estimates of the acres treated by each 

type of piling method for harvest treatments and historical averages used for the hazardous fuels program. 

For broadcast and under burning, BLM selected a single representative fuel bed for each district that 

would result in the approximate number of tons consumed that had been estimated by past burning, as 

reported by the Interdisciplinary Team’s Fuels Specialist.

Uncertainty in Hazardous Fuels Emissions

The hazardous fuels program encompasses relatively wide interannual variability in emissions due to 

higher variability in the fuels treated. To estimate this variability, the BLM conducted two types of 

analyses to evaluate pile burning and broadcast burning. To estimate the variability in both hand pile and 

machine pile burning, the BLM used the online pile calculator provided by FERA (available at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/smoke/piles/) to explore the potential differences in emissions 

arising from different pile shapes, pile sizes, and number of piles per acre. To explore the variability in 

underburns/broadcast burns, the BLM estimated emissions by assuming that all acres were the same 

fuelbed as estimated for Klamath Falls Field Office (low end) and the same fuelbed as estimated for 

Medford-Roseburg (high end). The BLM did not change the estimated acres burned for each treatment 

type.

References

Davis, R., L. Evers, Y. Gallimore, J. Volpe, and C. Belongie. 2014. Modeling large stochastic wildfires and fire severity within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. Unpublished report.

Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team (FERA), and University of Washington (UW). 2014. Fuel & Fire Tools. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

Hardy, C. C., R. D. Ottmar, J. L. Peterson, J. E. Core, and P. Seamon, editors. 2001. Smoke management guide for prescribed 

and wildland fire 2001 edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group, Boise, ID.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2001_ottmar001.pdf.
1249 | P a g e

Appendix F – Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

This appendix provides detailed information about Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). 

Table F-1 shows ACECs by alternative and the Proposed RMP, and includes the relevant and important 

value categories, acreages, and designations. For each action alternative and the Proposed RMP, the BLM 

assigned each potential ACEC to one following categories as shown in Table F-1: 

 Yes, the BLM would designate the entire potential ACEC. The area requires special management 

to maintain relevant and important values and management would not preclude O&C sustainedyield timber harvest at the stand level in the Harvest Land Base, recreation management in 

Special Recreation Management Areas, or meeting the management objectives of underlying 

lands with special designations. Special management may condition, but not preclude, O&C 

sustained-yield timber production and recreation management. 

 Yes_a, the BLM would designate a portion of the potential ACEC. The BLM removed portions 

of the potential ACEC where special management would conflict with O&C sustained-yield 

timber harvest or recreation management in Special Recreation Management Areas. The BLM 

determined that the remaining area still supports relevant and important values needing special 

management. 

 No, the BLM would not designate the potential ACEC because the area does not require special 

management to maintain the relevant and important values. Other land designations or land use 

allocations provide management necessary to retain the relevant and important values. 

 No1, the BLM would not designate the potential ACEC because of conflicts with other 

management pursuits. 

 No_a, BLM would not designate the potential ACEC because the special management required to 

maintain the relevant and important values would preclude O&C sustained-yield timber harvest in 

the Harvest Land Base.

Map F-1 displays the ACECs within the planning area by location number identified for each ACEC in 

Table F-1. Table F-2 provides information about the special management direction that would be applied 

if the ACEC becomes designated. Table F-3 contains specific information about the relevant and 

important values for each ACEC. 
1250 | Page

INSERT MAP HERE 

Map F-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within the planning area 
1251 | P a g e

Table F-1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designations by alternative and the Proposed RMP District/ Field Office

Location

Number 

on

Map F-1

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

ACEC Designation Categories

(codes explained above) Relevant and Important Value Category

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Coos Bay

1 Brownson Ridge 398 Yes Yes Yes_a Yes_a Yes Natural processes

2 Cherry Creek RNA 579 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

3 China Wall 304 Yes Yes Yes Yes_a Yes Historical, natural processes

4 Euphoria Ridge 241 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

5 Hunter Creek Bog 721 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

6 New River 1,135 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

7 North Fork Chetco 431 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

8 North Fork Coquille River 129 Yes Yes Yes Yes_a Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

9 North Fork Hunter Creek 1,924 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

10 North Spit 709 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, fish and wildlife, natural processes

11 North Spit Addition 45 No No No No No Natural processes

12 Rocky Peak 1,827 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

13 Roman Nose 52 Yes Yes Yes Yes_a Yes Natural processes

74 Rough and Ready* 1,189† Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

14 Steel Creek 1,091 No No No No No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

15 Tioga Creek 41 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

16 Upper Rock Creek 472 Yes Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes

79 Waldo-Takilma 1,757† Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, cultural, natural processes

17 Wassen Creek* 1,959 Yes Yes Yes Yes_a Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

80 West Fork Illinois River 

RNA* 1,284 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

Eugene

18 Camas Swale RNA 315 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

19 Cottage Grove Old Growth 76 No_a No_a No_a Yes Yes Natural processes

20 Cougar Mountain Yew Grove 9 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

21 Dorena Prairie 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes
1252 | P a g e District/ Field Office

Location

Number 

on

Map F-1

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

ACEC Designation Categories

(codes explained above) Relevant and Important Value Category

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

22 Esmond Lake 351 Yes Yes No_a Yes_a Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

23 Ferguson Creek 23 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

24 Fox Hollow RNA 161 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

25 Garoutte Prairie 46 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

26 Grandmother’s Grove 63 Yes Yes Yes_a Yes_a Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

27 Grassy Mountain 65 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Natural processes

28 Heceta Sand Dunes 210 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

29 Horse Rock Ridge RNA 377 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

30 Hult Marsh 167 No1 Yes Yes No1 No1 Natural processes

31 Jordan Creek 21 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

32 Lake Creek Falls 54 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, historical, fish and wildlife, natural processes, natural 

hazards

33 Lorane Ponderosa Pine 106 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

34 Low Elevation Headwaters

of the McKenzie River 4,360 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

35 McGowan Meadow 71 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes

36 Mohawk RNA 289 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

37 Nails Creek 57 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

38 Oak Basin Prairies 224 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

39 Upper Elk Meadows RNA 214 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

40 Upper Willamette Valley 

Margin* 5,973 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes

41 Willamette Valley Prairie 

Oak and Pine Area 1,664 Yes Yes Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes

Klamath Falls

42 Bumpheads 113 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, natural processes

43 Old Baldy RNA 355 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

44 Spencer Creek 137 No No_a No_a No_a No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

45 Surveyor 182 No No No No No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

46 Tunnel Creek 79 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes
1253 | P a g e

District/Field Office

Location

Number 

on

Map F-1

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

ACEC Designation Categories

(codes explained above) Relevant and Important Value Category

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

47 Upper Klamath River* 5,206 Yes No_a No_a Yes Yes_a Historical, cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife

48 Upper Klamath River 

Addition* 874 Yes No_a No_a Yes Yes_a Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

49 Yainax Butte 706 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

Medford

50 Baker Cypress 43 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

51 Bobby Creek RNA 1,914 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

52 Brewer Spruce RNA 1,704 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

53 Cobleigh Road 1,096 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, natural processes

54 Dakubetede 1,781 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Cultural, natural processes

55 Deer Creek 4,090 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

56 East Fork Whiskey Creek 

RNA 3,135 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Natural processes

57 Eight Dollar Mountain 1,250 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

58 French Flat 652 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

59 Grayback Glades RNA 1,018 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

60 Green Springs Mountain 

Scenic 959 No No No No No Scenic

61 Hole-in-the-Rock 63 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, natural processes

62 Holton Creek RNA 421 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

63 Hoxie Creek 256 No No_a No_a No No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

64 Iron Creek 285 No No No No No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

65 King Mountain Rock Garden 67 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

66 Lost Lake RNA 386 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

67 Moon Prairie 27 No No_a No No Yes_a Natural processes

68 North Fork Silver Creek 

RNA 499 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

69 Old Baldy RNA 115 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

70 Pickett Creek 78 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

71 Pipe Fork RNA 516 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes
1254 | P a g e District/ Field Office

Location

Number 

on

Map F-1

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

ACEC Designation Categories

(codes explained above) Relevant and Important Value Category

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

72 Poverty Flat 29 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

73 Reeves Creek 118 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

74 Rough and Ready* 1,189† Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

75 Round Top Butte RNA 606 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

76 Sterling Mine Ditch 143 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, natural processes

77 Table Rocks 1,282 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

78 Tin Cup 82 No No No No No Fish and wildlife, natural processes

79 Waldo-Takilma 1,757† Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, cultural, natural processes

81 Woodcock Bog RNA 264 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

Roseburg

82 Bear Gulch RNA 351 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

83 Beatty Creek RNA 1,235 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

84 Bushnell-Irwin Rocks RNA 1,089 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural

85 Callahan Meadows RNA 82 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

86 Myrtle Island RNA 20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

87 North Bank 6,523 Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Yes_a Fish and wildlife, natural processes, cultural

88 North Myrtle Creek RNA 453 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

89 Red Ponds RNA 141 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

90 Tater Hill RNA 304 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes, natural hazard

Salem

91 Beaver Creek 24 No No No No No Natural processes

92 Crabtree Complex RNA 1,251 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

93 Elk Creek* 940 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

94 Forest Peak RNA 160 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

95 Grass Mountain RNA 1,305 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

96 High Peak - Moon Creek 

RNA 1,500 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

97 Little North Fork Wilson 

River 1,825 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

98 Little Sink RNA 80 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

99 Lost Prairie 60 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes
1255 | P a g e

District/Field Office

Location

Number 

on

Map F-1

ACEC Name

Total 

Area 

(Acres)

ACEC Designation Categories

(codes explained above) Relevant and Important Value Category

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

100 Lower Scappoose Eagle 314 Yes Yes No_a Yes Yes Fish and wildlife

101 Mary’s Peak ONA 491 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, natural processes

102 McCully Mountain 102 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

103 Middle Santiam Terrace 206 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cultural, natural processes

104 Mill Creek Ridge 113 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

105 Molalla Meadows 144 No No No No No Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

106 Nestucca River* 1,179 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife

107 Rickreall Ridge 604 Yes Yes No_a Yes Yes Natural processes

108 Saddle Bag Mountain RNA 304 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

109 Sandy River ONA* 11,045 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

110 Silt Creek 118 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, fish and wildlife, natural processes

111 Snow Peak 1,186 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Historical, fish and wildlife, natural processes

112 Soosap Meadows 343 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

113 The Butte RNA 41 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

114 Valley of the Giants* 1,667 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

115 Walker Flat 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

116 Waterloo 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Natural processes

117 White Rock Fen 66 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fish and wildlife, natural processes

118 Wilhoit Springs 136 Yes_a Yes_a No_a No_a Yes_a Historical, natural processes

119 Williams Lake 74 Yes No_a No_a Yes No_a Natural processes

120 Yaquina Head ONA 91 No No No No No Cultural, scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

121 Yellowstone Creek* 805 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scenic, fish and wildlife, natural processes

* ACEC designation acres would be less than the acres analyzed due to priority given to preservation designations, such as national designations, designated and suitable Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, the Pacific Crest Trail, Wilderness Study Areas, and District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics.

† The Rough and Ready and Waldo-Takilma ACECs include acres on both the Coos Bay and Medford Districts.
1256 | P a g e

Table F-2. Management direction for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Coos Bay

Brownson 

Ridge Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation (including timber 

harvest) to promote late-successional 

structure in younger stands

N/A

Cherry Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Withdrawn in 1965 by PLO 3530 No timber harvest N/A

China Wall Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

meadow habitat. N/A

Euphoria 

Ridge Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

N/A N/A

Hunter Creek 

Bog Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

bog habitat N/A

New River Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

meadow and plover habitats N/A

North Fork 

Chetco Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Recommend for 

withdrawal

Manage vegetation (including timber 

harvest) to promote late-successional 

structure in younger stands; conduct 

treatments to control sudden oak death 

disease

N/A

North Fork 

Coquille River Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest N/A

North Fork 

Hunter Creek Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

meadow, oak woodland, shrub, and Jeffery 

pine habitats

N/A

North Spit Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Withdrawn in 2000 Manage vegetation to restore and maintain wetland and plover habitats N/A

North Spit 

Addition Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Withdrawn in 2000 N/A N/A

Rocky Peak Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

meadow habitat N/A
1257 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Roman Nose Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to restore and maintain 

meadow habitat N/A

Steel Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable No timber harvest N/A

Tioga Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest N/A

Upper Rock 

Creek Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy

Low 

Potential, 

Closure Not 

Necessary

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest N/A

Wassen Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

West Fork 

Illinois River Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Eugene

Camas Swale Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed N/A N/A

Cottage Grove 

Old Growth Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable No timber harvest

Cougar 

Mountain Yew 

Grove

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Dorena Prairie Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Previously withdrawn N/A

Esmond Lake Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable

Manage young stands for late-successional 

forest; preclude harvest in existing late 

successional stands

N/A

Ferguson 

Creek Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Restoration management for prairie/oak/woodland N/A

Fox Hollow Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is N/A

Garoutte 

Prairie Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Previously withdrawn N/A N/A
1258 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Grandmother’s 

Grove Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable

Maintain, protect, or restore natural 

processes or systems; Forest management 

for maintenance and restoration of R&Is

N/A

Grassy 

Mountain Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management to maintain 

hydrological integrity of 

meadow/grassland

N/A

Heceta Sand 

Dunes Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for restoration 

management of dunes N/A

Horse Rock 

Ridge Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is N/A

Hult Marsh Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management to maintain scenic quality and hydrologic function N/A

Jordan Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest restoration management for pine/oak/woodland N/A

Lake Creek 

Falls Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable N/A N/A

Lorane 

Ponderosa Pine Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is N/A

Low Elevation 

Headwaters of 

the McKenzie 

River

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Recommend for 

withdrawal area 

originally identified 

as Marten Bald

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is N/A

McGowan 

Meadow Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal Manage for meadow habitat. N/A

Mohawk Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is. N/A

Nails Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Geology not suitable Forest management for maintenance and restoration of R&Is N/A

Oak Basin 

Prairies Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is; enhance oak habitats N/A

Upper Elk 

Meadows Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is N/A

Upper 

Willamette 

Valley Margin

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is N/A
1259 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Willamette 

Valley Prairie 

Oak and Pine 

Area

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is N/A

Klamath Falls

Bumpheads Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal N/A Maintain gap fence to exclude livestock

Old Baldy Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Spencer Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Forest management for maintenance and 

restoration of R&Is Closed

Surveyor Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Open with stipulations: 

fencing to control livestock 

grazing

Tunnel Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest

Open with stipulations: 

fencing to keep livestock

out of sensitive wetland 

areas

Upper Klamath 

River Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Upper Klamath 

River Addition Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Closed

Yainax Butte Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest Maintain current management

Medford

Baker Cypress Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Thin Baker’s cypress stand and adjacent 

mixed-conifer stands, pile burn, and 

broadcast burn to stimulate Baker’s 

cypress regeneration

N/A

Bobby Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Brewer Spruce Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Cobleigh Road Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to improve and 

maintain habitat for Gentner’s fritillary

Open with stipulations: 

monitor important values 

and fence or implement 

other protection measures 

if needed
1260 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Dakubetede Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and 

habitat for Gentner’s fritillary and other 

rare plants

N/A

Deer Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Ensure protection of cave system 

microclimate and water quality during 

vegetation management treatments

N/A

East Fork 

Whiskey Creek Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Eight Dollar 

Mountain Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to improve and maintain habitat for rare 

plants

N/A

French Flat Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to improve and maintain habitat for Cook’s 

lomatium

N/A

Grayback 

Glades Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Green Springs 

Mountain

Scenic

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to maintain meadows 

and oak woodlands

Open with stipulations: 

monitor important values 

and fence or implement 

other protection measures 

if needed

Hole-in-theRock Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Maintain no-harvest buffer around arch to 

protect from damage and to maintain 

scenic value

Current Condition

Holton Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Hoxie Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Limited treatments for restoration and fire 

resiliency, potentially resulting in 

commercial products

Open with stipulations: 

monitor important values 

and fence or implement 

other protection measures 

if needed

Iron Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal N/A N/A
1261 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

King Mountain 

Rock Garden Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Lost Lake Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest Closed

Moon Prairie Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Use uneven-aged management to improve 

forest structure and fire resiliency while 

retaining legacy trees

Current Condition

North Fork 

Silver Creek Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Old Baldy Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

No timber harvest Closed

Pickett Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to improve and maintain habitat for 

Gentner’s fritillary

N/A

Pipe Fork Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Poverty Flat Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Conduct prescribed burns or other 

treatments to maintain vernal pool habitat

Closed: maintain existing 

fences

Reeves Creek Limited Open–No Surface

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to improve and maintain habitat for Cook’s 

lomatium

N/A

Rough and 

Ready Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Round Top 

Butte Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Manage vegetation to maintain natural 

communities

Closed: maintain existing 

fences

Sterling Mine 

Ditch Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A
1262 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Table Rocks Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain and 

enhance rare plant habitat, oak woodlands, 

and other vegetation communities

Closed

Tin Cup Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed

Low potential, 

withdrawal not 

necessary

Limited treatments for restoration and fire 

resiliency, potentially resulting in 

commercial products

Open with stipulations: 

monitor important values 

and construct fencing or 

implement other protection 

measures if needed

WaldoTakilma Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend forwithdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Woodcock Bog Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation for fire resiliency and 

to maintain natural communities and rare 

plant habitat

N/A

Roseburg

Bear Gulch Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Beatty Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Bushnell-Irwin 

Rocks Closed

Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Callahan 

Meadows Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Myrtle Island Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

North Bank Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain oak and 

conifer woodlands according to the North 

Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC 

Record of Decision, Habitat Management 

Plan and Monitoring Plan (USDI BLM 

2001)

N/A

North Myrtle 

Creek Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A
1263 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Red Ponds Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Tater Hill Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Salem

Beaver Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain oak 

woodland and native prairie flora N/A

Crabtree 

Complex Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the LSR and RR, manage vegetation with 

limited silvicultural treatments of the 

Outstanding Natural Area to maintain and 

enhance the scenic quality and native plant 

communities

N/A

Elk Creek Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation with selection harvests 

and variable retention to promote the 

development or maintenance of late seral 

habitat in previously entered stands

N/A

Forest Peak Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Grass 

Mountain Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

High Peak -

Moon Creek Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Little North 

Fork Wilson 

River

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to promote the 

development or maintenance of late seral 

habitat

N/A

Little Sink Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A
1264 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Lost Prairie Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA 

suballocation, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values;

manage vegetation to maintain and 

enhance the fen and meadow habitats, rare 

botanical species occurrences, mixed 

conifer species, and older forest structure;

Management can include projects in young 

stands to promote the development of oldgrowth characteristics and to reduce fire 

hazards

N/A

Lower 

Scappoose 

Eagle

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain or enhance 

bald eagle habitat; consistent with 

management direction for the O&C harvest 

land base MITA suballocation, design 

timber harvests with consideration to 

maintain the R&I values

N/A

Mary’s Peak Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to enhance scenic, 

botanical, and wildlife habitat values N/A

McCully 

Mountain Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain meadow 

and forest edge habitat N/A

Middle 

Santiam 

Terrace

Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA 

suballocation, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values

N/A

Mill Creek 

Ridge Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation primarily to enhance 

oak and meadow habitats and to maintain 

botanical, wildlife and natural system 

values; consistent with management 

direction for the O&C harvest land base 

LITA suballocation, design timber 

harvests with consideration to maintain the 

R&I values

N/A
1265 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Molalla 

Meadows Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to enhance oak 

woodland, native prairie flora and to 

maintain the scattered Oregon white oaks; 

vegetation management may include 

limited timber harvest with an emphasis on 

maintaining the R&I values

N/A

Nestucca River Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to maintain and 

enhance scenic and wildlife values N/A

Rickreall 

Ridge Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base LITA 

suballocation, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values;

manage vegetation (including timber 

harvests) to enhance the mosaic of special 

habitats and plant communities, with 

emphasis on protecting native plant 

communities and microclimate around the 

ridge in the northeastern corner

N/A

Saddle Bag 

Mountain Closed Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Sandy River Limited

Open–No Surface 

Occupancy for 

most of the ACEC, 

minerals are owned 

by non-Federal 

entities in portions 

of parcels 14 and 

33

Closed for 

most of the 

ACEC, 

minerals are 

owned by 

non-Federal 

entities in 

portions of 

parcels 14 

and 33

Recommend for 

withdrawal for most 

of the ACEC, 

minerals are owned 

by non-Federal 

entities in portions of 

parcels 14 and 33

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA and 

LITA suballocations, design timber 

harvests with consideration to maintain the 

R&I values; forest management on the 

lands acquired with LWCF funding in T. 2 

S., R. 5 E., Sections 9–16, that are also in 

the HLB, would comply with the LWCF

Act; manage vegetation to maintain or 

restore native plant communities through 

invasive plant treatments and native 

plantings

N/A

Silt Creek Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest: Active landslide area N/A
1266 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Snow Peak Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA 

suballocation, design timber harvests with 

consideration to maintain the R&I values; 

management for the R&I values would not 

preclude sustained-yield timber harvest

N/A

Soosap 

Meadows Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA and 

LITA suballocations, design timber 

harvests to maintain existing hydrologic 

conditions and the natural ecology of the 

subalpine meadows.

N/A

The Butte Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Valley of the 

Giants Limited

BLM does not own 

sub-surface 

mineral rights, 

except for T. 7 S., 

R. 8 W., Section 

31 NE1⁄4

Closed Recommend for 

withdrawal

Consistent with management direction for 

the O&C harvest land base MITA and 

LITA suballocations, design timber 

harvests to not detract from the 

maintenance of the R&I values; manage 

vegetation with an emphasis on 

maintaining and restoring the R&I values

N/A

Walker Flat Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

No timber harvest: manage vegetation to 

maintain meadow habitat N/A

Waterloo Closed Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

White Rock 

Fen Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Wilhoit 

Springs Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal No timber harvest N/A

Williams Lake Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation, including uneven-age 

and variable retention timber harvests, 

with an emphasis on maintaining existing 

hydrologic conditions to protect the fragile 

lakeside native plant community

N/A
1267 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name

Public Motorized 

Access

Designation*

Leasable Mineral 

Entry

Salable 

Mineral 

Entry

Locatable Mineral 

Entry Vegetation Management Livestock Grazing Management

Yaquina Head Limited Open–No Surface 

Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation management to 

enhance the multiple relevant and 

important values, with emphasis on 

protecting native plant communities and 

meadow habitat; as needed, thin thick 

stands of coastal pine

N/A

Yellowstone 

Creek Limited Open–No Surface Occupancy Closed Recommend for withdrawal

Manage vegetation to promote old growth 

characteristics and reduce fire hazards N/A

* Public motorized access designations include either closed or limited designations. In ACECs designated as closed for public motorized access, all types of public motorized 

travel would be prohibited anywhere within the area. In ACECs designated as limited for public motorized access, public motorized travel activities would be restricted to existing 

routes and trails. Subsequent implementation-level travel management planning would refine limited designations to identify specific routes and trails appropriate for public 

motorized travel, and would apply restrictions to times/seasons of use and types of vehicles. The New River and North Spit ACECs and the North Spit Addition proposal in Coos 

Bay have previously had implementation-level travel management planning completed within their boundaries, which has designated specific roads and trails for appropriate 

public uses.
1268 | P a g e

Table F-3. Specific relevant and important values District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Coos Bay

Brownson 

Ridge Potential Marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl

Well-developed Port-Orford-cedar 

stand with all age classes; potential 

to fill ONHP cell for Port-Orfordcedar/Douglas-fir forest with dry 

shrubs/forbs; rare fungi: 

Phaeocollybia attenuata, P. 

piceae, P. sipei, and Sparassis 

crispa

Cherry Creek 

RNA Existing Marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl

Mid 1700s birthdate with remnant 

445-year-old Douglas-fir; fills

(Western hemlock/oxalis; Western 

hemlock/rhododendron-Oregon 

grape) fills 3 ONHP cells; contains 

a rare plant (Diplophyllum 

plicatum) and rare fungi 

(Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva)

China Wall Existing

Remnant of historic Brewster 

Trail; two prehistoric sites, all 

eligible National Register of 

Historic Places

Northern spotted owl

Unique plants associated with bald 

meadows; these meadows 

accounted for 72 percent of the 

botanical diversity of the area; a

total of 170 species of vascular 

plants are documented, including

10 species of trees, 20 species of 

shrub, 12 species of grasses, sedges 

and rushes, and 122 species of 

forbs; Spring Phacelia (Phacelia 

verna) is located in 2 of the 8 

meadows

Euphoria Ridge Potential Marbled murrelet and northern 

spotted owl

Old-growth western red cedar 

stand series rare in Coast Range at 

this elevation (potential ONHP 

Coast Range cell)

Hunter Creek 

Bog Existing

Fills ONHP Coast Range 

Ecoregion Cell; botany – large, 

diverse serpentine bog
1269 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

New River Existing Prehistoric sites

Western snowy plover, 

northwestern pond turtle, coho and 

chinook salmon, cutthroat and 

steelhead trout 

Fills 2 ONHP Coastal lowlands 

ecological cells; 17 rare species:

Calypogeia sphagnicola , Limbella 

fryei, Heterodermia leucomelos, 

Niebla cephalota, Ramalina 

pollinaria , pink sandverbena 

(Abronia umbellata ssp. 

breviflorus), beach sagewort 

(Artemesia pyconocephala), dwarf 

brodiaea (Brodiaea terrestris), 

short-stemmed sedge (Carex

brevicaulis), timwort (Cicendia 

quadrangularis), coastal cryptantha 

(Cryptantha leiocarpa), russet 

cotton-grass (Eriophorum 

chamissonis), many-leaved gilia 

(Gillia millifoliata), whorled marsh 

pennywort (Hydrocotyle 

verticillata), silvery phacelia 

(Phacelia argentea), white beakrush 

(Rhynchospora alba), and humped 

bladderwort (Utricularia gibba)

North Fork 

Chetco Existing

Undisturbed cultural site 

potentially eligible for addition to 

the National Register of Historic 

Places

Anadromous fish habitat - sea run 

cutthroat trout; marbled murrelet 

and northern spotted owl

Fills 2 ONHP Coast Range cells;

riparian hardwood forest along a 

major river 4th order stream 

segment on coastal stream with 

California laurel riparian forest in

the Klamath Mountains Province

North Fork 

Coquille River Existing

High-quality, extremely highdensity coho salmon spawning;

marbled murrelet and northern 

spotted owl

Old-growth riparian Douglasfir/hardwood community on intact 

4

th order stream

North Fork 

Hunter Creek Existing Historic cabin sites/trail; prehistoric sites.

Important spawning and rearing 

habitat for chinook salmon, 

steelhead, sea-run and resident 

cutthroat trout

Fills 4 ONHP cells. Undisturbed 

old-growth Port-Orford-cedar, and 

oak/grass savannah; Hairy 

manzanita (Arctostaphylos 

hispidula); remnant Jeffrey pine 

(Pinus jeffreyi) savannah
1270 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

North Spit Existing

Scenic coastal landscapes 

comprised of dunes, deflation 

plain wetlands and Sitka Spruce 

forest islands; historic US 

Lifeguard Service sites and 

artifacts, and potential prehistoric 

site

Western snowy plover, marbled 

murrelet, northwestern pond turtle, 

purple martin, Newcomb’s 

littorine snail

Numerous outstanding plant 

associations and wetlands; 

Special status plants: Bryoria 

pseudocapillaris, Bryoria 

spiralifera, Point Reyes bird’sbeak (Cordylanthes maritimus 

ssp. palustris), Heterodermia 

leucomela, Niebla cephalota

Natural Heritage Marine and 

Estuarine Special Species Cell,

Coast Range Special Species Cell.

North Spit 

Addition Potential

Potential to fill 3 ONHP Coast 

Range Special Species Cells; fills 

ONHP Ecological Cell (Sitka 

spruce-Port-Orford- cedar forest 

on sand [Picea sitchensis/

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana]).

Rocky Peak Potential

Historic trail and lookout sites; 

panoramic views of coastline 

plains, foothills, and ocean

Habitat for northern spotted owl, 

fringed myotis, foothill yellowlegged frog, spotted tail-dropper; 

documented marbled murrelet

ONHP special species Siskiyou 

monardella (Monardella 

purpurea); rare meadow, knobcone pine plant communities

Roman Nose Potential

Sweeping views of forest 

landscape from highest point in 

local region

Rare example of Oregon Coast 

Range grassy bald system

Steel Creek Potential Portion of historic Brewster Trail

Sea-run and resident cutthroat 

trout, chinook and coho salmon, 

steelhead trout, Pacific lamprey, 

marbled murrelet and northern 

spotted owl

Large, structurally complex 

unmanaged and undisturbed latesuccessional forest community 

uncommon in Coast Range; one 

of the most productive spawning 

reaches in Coquille Basin

Tioga Creek Existing

High quality stream/riparian 

conditions and spawning habitat 

for coho, steelhead, and cutthroat 

trout; northern spotted owl

400+ year old, old-growth 

riparian Douglas-fir/hardwood 

community on 4th order stream 

with high value as reference site
1271 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Upper Rock 

Creek Existing Marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl

Large red cedar dominated forest 

with sedge dominated wetlands; 

Fills Western red cedar-western 

hemlock/skunk cabbage ONHP 

Coast Range Ecological cell

Wassen Creek Existing

Scenic: Large block of 

undisturbed mid-age forest 

dissected by creek with several 

waterfalls, plunge pools, and 

small palustrine lake

Pure strain of native cutthroat

trout; northern spotted owl site

Fills ONHP Coast Range 

Ecoregion Palustrine Wetlands 

pond at mid to high elevation and 2

ONHP Western Hemlock 

association cells

West Fork 

Illinois River Potential

Represents ONAP cells for 

serpentine fens, western white pine 

forest, knobcone pine forest, and 

Jeffrey pine savannah and 

woodlands; supports rare plants, 

Howell’s mariposa lily 

(Calochortus howellii), Oregon 

willow-herb (Epilobium 

oreganum), Waldo gentian 

(Gentiana setigera), western bog 

violet (Viola primulifolia ssp. 

occidentalis)

Eugene

Camas Swale 

RNA Existing

Provides habitat for wildlife 

species, but does not explicitly list 

distinct species

The site is an example of a drysite, mature Douglas-fir forest in 

the Willamette Valley foothill, 

includes a small, xeric, meadow 

community; is included in the 

ONHP and is the best remaining 

example found for representing 

this plant community type in 

Oregon; it fills the natural heritage 

cell or element as: Douglasfir/swordfern and Douglasfir/Oregon grape forest
1272 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Cottage Grove 

Old Growth Existing

This site is within the City Creek 

spotted owl pair home range and 

contains suitable 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat

Douglas-fir old-growth stand; 

multiple canopy layers represent 

the late-successional stage of mesic 

Douglas-fir community with some 

existing older trees representing 

ages of 500+ years old

Cougar 

Mountain Yew 

Grove

Existing Good cavity nester habitat

One of the lowest elevation stands 

of Pacific Yew remaining in the 

Willamette Valley; an unique 

grove of record yew trees (70–500 

years old)

Dorena Prairie Potential

One of the few remaining 

representative examples of the less 

than 1 percent remaining native 

upland prairie plant community 

within the Willamette Valley

Esmond Lake Potential

Esmond Lake is one of ten lakes 

in the Coast Range caused by 

landslides and can only be reached 

by foot, which has left the lake in 

an undisturbed state

Coho salmon and steelhead 

migrate through Esmond Lake and 

spawn in tributaries above the lake; 

this lake appears to contain one of 

the best coho rearing habitats in the 

Siuslaw Basin on BLMadministered lands

Esmond Lake has an uncommon 

geologic feature formed by a large 

deep-seated landslide; spawning 

counts indicate that coho numbers 

are increasing in Esmond Creek 

drainage; Fissidens fontanus was 

thought to be extinct in Oregon 

until being found in the lake, and 

remains extant since discovery

Ferguson 

Creek Potential

Bureau Special Status wildlife 

species may benefit from 

increasing oak woodland habitats; 

oak trees provide an important 

mast resource; the current oak 

habitat is not extensive enough to 

provide quality habitat

This unit contains one of the only 

remaining stands of mature oak 

trees in substantial numbers; 

however, it is at risk due to the 

encroachment of Douglas-fir forest 

resulting from fire suppression
1273 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Fox Hollow 

RNA Existing

The site fills the natural area cell or 

element described in the ONHP as 

Douglas-fir/swordfern and 

Douglas-fir/Oregon grape forest; 

mixed stand of Douglas-fir and 

ponderosa pine is found on the 

south slopes and ridge tops, with 

minor amounts of Oregon white 

oak and incense-cedar; site is the 

best remaining example that could 

be found for representing these 

plant community types for Oregon

Garoutte 

Prairie Potential

Relic Willamette Valley prairie 

plant community currently 

occupying about 1% of its historic 

extent; invasive non-native plants 

are now displacing native plant 

species

Grandmother’s 

Grove Potential

Low elevation, unmanaged mature 

and late successional forest 

providing interior habitat and 

adjacent mid-seral stands 

contribute to these values; unique 

location above the valley floor

Grassy 

Mountain Existing Highly visible grassy bald Provides wildlife habitat, but no species explicitly documented

Site fills natural heritage cell or 

element as Blue wildrye or red 

fescue grass bald communities; 

vernal seepage slopes on low-mid 

elevation rocky bald communities, 

with monkey flower, saxifrages 

and moss; one of the finest 

undisturbed representative 

examples of a grassy bald on the

western margin of the Cascades
1274 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Heceta Sand 

Dunes ONA Existing

Scenic dune system; the widest 

dune sheets along the Oregon 

Coast; the coastline by Florence 

(Heceta region) extended outward 

four times farther than areas to the 

south; this wider shelf provided 

abundant fine sand for eolian 

transport from the south through 

northward littoral drift

Area potentially supports Bureau 

Special Status wildlife species

including: marbled murrelet, 

California brown pelican, whitetailed kite, American peregrine 

falcon, bald eagle, fringed myotis, 

Oregon plant bug, western bumble 

bee, horary elfin butterfly, insular 

blue butterfly

Seashore bluegrass association; red 

fescue association; shore 

pine/slough sedge association; 

shore pine/bearberry association; 

shore pine/hairy manzanita 

association; site is identified in the 

ONHP; several coastal endemic 

Bureau Special Status Species and 

the supporting plant communities 

are now rare along the coast

Horse Rock 

Ridge RNA Existing

Highly visible grassy bald and 

exemplary with views of the 

Cascade Mountains 

Provides wildlife habitat, but no 

species explicitly documented

The site fills a natural area cell or 

element in the Oregon Natural 

Areas Plan (ONAP 2015) and is 

one of the best remaining examples 

of West Cascades Ecoregion/shrub 

and Grassland type blue wildrye or 

Roemer’s fescue grass bald

communities

Hult Marsh Existing

Hult Marsh is situated in a 

peaceful, often serene and placid 

setting 

The site is the result of a manmade 

millpond; however, this large 

forested wetland/marsh > 35 acres is 

classified as significant under the 

Oregon Forest Practices Act; the 

site supports two Bureau Sensitive 

plants Utricularia gibba and 

Lycopodiella inundata.

Jordan Creek Potential

This 38-acre stand contains 

northern spotted owl dispersal 

habitat; releasing the oak habitat 

could run counter to management 

strategies for the northern spotted 

owl

Willamette oak woodland; a 

declining oak habitat; represents

just 10 percent of the original 

footprint observed pre-1850
1275 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Lake Creek 

Falls Existing

Lake Creek Falls is the only 

waterfall of its size in the Siuslaw 

Field Office; Numerous cultural 

and historic points of interest

Species that potentially utilize the

habitat or could be viewed from 

this ACEC: northern spotted owl, 

marbled murrelet, black swift, bald 

eagle, purple martin, Oregon red 

tree vole, Townsend’s big-eared

bat, fisher, fringed myotis, 

Cascades axetail slug, Roth’s blind 

ground beetle, western bumble bee,

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly

Large natural waterfalls are 

uncommon on higher order streams 

and rivers like Lake Creek

Popular swimming area with 

dangerous rocks/logs often 

submerged. The algae that creates 

a slippery rock slide also creates a 

very unstable walking surface in 

the stream. Sharp, poorly visible, 

underwater boulders in pools 

present hazards to divers. Unstable 

logs tend to jam up in the pools 

following winter floods and 

present hazards to swimmers.

Lorane 

Ponderosa Pine Potential

Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine; 

This population of ponderosa pine 

is considered a separate and 

distinct population from other 

ponderosa pine populations within 

Oregon. Decline of Pinus 

ponderosa var. willamettensis

stands both within the Willamette 

Valley and on Federal lands, less 

than 1 percent remain.

Low Elevation 

Headwaters of 

the McKenzie 

River

Potential

McKenzie River segment A (11 

miles) suitable for inclusion in 

National Wild and Scenic System 

as a Recreational Segment

Bull trout, Upper Willamette 

spring chinook, cutthroat trout,

northern spotted owl, tailed frog,

Harlequin duck

Unique large continuous block of 

native forest; Minimally disturbed 

blocks of land under 2,000 feet on 

the east side of Willamette Valley

McGowan 

Meadow Potential Proposed Celebrating Wildflower Site

Wet meadow with flora of both the 

Cascades and Willamette Valley 

ecoregions

Mohawk RNA Existing

Provides wildlife habitat, but no 

species explicitly documented; 

possible habitat for northern 

spotted owl

Fills a ONAP cell or element as: 

Douglas-fir/western 

hemlock/Oregon grape and salal 

forest; old-growth Douglas-fir and 

western hemlock within low 

elevation Willamette Valley 

foothills; site contains small marsh
1276 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Nails Creek Potential

Northern spotted owl dispersal 

habitat; releasing the oak habitat 

could run counter to management 

strategies for the northern spotted 

owl

Willamette oak woodland; a 

declining oak habitat; represents 

just 10% of the original footprint 

observed pre-1850

Oak Basin 

Prairies Potential Fender’s blue butterfly, Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly

Portions of a large upland prairie 

complex on the west side of the 

Coburg hills; Kincaid’s lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureous ssp. 

kincaidii), Hitchcock’s blue-eyed 

grass

Upper Elk 

Meadows RNA Existing

Four distinct plant communities: 

open, wet sedge meadow; wet red 

alder/willow/hawthorn thickets; 

open forest dominated by oldgrowth silver and grand fir; and 

closed forest dominated by oldgrowth Douglas-fir; has been 

selected as a part of an interagency 

network of sites to be retained and 

managed primarily for research 

and educational purposes

Upper 

Willamette 

Valley Margin

Potential

Proximity to large waterbodies, 

McKenzie, Willamette, Row 

Rivers; Cottage Grove, Dorena, 

Fall Creek Reservoirs; adjacent to 

major travel corridors (Interstate 

5, Highways 58 and 126) and 

popular recreation destinations

Contribute to regional population 

viability and recovery, including a 

key raptor area and bald eagle 

habitat areas

Low-elevation, unmanaged mature 

and late-successional forest 

providing interior habitat and 

adjacent mid-seral stands; unique 

location above the valley floor

Willamette 

Valley Prairie 

Oak and Pine 

Area

Potential

Some of the few remaining upland 

red fescue prairies and oak habitats 

in the Willamette Valley Province
1277 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Klamath Falls

Bumpheads Potential

Numerous undisturbed prehistoric 

cultural artifacts/sites; will be 

nominated for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic 

Places in 2016; rare views of 

natural landscape from high 

elevation

Western juniper/Idaho fescue 

(Juniperus occidentalis/Festuca 

idahoensis) plant community that 

has been naturally somewhat 

isolated from livestock grazing

Old Baldy 

RNA Existing Scenic viewing opportunities from a section of Pacific Crest Trail

ONHP cells: high elevation white 

fir communities with Shasta red fir, 

mountain hemlock, Pacific silver 

fir, and Western white pine; 

Southern Oregon Cascades 

chaparral

Spencer Creek Potential

Upper Klamath redband trout, 

Pacific giant salamander, future 

anadromous salmonid species 

(when Klamath River dams are 

removed or passage restored)

Intact, functioning, low-gradient 

floodplain meadow habitat 

important for several aquatic 

species; floodplain provides critical 

riparian processes important to 

filtering fine sediments; inundation 

during moderate to high flood 

events provide refuge for aquatic 

organisms 

Surveyor Potential

Native forest unique to 

surrounding area with short 

educational trail providing a 

scenic opportunity in old-growth 

forest

Designated critical habitat for 

northern spotted owl

Native old-growth forest 

community of large Douglas fir 

and other mixed conifer species; 

several Bureau Sensitive fungi 

species

Tunnel Creek Potential Oregon spotted frog

High altitude lodgepole pine 

swamp with bog blueberry 

(Vaccinium uliginosum) and high 

diversity of sedge species; several 

Bureau Sensitive plants: Carex 

capitata, Utricularia minor, 

Tomentypnum nitens, and Gentiana 

newberryi var. newberryi, Carex 

lasiocarpa var. americana
1278 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Upper Klamath 

River Existing

Historic road, prehistoric cultural 

artifacts/sites; the Klamath River 

Canyon holds great spiritual and 

religious significance for the 

Klamath Tribe and the Shasta 

Nation; has a unique landform, 

diverse vegetation, water, and a 

low level of adverse cultural 

modifications

Lost River and shortnose suckers, 

Klamath large scale sucker, native 

inland redband trout, bald eagle 

nests, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

northern spotted owl critical 

habitat

Unique plant communities 

bisecting the Cascade Mountains, 

which range from montane conifer 

forest communities to high desert 

communities, and from riparian 

communities to oak savannah 

communities; Red-root yampah 

(Perideridia erythrorhiza),

Astragalus californicus, Carex 

comosa

Upper Klamath 

River Addition Potential

Historic road, prehistoric cultural 

artifacts/site; the Klamath River 

Canyon holds great spiritual and 

religious significance for the 

Klamath Tribe and the Shasta 

Nation; has a unique landform, 

diverse vegetation, water, and a 

low level of adverse cultural 

modifications

Lost River and shortnose suckers, 

Klamath largescale sucker, native 

inland redband trout, and bald 

eagle nests, northern spotted owl 

critical habitat

Unique plant communities 

bisecting the Cascade Mountains, 

and that range from montane 

conifer forest communities to high 

desert communities, and from 

riparian communities to oak 

savannah communities; Red-root 

yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza), 

Astragalus californicus, Carex 

comosa

Yainax Butte Existing

Considered an important place in 

the traditional beliefs of the 

Klamath Tribes; may be eligible 

for inclusion to the National 

Register of Historic Properties as 

a Traditional Cultural Property

Unusual variation of 

bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass 

plant community; blue-leaved 

penstemon (Penstemon glaucinus)

Medford

Baker Cypress Existing

Most northern Baker cypress 

(Hesperocyparis bakeri) stand in 

North America

Bobby Creek 

RNA Existing Northern spotted owl critical habitat

Intact Port-Orford-cedar stands;

Represents Oregon Natural Areas 

Plan cells for western hemlock and 

tanoak-bigleaf maple-canyon live 

oak communities; late-successional 

forest; paired-watershed study 

catchments; long-term vegetation 

monitoring site
1279 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Brewer Spruce 

RNA Existing Northern spotted owl critical habitat

Unique conifer assemblage with 

Brewer spruce, Port-Orford-cedar, 

and Alaska yellow cedar (rare 

inland); ONAP cells for mid/highelevation marsh/pond and white fir 

forest with Brewer spruce; longterm vegetation monitoring site

Cobleigh Road Potential Prehistoric cultural sites

Oak woodland, oak savannah, and 

chaparral, supporting Gentner’s 

fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri);

Gentner’s fritillary recovery 

management area

Dakubetede Potential

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria 

gentneri); western-most stands of 

western juniper, rare water birch 

(Betula occidentalis), intact native 

grasslands; Gentner’s fritillary 

recovery management area

Deer Creek Potential Cool water refugia for juvenile 

coho salmon

Limestone cave system supporting 

bats and rare invertebrates, 

including a new species of spider 

(Trogloraptor marchingtoni)

East Fork 

Whiskey Creek 

RNA

Potential

Rogue River stonecrop (Sedum 

moranii); represents ONAP cells 

for late-successional tanoakDouglas-fir communities, stands of 

knobcone pine

Eight Dollar 

Mountain Existing Coronis fritillary butterfly (Speyeria coronis coronis)

Serpentine fens and Jeffrey pine 

savannahs and associated rare 

plants, including Howell’s 

mariposa lily (Calochortus 

howelli), Oregon willow-herb 

(Epilobium oreganum), Waldo 

gentian (Gentiana setigera), 

western bog violet (Viola 

primulifolia ssp. occidentalis)
1280 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

French Flat Existing

Historic mining values, including 

Logan Cut (National Register of 

Historic Places)

Coronis fritillary butterfly

Jeffrey pine savannahs and 

California oatgrass-tufted hairgrass 

grasslands and associated rare 

plants, including Cook’s lomatium 

(Lomatium cookii), Howell’s 

adder’s tongue (Erythronium 

howellii), slender meadow foam 

(Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis);

Cook’s lomatium critical habitat

Grayback 

Glades RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cells for high 

elevation white fir forest and 

Siskiyou alder glades; large PortOrford-cedar trees, mostly 

uninfected by Port-Orford-cedar 

root rot

Green Springs 

Mountain

Scenic

Potential Contains a particularly scenic 

segment of the Pacific Crest Trail

Hole-in-theRock Existing

Unique geological feature, a 

natural basalt arch, created by 

natural weathering and erosional 

processes

Holton Creek 

RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cells for lowelevation late-successional white 

fir-Douglas-fir forest; long-term 

vegetation monitoring site

Hoxie Creek Existing

Remnant late-successional white 

fir-Douglas-fir-ponderosa pine 

forest

Iron Creek Existing Late-successional dry Douglas-firsugar pine-ponderosa pine forest

King Mountain 

Rock Garden Existing High scenic value High-elevation serpentine community
1281 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Lost Lake 

RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cell for a midmontane lake surrounded by 

mixed-conifer forest. Example of a 

landslide-dammed lake; long-term 

vegetation monitoring plots

Moon Prairie Existing

Late-successional, multi-layered 

stand of Douglas-fir and white fir 

with Pacific yew, ponderosa pine 

and sugar pine

North Fork 

Silver Creek 

RNA

Existing

Represents ONAP cells for PortOrford-cedar-western hemlock and 

white fir forests; includes 

serpentine fens; long-term 

vegetation monitoring plots;

wildfire burned area reference site 

(1987 and 2002)

Old Baldy 

RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cells for 

chinquapin/manzanita chaparral 

and high-elevation white fir-Shasta 

red fir forest; long-term vegetation 

monitoring site

Pickett Creek Potential

Large populations of Gentner’s 

fritillary (Fritillaria gentneri);

Gentner’s fritillary recovery 

management area

Pipe Fork RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cells for PortOrford-cedar-white fir and PortOrford-cedar-tanoak communities

Poverty Flat Existing

Rare Rogue River grassland and 

vernal pool community supporting 

Bellinger’s meadow foam 

(Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

bellingeriana)
1282 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Reeves Creek Potential

Cook’s lomatium (Lomatium 

cookii), slender meadowfoam 

(Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis);

Cook’s lomatium recovery 

management area

Rough and 

Ready Existing

Ultramafic alluvial deposits and 

serpentine soil support unique 

plant community and rare plants 

including Cook’s lomatium 

(Lomatium cookii), large-flowered 

rush lily (Hastingsia bracteosa var. 

bracteosa), Howell’s mariposa lily 

(Calochortus howellii), Howell’s 

adder-tongue (Erythronium 

howellii), slender meadowfoam 

(Limnanthes gracilis ssp. gracilis);

Cook’s lomatium critical habitat

Round Top 

Butte RNA Existing

Represents ONAP cells for 

seasonally flooded bottomland 

prairie, dry grasslands, and Oregon 

white oak savannah; long-term 

vegetation monitoring site; 

designated National Natural 

Landmark

Sterling Mine 

Ditch Existing

Historic ditch used for hydraulic 

gold mining (National Register of 

Historic Places)

Table Rocks 

ACEC Existing Native American refuge and ceremonial site Vernal pool fairy shrimp

Example of remnants of an 

andesite lava flow, vernal pools, 

oak woodlands, and upland grasslands; rare plants include dwarf 

woolly meadowfoam (Limnanthes 

pumila ssp. pumila), Austin’s 

plagiobothrys (Plagiobothrys 

austiniae), Greene’s popcornflower 

(Plagiobothrys greenei), southern 

Oregon buttercup (Ranunculus 

austrooreganus)
1283 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Tin Cup Existing Late-successional white fir 

community

Waldo-Takilma Potential

Intact historic mining sites 

(National Register of Historic 

Places)

Serpentine plant communities 

supporting rare plants, Cook’s 

lomatium (Lomatium cookii), 

Howell’s mariposa lily 

(Calochortus howellii), clustered 

lady’s-slipper (Cypripedium 

fasciculatum), Howell’s addertongue (Erythronium howellii), 

slender meadowfoam (Limnanthes 

gracilis ssp. gracilis); Cook’s 

lomatium critical habitat

Woodcock Bog 

RNA Existing

Serpentine fens and Jeffrey pine 

savannah supporting rare plants 

Oregon willow-herb (Epilobium 

oreganum), Waldo gentian 

(Gentiana setigera), large-flowered 

rush-lily (Hastingsia bracteosa

var. bracteosa), western bog violet 

(Viola primulifolia ssp. 

occidentalis); long-term vegetation 

monitoring site

Roseburg

Bear Gulch 

RNA Existing

Douglas-fir/canyon live oak 

woodland with poison oak and 

dwarf Oregon grape; and Douglasfir/canyon live oak forest

Beatty Creek 

RNA Existing

Jeffrey pine community on 

serpentine; Wayside aster 

(Eucephalus vialis), California 

sword fern (Polystichum 

californicum)

Bushnell-Irwin 

Rocks RNA Existing Scenic Northern spotted owl

Oregon white oak savanna; Oregon 

white oak/Douglas-fir/poison oak 

woodland; Thompson’s 

mistmaiden (Romanzoffia 

thompsonii), California sword fern
1284 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Callahan 

Meadows Potential

Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus 

oreganus), serpentine meadow, 

Umpqua mariposa lily 

(Calochortus umpquaensis)

Myrtle Island 

RNA Existing

Old-growth stand of California bay 

laurel and Douglas-fir (riparian 

hardwood forest along a major 

river)

North Bank Existing Important cultural site Columbian white-tailed deer

Koehler’s rock cress (Arabis 

koehleri var. koehleri), Red-rooted 

yampah (Perideridia erythrorhiza), 

rough popcorn flower 

(Plagiobothrys hirtus)

North Myrtle 

Creek RNA Existing

Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine forest; 

white fir/dwarf Oregon grape; 

Douglas-fir/bigleaf maple forest

Red Ponds 

RNA Existing Northern spotted owl, western pond turtle

Low elevation permanent pond; 

dotted water-meal (Wolffia 

borealis), Phaeocollybia 

californica

Tater Hill RNA Existing Western hemlock/oceanspray 

community Active landslide

Salem

Beaver Creek Potential

Intact mid-elevation oak meadow 

and native prairie flora rare along 

the western slopes of the northern 

Oregon Cascades

Crabtree 

Complex 

RNA/ONA

Existing

Scenic qualities such as forest 

cover type, complex of habitats 

and geologic features considered 

exceptional within the Salem 

District

Several Bureau Special Status 

wildlife species and northern 

spotted owl; cliffs provide unique 

habitat with potential for raptor use

Relatively undisturbed old-growth 

forest; fills several West Cascades 

Ecosystem elements identified in 

the ONAP; area has a population 

of Alaska-cedar that is fairly 

uncommon in this region
1285 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Elk Creek Existing

Inland bald eagle forage and 

roosting habitat, marbled murrelet, 

red tree vole; historic nest sites for 

bald eagle and northern spotted 

owl; coho and chinook salmon, 

summer and winter steelhead, searun and resident cutthroat trout,

Pacific lamprey

Contiguous block of old forest is a 

rare example of a fully functional 

natural system in the north Oregon 

Coast Range as evidenced by the 

extensive list of late-successional

forest-dependent species that 

occur; area abuts the 360,000-acre 

‘Tillamook Burn’

Forest Peak 

RNA Existing

Undisturbed Willamette Valley 

margin meadows adjacent to old 

growth forests; meadow may 

provide habitat for several at risk 

butterfly species and declining 

Willamette valley songbirds, 

including common nighthawk, 

Oregon vesper sparrow, western

bluebird, and acorn woodpecker

Willamette Valley Ecosystem 

Elements: Willamette Valley 

Douglas-fir-bigleaf maple forest 

with some grand fir; Douglasfir/poison oak forest; Lemmon’s 

needlegrass-moss bald; represents 

an intact and natural 3rd order 

stream system located on the 

fringes of the Willamette Valley

Grass 

Mountain RNA Existing

Visible from the Willamette 

Valley and has remnants of the 

lookout once stationed on the 

summit; the cement foundation, 

disposal area, and pieces of metal 

roofing for the lookout, still 

remain onsite; in the early 1900s, 

Grass Mountain was a stopping 

place for grazing livestock as they 

were moved between Alsea Valley 

and Mary’s Peak

A high elevation grassy bald 

habitat juxtaposed with mature 

noble fir and forest that offers 

undisturbed refugia for rare and 

endemic invertebrate species 

including Roth’s blind ground 

beetle; nesting habitat for northern 

spotted owl and marbled murrelet

The area represents the Coast 

Range Ecoregion’s Noble firwestern hemlock forest and the 

Grass bald on Coast Range 

mountain ecosystem elements;

represents a natural 3rd order 

stream system and old growth 

conifer habitat

High Peak -

Moon Creek 

RNA

Existing

Large contiguous block of latesuccessional forest habitat found in 

north Oregon coast range;

relatively inaccessible and 

undisturbed; potential northern 

spotted owl and marbled murrelet; 

high quality spawning habitat for 

anadromous fish, including Oregon 

coho salmon and steelhead trout

This area is a rare example of a 

northern Oregon Coast Range oldgrowth forest with an intact, 

functioning, late-successional 

forest system; adjacent to the 

‘Tillamook Burn’; Coast Range 

Ecoregion ecosystem elements: 

Western hemlock/swordfern, 

Western hemlock/vine maple-salal
1286 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Little North 

Fork Wilson 

River

Potential

Large contiguous blocks of latesuccessional forest habitat found in 

north Oregon coast range;

relatively inaccessible and 

undisturbed; supports substantial

salmon populations (Chinook, 

coho, chum, steelhead, sea run 

cutthroat)

Intact old-growth conifer riparian 

habitat is especially rare in coastal 

ecosystems; relict plant 

community of 450-year-old 

Douglas-fir, Sitka spruce, Western

hemlock, and Western red cedar

Little Sink 

RNA Existing

Provides an excellent example of a 

low elevation coast range oldgrowth forest adjacent to the 

Willamette Valley; northern 

spotted owls, red tree voles and

great blue heron rookery; the ponds 

are important breeding sites for 

native amphibians 

Fulfills the following Willamette 

Valley Ecoregion Ecosystem 

Elements: Douglas-fir – grand 

fir/vine maple-salal; slump pond at 

margin of valley, with aquatic beds 

and marshy shore; designated 

Instant Study (wilderness) Area; 

rare botany species include Dotted 

water-meal, and lichen Calicium 

adspersum

The past slumping soils or unstable 

ground at Little Sink has created at 

least 3 distinct ponds within a 

coniferous forest habitat

Lost Prairie Existing

Lost Prairie supports a large 

Sphagnum/sedge rich fen and 

wetland habitat, which supports a 

diverse assemblage of uncommon 

invertebrate species; also offers 

nesting habitat for songbirds, and 

high quality forage for deer and 

elk

Coast Range Ecoregion Ecosystem 

Element: Mid- to high-elevation 

sedge and sphagnum fens and a 

beaver marsh; the most outstanding 

botanical feature is the presence of 

a complex of sphagnum species 

and fen-associated bryophytes and 

vascular plants. Rare vascular 

plants include the Erythronium 

elegans, Fritillaria 

camschatcensis, and Anenome 

oregana var. felix; many 

uncommon bryophyte species
1287 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Lower 

Scappoose 

Eagle

Potential

Includes an active and productive 

bald eagle communal winter roost 

site and nest; the consistent, high 

eagle usage of the area is due to its 

proximity to Sauvie Island where 

the eagles forage on the very rich, 

unique resource of large 

concentrations of waterfowl

The area is included in the final 

integrated portfolio within The 

Nature Conservancy’s Pacific 

Northwest Coast Ecoregional 

Assessment (Vander Schaaf et al.

2006)

Mary’s Peak Existing

Mary’s Peak is the highest 

mountain in the Oregon Coast 

Range Mountains north of 

Coquille; the summit of Mary’s 

Peak has distant views of the 

Willamette Valley, Oregon Coast 

Range Mountains and the 

Cascades

The mature noble-fir forest, high 

elevation grassy bald, rocky 

outcrops, wet meadows, seeps, 

springs, and Douglas-fir oldgrowth provide a refuge for a 

minimum of 10 rare or endemic 

invertebrates including Haddock’s 

rhyacophilan caddisfly and Roth’s 

blind ground beetle; nesting 

habitat for northern spotted owl 

and marbled murrelet

Highly diverse assemblage of 

native plant communities; special 

habitats or natural values include 

high-elevation grass meadows, 

noble fir community, and shallow 

soils with ‘rock garden’ plants

McCully 

Mountain Potential

Potential for nesting raptors, use 

by neotropical migratory birds,

and occurrence of other wildlife 

species

Natural system associated with 

mid-elevation oak meadow and 

native prairie flora seldom seen 

along the western slopes of the 

northern Cascades in Oregon 

adjacent to the Willamette Valley

Middle 

Santiam 

Terrace

Existing

Includes a Native American 

cultural site that is one of few in 

the region on public lands

Old-growth fir and hemlock forest 

at a relatively low elevation river 

terrace with an increased value for 

research; represents several native 

plant community types in the 

Western hemlock zone in the

western slopes of the Cascades
1288 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Mill Creek 

Ridge Potential

Mill Creek Ridge supports a great 

diversity of uncommon or endemic 

invertebrate species, and provide 

nesting habitat for Willamette 

Valley songbirds, including 

common nighthawk, western 

bluebird, and white-breasted 

nuthatch

Oregon white oak community 

located in northwest Oregon on the 

eastern slopes of the Coast Range 

Mountains; contains uncommon 

plant species known from adjacent 

coniferous forests; many of the 

species are more common in the 

Cascades Mountains and from 

Southern Oregon; several plant 

species extend the northern range 

of these species

Molalla 

Meadows Potential

The Molalla River has been found 

to be both eligible and suitable for 

inclusion into the National Wild 

and Scenic River System for 

outstandingly remarkable values 

that include geology, scenic, and 

recreation.

Nesting raptors, use by Neotropical 

Migratory birds and occurrence of 

wildlife species associated with 

older forest; harlequin ducks

The meadows represent a unique 

ecotype with natural systems and 

geologic features; the oak 

meadows represent a rare transition 

from valley oak savannas to upland 

conifer forests; these large 

meadows contribute to the regional 

oak meadow network

Nestucca River Existing

Designated State scenic waterway 

and BLM backcountry byway; the 

Upper Nestucca River is eligible 

for inclusion in National Wild and 

Scenic River system (recreational 

designation); the river corridor is 

designated VRM I

The Nestucca River corridor 

includes high quality habitat for 

bald eagle, northern spotted owl, 

marbled murrelet, and red tree 

vole; area is the only known site 

Oregon Coast Range breeding site 

for harlequin ducks; also a high 

quality anadromous fish stream for 

coho, chinook, summer and winter 

steelhead, sea-run and resident 

cutthroat trout
1289 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Rickreall Ridge Existing

Rickreall Ridge provides for 

unique high elevation rocky 

outcrops and adjoining older 

forests, which support a diversity 

of rare or endemic invertebrate 

species. Western grey squirrels and 

California ground squirrels 

common to lower elevations are 

found at this higher elevation.

A rocky ‘hogback’ ridge with steep 

talus slopes, with unique 

vegetation and is located within the 

Oregon Coast Range; has a 

disjunct flora in which the 

vegetation is similar to vegetation 

known from the southern 

Cascades; includes some older 

forest stands and associated 

coniferous-forest species; contains

many uncommon mesic bryophytes 

species.

Saddle Bag 

Mountain RNA Existing

Old-growth western hemlock 

supporting mistletoe in the Coast 

Range provides habitat for 

Johnson’s hairstreak butterflies;

potential nesting habitat for 

northern spotted owl and marbled 

murrelet.

Old-growth Pacific silver fir and 

western hemlock community; may 

be the last remaining mature 

naturally occurring Pacific silver 

fir stand in the Oregon Coast 

Range. Rare botanical species 

include Erythronium elegans, 

several Bureau Sensitive fungi

species, and a collection of 

uncommon lichen and bryophyte 

species.

Sandy River 

ONA Existing

Cultural: Barlow Road and Rock 

Corral are National Register sites;

prehistoric site eligible for the 

National Register also exists;

Scenic: The inner gorge has steep 

canyon walls, deep, trench-like 

pools, waterfalls and cliffdwelling plant communities; The 

Mt. Hood corridor (Highway 26) 

has a VRM I classification and

congressionally designated as the 

Mt. Hood Scenic Corridor

Stocks of Lower Columbia River 

chinook, winter steelhead, coho 

and cutthroat trout ; Peregrine 

falcons, bald eagles, and harlequin 

ducks have been known to use the 

Sandy River Gorge, migratory 

birds such as the willow flycatcher 

have been documented 

Diverse vegetative communities 

and low elevation old-growth 

forest ecosystems; riparian oldgrowth forests in the Middle Sandy 

are rare in the watershed 

downstream from Marmot Dam

Precipitous slopes and canyon 

walls line the inner gorge 
1290 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Silt Creek Potential

Active, natural landslide with an 

old-growth forest and unique 

habitat related to the slow but 

continual mass earth movement; 

host to an abnormally large 

population of Pseudocyphellaria 

rainierensis.

Large scale, active natural 

landslide

Snow Peak Potential

High quality natural ecosystem 

supporting considerable biological 

diversity; northern spotted owl;

various migratory bird species

Elevation of 4,280 ft. very close to 

the Willamette Valley; A variety of 

special habitats in close proximity, 

including wet meadows, dry 

meadows, rock outcrops/crevice 

habitat, talus slopes, mature to oldgrowth forests, headwater streams 

with adjacent riparian and brushy 

thickets; rare botanical fungi, 

lichens, and vascular plants, 

including several Bureau Sensitive 

species; deer cabbage, a wetland 

botanical species (Fauria cristagalli), found nowhere else in 

Oregon

Soosap 

Meadows Existing

These meadows are the only large, 

undisturbed expanse of natural 

Cascadian subalpine meadows in 

the Salem District. Streams that 

have cut through the glacial 

moraine have left behind a unique 

and diverse remnant of subalpine 

habitat.
1291 | P a g e

District/Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

The Butte RNA Existing

The area represents the Willamette 

Valley Douglas-fir-bigleaf maple 

forest with some grand fir and the 

Oregon white oak/grass savanna 

ecosystem elements. It represents 

an uncommon transitional ecotone 

involving Willamette Valley 

margin plant communities and 

upland Coast Range forested 

communities.

Valley of the 

Giants Existing

Educational organizations often 

visit the area for informal studies;

The area also provides for scenic 

values and excellent opportunities 

for photography

Nesting habitat for one of the 

largest concentrations of breeding 

marbled murrelet in Oregon; 

northern spotted owls, bald eagles, 

and Oregon Coastal steelhead 

trout; invertebrate species closely 

associated with older forest 

conditions.

Well-studied remnant old-growth

western hemlock plant association 

and the largest contiguous stand of 

ancient old-growth forest in the 

northern Oregon Coast Range 

(over 800 acres, 400+ years old); 

rare or uncommon botanical 

species reported from this location 

include Schistostega pennata,

Filipendula occidentalis, and 

Tetraphis geniculata

Walker Flat Existing

One of the few natural occurrences

of Sidalcea nelsonia in the Coast 

Range

Waterloo Potential

Naturally occurring Ponderosa pine 

and historically part of a large oakfir-pine savanna, with prairie 

located just to the east; is an 

integral part of a larger system of 

target conservation areas for the

oak-pine-fir habitats

White Rock 

Fen Existing

Nesting and foraging potential for 

neotropical migratory birds and 

other wildlife species

Four poor fens are unique to the 

region and are fragile; streams that 

have cut through the glacial 

moraine have left behind a unique 

and diverse remnant of subalpine 

habitat for botanical, wildlife, and 

aquatic species.
1292 | P a g e District/ Field Office

ACEC Name Status

Relevant and Important Value Category

Historic, Cultural, Scenic Fish and Wildlife Natural Process or System Natural Hazard

Wilhoit 

Springs Existing

A rare community with regional 

significance as an intact lowelevation old-growth conifer forest

Williams Lake Existing

Cascade lake and bog habitats with 

lakeside plant community that is 

unique and fragile. William’s Lake 

and its bog ecosystem is a great 

example of a Cascadian massive 

seep formed lake undergoing peat 

bog/quaking bog succession.

Yaquina Head 

ONA Existing

Yaquina Head occurs at a 

headland on the shores of the 

eastern Pacific Ocean, area is 

known as a cultural site for past 

Native Americans use and as a 

historical site with an operating 

lighthouse; he lighthouse located 

at Yaquina Head is one of the 

most highly visited areas in the 

Oregon coast

Yaquina Head includes a diverse 

assemblage of coastal habitats such 

as; tide pools, rocky islands, cliffs, 

coniferous forest, and upland 

meadows, which provide for a high 

diversity of marine invertebrates, 

nesting seabirds, and marine 

mammals; adjacent to one of the 

largest nesting populations of 

common murres and other colonial 

nesting seabirds in North America; 

foraging for Bald Eagles in the 

area; quarry cliffs provide nesting 

habitat for Peregrine Falcons

This headland on the eastern 

Pacific Ocean provides for several 

unique habitats including: Sitka 

spruce forest, lodgepole forest, 

headland grass/shrub communities, 

wildlife roosts, and nesting habitat, 

tide pools and associated ocean 

organisms; rare bryophyte species 

Eucladium verticillatum is reported 

from the Yaquina Head ONA. 

Botanically unique and distinct 

There are naturally occurring and 

man-made cliffs from past quarry 

operations and both provide safety 

concerns from falling rocks and 

dangerous, steep slopes

Yellowstone 

Creek Potential

The creek contains numerous 

waterfalls and cascades in a steep, 

v-shaped canyon surrounded by 

old-growth forest, lower portions 

are in the Quartzville Creek Wild 

and Scenic River; the diversity 

and old age of the vegetation 

combined with geologic features 

creates high intrinsic quality 

scenery

Northern spotted owl

This tributary to Quartzville Creek 

is an undisturbed area of low 

elevation (1,200-3,100 feet), highquality, contiguous, old growth 

forest; supports a broad diversity of 

overstory tree species including 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, 

western redcedar, Pacific yew, 

Pacific silver-fir, noble fir, western 

white pine, sugar pine, bigleaf 

maple, red alder and black 

cottonwood
1293 | P a g e

References

Oregon Natural Heritage Advisory Council (ONHAC). 1981. Revised 1988 and 1993. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (ONHP). 

http://orbic.pdx.edu/documents/hplan_1998.pdf.

Oregon Natural Areas Program (ONAP). 2015. Oregon Natural Areas Plan 2015. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department and 

the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources – Portland, Portland State University, Portland,

OR. 189 pp. http://inr.oregonstate.edu/sites/inr.oregonstate.edu/files/2015_or_natural_areas_plan.pdf.

USDI BLM. 2001. North Bank Habitat Management Area/ACEC Record of Decision, Habitat Management Plan and Monitoring 

Plan. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/roseburg/plans/files/NBnkACEC.pdf.

Vander Schaaf, D., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdan͂a, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, 

D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregion Assessment. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, 

The Nature Conservancy of Canada, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Nature Conservancy, 

Portland, OR.

http://oregonexplorer.info/data_files/OE_location/northcoast/documents/NorthCoastPDFs/PNW%20Coast%20EA%20Final

_Main_Report_Aug21.pdf.
1294 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1295 | P a g e

Appendix G – Climate Change

Carbon Storage Modeling

Analysis of Net Carbon Storage

The analysis of net carbon storage estimated the amount of carbon stored in the forest and in harvested 

wood products as well as carbon stored in non-forest portions of the decision area. The analysis divided 

carbon into three pools:

 Live and dead vegetation

 Soil to 1 m depth (3.3 ft.)

 Harvested wood

The BLM summed the carbon in these three pools to estimate the total net carbon stored by alternative

and the Proposed RMP. The BLM assumed carbon stored in soil and in non-forest portions of the 

planning area was constant through time, largely due to the lack of information about how these pools 

change over time.

Net Carbon Storage in Live Trees

The BLM estimated net carbon storage in live trees for each alternative and the Proposed RMP, and 

included a No Timber Harvest reference analysis, using the following process:

1. Obtain estimates of standing tree volumes for each period from the Woodstock model. See 

Appendix C – Vegetation Modeling for more detail on how the BLM estimated volume over 

time.

2. Convert live tree volume in thousand board feet (Mbf) to cubic feet using the following 

formula: ft3 = (Mbf ÷ 6.0) × 1000.

3. Estimate the composite density of wood (lb./ft.3) based on specific gravity at 12 percent 

moisture content for several species, but primarily Douglas-fir {Forest Products Laboratory, 

2010 #76}

4. Convert cubic foot volume to pounds using the following formula:

pounds = ft3 × 33.5

lb

ft3

5. Multiply pounds of wood by 0.5 to estimate pounds of carbon {Smith, 2006 #61}.

6. Estimate megagrams of carbon (Mg C) for whole trees (branches, roots, and bark) using the 

following formula:

Mg C = (lb C × 1.85) ÷ 2200

The BLM based initial tree volumes on the total gross volume, or the estimated volume per acre 

multiplied by the number of acres. This estimate avoided the need to convert from acres to hectares for 

live tree carbon storage.

Net Carbon Storage in Forest Vegetation Other than Live Trees

Forest vegetation other than live trees includes snags, understory vegetation, downed wood, and the forest 

floor (litter and duff). The BLM downloaded tables of carbon stock estimates using the Carbon OnLine 

Tool version 3.0 (COLE 3.0), available at http://www.ncasi2.org/GCOLE3/gcole.shtml. The BLM 
1296 | P a g e

generated reports using the county or counties that comprise most of the individual districts. The BLM 

applied a filter consisting of Federal lands within the county. Although the BLM could have filtered for 

just BLM-administered lands, the data used to generate the estimates did not include enough plots on 

BLM-administered lands for statistically sound estimates. The analysis used Table 1 of the report, which 

consists of estimates of carbon stocks by age class for years 0 through 100, subtracting out the estimates 

for soil and live trees. Since many stands are older than age 100, the BLM needed to estimate understory 

carbon beyond year 100. Using the COLE Table 1, the BLM plotted the understory carbon stock 

estimates for every decade between year 10 and year 100 in an Excel spreadsheet and then used the 

trendline tool to create a regression equation for each district. The BLM then used the resulting equation 

to estimate understory carbon stocks for every decade between year 110 and 210, assuming that after year 

210, understory carbon reaches equilibrium between input and decay.

Net Carbon Storage in Soil

Little is actually known about carbon storage in soils due to the difficulties and expense in studying this 

carbon pool (Johnson and Curtis 2001). The scientific community knows even less about how soil carbon 

changes over time following natural disturbances and management, although some studies have attempted 

to understand soil carbon dynamics better. Decreases in soil carbon have generally been low and of 

relatively short duration (Smith et al. 2006, McKinley et al. 2011). For that reason, the BLM assumed no 

changes in soil carbon over time. The BLM used the soil column from Table 1 of each COLE 3.0 output 

and multiplied that value by the number of hectares analyzed on each district to estimate the Mg C stored 

in soils.

Net Carbon Storage in Harvested Wood

Carbon stored in harvested wood depends on the volume of wood harvested, the resulting wood product, 

and the amount of carbon in that wood emitted through harvesting, processing, waste, disposal, and 

decomposition. Earles et al. (2012) developed decay equations for harvested wood based on the above 

factors for various parts of the world. Although the BLM was unable to obtain copies of the actual 

equations, the BLM developed a regression function based on the graphs for the U.S. Pacific Northwest 

provided in the supplemental information for the study:

Percent C remaining = (−0.0026 × years since harvest) + 0.4989

This regression accounts for the life expectancy of different wood products such as paper, fiberboard, and 

lumber.

For the existing condition, the BLM used annual harvest records from the Oregon Department of Forestry 

(http://www.oregon.gov/odf/Pages/state_forests/frp/RP_Home.aspx#Annual_Timber_Harvest_Report) to 

estimate the volume harvested over time from BLM-administered lands within the planning area. The 

BLM converted the volume in thousands of board feet (Mbf) to carbon using the conversion factor of 

0.443 Mg C per Mbf (Smith et al. 2006, p. 35). Total carbon remaining equaled the percent carbon 

remaining multiplied by the total carbon initially in the harvested wood.

To estimate the effects of the alternatives and the Proposed RMP, the BLM multiplied the estimated 

volume harvested per decade by the same conversion factor to carbon and the same regression function as 

for the existing condition. The BLM added these results to the estimated carbon stored in previously 

harvested wood products as of 2013.

Carbon in Polygons with No Data

A certain portion of each district consisted of polygons for which there was no vegetation information. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the BLM assumed vegetation was present but that the predominant 

vegetation was not forest. To estimate aboveground carbon, the BLM used biomass information based on 
1297 | P a g e

the Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) version 3.0 for savanna, shrubland and grassland types 

considered representative of typical non-forest plant communities for each district or group of districts. 

Since the BLM did not know the relative abundance of the non-forest plant communities, it used a simple 

average of the estimated aboveground carbon for the selected FCCS fuelbeds. The BLM multiplied the 

result by the estimated number of hectares in non-forest community types to estimate aboveground carbon 

stored in each district and assumed these carbon stocks did not change over time.

Effects of Wildfire on Carbon Storage

The Woodstock model included occurrence of high- and mixed-severity wildfire on each district in each 

decade based on historical occurrence levels. Following high-severity wildfire, the model reset stand age 

to zero in the decade in which the fire occurred. To mimic the effects of burning on aboveground carbon 

in a high-severity wildfire, the BLM estimated the remaining carbon to equal 25 percent of the carbon at 

age zero in the COLE tables. The BLM based this reduction on a combination of experience in assessing 

post-fire effects following fires considered high severity and the standard definition of high severity used 

by LANDFIRE (high severity equals greater than 75 percent mortality of the dominant plant life form). 

Thereafter, the BLM based carbon on stand age.

The BLM did not reset stand age following a mixed-severity wildfire. The BLM assumed 50 percent of 

the carbon associated with the stand age at the time of the fire was lost, based on the standard definition 

of mixed severity used by LANDFIRE (mixed severity equals 25–75 percent mortality of the dominant 

plant life form). The BLM assumed subsequent ages to contain only 75 percent of the carbon that would 

have been present in the absence of fire. While full recovery to carbon likely does occur, at some point, 

there is no scientific basis for determining when full recovery would occur. Further, recovery rates differ 

widely across the planning area.

Sources of Uncertainty in Carbon Estimates

There are a large number of sources of uncertainty in estimating the amount of carbon stored on the 

BLM-administered lands within the planning area. These include the quality of the inventory data used, 

estimation methodology selected, and reliability of the data. Inventory data for live trees is generally the 

highest quality and most accurate, but the amount of time since the inventory and subsequent disturbance 

types and severities affect the accuracy of that data. Further, BLM does not have a comprehensive 

vegetation database that includes direct information for species, extent, and biomass for litter and duff, 

dead wood, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs, and non-commercial tree species.

There are several methodologies available for estimating the amount of carbon in a given unit of land and 

in harvested wood products; the likelihood of obtaining the same answer using different methodologies is 

low. Estimating soil carbon is particularly problematic due to the lack of data and different authors have 

generated estimates to differing depths in the soil profile. The BLM did not locate any studies that 

estimated time to full recovery of carbon to the equivalent of an unburned stand of the same age and 

general species composition following a mixed-severity wildfire.

Since many of the sources used to estimate carbon do not include measures of uncertainty, variance, or 

error, the level of uncertainty is not known, but likely large and could well exceed 50 percent. As such, 

the potential error in the estimate for any one alternative or the Proposed RMP likely exceeds the amount 

of variance between the alternatives and the Proposed RMP.
1298 | P a g e

References

Earles, J. M., S. Yeh, and K. E. Skog. 2012. Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nature Climate Change 

2(9): 682–685. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2012/fpl_2012_earles001.pdf.

Forest Products Laboratory. 2010. Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-190. 

USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI. 508 pp. 

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fpl_gtr190.pdf.

Johnson, D. W., and P. S. Curtis. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. Forest Ecology and 

Management 140(2): 227–238. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/ltep/Biscuit/Biscuit_files/Refs/Johnson%20FEM2001%20fire.pdf.

McKinley, D. C., M. G. Ryan, R. A. Birdsey, C. P. Giardina, M. E. Harmon, L. S. Heath, R. A. Houghton, R. B. Jackson, J. F. 

Morrison, B. C. Murray, D. E. Pataki, and K. E. Skog. 2011. A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage 

in the united states. Ecological Applications 21(6): 1902–1924.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_mckinley_001.pdf.

Smith, J. E., L. S. Heath, K. E. Skog, and R. A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for calculating forest ecosystem and harvested carbon 

with standard estimates for forest types of the United States. General Technical Report NE-343. USDA FS, Northeastern 

Research Station, Newtown Square, PA. 216 pp. http://www.actrees.org/files/Research/ne_gtr343.pdf.
1299 | P a g e

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation

Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

For this planning effort, the BLM estimated greenhouse gas emissions from four sources:

 Enteric fermentation from permitted livestock grazing on BLM-administered lands

 Timber harvest operations

 Prescribed burning

 Wildfires

The BLM summed emissions for each alternative and the Proposed RMP, although emissions from 

livestock grazing, the hazardous fuels program, and wildfires would not vary.

Greenhouse gases emitted by activities on BLM-administered lands include carbon dioxide (CO2), 

methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Both CH4 and N2O emissions have a greater global warming 

potential than CO2 so the BLM multiplied the estimates by 25 and 298, respectively, to estimate carbon 

dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The BLM converted all greenhouse gas emissions to the standard megagrams 

of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mg CO2e) used for reporting greenhouse gas emissions nationally and 

globally.

Enteric Fermentation (Livestock Grazing)

The BLM based livestock grazing emissions on the number of permitted animal unit months on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. Although the actual number of cow-calf pairs are less than the 

permitted number for the past several years, this analysis used the permitted number. The BLM derived 

the formula used to estimate livestock grazing emissions from IPCC guidelines (Eggleston et al. 2006, 

Chapter 10):

(AUMs × (

4.4 kg CH4

month

) ÷ 1000) × 25 = Mg CO2e

The CH4 emissions factor of 4.4 kg mo-1equals the annual emission factor in North America for beef 

cattle divided by 12 (EPA 2014).

Harvest Operations

Greenhouse gas emissions from harvest operations are based on the study by Sonne (2006) in the Oregon 

Coast Range for private industrial lands and on harvest records maintained by the Oregon Department of 

Forestry (ODF) for all lands in western Oregon and for Klamath County in eastern Oregon (available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/pubs/publications.aspx#agency_annual_reports). The BLM first 

converted harvest records in thousands of board feet to millions of board feet and divided by six to 

estimate millions of cubic feet. From Sonne (2006), BLM used the expected greenhouse gas emissions 

based on planting 1,235 trees per acre, and applying a pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, and 

fertilization prior to final harvest:

((

1.38 Mg Co2e

100 m3

) × (

100 m3

3531.467 ft3

) × 1,000,000 = 390.77

Mg CO2e

MMcf )

The BLM then multiplied the number of million cubic feet harvested by 390.77 to estimate Mg CO2e. 

This emission factor is based on a shorter rotation and more intensive management practices than BLM 
1300 | P a g e

typically uses and, therefore, may somewhat overestimate emissions from harvest activities on BLMadministered lands as well as on other Federal lands.

Prescribed Burning

Greenhouse gas emissions from past prescribed burning are based on estimated tons of biomass 

consumed as reported to the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) under the State’s smoke management 

plan (available at http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/fire/smp/smkmgtannualrpts.aspx). ODF’s reports 

include prescribed burns on BLM-administered lands in the Other Federal category, which includes U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and consolidates prescribed burns for both Lake 

and Klamath Counties into a single number. The BLM conducts most of the prescribed burning in the 

Other Federal category, as indicated by the harvest records. The BLM calculated the various greenhouse 

gas types emitted from burning wood (CO2, CH4, and N2O) using two different processes. The BLM 

obtained estimates of CO2 and CH4 from Consume 3.0 and the estimate of N2O by multiplying the tons 

consumed with EPA-provided emission factors (EPA 2014, Table 1). For N2O, the BLM used an 

emission factor for burning wood and wood residuals for power generation. Since power generation 

typically consumes all material, the BLM may have overestimated emissions as compared to open 

burning where larger pieces of wood may not be completely consumed.

The BLM used two different methods to estimate emissions from future prescribed burning. For pile 

burning (hand piles, machine piles, and landing piles), the BLM used a standard description for each type 

of pile (size, shape, and composition) and a standard estimate of the number of piles per acre to estimate 

emissions per acre using the pile utility in Consume. The BLM multiplied these estimates by the number 

of acres treated by piling. The Woodstock model provided estimates of the acres treated by each type of 

piling method for harvest treatments and historical averages used for the hazardous fuels program. For 

broadcast and under burning, BLM selected a single representative fuel bed for each district that would 

result in the approximate number of tons consumed that had been estimated by past burning, as reported 

by the Interdisciplinary Team’s Fuels Specialist.

Wildfires

Wildfire emissions are much more difficult to estimate since there are no records of how much material 

any given fire consumes. The BLM used the following procedures to estimate greenhouse gas emissions 

from past wildfires.

The BLM downloaded records of all wildfires for Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, and 

Salem Districts from the FAMWEB site (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/), imported the 

records into FireFamily Plus 4.1, extracted all wildfires 100+ acres in size, and exported the results into

an Excel Spreadsheet. Using a variety of methods, the BLM deleted as many fires as could be identified 

that burned in the Lakeview Field Office to select just the data for the Klamath Falls Field Office. The 

BLM combined the data for Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem into one group and the data for Medford and 

Roseburg into one group. Over the 34-year period of record (1980–2013), 7,763 acres burned in the Coos 

Bay-Eugene-Salem Districts group, 277,605 acres in the Medford-Roseburg Districts group, and 29,447 

acres in Klamath Falls Field Office.

The BLM downloaded assessments of burn severity for individual large fires that originated on BLMadministered lands between 1984 and 2012, the latest year available, from the Monitoring Trends in Burn 

Severity website (http://mtbs.gov/data/individualfiredata.html). The BLM averaged acres burned in the 

difference categories of unburned to low, low, moderate, high, increased greenness, and mask and 

calculated the proportion for each category. Mask areas consist of features such as clouds, water and rock 

as well as missing lines of image data. The BLM combined high, increased greenness, and mask into a 

single high severity category; and unburned to low and low into a single low severity category. The 

resulting proportions of area burned were 59.1 percent low severity, 21.8 percent mixed severity (i.e., 
1301 | P a g e

moderate), and 19.0 percent high severity. Because the documented fire severity record is sparse, the 

BLM used these same severity proportions across the planning area.

Since preburn fuel loadings are not known, the BLM used the Fuels Characteristic Class System (FCCS) 

module in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and UW 2014) to select representative fuelbeds (Table G-1). 

Because the BLM did not know the relative proportion of each fuelbed included in each analysis group, it 

equally weighted all fuelbeds. In order to assess emissions from the different burn severities, the BLM 

multiplied the total number of acres burned in each group by the proportional amount in the low, mixed, 

and high severity classes and created separate units in Fuel & Fire Tools. For example, the group 

comprised of Coos Bay, Eugene, and Salem Districts had three units labeled low, mixed, and high with 

assigned acres equaling the proportion estimated for each severity class (Table G-2). Each unit consisted 

of the set of fuelbeds selected through FCCS. The Consume module in Fuel & Fire Tools used this 

information to estimate greenhouse gas emissions for CO2 and CH4. Since the Consume module only uses 

1000-hour and duff fuel moisture to drive the consumption algorithms, the BLM could not fully meet its 

intent of adjusting the amount of live fuel consumed.
1302 | P a g e

Table G-1. Fuels Characteristic Classification System fuelbeds used in each analysis group to estimate 

greenhouse gas emissions from wildfire

District/

Field Office

Fuelbed

Number Fuelbed Name

Coos Bay 

– Eugene 

– Salem

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir

5 Douglas-fir – white fir

8 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – western redcedar/vine maple

9 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – western redcedar/vine maple

10 Western hemlock – Douglas-fir – Sitka spruce

11 Douglas-fir – western hemlock – Sitka spruce

18 Douglas-fir/oceanspray

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

52 Douglas-fir – Pacific ponderosa pine/oceanspray

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir

322 Sitka spruce – western hemlock

Klamath Falls

20 Western juniper/curl-leaf mountain mahogany

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

25 Pinyon – Utah juniper

53 Pacific ponderosa pine

55 Western juniper/sagebrush

58 Western juniper/sagebrush

67 Interior ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

210 Pinyon – Utah juniper

Medford 

– Roseburg

2 Western hemlock – western redcedar – Douglas-fir

4 Douglas-fir/Ceanothus

5 Douglas-fir – white fir

6 Oregon white oak – Douglas-fir

7 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak

15 Jeffrey pine – red fir – white fir/greenleaf - snowbrush

16 Jeffrey pine – ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir – California black oak

24 Pacific ponderosa pine – Douglas-fir

37 Ponderosa pine – Jeffrey pine

38 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak

39 Sugar pine – Douglas-fir – oak

208 Grand fir – Douglas-fir

215 Douglas-fir – madrone – tanoak

239 Douglas-fir – sugar pine – tanoak
1303 | P a g e

Table G-2. Acres, fuel moistures, and targeted consumption rates for live woody fuels in each severity 

class for past wildfires

Live Woody Fuels

Low Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

Mixed Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

High Severity

(Targeted 

Consumption Rate)

1,000-hour Fuel Moisture 20% 10% 6%

Duff Moisture 200% 100% 10%

Shrub Black - 50% 100%

Crown Black - 50% 100%

District/

Field Office

Low Severity

(Acres)

Mixed Severity

(Acres)

High Severity

(Acres)

Coos Bay – Eugene – Salem 1,475 1,692 4,588

Klamath Falls 5,595 6,419 17,403

Medford – Roseburg 52,745 60,518 164,065

Large fires that originate on BLM-administered lands typically burn onto other lands. However, the future 

wildfire acres burned applied only to BLM-administered lands. In order to provide an appropriate 

comparison, the BLM had to adjust the emissions from past fires downward. The BLM calculated the 

average number of acres burned using the data for fires that originated on BLM-administered lands and 

compared that to the average number of acres burned just on BLM-administered lands as reported in 

Davis et al. (2014, p. 7), resulting in a reduction of 62 percent.

Consume does not estimate N2O. However, the amount of N2O emitted by wood is relatively small (EPA 

2014, Table 1). In addition, since the consumption algorithms in Consume are largely based on data 

collected during prescribed burning of logging debris, the program typically over-predicts consumption of 

natural fuels (Prichard et al. no date).

To estimate greenhouse gas emissions from future wildfires, BLM used the estimated acres burned in 

mixed- and high-severity fires each period from the Woodstock model. Using the same set of FCCS 

fuelbeds from Table G-1 and the same fuel moistures and targeted consumption rates from Table G-2, 

BLM used Consume to estimate the per acre emissions for methane and carbon dioxide and converted the 

mass measure of pounds per acre to megagrams per acre. Because Consume does not include an estimate 

for nitrous oxide, BLM used the EPA (2014) emission factor for N2O for wood products of 63 g per short 

ton. Since low-severity fire was not included in Woodstock under the assumption that there was no 

impact to timber volume, the BLM assumed maintenance of the proportional relationship between low-, 

mixed-, and high-severity fire and used the acres burned in mixed and high severity combined to estimate 

the acres burned in low-severity fire.

Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Several factors can affect the actual greenhouse gas emissions from the different sectors analyzed in this 

document. Generally, limited input data, measurement errors associated with the available data, the need 

to simplify complex systems, and creating or using models based on limited data are the main sources of 

uncertainty in emissions estimation (Eve et al. 2014, p. 8-4).

Emissions from livestock grazing account only for the emissions from the animals and not for emissions 

from the soil that can arise based on grazing system, stocking rate, utilization levels, and season of 

grazing (Eve et al. 2014). Further, greenhouse gas emissions from grazing also depend on animal size and 

growth rate, which the BLM does not know for this analysis and likely varies from year-to-year. Thus, the 
1304 | P a g e

estimation method the BLM used in this analysis has an estimated uncertainty of ± 50 percent (Eggleston 

et al. 2006, p. 10.33).

Emissions from harvest operations used in this analysis are based on a life cycle analysis conducted by 

Sonne (2006), which attempted to account for emissions from fuel used by vehicles and equipment, 

electricity, and fertilizer production in order to harvest trees; prepare sites for planting using prescribed 

fire or herbicides; produce, transport and plant seedlings; fertilize the site, and conduct one or more 

thinning operations before the final harvest of the subsequent stand. Although Sonne (2006) examined 

several different rotation ages, this analysis used age 60, the longest. The BLM typically manages stands 

on longer rotations than other landowners in the planning area and, under the 1995 RMPs, conducts far 

more thinning operations than final harvests, affecting actual greenhouse gas emissions. Further, the BLM 

conducts some uneven-aged management in the drier forests, which likely results in different emissions 

levels than even-aged management, although whether uneven-aged management produces less or greater 

emissions than even-aged management is not known. The BLM does not know the uncertainty associated 

with harvest operations, but expects that it is greater than 50 percent.

Greenhouse gas emissions from fire are particularly large. Estimates of preburn biomass and the amount 

of biomass consumed vary widely and the BLM does not know this information in sufficient detail for 

wildfires. Various estimating tools are available for prescribed fires, such as the debris prediction module 

in the Forest Vegetation Simulator (Rebain 2014) and the pile calculator in Fuel & Fire Tools (FERA and 

UW 2014). However, the districts may or may not use these tools in a given situation, and the BLM does 

not know the consistency of use. The tons recorded by ODF are simply those reported by the people who 

conducted the burn, who do not have effective methods for estimating actual consumption. Canopy 

consumption in wildfires of both trees and shrubs is particularly difficult to estimate, with high variability 

both within and between wildfires. As with harvest operations, the BLM does not know the uncertainty 

associated with emissions from fire, but expects that it varies by a factor of two (between half and twice 

as much as the estimate).

References

Davis, R., L. Evers, Y. Gallimore, J. Volpe, and C. Belongie. 2014. Modeling large stochastic wildfires and fire severity within 

the range of the northern spotted owl. Unpublished report.

Eggleston, S., L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe, editors. 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas 

inventories volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, 

Kanagawa, Japan.

Eve, M., D. Pape, M. Flugge, R. Steele, D. Man, M. Riley-Gilbert, and S. Biggar (eds.). 2014. Quantifying greenhouse gas fluxes 

in agriculture and forestry: Methods for entity-scale inventory. USDA, Office of the Chief Economist, Washington, D.C. 

606 pp.

Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team (FERA), and University of Washington (UW). 2014. Fuel & Fire Tools. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA.

Prichard, S. J., R. D. Ottmar, and G. Anderson. No date. Consume 3.0 user’s guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, Seattle, WA. 235 pp.

Rebain, S. A. (ed.) 2014. The fire and fuels extension to the forest vegetation simulator: updated model documentation. USDA 

Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center, Fort Collins, CO. 409 pp.

Sonne, E. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from forestry operations. Journal of Environmental Quality 35(4): 1439–1450. 

http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/LMD/LandUse/Documents/Lane%20County%20Land%20Use%20Task%20F

orce/Jim%20Just_Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20from%20Forestry%20Operations.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2012. EPA 

430-R-14-003. Washington, D.C. 529 pp.
1305 | P a g e

Appendix H – Fire and Fuels

Issue 1 – Assumptions and Methods

Methods

Study Area

The Nature Conservancy, under an agreement with the BLM, assessed forest vegetation restoration needs 

across five million acres of forest across southwestern Oregon (Figure H-1), including 1.2 million acres 

of BLM-administered lands (Figure H-2). This geography generally includes the extent of forests with 

historically frequent fires within SW Oregon. These forests cover very broad climatic, edaphic, and 

topographic gradients with varying natural disturbance regimes.

Figure H-1. Analysis area within the State of Oregon
1306 | P a g e

Figure H-2. BLM-administered lands within the analysis area

Note: Brown is BLM, blue is the Roseburg District, grey is the Medford District, and green is the western half of Klamath Falls 

Field Office.

Core Concepts and Data Sources

The Nature Conservancy built upon the conceptual framework of the LANDFIRE and Fire Regime 

Condition Class (FRCC) programs (Barrett et al. 2010, Rollins 2009) and incorporated Oregon and BLM 

specific datasets. The Nature Conservancy’s assessment of forest vegetation departure is based on four 
1307 | P a g e

primary data inputs: (1) a classification and map of forested biophysical settings, (2) natural range of 

variability (NRV) reference conditions for each biophysical setting, (3) a delineation of ‘landscape units’

for each biophysical setting, and (4) a map of present day forest vegetation structure.

Mapping Forested Biophysical Settings

Biophysical settings are potential vegetation units associated with characteristic land capabilities and 

disturbance regimes (Barrett et al. 2010). Many different forested biophysical settings are found across 

Washington and Oregon based on vegetation, soils, climate, topography, and historic disturbance regimes 

(Keane et al. 2007, Pratt et al. 2006, Rollins 2009). They provide the framework for describing fire 

regimes. The Nature Conservancy mapped biophysical settings using the 30 m pixel Integrated Landscape 

Assessment Projects’ Potential Vegetation Type (PVT) dataset (Halofsky et al. 2014), which compiled 

previous potential forest vegetation classification and mapping efforts including Simpson (2007) and 

Henderson et al. (2011). The Nature Conservancy also incorporated subsequent refinements to Potential 

Vegetation Type mapping in southwestern Oregon by Henderson (2013).

A biophysical setting model from either the LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment or the later LANDFIRE 

National program (Rollins 2009, Ryan and Opperman 2013) was assigned to each Potential Vegetation 

Type mapping unit (Table H-1). Assignments were made by staff in the U.S. Forest Service Pacific 

Northwest Region Ecology Program based upon the geographic, environmental, and biological 

characteristics of the biophysical setting models and the Potential Vegetation Type mapping units. The 

Nature Conservancy defined forests across our study area as ‘forest’ or ‘forest and woodland’ land cover 

class in the biophysical setting model. U.S. Forest Service National Forest System lands are typically 

considered ‘forest’ if they have > 10 percent tree canopy cover, and this generally coincides with forest, 

and forest and woodland land cover classes (USDA FS 2004).

Table H-1. ILAP PVTs in the analysis area to LANDFIRE BpS model crosswalk

Integrated Landscape Assessment

Project Potential Vegetation Type

(ILAP PVT)

LANDFIRE

Biophysical Settings

(BpS)

Douglas-fir-White oak 0210290

Douglas-fir–Dry 0710270

Western hemlock R#DFHEwt

Mixed Conifer–Warm/Dry R#MCONdy

Mixed Conifer–Moist R#MCONms

Douglas-fir–Moist R#MCONsw

Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Ultramafic R#MEVG

Oregon white oak–Ponderosa pine R#OAPI

Lodgepole pine R#PICOpu

Ponderosa pine-Lodgepole pine R#PIPOm

Ponderosa pine–Xeric R#PIPOxe

Shasta red fir–Moist R#REFI

Tan oak-Douglas-fir–Moist R#TAOAco

Jeffery Pine R#PIJEsp

Mixed Conifer–Cold R#SPFI
1308 | P a g e

Natural Range of Variability Reference Conditions

Each biophysical setting model is composed of a suite of 3–5 successional/structural stages (s-classes). 

These classes typically include: (1) Early Development, (2) Mid-development Closed Canopy, (3) Middevelopment Open Canopy, (4) Late Development Open Canopy, and (5) Late Development Closed 

Canopy. The definition of each s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age is 

unique for each biophysical setting (Table H-2 and Table H-3). The percentage of a biophysical setting 

in each s-class will differ depending on disturbance frequencies and/or intensities. The LANDFIRE and 

FRCC conceptual framework assumes that, given natural processes, a biophysical setting will have a 

characteristic range of variation in the proportion in each s-class and that an effective indicator of 

‘ecological condition’ for a given landscape is the relative abundance of each s-class within biophysical 

settings (Barrett et al. 2010, Keane et al. 2011).
1309 | P a g e

Table H-2. BLM-administered lands by s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age for each biophysical setting Standard LANDFIRE 5–Box Models

LANDFIRE BpS

Included in 

BLM Dry 

Extent

Early Seral (A) Mid-seral Closed (B) Mid-seral Open (C) Late-seral Open (D) Late-seral Closed (E)

Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure Size Class* Canopy Closure

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

0210290 x 1 2 0 100 3 4 31 100 3 4 0 31 5 5 0 30 5 5 31 100

0710270 x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#DFHEwt x 1 2 0 100 3 4 61 100 3 4 0 60 5 5 0 60 5 5 61 100

R#MCONdy x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#MCONms x 1 2 0 100 3 4 56 100 3 4 0 55 5 5 0 55 5 5 56 100

R#MCONsw x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#MEVG x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#OAPI x 1 2 0 100 3 4 31 100 3 4 0 30 5 5 0 30 5 5 31 100

R#PICOpu x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#PIPOm x 1 2 0 100 3 4 31 100 3 4 0 30 5 5 0 30 5 5 31 100

R#PIPOxe x 1 2 0 100 3 4 26 100 3 4 0 25 5 5 0 25 5 5 26 100

R#REFI x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

R#TAOAco x 1 2 0 100 3 4 61 100 3 4 0 60 5 5 0 60 5 5 61 100

R#PIJEsp x 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 40 5 5 41 100

LAND-FIRE BpS

Included in 

BLM Dry 

Extent

Early Seral (A) Mid-seral Closed (B) Mid-seral Open (C) Late-seral Open (D) Late-seral Closed (E)

Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

F#SPFI x* 1 2 0 10 1 2 11 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 5 0 100

* BLM size-class values are numeric representations of structure classes used to categorize early, stand establishment, young, mature, and older complex structural stages (see 

Vegetation Modeling – Forest Structural Stage Classification Appendix C). The BLM used vegetation-modeling canopy cover to determine open and closed status.

Note: The term canopy closure in this table is synonymous with canopy cover, and is based on modeled cover and not field based closure measurements.
1310 | P a g e

Table H-3. Non-BLM-administered lands by s-class in terms of species composition, stand structure, and stand age for each biophysical setting Standard LANDFIRE 5–Box Models

LANDFIRE BpS

Early Seral (A) Mid-seral Closed (B) Mid-seral Open (C) Late-seral Open (D) Late-seral Closed (E)

Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

0210290 1 2 0 100 3 5 31 100 3 5 0 31 6 7 0 30 6 7 31 100

0710270 1 2 0 100 3 6 41 100 3 6 0 40 7 7 0 40 7 7 41 100

R#DFHEwt 1 2 0 100 3 5 61 100 3 5 0 60 6 7 0 60 6 7 61 100

R#MCONdy 1 2 0 100 3 5 41 100 3 5 0 40 6 7 0 40 6 7 41 100

R#MCONms 1 2 0 100 3 5 56 100 3 5 0 55 6 7 0 55 6 7 56 100

R#MCONsw 1 2 0 100 3 5 41 100 3 5 0 40 6 7 0 40 6 7 41 100

R#MEVG 1 2 0 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 7 0 40 5 7 41 100

R#OAPI 1 2 0 100 3 3 31 100 3 3 0 30 4 7 0 30 4 7 31 100

R#PICOpu 1 2 0 100 3 5 41 100 3 5 0 40 6 7 0 40 6 7 41 100

R#PIPOm 1 2 0 100 3 4 31 100 3 4 0 30 5 7 0 30 5 7 31 100

R#PIPOxe 1 2 0 100 3 5 26 100 3 5 0 25 6 7 0 25 6 7 26 100

R#REFI 1 2 0 100 3 5 41 100 3 5 0 40 6 7 0 40 6 7 41 100

R#TAOAco 1 2 0 100 3 4 61 100 3 4 0 60 5 7 0 60 5 7 61 100

R#PIJEsp 1 2 0 100 3 5 41 100 3 5 0 40 6 7 0 40 6 7 41 100

LAND-FIRE BpS

Early Seral (A) Mid-seral Closed (B) Mid-seral Open (C) Late-seral Open (D) Late-seral Closed (E)

Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure Size Class Canopy Closure

Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max

R#SPFI 1 2 0 10 1 2 11 100 3 4 41 100 3 4 0 40 5 7 0 100

Note: The term canopy closure in this table is synonymous with canopy cover, and is based on modeled cover percent and not field based closure measurements.
1311 | P a g e

The Natural Range of Variability (NRV) reference models describe how the relative distribution of 

s-classes for a biophysical setting were shaped by succession and disturbance prior to European 

settlement and provide a comparison to present-day forest conditions (Keane et al. 2009, Landres et al. 

1999). LANDFIRE biophysical setting models are used to develop NRV estimates using state-andtransition models incorporating pre-European settlement rates of succession and disturbance. Rates were 

determined through an intensive literature and expert review process (Keane et al. 2002, Keane et al. 

2007, Pratt et al. 2006, and Rollins 2009).

The distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting, which results from running state-and-transition 

models for many time-steps (Table H-4) does not represent a specific historical date, but instead 

approximates characteristic conditions that result from natural biological and physical processes operating 

on a landscape over a relatively long time. The NRV is frequently represented by a single value, the mean 

relative abundance of each s-class from a collection of Monte Carlo state-and-transition model 

simulations (e.g., Low et al. 2010, Shlisky et al. 2005, and Weisz et al. 2009). However, The Nature 

Conservancy developed and used ranges for each s-class resulting from the stochastic variation within the 

state-and-transition models. The Nature Conservancy ran 10 simulations for each biophysical setting 

state-and-transition model over 1,000 pixels and 1,000 annual time steps. Simulations were started with 

an equal portion in each s-class and it took 200–400 years for the initial trends to stabilize. The Nature 

Conservancy calculated the range for each s-class as ± 2 standard deviations from the mean abundance 

from the last 500 time steps (Provencher et al. 2008). Simulations were modeled using the Vegetation 

Dynamics Development Tool (ESSA Technologies 2007).
1312 | P a g e

Table H-4. Reference condition range by Potential Vegetation Type (PVT)/Biophysical Setting (BpS)

LANDFIRE 

BpS BpS Name

Early Seral (A) Mid-seral (B) Mid-seral (C) Late-seral Open (D) Late-seral Closed (E)

LAND

FIRE 

RC

VDDT 

Mean

HRV 

Low

HRV 

High

LAND

FIRE 

RC

VDDT 

Mean

HRV 

Low

HRV 

High

LAND

FIRE 

RC

VDDT 

Mean

HRV 

Low

HRV 

High

LAND

FIRE 

RC

VDDT 

Mean

HRV 

Low

HRV 

High

LAND

FIRE 

RC

VDDT 

Mean

HRV 

Low

HRV 

High

0210290 Mediterranean California Mixed Oak Woodland 10 9.3 7 11 1 1.1 0 2 20 21.2 19 24 64 64.9 62 68 5 3.5 2 5

0710270 Mediterranean California Dry-Mesic Mixed 

Conifer Forest and Woodland 10 9.0 7 11 5 6.3 5 8 20 20.1 18 22 40 42.3 40 45 25 22.3 20 25

R#DFHEwt Douglas-fir Hemlock–Wet Mesic 5 4.6 3 6 15 17.0 15 19 1 0.6 0 1 4 3.5 2 5 75 74.3 71 77

R#MCONdy Mixed Conifer–Eastside Dry 15 14.0 12 16 1 0.7 0 1 30 31.6 29 34 40 41.5 38 45 14 12.3 10 14

R#MCONms Mixed Conifer–Eastside Mesic 15 14.5 12 17 40 44.4 42 47 15 12.5 10 15 10 9.6 8 11 20 18.9 17 21

R#MCONsw Mixed Conifer–Southwest Oregon 15 14.6 12 17 5 2.9 2 4 10 12.6 11 14 50 51.9 49 55 20 18.1 16 20

R#MEVG California Mixed Evergreen North 15 16.6 14 19 10 7.5 6 9 50 51.6 48 55 20 20.5 18 23 5 3.8 3 5

R#OAPI Oregon White Oak/Ponderosa Pine 25 25.1 22 28 5 3.8 3 5 20 19.2 17 22 47 48.7 45 52 3 3.2 2 4

R#PICOpu Lodgepole Pine–Pumice Soils 20 21.6 19 24 15 13.9 12 16 50 47.7 45 51 10 10.9 9 13 5 5.9 4 7

R#PIJEsp Pine Savannah–Ultramafic 15 15.0 13 17 0 1.0 0 3 45 44.0 41 47 40 39.0 36 42 0 1.0 0 2

R#PIPOm Dry Ponderosa Pine–Mesic 10 10.8 9 13 10 6.9 5 8 35 37.2 34 40 40 42.4 39 45 5 2.8 2 4

R#PIPOxe Ponderosa Pine–Xeric 25 23.6 21 26 5 5.8 4 7 25 22.4 20 25 40 43.2 41 46 5 4.9 4 6

R#REFI Red Fir 10 6.9 5 8 20 22.5 20 25 15 13.2 11 15 20 21.9 19 24 35 35.5 33 39

R#TAOCco Oregon Coastal Tanoak 10 9.7 8 12 10 12.5 10 15 50 47.4 44 51 25 26.2 23 29 5 4.2 3 5

R#SPFI Spruce-Fir 3 3.0 2 4 22 22.3 19 25 30 24.6 22 27 20 20.6 18 23 25 29.4 27 32
1313 | P a g e

Landscape Units

Following the LANDFIRE and FRCC conceptual framework, The Nature Conservancy defined discrete 

landscape units to compare present-day forests to modeled Natural Range of Variability reference 

conditions (Barrett et al. 2010, Pratt et al. 2006). Landscape units were chosen that would adequately 

represent the scale of disturbance of a particular Potential Vegetation Type and were composed of 

forested lands within a BLM management district. This would allow summarization in an accurate and 

usable way for managers (Figure H-3).

Figure H-3. Landscape units

Present-Day Forest Structure and Composition

The Nature Conservancy characterized present-day forest vegetation with the gradient nearest neighbor 

imputation (GNN, Ohmann and Gregory 2002, Figure 3) datasets produced by the U.S. Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon State University Landscape Ecology, Modeling, 

Mapping, and Analysis research group (www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma) and outputs from the BLM vegetation 

modeling process (Appendix C).

All lands that are outside of BLM ownership used the GNN data for current conditions; the BLMadministered lands used the RMP data.

To compare present-day forest vegetation to the Natural Range of Variability reference conditions, The 

Nature Conservancy mapped the current distribution of s-classes for each biophysical setting using BLM

Proposed RMP and alternatives’ data for the BLM-administered lands and GNN data for all other 
1314 | P a g e

ownerships. S-class mapping was based upon tree canopy cover and tree size thresholds provided for each 

s-class in the biophysical setting model descriptions (Table H-2 and Table H-3).

Departure Analysis

Departure in this project is defined as the difference between a modeled reference condition and the 

current conditions in acres (Figure H-4). In an effort to frame ecological departure appropriately, The 

Nature Conservancy chose to look at the whole landscape and summarize departure for each analysis area 

(district) by alternative and the Proposed RMP. This meant that the BLM s-class by alternative and the 

Proposed RMP (Figure H-5) was mosaicked with the base GNN data (Figure H-6) to create a landscape 

s-class layer that combined both the BLM data and the GNN data (Figure H-7).

Figure H-4. Example landscape unit (strata) departure summary calculation
1315 | P a g e

Figure H-5. BLM successional/structural stage (s-class) data for BLM-administered lands in the analysis 

area
1316 | P a g e

Figure H-6. Gradient nearest neighbor (GNN) s-class data for the analysis area
1317 | P a g e

Figure H-7. BLM and GNN s-class data combined 

This process of combining BLM data and GNN data was completed for each alternative and the Proposed 

RMP and departure was calculated for each of these mosaicked datasets. Eight different landscape s-class 

layers were developed: Current Condition, No Action alternative, Alternative A, Alternative B, 

Alternative C, Alternative D, the Proposed RMP, and the No Timber Harvest reference analysis. 
1318 | P a g e

Departure was calcuated for each combination of Potential Vegetation Type and landscape unit (strata) 

and summarized as an acre value. Departue can be summarized in a deficit or excess acres of s-class or in 

a combined overall departure acres; both were summarized in this analysis.

All the results were summerized by alternative and analysis unit in Excel, as well as summarys of s-class 

by alternative to help frame the conversation and discussion in the RMP.

References

Barrett, S., D. Havlina, J. Jones, W. J. Hann, W. J., C. Frame, D. Hamilton, K. Schon, T. DeMeo, L. Hutter, and J. Menakis. 

2010. Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Guidebook, version 3.0. USDA FS, USDI BLM, and The Nature 

Conservancy. http://www.frcc.gov/.

ESSA Technologies. 2007. Vegetation dynamics development tool user guide, version 6.0. ESSA Technologies Ltd., Vancouver, 

BC. p. 196.

Halofsky, J. E., M. K. Creutzburg, and M. A. Hemstrom. 2014. Integrating social, economic, and ecological values across large

landscapes. General Technical Report, USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr896.pdf.

Henderson, E. 2013. Final Report for Potential Vegetation Mapping Update for Southwestern Oregon. Unpublished report, 

Oregon State University. Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 14 pp.

Henderson, J. A., R. D. Lesher, D. H. Peter, and C. D. Ringo. 2011. A landscape model for predicting potential natural vegetation 

of the Olympic Peninsula USA using boundary equations and newly developed environmental variables. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-841. USDA FS, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 35 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr841.pdf.

Keane, R. E., R. A. Parsons, and P. F. Hessburg. 2002. Estimating historical range and variation of landscape patch dynamics:

limitations of the simulation approach. Ecol. Model. 151(1): 29–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00470-7.

Keane, R. E., M. G. Rollins, and Z. L. Zhu. 2007. Using simulated historical time series to prioritize fuel treatments on 

landscapes across the United States: the LANDFIRE prototype project. Ecol. Model. 204(3): 485–502. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.02.005.

Keane, R. E., P. F. Hessburg, P. B. Landres, and F. J. Swanson. 2009. The use of historical range and variability (HRV) in 

landscape management. For. Ecol. Manage. 258(7): 1025–1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.05.035.

Keane, R. E., L. M. Holsinger, and R. A. Parsons. 2011. Evaluating indices that measure departure of current landscape 

composition from historical conditions. RMRS-RP-83. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp083.pdf.

Landres, P. B., P. Morgan, and F. J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural variability concepts in managing ecological 

systems. Ecol. Appl. 9(4): 1179–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2641389.

Low, G., L. Provencher, and S. L. Abele. 2010. Enhanced conservation action planning: assessing land-scape condition and 

predicting benefits of conservation strategies. J. Conser. Plan. 6: 36–60.

Ohmann, J. L., and M. J. Gregory. 2002. Predictive mapping of forest composition and structure with direct gradient analysis and 

nearest-neighbor imputation in coastal Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 32(4): 725–741. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X02-011.

Pratt, S. D., L. M. Holsinger, R. E. Keane, R. E. 2006. Using simulation modeling to assess historical reference conditions for 

vegetation and fire regimes for the LANDFIRE prototype project. In: Rollins, M. G., and C. K. Frame (Eds.). The 

LANDFIRE prototype project: nationally consistent and locally relevant geospatial data for wildland fire management. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-175. USDA FS, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins CO.

Provencher, L., J. L. Campbell, and J. Nachlinger. 2008. Implementation of mid-scale fire regime condition class mapping. Int. J. 

Wildland Fire 17(3): 390–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF07066.

Rollins, M. G. 2009. LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18: 

235–249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF08088.

Ryan, K. C., and T. S. Opperman. 2013. LANDFIRE – a national vegetation/fuels data base for use in fuels treatment, 

restoration, and suppression planning. For. Ecol. Management 294: 208–216. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.11.003.

Shlisky, A. J., R. P. Guyette, and K. C. Ryan. 2005. Modeling reference conditions to restore altered fire regimes in oak-hickorypine forests: validating coarse models with local fire history data. In: EastFire Conference Proceedings. George Mason 

University, Fairfax, VA. pp. 12–13.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.173.3665&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Simpson, M. 2007. Forested plant associations of the Oregon East Cascades. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-2007. USDA 

FS, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YZTenR_ByNQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-

2007&ots=ZJDzHqso9g&sig=Ag-KrWiWgwmC-iwngsB28Wk9iOI#v=onepage&q=R6-NR-ECOL-TP-03-2007&f=false.
1319 | P a g e

USDA FS. 2004. Standards for mapping of vegetation in the Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Portland, OR. 22 pp.

Weisz, R., J. Tripeke, and R. Truman. 2009. Evaluating the ecological sustainability of a ponderosa pine ecosystem on the 

Kaibab Plateau in Northern Arizona. Fire Ecology 5(1): 100–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4996/fireecology.0501100.

Issues 2 and 3 – Assumptions and District-specific 

Results

Issue 2

How would the alternatives affect fire resistance in the fire-adapted dry forests at the stand level?

Issue 3

How would the alternatives affect fire hazard at the stand – level within close proximity to 

developed areas?

Common Analytical Assumptions

The results of this analysis do not include effects from non-commercial hazardous fuels work taking place 

in forested or non-forested lands (Table H-5). These types of treatments would contribute toward 

improving fire resistance and reducing fire hazard similarly among all alternatives and the Proposed 

RMP.

Table H-5. Acres of current condition forested and non-forested BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area

District/

Field Office

Forest

(Acres)

Non-Forest

(Acres)

Totals

(Acres)

Coos Bay 304,030 20,206 324,236

Eugene 297,222 13,841 311,063

Klamath Falls 46,773 167,312 214,084

Medford 740,110 66,565 806,675

Roseburg 399,163 24,477 423,640

Salem 374,392 24,765 399,157

Assumptions of General Stand Structural Stages and Fire 

Interactions

 Vegetation community structure is an important factor affecting potential fire behavior, postfire effects, fire resistance, and fire hazard.

Early Successional

The BLM assumes that although Early Successional communities have less than 30 percent canopy 

cover—resulting in somewhat discontinuous surface fuel loading—this structural stage is typically 

comprised of highly flammable vegetation (Agee 1993). When combined with open conditions that can 

increase surface wind speeds and flames lengths (Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983), in general, this 

structural stage presents relatively moderate resistance to replacement fire and moderate fire hazard.
1320 | P a g e

Stand Establishment and Young High-density Stands

The Stand Establishment and Young High-density stand structural stages maintain low canopy base 

heights and a combination of highly flammable Early Successional vegetation, along with increased 

cover. In general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire 

hazard (Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995).

Young Low-density Stands

Although, the canopy base height may be low in Young Low-density stands, in general, there is greater 

separation between crowns (vertically and horizontally). This discontinuity in the fuel profile, results in 

relatively lower canopy bulk densities, moderate fire hazard, and moderate resistance to replacement fire 

within both the younger and structural legacy components of the stand.

Structural Legacies

The Stand Establishment and Young High-density stand structural stages maintain low canopy base 

heights and a combination of highly flammable Early Successional vegetation, along with increased 

cover. In general, these structural stages present relatively low resistance to replacement fire and high fire 

hazard (Odion et al. 2004, Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). However, both Early Successional and 

Stand Establishment phases with Structural Legacies would have some separation of crown layers 

between legacy trees and understory vegetation, resulting in somewhat discontinuous ladder fuels and 

increased fire resistance in Structural Legacies. Pockets of heavy surface and ladder fuels may result in 

potential mortality to Structural Legacies from cambial damage (trees < 20” DBH have 35–70 percent

mortality, USDI BLM 2008) or passive torching. This potential for cambial damage to overstory legacy 

structures increases along with understory vegetative cover and height (Peterson et al. 2005). Despite 

some potential separation in crown layers, in general, young high-density stands have high continuous 

surface and ladder fuel loading, low canopy fuel base heights, and taller vegetation, relative to Early 

Successional and Stand Establishment vegetation. This fuel profile in the Young High-density stands 

increases crown fire potential of the young stand component and structural legacies (Odion et al. 2004), 

resulting in lower relative resistance to replacement fire and higher fire hazard.

Overstory canopy cover from Structural Legacies could also partially shelter the stand, reducing surface 

winds and slowing the drying of fuels (NWCG 2014), and thus help moderate fire behavior. Alternatively, 

open stand conditions have the potential to increase drying and surface winds and thus flame lengths 

(Pollet and Omi 2002, Rothermel 1983). Increased winds in combination with low canopy base heights 

can increase torching potential and fire hazard, therefore no distinction is made between Early

Successional, Stand Establishment, and Young stands with Structural Legacies in regards to fire hazard.

Mature Single-layered Canopy

In general, Mature Single-layered Canopy stands have low surface fuel loading (due to closed canopy 

shading inhibiting understory growth), higher canopy base heights, and thus a lower probability of 

torching and crown fire initiation within the stand, creating a low stand-level fire hazard condition (Jain et 

al. 2012). Although, continuous canopy cover of high canopy bulk density is susceptible to crown fire 

spread from adjacent stands (Scott and Reinhardt 2001, Jain and Graham 2007, Jain et al. 2012).

Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex

Mature Multi-layered Canopy and Structurally-complex forests have the potential to exhibit the full range 

of fire behavior (surface to crown fire). In general, these structural stages have heterogeneous 

composition, which can alter fire spread (Jain et al. 2012, Finney 2001); and a larger number of large 

diameter (> 20” DBH) trees with thick bark, which improve stand-level fire resistance and reduce standlevel fire hazard (Agee and Skinner 2005), potentially increasing the likelihood of burning at low- to 

moderate-severity (Alexander et al. 2006). Multi-aged closed-forest conditions can potentially create a 

vertical fuel ladder for surface fire to reach the canopy (North et al. 2009) and support accumulations of 
1321 | P a g e

continuous heavy surface and ladder fuels, and increase the potential for torching and crown fire, 

significantly reducing resistance to control. Alternatively, these structural types can create influential 

microclimates and shelter surface winds, harboring conditions that are more likely to result in lowered fire 

severity (Odion et al. 2004), particularly in topographic locations with low fire probability.

Ultimately, fire behavior in these structural stages will result from several factors, including weather, fuel 

moisture, and topographic influences, along with the vertical and horizontal continuity of the fuel profile.

Fire Resistance and Fire Hazard Ratings

 General assumptions regarding vegetation structural stage classification and the probable 

fire behavior based on vertical and horizontal fuel profile were used to generate relative 

stand-level resistance to replacement fire and fire hazard ratings (Table H-6 and Table H7).

Table H-6. BLM-defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level resistance to replacement 

fire ratings, and assumptions regarding overall fuel profile continuity, and vertical and horizontal fuel 

continuity

Structural 

Stages Subdivisions

Resistance to 

Replacement 

Fire

Assumptions Behind Resistance Ratings

Entire Fuel Profile 

Continuity

Horizontal Fuel 

Profile Continuity

Vertical Fuel 

Profile Continuity

Early 

Successional

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous

without Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous

Stand 

Establishment

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Semi-discontinuous Continuous

without Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous

Young Highdensity

with Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous

without Structural Legacies Low Continuous Continuous Continuous

Young Lowdensity

with Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous

without Structural Legacies Moderate Semi-discontinuous Continuous Semi-discontinuous

Mature Single-layered Canopy High Discontinuous Discontinuous Continuous

Multi-layered Canopy Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity

Structurallycomplex

Developed Structurallycomplex Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity

Existing Old Forest Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity

Existing Very Old Forest Mixed Mixed continuity Mixed continuity Mixed continuity
1322 | P a g e

Table H-7. BLM-defined structural stages and subdivisions, relative stand-level fire hazard ratings and 

assumptions regarding surface fuel loading, canopy base height, and canopy fuel bulk density (continuity) 

as the basis for the hazard rating

Structural 

Stages Subdivisions

Fire 

Hazard 

Rating

Assumptions Behind Hazard Ratings

Surface 

Fuel 

Loading

Canopy 

Base 

Height

Canopy Fuel 

Bulk Density 

(Continuity)

Early 

Successional

with Structural legacies Moderate

Low Low

Moderate without Structural Legacies Moderate

Stand 

Establishment

with Structural Legacies High

High without Structural Legacies High

Young Stands–

High Density

with Structural Legacies High

without Structural Legacies High

Young Stands–

Low Density

with Structural Legacies Moderate

without Structural Legacies Moderate Moderate

Mature Single-layered Canopy Low Moderate High

Multi-layered Canopy Mixed

Structurally- Mixed

complex

Developed Structurally-complex Mixed

Existing Old Forest Mixed

Existing Very Old Forest Mixed

In general, stands with higher fire resistance have reduced surface fuel loading, lower tree density, large 

diameter trees of fire-resistant species, increased height to live crown (Brown et al. 2004, Peterson et al.

2005, USDI BLM 2008), and discontinuous horizontal and vertical fuels.

Fire hazard refers to the ease of ignition, potential fire behavior, and resistance to control of the fuel 

complex, defined by the volume and arrangement of several strata, including surface, ladder, and canopy 

fuels (Calkin et al. 2010). The primary fuel characteristics associated with potential fire behavior and 

crown fire potential are canopy base height, canopy bulk density, and surface fuel loading (Scott and 

Reinhardt 2001, Jain and Graham 2007).
1323 | P a g e

Issue 2 – Stand-level Fire Resistance in the Harvest Land Base by District

Figure H-8. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest in the Klamath Falls Field Office for the current 

condition in 50 years

14,738 

6,870 

10,048 

4,708 

13,179 

7,937 

13,202 12,102 11,485 

5,606 

12,542 

8,506 

7,468 

13,615 

3,609 

331 

5,913 

539 

6,415 

4,952 

5,844 

6,785 

6,376 

590 

6,899 

6,242 

363 

6,751 

6,127 

14,783 

4,190 7,834 2,633 

7,301 

6,255 

14,190 

7,714 

10,092 

3,365 

5,594 

7,555 

9,516 7,797 6,715 7,007 7,277 7,339 

9,225 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (36,820) Alt. A (17,384) Alt. B (32,775) Alt. C (31,603) Alt. D (26,969) PRMP (32,511)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)

Percent of Acres

Low Moderate Mixed High
1324 | P a g e

Figure H-9. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the Medford District for the current condition in 50 

years

143,365 

90,940 

41,131 43,716 

76,828 

49,325 

84,057 

69,696 

90,749 

54,342 

68,359 

45,809 

54,805 

118,525 

20,141 16,760 

28,812 

14,754 

33,460 

24,383 

39,375 

23,190 

29,543 

24,359 

164,820 

119,694 

17,759 

14,858 

84,835 

106,028 

71,240 

74,184 

70,049 

90,146 

70,489 

79,821 

22,644 

56,484 

6,250 9,946 

13,345 

33,722 

13,652 

34,147 

14,125 

46,620 

11,913 

30,315 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (385,643) Alt. A (85,281) Alt. B (203,829) Alt. C (202,410) Alt. D (214,298) PRMP (180,303)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)

Percent of Acres

Low Moderate Mixed High
1325 | P a g e

Figure H-10. Stand-level fire resistance categories in the Harvest Land Base in the dry forest on the Roseburg District in 50 years

21,805 

11,326 

12,785 

14,352 20,061 

10,382 

23,196 

20,081 

25,350 

13,891 

16,278 

8,163 

8,567 

21,247 

6,149 

5,541 7,551 

1,787 

8,811 

5,761 

12,077 

5,210 

6,747 

8,937 

28,671 

14,127 

2,861 

366 

3,545 

9,979 

8,956 

7,970 

8,438 

13,157 

3,421 

3,571 

3,056 

15,401 

1,353 

2,889 

1,568 

10,576 

2,211 

9,363 

2,231 

15,837 

1,199 

6,973 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (62,100) Alt. A (23,149) Alt. B (32,725) Alt. C (43,175) Alt. D (48,095) PRMP (27,644)

Dry Forest Harvest Land Base (Acres)

Percent of Acres

Low Moderate Mixed High
1326 | P a g e

Issue 3 – Stand-level Fire Hazard Within Wildland Developed 

Areas by District

Figure H-11. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Coos Bay District within the

WDA in 2063

Figure H-12. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Eugene District within the 

WDA in 2063

12,875 

20,871 20,292 22,054 18,087 23,260 23,056 2,852 

7,513 5,322 7,510 

6,753 2,897 

3,245 23,089 

33,237 

32,008 

36,433 

30,382 

39,532 37,237 

36,737 

13,932 17,930 

9,556 

20,331 

9,865 12,016 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High

29,349 

40,978 39,605 38,435 34,571 37,457 39,584 

2,056 

8,222 7,692 16,042 

12,561 4,771 8,210 

38,909 

61,379 57,611 

58,132 

38,279 

69,397 57,545 

50,019 

9,755 15,425 7,709 

34,922 

8,708 14,994 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High
1327 | P a g e

Figure H-13. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Klamath Falls Field Office 

within the WDA in 2063

Figure H-14. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Medford District within the 

WDA in 2063

262 

639 641 585 

266 

462 

615 

441 

285 

42 110 

509 

298 114 

619 

572 

888 944 

524 618 

911 

673 

499 424 356 

696 617 

356 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High

18,982 

44,854 45,979 46,402 45,069 48,986 45,769 29,722 

36,326 23,665 20,908 22,933 19,780 20,600 

140,398 

130,728 166,524 174,488 169,257 172,607 172,151 

135,758 

112,951 

88,692 83,062 87,601 83,487 86,340 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High
1328 | P a g e

Figure H-15. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Roseburg District within the 

WDA in 2063

Figure H-16. Stand-level fire hazard for all BLM-administered lands on the Salem District within the 

WDA in 2063

3,753 

30,680 27,467 23,761 18,305 

32,019 25,195 

5,715 

4,792 5,321 9,377 

8,638 

3,139 5,450 

52,155 

47,242 58,340 61,463 

52,111 

61,110 

59,760 

58,258 

37,168 

28,754 25,281 

40,826 

23,613 29,477 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation (Acres)

Low Moderate Mixed High

22,471 

32,283 31,246 30,625 27,577 30,717 30,586 

2,912 

6,879 9,361 14,162 14,557 6,991 8,027 

33,509 

52,100 42,547 

46,501 

34,689 

50,969 45,196 

43,664 

11,293 

19,401 

11,282 

25,732 

13,878 18,746 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D PRMP

Percent of Acres

50 Years After Plan Implementation

Low Moderate Mixed High
1329 | P a g e

Issue 3 – Stand-level Fire Hazard for Late-Successional Reserve Within Wildland 

Developed Areas by Planning Area Region

Figure H-17. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserve in the dry forest in the coastal/north in 50 years

7,345 

11,957 

21,491 

27,146 28,810 

37,380 

16,767 20,205 

8,277 

5,013 

23,392 28,471 

754 

471 

2,468 

1,816 

3,056 

2,248 

1,290 

852 

1,049 

905 

2,397 

1,573 

15,064 

22,798 

49,887 

68,723 

55,360 

82,119 

36,391 

53,142 

35,250 42,014 

45,945 

65,298 

14,032 

1,968 

29,500 

5,661 

41,744 

7,224 

23,360 

3,609 

6,468 

3,111 

29,552 

5,945 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (37,195) Alt. A (103,345) Alt. B (128,971) Alt. C (77,808) Alt. D (51,044) PRMP (101,287)

Late Successional Reserve within WDA (Acres)

Percent of Acres

Low Moderate Mixed High
1330 | P a g e

Figure H-18. Stand-level fire hazard in the Late-Successional Reserve in the dry forest in the interior/south in 50 years

1,538 

7,866 

12,470 

38,651 

7,269 21,059 8,630 

19,280 

5,891 

13,652 

7,222 17,503 

2,375 

1,043 

8,470 

9,405 

5,986 

2,672 

6,707 

4,392 

3,460 

3,836 

5,656 

3,167 

21,422 

22,538 

137,337 

155,991 

94,922 

104,686 

106,459 

115,316 

96,196 

103,232 

94,976 

105,094 

14,120 

8,008 

78,512 

32,743 

39,314 

19,073 

39,990 

22,798 

29,125 

13,954 

35,158 

17,249 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

Current

Condition

Year

2063

No Action (39,465) Alt. A (236,789) Alt. B (147,491) Alt. C (161,785) Alt. D (134,674) PRMP (143,012)

Late Successional Reserve within WDA (Acres)

Percent of Acres

Low Moderate Mixed High
1331 | P a g e

References

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C. Island Press. 493 pp.

Agee, J. K. and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 

211(1–2): 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.034.

Alexander, J. D., N. E. Seavy, C. J. Ralph, and B. Hogoboom. 2006. Vegetation and topographical correlates of fire severity from 

two fires in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of Oregon and California. International Journal of Wildland Fire 15: 237–245. 

http://www.klamathbird.org/images/stories/kbo/pdfs_peer_reviewed_publications/alexanderetal_2006_vegetationandtopogr

aphical.pdf.

Finney, M. A. 2001. Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire growth and behavior. Forest Science 

47(2): 219–228. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr292/2001_finney.pdf.

Jain, T. B., and R. T. Graham. 2007. The relation between tree burn severity and forest structure in the Rocky Mountains. 

Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: Proceedings of the 2005 National Silviculture Workshop. USDA Forest Service Gen. 

Tech. Rep PSW-GTR-203. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr203/psw_gtr203_017jain.pdf.

Jain, T. B., M. A. Battaglia, Han-Sup Han, R. T. Graham, C. R. Keyes, J. S. Fried, J. E. Sandquist. 2012. A comprehensive guide 

to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR292.: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 331 pp. 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42150.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2014. Fire behavior field reference guide. Publication PMS 437. National 

Interagency Fire Center, Fire Environment Committee, Boise, ID.

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixedconifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 49 

pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr220/psw_gtr220.pdf.

Odion, D. C., E. J. Frost, J. R. Strittholt, H. Jiang, D. A. DellaSala, M. A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity and Forest 

Conditions in the Western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18(4): 927–936. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00493.x.

Pollet, J., and P. N. Omi. 2002. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests.

International Journal of Wildland Fire 11(1): 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF01045.

Peterson, D. L., M. C. Johnson, J. K. Agee, T. B. Jain, D. McKenzie, and E. D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard 

in dry forests of the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-628. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 30 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr628.pdf.

Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 161 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr143.pdf.

Scott, J. H., and E. D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-29. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 59 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_rp029.pdf.

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. Portland, OR. Vol. I–IV. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/.

Weatherspoon, C. P., and C. N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 

wildfires in northern California. Forest Science 41(3): 430–451.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/weatherspoon/psw_1995_weatherspoon001.pdf.
1332 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1333 | P a g e

Appendix I – Fisheries 

Table I-1. Bureau Sensitive and Bureau Strategic fish species within the decision area.

Common Name Scientific Name ESU or DPS Status

District/

Field Office

Coos BayEugeneKlamath FallsMedfordRoseburgSalem

Pacific lamprey Entosphenus 

tridentatus All Sensitive X X X X X X

Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta Pacific Coast Sensitive X X X

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Oregon Coast Sensitive X X X X X

Umpqua chub Oregonichthys 

kalawatseti All Sensitive X X

Coastal cutthroat 

trout

Oncorhynchus clarkii 

clarkii

SW Washington/

Columbia River Sensitive X

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Klamath Mountains 

Province, Summer Run Sensitive X X

Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Klamath Mountains 

Province, Winter Run Sensitive X X

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha

S. Oregon Coast/

N. California Coast Sensitive X X

Jenny creek sucker Catostomus rimiculus All Sensitive X X

Millicoma dace Rhinichthys 

cataractae ssp. nov.

All Sensitive X

Slender sculpin Cottus tenuis All Strategic X
1334 | Page

Figure I-1. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Upper Willamette River steelhead

Figure I-1. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Upper Willamette River steelhead
1335 | Page

Figure I-2. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River chinook salmon 

Figure I-2. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River chinook salmon 
1336 | Page

Figure I-3. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River chum salmon 

Figure I-3. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River chum salmon 
1337 | Page

Figure I-4. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River coho salmon

Figure I-4. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River coho salmon
1338 | Page

Figure I-5. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River steelhead 

Figure I-5. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lower Columbia River steelhead 
1339 | Page

Figure I-6. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Oregon Coast coho salmon 

Figure I-6. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Oregon Coast coho salmon 
1340 | Page

Figure I-7. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Southern Oregon Northern California coho 

salmon 

Figure I-7. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Southern Oregon Northern California coho 

salmon 
1341 | Page

Figure I-8. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Upper Willamette River spring chinook 

salmon 

Figure I-8. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Upper Willamette River spring chinook 

salmon 
1342 | Page

Figure I-9. Critical habitat designation and distribution of bull trout in the McKenzie Basin 

Figure I-9. Critical habitat designation and distribution of bull trout in the McKenzie Basin 
1343 | Page

Figure I-10. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lost River sucker 

Figure I-10. Critical habitat designation and distribution of Lost River sucker 
1344 | Page

Figure I-11. Critical habitat designation and distribution of shortnose sucker 

Figure I-11. Critical habitat designation and distribution of shortnose sucker 
1345 | P a g e

Appendix J – Best Management Practices 

Introduction 

A Best Management Practice (BMP) is a practice or combination of practices that have been determined 

to be the most effective and practicable in preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by 

non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals (40 CFR 130.2 [m]). Using of BMPs is 

required by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C 1251 et seq.) to reduce nonpoint source pollution to the 

maximum extent practicable. Nonpoint source pollution is defined as pollutants detected in waterbodies, 

such as a streams or lakes, which come from the landscape in a dispersed manner. The BMPs are the 

primary controls for achieving Oregon’s water quality standards pertaining to nonpoint source pollution. 

Oregon’s narrative and numeric criteria within water quality standards are designed to protect designated 

beneficial uses such as salmonid spawning and rearing, resident fish and aquatic life, domestic water 

supplies, and water-contact recreation. 

The BLM is responsible for implementing BMPs on the lands it administers.30 The BMPs provide 

compliance with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, State of Oregon water quality legislation 

(Chapter 340), and the O&C Act. For proposed management actions, the BLM would design and 

implement BMPs in a manner that is consistent with the ODEQ Memorandum of Understanding (ODEQ 

and USDI BLM 2011), and with the Clean Water Act. 

The BLM’s and ODEQ’s strategy for managing and controlling nonpoint source water pollution from 

BLM-administered lands in the State of Oregon is managed through a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the two agencies (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011). This MOU defines the process by which the 

BLM and ODEQ will cooperatively meet State and Federal water quality rules and regulations. The 

physical, chemical, and biological conditions of ‘waters of the State’ that support beneficial uses31 would 

be protected, restored, and maintained by working in a proactive, collaborative, and adaptive manner. The 

MOU specifies that the BLM would implement site-specific BMPs as specified in management 

objectives, standards, guidelines, design features, and mitigation developed in RMPs, RMP amendments, 

project-level plans, and Water Quality Restoration Plans to meet applicable water quality standards. The 

MOU requires monitoring to ensure that practices are properly designed and applied, to determine the 

effectiveness of practices in meeting water quality standards, and to provide for adjustment of BMPs 

when it is found that water quality standards are not being protected. 

The RMP contains measures in both management direction and BMPs to prevent and reduce the amount 

of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Where a 

specific measure would apply to all actions on all sites (either in a specific land use allocation or across 

the decision area), the BLM presents the measure as management direction.32 Where the applicability of a 

specific measure would depend upon site-specific conditions, technical feasibility, resource availability, 

and the water quality of those waterbodies potentially affected, the BLM presents the measure as a BMP. 

This appendix only lists the BMPs, which must be considered together with the management direction 

(Appendix B).

 

30 The ODEQ has granted Designated Management Agency status to the BLM through a Memorandum of 

Understanding (ODEQ and USDI BLM 2011). 

31 Beneficial uses are defined in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS), Chapter 468B Water Quality, and Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR), Division 41. 

32 Management direction identifies where future actions may or may not be allowed and what restrictions or 

requirements may be placed on those future actions to achieve the objectives set for the BLM-administered lands 

and resources (Appendix B).
1346 | P a g e

The BMPs described in this appendix are methods, measures, or practices selected based on site-specific 

conditions to ensure that the BLM would maintain water quality at its highest practicable level to meet 

water quality standards and TMDL load allocations as set by the State of Oregon’s Department of 

Environmental Quality. These site-specific BMPs are a compilation of commonly employed practices 

developed through professional experience or research, and designed to minimize water quality 

degradation and loss of soil productivity. The BMPs include, but are not limited to, avoidance, structural 

and nonstructural treatments, operations, and maintenance procedures. Although normally preventative, 

BMPs can be applied before, during, and after pollution-producing activities to reduce or eliminate the 

introduction of pollutants into receiving waters (40 CFR 130.2, EPA Water Quality Standards 

Regulation). The implementation of these BMPs would be the beginning of an iterative process that 

includes the monitoring and modification of BMPs, where needed, to achieve water quality goals. This 

cyclic process would be the primary mechanism to achieve Oregon’s water quality standards.

For vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM-administered lands in the decision area, BMPs are 

included in Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Oregon Record of Decision 

(USDI BLM 2010) as mitigation measures and standard operating practices, and are incorporated here by 

reference. Briefly, mitigation and standard operating procedures in Attachment A; General, Soil, Water 

Resources, Wetlands and Riparian Areas, Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms, Recreation and other 

beneficial uses and values (pp. 33–45), and additional mitigation measures (pp. 13–15) are considered 

BMPs for herbicide treatments. For other management activities, including minerals exploration and 

development, linear transmission projects, and most hazardous materials, the mechanism to achieve 

Oregon State Water Quality Standards would be guided by RMP management direction, regulations, or 

project-level design features, and not necessarily be covered by the BMPs contained in this RMP. For 

example, management of locatable minerals is governed by regulations found in 43 CFR 3809. The BMPs 

for locatable minerals include language from 43 CFR 3809 that requires operators to prevent unnecessary 

and undue degradation from mining operations, as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 43 CFR 3809.415.

Selection and Application of BMPs

For implementation actions under this RMP, BLM decision-makers will select the appropriate and 

applicable BMPs, using input from BLM staff. The BLM will select BMPs based upon site-specific 

conditions, technical feasibility, resource availability, and the water quality of those waterbodies 

potentially impacted. Not all of the BMPs listed will be selected for any specific management action. The 

BMPs below do not provide an exhaustive list of nonpoint source control measures. The BLM may 

identify additional nonpoint source control measures during project-level planning and analysis. The 

BLM will apply the selected BMPs in a manner that would be in conformance with all RMP management 

direction.

The BMPs that relate to instream activities may coincidently be similar to applicable practices specified in 

applicable permits, such as Army Corps of Engineers, Department of State Lands, and ODFW joint 

removal/fill permits, ODEQ water quality permits and 401 certifications, or project design criteria 

contained in biological assessments. The BMPs in the following tables are not specific permit 

requirements, but rather demonstrate the process by which the BLM would control nonpoint source 

pollution from instream activities.

Monitoring and Adjustment

The BLM will monitor the application of BMPs through implementation and effectiveness monitoring. 

Post-project implementation monitoring of selected BMPs will evaluate whether the BLM carries forward 
1347 | P a g e

BMPs from the project-level plans. Effectiveness monitoring will evaluate whether selected BMPs meet 

water quality standards and criteria and assure protection of beneficial uses. The BLM would modify 

BMPs if monitoring demonstrates that water quality standards are not being protected. The BLM would 

make changes to individual BMPs, or additions or deletions to the BMP lists below, through plan 

maintenance, consistent with 43 CFR 1610.5–4.

BMP Lists

Table J-1 through Table J-14 are organized by core activities on BLM-administered lands in the decision 

area. For each core activity, the table displays the sequential number and BMP in the left columns, the 

source or reference in the center column, and the applicable ODEQ narrative or numeric water quality 

standards in the right column. The table identifies the ODEQ Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 

number(s) in the right column and provides OAR references within the roads and landings section, to 

compare these BMPs to similar Oregon Department of Forestry OARs. See Oregon Administrative Rules 

on water pollution (ODEQ OARs, Division 41, 2015) for additional details about the standards and 

regulations that are associated with the BMPs.

Core activities with BMPs include:

• Road and landing maintenance and construction

• Timber harvest activities

• Silvicultural activities

• Fire and fuels management

• Surface source water for drinking water

• Recreation management

• Range management

• Minerals (salable) development

• Spill prevention and abatement

• Restoration activities

• Dry forest-specific BMPs

The following lists of BMPs are not intended to be all-inclusive nor replace site-specific project planning, 

which may require the use of different or additional BMP practices.
1348 | P a g e

Roads and Landings

Table J-1. Best management practices for roads and landings

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

General Construction

R 01

Locate temporary and permanent roads 

and landings on stable locations, e.g., ridge 

tops, stable benches, or flats, and gentleto-moderate side slopes. Minimize road 

construction on steep slopes (> 60 percent) 

consult TPCC for FP and FM 

classifications.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 1, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 02

Locate temporary and permanent road 

construction or improvement to minimize 

the number of stream crossings.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 2, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(3-4)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 03

Locate roads and landings away from 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains,

and waters of the State, unless there is no 

practicable alternative. Avoid locating 

landings in areas that contribute runoff to 

channels.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 4, p. 270

OAR 629-625-0200 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 04

Locate roads and landings to reduce total 

transportation system mileage. Renovate 

or improve existing roads or landings 

when it would cause less adverse 

environmental impact. Where roads 

traverse land in another ownership, 

investigate options for using those roads 

before constructing new roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 2, p. 270

EPA 2005, p. 3-12, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0200 

(5)

EPA 2005, p. 3-10, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0200–ODF, Road Location

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 05

Design roads to the minimum width 

needed for the intended use as referenced 

in BLM Manual 9113 – 1 – Roads Design 

Handbook (USDI BLM 2011).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 8, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0310 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 06

Confine pioneer roads to the construction 

limits of the permanent roadway to reduce 

the amount of area disturbed and avoid 

deposition in wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State. Install 

temporary drainage, erosion, and sediment

control structures. Storm proof or close 

pioneer roads prior to the onset of the wet 

season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 11, p. 271

EPA 2005, p. 3-41, 

Bullet 2

OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 

Materials

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 07

Design road cut and fill slopes with stable 

angles, to reduce erosion and prevent slope 

failure.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 3, p. 270

EPA 2005 

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1349 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 08

End-haul material excavated during 

construction, renovation, or maintenance 

where side slopes generally exceed 60 

percent and any slope where side-cast 

material may enter wetlands, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 10, p. 271

EPA 2005, p. 3-12, 

Bullet 5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 09

Construct road fills to prevent fill failure 

using inorganic material, compaction, 

buttressing, sub-surface drainage, rock 

facing, or other effective means.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 13, p. 271.

OAR 629-625-0310-

5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 10

Design and construct sub-surface drainage 

(e.g., trench drains using geo-textile 

fabrics and drain pipes) in landslide-prone 

areas and saturated soils. Minimize or 

eliminate new road construction in these 

areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 19, p. 272

ODEQ 2005, RC-1, 

RC-6, pp.4-5, 4-6

OAR 629-625-0300-ODF, Road Design

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 11

Locate waste disposal areas outside 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and unstable areas to minimize risk of 

sediment delivery to waters of the State. 

Apply surface erosion control prior to the 

wet season. Prevent overloading areas, 

which may become unstable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 80, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0340

OAR 629-625-0340-ODF, 

Waste Disposal Areas

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 12

Use controlled blasting techniques to 

minimize loss of material on steep slopes 

or into wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 12, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0410-ODF, Disposal of Waste 

Materials

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 13

Use temporary sediment control measures 

(e.g., check dams, silt fencing, bark bags, 

filter strips, and mulch) to slow runoff and 

contain sediment from road construction 

areas. Remove any accumulated sediment 

and the control measures when work or 

haul is complete. When long-term 

structural sediment control measures are 

incorporated into the final erosion control 

plan, remove any accumulated sediment to 

retain capacity of the control measure.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 14, p. 271

ODEQ 2005, RC-11

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 14

Avoid use of road fills for water 

impoundment dams unless specifically 

designed for that purpose. Impoundments 

over 9.2-acre-feet or 10 feet in depth will 

require a dam safety assessment by a 

registered engineer. Upgrade existing road 

fill impoundments to pass 100-year flood 

events.

OAR 629-625-0310-

5

OAR 629-625-0310-ODF, Road Prism

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1350 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Permanent Stream Crossings

R 15

Minimize fill volumes at permanent and 

temporary stream crossings by restricting 

width and height of fill to amounts needed 

for safe travel and adequate cover for 

culverts. For deep fills (generally greater 

than 15 feet deep), incorporate additional 

design criteria (e.g., rock blankets, 

buttressing, bioengineering techniques) to 

reduce the susceptibility of fill failures.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 47, p. 276

OAR 629-625-0320 

(1b)

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 16

Locate stream-crossing culverts on welldefined, unobstructed, and straight reaches 

of stream. Locate these crossings as close 

to perpendicular to the streamflow as 

stream allows. When structure cannot be 

aligned perpendicular, provide inlet and 

outlet structures that protect fill, and 

minimize bank erosion. Choose crossings 

that have well-defined stream channels 

with erosion-resistant bed and banks.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 48, p. 276

EPA 2005, p. 3-14

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–30 

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 17

On new construction, install culverts at the 

natural stream grade, unless a lessor 

gradient is required for fish passage. 

Stream crossings with ESA-listed fish 

must meet ARBO II (USDOC NMFS and 

USDI FWS 2013) fish passage design 

criteria.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 49, p. 276

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 18

Design stream crossings to minimize 

diversion potential in the event that the 

crossing is blocked by debris during storm 

events. This protection could include 

hardening crossings, armoring fills, 

dipping grades, oversizing culverts, 

hardening inlets and outlets, and lowering 

the fill height.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 53, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 19

Design stream crossings to prevent 

diversion of water from streams into 

downgrade road ditches or down road 

surfaces.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 31, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 20

Place instream grade control structures 

above or below the crossing structure, if 

necessary, to prevent stream head cutting, 

culvert undermining and downstream 

sedimentation. Employ bioengineering 

measures to protect the stability of the 

streambed and banks.

ODEQ 2005 , RC -

2

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp 

5–31

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 20

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1351 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 21

Prevent culvert plugging and failure in 

areas of active debris movement with 

measures such as beveled culvert inlets, 

flared inlets, wingwalls, over-sized 

culverts, trash racks, or slotted risers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 59, p. 278

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 22

To reduce the risk of loss of the road 

crossing structure and fill causing 

excessive sedimentation, use bridges or 

low-water fords when crossing debris-flow 

susceptible streams. Avoid using culverts 

when crossing debris-flow susceptible 

streams when practicable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 59, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 23

Utilize stream diversion and isolation 

techniques when installing stream 

crossings. Evaluate the physical 

characteristics of the site, volume of water 

flowing through the project area and the 

risk of erosion and sedimentation when 

selecting the proper techniques.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 50, R 51, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 24

Limit activities and access points of 

mechanized equipment to streambank 

areas or temporary platforms when 

installing or removing structures. Keep 

equipment activity in the stream channel to 

an absolute minimum.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 52, p. 277

OAR 629-625-0430 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 25

Install stream crossing structures before 

heavy equipment moves beyond the 

crossing area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 60, p. 278

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 26

Disconnect road runoff to the stream 

channel by outsloping the road approach. 

If outsloping is not possible, use runoff 

control, erosion control and sediment

containment measures. These may include 

using additional cross drain culverts, ditch 

lining, and catchment basins. Prevent or 

reduce ditch flow conveyance to the 

stream through cross drain placement 

above the stream crossing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 26, p. 273, R 33 p. 

274

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–22

OAR 629-625-0330 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temporary Stream Crossings for Roads and Skid Trails

R 27

When installing temporary culverts, use 

washed rock as a backfill material. Use 

geotextile fabric as necessary where 

washed rock will spread with traffic and 

cannot be practicably retrieved.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 63, p. 279

ODEQ 2005, NS-3

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1352 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 28

Use no-fill structures (e.g., portable mats, 

temporary bridges, and improved hardened 

crossings) for temporary stream crossings. 

When not practicable, design temporary 

stream crossings with the least amount of 

fill and construct with coarse material to 

facilitate removal upon completion.

OAR 629-625-0320 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 29

Remove temporary crossing structures 

promptly after use. Follow practices under 

the Closure/Decommissioning section for 

removing stream crossing drainage 

structures and reestablishing the natural 

drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 65, p. 279

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Surface Drainage

R 30

Effectively drain the road surface by using 

crowning, insloping or outsloping, grade 

reversals (rolling dips), and waterbars or a 

combination of these methods. Avoid 

concentrated discharge onto fill slopes 

unless the fill slopes are stable and 

erosion-proofed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 22, p. 272

EPA 2005, p. 3-41

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 31

Outslope temporary and permanent low 

volume roads to provide surface drainage 

on road gradients up to 6 percent unless 

there is a traffic hazard from the road 

shape.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 23, R 24, p. 273

EPA 2005, p. 3-42

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 13

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 32

Consider using broad-based drainage dips 

or leadoff ditches in lieu of cross drains for 

low volume roads. Locate these surface 

water drainage measures where they will 

not drain into wetlands, floodplains, and 

waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 25, R 26, p. 273

EPA 2005, pp. 3-41

 3-45

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 13

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 33

Avoid use of outside road berms unless 

designed to protect road fills from runoff. 

If road berms are used, breach to 

accommodate drainage where fill slopes 

are stable.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 27, p. 273

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

3–7

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 34

Construct variable road grades and 

alignments (e.g., roll the grade and grade 

breaks) which limit water concentration, 

velocity, flow distance, and associated 

stream power.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 28, p. 273

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–20

OAR 629-625-0310

(1)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1353 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 35

Install underdrain structures when roads 

cross or expose springs, seeps, or wet 

areas rather than allowing intercepted 

water to flow down gradient in ditchlines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 29, p. 273

OAR 629-625-0330 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 36

Design roads crossing low-lying areas so 

that water does not pond on the upslope 

side of the road. Provide cross drains at 

short intervals to ensure free drainage.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 19, p. 272

EPA 2005, p. 3-14, 

Bullet 1

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 37

Divert road and landing runoff water away 

from headwalls, slide areas, high landslide 

hazard locations, or steep erodible fill 

slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 29, p. 273

OAR 629-625-0330 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 38 Design landings to disperse surface water 

to vegetated stable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 30, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Cross Drains

R 39

Locate cross drains to prevent or minimize 

runoff and sediment conveyance to waters 

of the State. Implement sediment reduction 

techniques such as settling basins, brush 

filters, sediment fences, and check dams to 

prevent or minimize sediment conveyance. 

Locate cross drains to route ditch flow 

onto vegetated and undisturbed slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 33, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 40

Space cross drain culverts at intervals 

sufficient to prevent water volume 

concentration and accelerated ditch 

erosion. At a minimum, space cross drains 

at intervals referred to in the BLM Road 

Design Handbook 9113-1 (USDI BLM 

2011), Illustration 11 –‘Spacing for 

Drainage Lateral.’ Increase cross drain 

frequency through erodible soils, steep 

grades, and unstable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 34, p. 274

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 41

Choose cross drain culvert diameter and 

type according to predicted ditch flow, 

debris and bedload passage expected from 

the ditch. Minimum diameter is 18.”

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 35, p. 274

Johansen et al. 1997, 

p. 3

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1354 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 42

Locate surface water drainage measures 

(e.g., cross drain culverts, rolling dips, and 

water bars) where water flow will be 

released on convex slopes or other stable 

and non-erosive areas that will absorb road 

drainage and prevent sediment flows from 

reaching wetlands, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Where possible locate surface 

water drainage structures above road 

segments with steeper downhill grade. 

Locate cross drains at least 50 feet from 

the nearest stream crossing and allow for a 

sufficient non-compacted soil and 

vegetative filter. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 26, p. 273

Johansen et al. 1997, 

p. 3

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 43

Armor surface drainage structures (e.g., 

broad based dips, and leadoff ditches) to 

maintain functionality in areas of erosive 

and low-strength soils.

USDI BLM 2008,

Appendix I – Water, 

R 38, p. 275

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 44

Discharge cross drain culverts at ground 

level on non-erodible material. Install 

downspout structures or energy dissipaters 

at cross drain outlets or drivable dips 

where alternatives to discharging water 

onto loose material, erodible soils, fills, or 

steep slopes are not available.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 39, R 40, p. 275

ODEQ 2005, RC-2

Gesford and 

Anderson 2006, pp. 

5–31

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 45

Cut protruding ‘shotgun’ culverts at the fill 

surface or existing ground. Install 

downspout or energy dissipaters to prevent 

erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 41, p. 275

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 46

Skew cross drain culverts 45–60 degrees 

from the ditchline and provide pipe 

gradient slightly greater than ditch 

gradient to reduce erosion at cross drain 

inlet.

BLM Road Design 

Handbook H9113-1 

2009

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 47

Provide for unobstructed flow at culvert 

inlets and within ditch lines during and 

upon completion of road construction prior 

to the wet season.

OAR 629-625-0420

OAR 629-625-0330-ODF, Drainage

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1355 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Timing of In-water Work

R 48

Conduct all nonemergency in-water work 

during the ODFW instream work window. 

Avoid winter sediment and turbidity 

entering streams during in-water work to 

the extent practicable. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 44, p. 276, R 65, 

p. 279

Oregon guidelines 

for timing of inwater work to 

protect fish and 

wildlife resources

ODFW 2008

OAR 629-625-0430

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 49

Remove stream crossing culverts and 

entire in-channel fill material during 

ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 93, p. 283

Oregon guidelines 

for timing of inwater work to 

protect fish and 

wildlife resources

ODFW 2008

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF,Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Low-water Ford Stream Crossings

R 50

Harden low-water ford approaches with 

durable materials. Provide cross drainage 

on approaches. Limit ford crossings to the 

ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 67, p. 279

EPA 2005, p. 3-50

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 51 Restrict access to unimproved low-water 

stream crossings.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 69, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 52

Use permanent low-water fords (e.g., 

concrete and well-anchored concrete mats) 

in debris-flow susceptible streams. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 70, p. 280.

EPA 2005, p. 3-50

OAR 629-625-0320-ODF, Stream Crossing 

Structures

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Maintaining Water Quality - Noxious Weeds

R 53

Locate equipment-washing sites in areas 

with no potential for runoff into wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Do not use solvents or 

detergents to clean equipment on site.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 75, p. 280

ODEQ 2005, NS-5

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1356 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Water Source Development and Use

R 54

Limit disturbance to vegetation and 

modification of streambanks when 

locating road approaches to in-stream 

water source developments. Surface these 

approaches with durable material. Employ 

erosion and runoff control measures.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 102, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 55

Direct pass-through flow or overflow from 

in-channel and any connected off-channel 

water developments back into the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 104, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 56

Direct overflow from water harvesting 

ponds to a safe non-eroding dissipation 

area, and not into a stream channel.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 105, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 57

Limit the construction of temporary inchannel water drafting sites. Develop 

permanent water sources outside of stream 

channels and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 106, p. 286

ODEQ 2005, NS-1

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 58

Do not place pump intakes on the substrate 

or edges of the stream channel. When 

placing intakes instream, place on hard 

surfaces (e.g., shovel and rocks) to 

minimize turbidity. Use a temporary liner 

to create intake site. After completion of 

use, remove liner and restore channel to 

natural condition.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 107, p. 286

ODEQ 2005, NS-1

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 59

Do not locate placement of road fill in the 

proximity of a public water supply intake 

(404(f) exemption criteria xi) in waters of 

the State.

USACOE (1972) 

404(f) exemption 

criteria xi

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 60

Avoid water withdrawals from fishbearing streams whenever possible. Limit 

water withdrawals in ESA-listed fish 

habitat and within 1,500 feet of ESA-listed 

fish habitat to 10 percent of stream flow or 

less at the point of withdrawal, and in nonESA-listed fish habitat to 50 percent or 

less at the point of withdrawal, based on a 

visual assessment by a fish biologist or 

hydrologist. The channel must not be 

dewatered to the point of isolating fish.

USDC NMFS 2013 

ARBO II, p. 43 

(NWR-2013-9664)

USDA FS 2012, p.

146

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011
1357 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Erosion Control Measures

R 61

During roadside brushing, remove 

vegetation by cutting rather than 

uprooting.

OAR 629-625-0430 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 62

Limit road and landing construction, 

reconstruction, or renovation activities to 

the dry season. Keep erosion control 

measures concurrent with ground 

disturbance to allow immediate 

stormproofing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 9, p. 271

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 63

Apply native seed and certified weed-free 

mulch to cut and fill slopes, ditchlines, and 

waste disposal sites with the potential for 

sediment delivery to wetlands, Riparian 

Reserve, floodplains and waters of the 

State. If needed to promote a rapid ground 

cover and prevent aggressive invasive 

plants, use interim erosion control nonnative sterile annuals before attempting to 

restore natives. Apply seed upon 

completion of construction and as early as 

possible to increase germination and 

growth. Reseed if necessary to accomplish 

erosion control. Select seed species that are 

fast-growing, have adequate provide ample 

ground cover and soil-binding properties. 

Apply mulch that will stay in place and at 

site-specific rates to prevent erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 17, p. 272

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 64

Place sediment-trapping materials or 

structures such as straw bales, jute netting, 

or sediment basins at the base of newly 

constructed fill or side slopes where 

sediment could be transported to waters of 

the State. Keep materials away from 

culvert inlets or outlets.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 14, p. 271, R 21, 

p. 272

USDA FS 2002 

Chapter 18

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 65

Use biotechnical stabilization and soil 

bioengineering techniques to control bank 

erosion (e.g., commercially produced 

matting and blankets, live plants or 

cuttings, dead plant material, rock, and

other inert structures).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 54, p. 277

USDA FS 2002, 

Chapters 18 and 20

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 66

Suspend ground-disturbing activity if 

projected forecasted rain will saturate soils 

to the extent that there is potential for 

movement of sediment from the road to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waters of the 

State. Cover or temporarily stabilize 

exposed soils during work suspension. 

Upon completion of ground-disturbing 

activities, immediately stabilize fill 

material over stream crossing structures. 

Measures could include but not limited to 

erosion control blankets and mats, soil 

binders, soil tackifiers, or placement of 

slash.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 57, p. 278, R 88, 

p. 282

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1358 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 67

Apply fertilizer in a manner to prevent 

direct fertilizer entry to wetlands, Riparian 

Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the 

State.

OAR 629-625-0440

Aquatic Resources 

Biological Opinion 

NMFS-ARBO 2013

OAR 629-625-0440-ODF, Stabilization

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Use and Dust Abatement

R 68

Apply water or approved road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives to reduce 

surfacing material loss and buildup of fine 

sediment that can enter into wetlands, 

floodplains and waters of the State. 

Prevent entry of road surface 

stabilizers/dust control additives into 

waters of the State during application. For 

dust abatement, limit applications of lignin 

sulfonate to a maximum rate of 0.5 gal/yd2

of road surface, assuming a 50:50 (lignin 

sulfonate to water) solution. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 76, p. 281

ODEQ 2005, EP-13

Western Oregon 

Programmatic 2011

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Maintenance

R 69

Prior to the wet season, provide effective 

road surface drainage maintenance. Clear 

ditch lines in sections where there is 

lowered capacity or obstructed by dry 

ravel, sediment wedges, small failures, or 

fluvial sediment deposition. Remove 

accumulated sediment and blockages at 

cross-drain inlets and outlets. Grade 

natural surface and aggregate roads where 

the surface is uneven from surface erosion 

or vehicle rutting. Restore crowning, 

outsloping or insloping for the road type 

for effective runoff. Remove or provide 

outlets through berms on the road 

shoulder. After ditch cleaning prior to 

hauling, allow vegetation to reestablish or 

use sediment entrapment measures (e.g.,

sediment trapping blankets and silt fences).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 81, R 84, R 85, p. 

281

OAR 629-625 0600 

(2-4)

EPA 2005, pp. 3-61

 3-62

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 70

Retain ground cover in ditch lines, except 

where sediment deposition or obstructions 

require maintenance.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 86, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 71

Maintain water flow conveyance, sediment

filtering and ditch line integrity by limiting 

ditch line disturbance and groundcover 

destruction when machine cleaning within 

200 feet of road stream crossings.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

113–114.

EPA 2005, p. 3-62

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 72 Avoid undercutting of cut-slopes when 

cleaning ditch lines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 78, p. 281

EPA 2005, p. 3-62

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1359 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 73

Remove and dispose of slide material 

when it is obstructing road surface and 

ditch line drainage. Place material on 

stable ground outside of wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State. Seed with native seed and use 

weed-free mulch.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 79, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(6)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 74

Do not sidecast loose ditch or surface 

material where it can enter wetlands, 

Riparian Reserve, floodplains, and waters 

of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 80, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(7)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 75 Retain low-growing vegetation on cut-andfill slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 86, p. 282

EPA 2005, EP-6

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 76

Seed and mulch cleaned ditch lines and 

bare soils that drain directly to wetlands, 

floodplains, and waters of the State, with 

native species and weed-free mulch.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 78, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Stormproofing

R 77

Inspect and maintain culvert inlets and 

outlets, drainage structures and ditches 

before and during the wet season to 

diminish the likelihood of plugged culverts 

and the possibility of washouts.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 81, R 82, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 78

Repair damaged culvert inlets and 

downspouts to maintain drainage design 

capacity.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 82, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 79

Blade and shape roads to conserve existing 

aggregate surface material retain or restore 

the original cross section, remove berms 

and other irregularities that impede 

effective runoff or cause erosion, and 

ensure that surface runoff is directed into 

vegetated, stable areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 84, p. 281

OAR 629-625-0600 

(4)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 80

Stormproof open resource roads receiving 

infrequent maintenance to reduce road 

erosion and reduce the risk of washouts by 

concentrated water flows. Stormproof 

temporary roads if retained over-winter.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 87, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1360 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 81

Suspend stormproofing/

decommissioning operations and cover or 

otherwise temporarily stabilize all exposed 

soil if conditions develop that cause a 

potential for sediment-laden runoff to 

enter a wetland, floodplain, or waters of

the State. Resume operations when 

conditions allow turbidity standards to be 

met.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 88, p. 282

OAR 629-625-0600-ODF, Road Maintenance

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Road Closure and Decommissioning

R 82

Inspect closed roads to ensure that 

vegetation stabilization measures are 

operating as planned, drainage structures 

are operational, and noxious weeds are not 

providing erosion control. Conduct 

vegetation treatments and drainage 

structure maintenance as needed.

OAR 629-625-0650 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 83 Decommission temporary roads upon 

completion of use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 90, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 84

Prevent use of vehicular traffic utilizing 

methods such as gates, guard rails, 

earth/log barricades, to reduce or eliminate 

erosion and sedimentation due to traffic on 

roads.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 91, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 85

Convert existing drainage structures such 

as ditches and cross drain culverts to a 

long-term maintenance free drainage 

configuration such as an outsloped road 

surface and waterbars.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 92, p. 283

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 86

Place and remove temporary stream 

crossings during the dry season, without 

overwintering, unless designed to 

accommodate the 100-year theoretical 

flood. See also R 49.

OAR 629-625-0430 

(5)

OAR 629-625-0430-ODF, Stream Protection

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 87

Place excavated material from removed 

stream crossings on stable ground outside 

of wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and waters of the State. In some cases, the 

material could be used for recontouring old 

road cuts or be spread across roadbed and 

treated to prevent erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 94, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 88

Reestablish stream crossings to the natural 

stream gradient. Excavate sideslopes back 

to the natural bank profile. Reestablish 

natural channel width and floodplain.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 95, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1361 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 89

Install cross ditches or waterbars upslope 

from stream crossing to direct runoff and 

potential sediment to the hillslope rather 

than deliver it to the stream

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 96, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 90

Following culvert removal and prior to the 

wet season, apply erosion control and 

sediment trapping measures (e.g., seeding, 

mulching, straw bales, jute netting, and 

native vegetative cuttings) where sediment 

can be delivered into wetlands, Riparian 

Reserve, floodplains, and waters of the 

State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 97, p. 284

OAR 629-625-0650 

(3)

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 91

Implement tillage measures, including 

ripping or subsoiling to an effective depth. 

Treat compacted areas including the 

roadbed, landings, construction areas, and 

spoils sites.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 98, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 92

After tilling the road surface, pull back 

unstable road fill and end-haul or contour 

to the natural slopes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 99, p. 285

OAR 629-625-0650-ODF, Vacating Forest 

Roads

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Wet-season Road Use

R 93

On active haul roads, during the wet 

season, use durable rock surfacing and 

sufficient rock depth to resist rutting or 

development of sediment on road surfaces 

that drain directly to wetlands, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 71, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 94

Prior to winter hauling activities,

implement structural road treatments such 

as: increasing the frequency of cross 

drains, installing sediment barriers or catch 

basins, applying gravel lifts or asphalt road 

surfacing at stream crossing approaches, 

and armoring ditch lines.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 72, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 95

Remove snow on surfaced roads in a 

manner that will protect the road and 

adjacent resources. Retain a minimum 

layer (4”) of compacted snow on the road 

surface. Provide drainage through the 

snow bank at periodic intervals to allow 

snowmelt to drain off the road surface.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 74, p. 280

BLM snow removal 

letter

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 96

Avoid removing snow from unsurfaced 

roads where runoff drains to waters of the 

State.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

120–123

EPA 2005, p. 3-80

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1362 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

R 97

Maintain road surface by applying 

appropriate gradation of aggregate and 

suitable particle hardness to protect road 

surfaces from rutting and erosion under 

active haul where runoff drains to 

wetlands, Riparian Reserve, floodplains, 

and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 71, p. 280

OAR 629-625-0700 

(2)

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 98

To reduce sediment tracking from natural 

surface roads during active haul, provide a 

gravel approach before entrance onto 

surfaced roads.

EPA 2005, pp. 3-57

– 3-58

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

R 99

Install temporary culverts and washed rock 

on top of low-water ford to reduce vehicle 

contact with water during active haul. 

Remove culverts promptly after use.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

119–120

OAR 629-625-0700-ODF, Wet Weather Road 

Use

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Timber Harvest Activities

Table J-2. Best management practices for timber harvest activities

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Cable Yarding

TH 01

Design yarding corridors crossing streams 

to limit the number of such corridors, 

using narrow widths, and using the most 

perpendicular orientation to the stream 

feasible. Minimize yarding corridor widths 

and space corridors as far apart as is 

practicable given physical and operational 

limitations, through practices such as 

setting limitations on corridor width, 

corridor spacing, or the amount of 

corridors in an area. For example, such 

practices could include, as effective and 

practicable:

 Setting yarding corridors at 12–15 foot 

maximum widths, and

 Setting corridor spacing where they 

cross the streams to no less than 100 feet 

apart when physical, topography, or 

operational constraints demand, with an 

overall desire to keep an average spacing 

of 200 feet apart.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 2, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

TH 02

Trees felled for yarding corridors in the 

Riparian Reserve would be directed 

toward the stream and left on site.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1363 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 03

Require full suspension over flowing 

streams, non-flowing streams with highly 

erodible bed and banks, and jurisdictional 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 3, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 04

When logging downhill into Riparian 

Reserve, design the logging system to 

prevent converging yarding trails from 

intersecting the stream network.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 4, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 05

Prevent streambank and hillslope 

disturbance on steep slopes (generally > 60 

percent) by requiring full-suspension within 

50 feet of definable stream channels. Yard 

the remaining areas across the Riparian 

Reserve using at least one-end suspension.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 5, p. 287

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 06

Implement erosion control measures such 

as waterbars, slash placement, and seeding 

in cable yarding corridors where the 

potential for erosion and delivery to 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands 

exists.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 6, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Ground-based Harvesting

TH 07

Exclude ground-based equipment on 

hydric soils, defined by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 8, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 08

Limit designated skid trails for thinning or 

regeneration harvesting to ≤ 15 percent of 

the harvest unit area to reduce 

displacement or compaction to acceptable 

limits.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 09

Limit width of skid roads to single width 

of what is operationally necessary for the 

approved equipment. Where multiple 

machines are used, provide a minimumsized pullout for passing.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 10, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 10 Ensure leading-end of logs is suspended 

when skidding.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 11, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 11

Restrict non-road, in unit, ground-based 

equipment used for harvesting operations 

to periods of low soil moisture; generally 

from May 15 to Oct 15. Low soil moisture 

varies by texture and is based on sitespecific considerations. Low soil moisture 

limits will be determined by qualified 

specialists using a qualitative method to 

determine an estimated soil moisture and 

soil texture.33

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 12, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 12

Incorporate existing skid trails and 

landings as a priority over creating new 

trails where feasible, into a designated trail 

network for ground-based harvesting 

equipment, consider proper spacing, skid 

trail direction and location relative to 

terrain and stream channel features.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 13, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

 

33 Soil moisture is the ratio of the weight of the water in the soil to the weight of the solids, expressed as a 

percentage.
1364 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 13

Limit non-specialized skidders or tracked 

equipment to slopes less than 35 percent, 

except when using previously constructed 

trails or accessing isolated ground based 

harvest areas requiring short trails over 

steeper pitches. Also, limit the use of this 

equipment when surface displacement 

creates trenches, depressions, excessive 

removal of organic horizons, or when 

disturbance would channel water and 

sediment as overland flow.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 14, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 14

Limit the use of specialized ground-based 

mechanized equipment (those machines 

specifically designed to operate on slopes 

greater than 35 percent) to slopes less than 

50 percent, except when using previously 

constructed trails or accessing isolated 

ground based harvesting areas requiring 

short trails over steeper pitches. Also, limit 

the use of this equipment when surface 

displacement creates trenches, depressions, 

excessive removal of organic horizons, or 

when disturbance would channel water and 

sediment as overland flow.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 15, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 15

Designate skid trails in locations that 

channel water from the trail surface away 

from waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands, or unstable areas adjacent to 

them.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 16, p. 289.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 16

Directionally fall trees to lead for skidding 

and skyline yarding to minimize ground 

disturbance when moving logs to skid 

trails and skyline corridors.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 17, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 17

Apply erosion control measures to skid 

trails and other disturbed areas with 

potential for erosion and subsequent 

sediment delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, or wetlands. These practices 

may include seeding, mulching, water 

barring, tillage, and woody debris 

placement. Use guidelines from the road 

decommissioning section.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 18, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 18

Construct waterbars on skid trails using 

guidelines in Table J-6 where potential 

for soil erosion or delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands exists.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 19, p. 289

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 19

Subsoil skid trails, landings, or temporary 

roads where needed to achieve 20 percent

detrimental soil conditions, minimize 

surface runoff, improve soil structure, and 

water movement through the roadbed. See 

also R 92–93.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

R 98, p. 285

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 20

Block skid trails to prevent public 

motorized vehicle and other unauthorized 

use at the end of seasonal use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 21, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 21

Allow harvesting operations (cutting and 

transporting logs) when ground is frozen 

or adequate snow cover exists to prevent 

soil compaction and displacement.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 12, p. 288

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1365 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

TH 22

Minimize the area where more than half of 

the depth of the organically-enriched 

upper horizon (topsoil) is removed when 

conducting forest management operations

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 23

Maintain the minimum percent of effective 

ground cover needed to control surface 

erosion, as shown in Table J-3, following 

forest management operations. Ground 

cover may be provided by vegetation, 

slash, duff, medium to large gravels, 

cobbles, or biological crusts.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Helicopter

TH 24

Consider the use of helicopter or aerial 

logging systems to prevent water quality 

impacts from road construction or groundbased timber yarding, where other BMPs 

would be more costly or have limited 

effectiveness.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 23, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Horse

TH 25 Within Riparian Reserve, limit horse 

logging to slopes less than 20 percent.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 24, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

TH 26

Construct waterbars on horse skid trails 

when there is potential for soil erosion and 

delivery to waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

TH 25, p. 290

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Table J-3. Soil cover based on erosion hazard ratings

NRCS Erosion

Hazard Rating*

Minimum Percent Effective

Ground Cover – Year 1

Minimum Percent Effective

Ground Cover – Year 2

Very Severe 60% 75%

Severe 45% 60%

Moderate 30% 40%

Slight 20% 30%

* Rating obtained from Natural Resources Conservation Services County Soil Survey information by map unit.
1366 | P a g e

Silvicultural Activities

Table J-4. Best management practices for planting, pre-commercial thinning, and fertilization

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Planting and Pre-commercial Thinning

S 01

Limit the crossing of stream channels with 

motorized support vehicles (e.g., OHVs) 

and mechanized equipment to existing 

road crossings or temporary ford crossings 

to the ODFW instream work period.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 1, p. 291

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

S 02

Scatter treatment debris on disturbed soils 

and water bar any equipment access trails 

that could erode and deposit sediment in 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 4, p. 291

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Fertilization

S 03

For streams and waterbodies that support 

domestic use, apply fertilizer further than 

100 feet from the edge of the active 

channel or shoreline.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 5, p. 291

EPA 440/5-86-001,-10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen for 

domestic water supply.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

S 04

Locate storage, transfer, and loading sites 

outside Riparian Reserve and separated 

from hydrological connections (e.g., road 

ditches that are linked to stream channels).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

S 6, p. 291

EPA 822-R-13-001 2013,-salmonid acute 

criterion, 17 mg total ammonia nitrogen/L at pH 

7 and temperature of 20 °C.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Fire and Fuels Management

Table J-5. Best management practices for fire and fuel management

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Underburn, Jackpot Burn, and Broadcast Burn

F 01

Keep broadcast burns and jackpot burns 

out of Riparian Reserve inner zone, unless 

prescribed for restoration purposes (e.g., 

sudden oak death sanitation, improve 

species composition, and invigorate 

deciduous trees). Locate ignition lines 

above large open meadows associated 

with stream channels, unless prescribed 

for restoration.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 1, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

F 02

Reduce fuel loads by whole tree yarding, 

and piling material, as necessary, prior to 

under burning in dry forest types where 

fuel loads are elevated.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 2, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028
1367 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 03

Avoid direct ignition or ignition by a 

backing-in fire of large woody material 

that is touching the high water mark of a 

waterbody or that may be affected by high 

flows.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 3, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

F 04

Avoid delivery of chemical retardant foam 

or additives to waterbodies, and wetlands. 

Store and dispose of ignition devices/ 

materials (e.g., flares and plastic spheres) 

outside Riparian Reserve or a minimum of 

150 feet from waterbodies, floodplains, 

and wetlands. Maintain and refuel 

equipment (e.g., drip torches and

chainsaws) a minimum of 100 feet from 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands. 

Portable pumps can be refueled on-site 

within a spill containment system.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 4, p. 293

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

F 05

Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. 

Construct fire lines by hand on all slopes 

greater than 35 percent and inside the 

Riparian Reserve inner zone. Use erosion 

control techniques such as tilling, 

waterbarring, or debris placement on fire 

lines when there is potential for soil 

erosion and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Space the 

waterbars as shown in Table J-6. Avoid 

placement of any fire line where water 

would be directed into waterbodies, 

floodplains, wetlands, headwalls, or areas 

of instability.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 5, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 06

In broadcast burning, consume only the 

upper horizon organic materials and allow 

no more than 15 percent of the burned 

area mineral soil surface to change to a 

reddish color.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Pile and Burn

F 07

Avoid burning piles within 35 feet of a 

stream channel.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 6, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 08

Avoid creating piles greater than 16 feet in 

height or diameter. Pile smaller diameter 

materials and leave larger > 12” pieces 

within the unit. Reduce burn time and 

smoldering of piles by extinguishment 

with water and tool use.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 09

When burning machine-constructed piles, 

preferably locate and consume organic 

materials on landings or roads. If piles are 

within harvested units and more than 15

percent of the burned area mineral soil 

(the portion beneath the pile) surface 

changes to a reddish color then consider 

that amount of area towards the 20 percent

detrimental limit.

Soil Quality 

Standards

USDA FS 1998

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1368 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Mechanical and Manual Fuels Treatments

F 10

Prevent mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment within the Riparian Reserve 

inner zone, unless prescribed for 

restoration.

Limit mechanical fuel reduction 

equipment to slopes less than 35 percent. 

Restrict non-track mechanized equipment 

(e.g., feller bunchers and horizontal bar 

masticators) to slopes less than 20 percent.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 7, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 11

Use temporary stream crossings if 

necessary to access the opposite side with 

any equipment or vehicles (including 

OHVs). Follow Temporary Stream 

Crossing practices under Roads section.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 8, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 12

Place residual slash on severely burned 

areas, where there is potential for 

sediment delivery into waterbodies, 

floodplains and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 9, p. 294

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Wildfire Suppression

F 13

Limit fire lines inside Riparian Reserve. 

Where hand constructed fire lines are 

necessary in Riparian Reserve, angle the 

approach, where feasible, rather than have 

it perpendicular to the Riparian Reserve.

Limit heavy equipment to slopes less than 

35 percent.

Locate fire lines to minimize directing 

water into waterbodies, wetlands, 

headwalls, or areas of instability.

Use erosion control techniques such as 

tilling, waterbarring, or debris placement 

on fire lines when there is potential for 

soil erosion and delivery to waterbodies, 

floodplains, and wetlands. Space 

waterbars as shown in Table J-6. Block 

dozer lines and roads or landing 

intersections with an approved barricade 

or scattered slash to preclude public 

motorized vehicle use.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 5, p. 294, F 11, p. 

295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 14

Prevent cutting of logs or woody material 

if any portion of that material extends into 

the stream channel, unless for restoration.

Fall snags in the Riparian Reserve towards 

the stream channel when felling is 

necessary for safety or fire suppression 

activities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 12, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

F 15

Avoid locating incident bases, camps, 

helibases, staging areas, constructed 

helispots, and other centers for incident 

activities in Riparian Reserve or within 

200 feet of any waterbody, floodplain, or 

wetland. Water drafting sites for engines 

and tankers would be permitted.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 13, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1))

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028
1369 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

F 16

Locate and maintain portable sanitation 

facilities at incident bases, camps 

(including spike/remote camps), helibases, 

staging areas, constructed helispots, and 

other centers for incident activities in 

accordance with State and local regulations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 14, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

F 17

Avoid application of chemical retardant, 

foam, or other chemicals to waterways, 

maintain a 300 ft. buffer (FA-IM-2008-

029), unless the wildfire is deemed a 

threat to human safety or private property.

Apply aerial retardant adjacent to Riparian 

Reserve by making parallel passes.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 15, p. 295

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Emergency Stabilization or Rehabilitation

F 18

Implement emergency fire stabilization or 

rehabilitation treatments to accomplish 

erosion control as quickly as possible and 

before the wet season.

Soil and water conservation practices may 

include, but are not restricted to:

 Seeding or planting native vegetation 

for short-term cover development and 

long-term recovery, unless not available 

in quantities necessary for the 

emergency response.

 Mulching with straw, wood chips, or 

other suitable material. To avoid 

introducing noxious weeds when 

mulching, use certified weed-free straw 

mulch or rice straw where available.

 Placing straw wattles on the contour at 

adequate spacing between each row to 

capture eroded material without 

overflowing. Embed to the surface of 

the soil in slight trench to prevent 

undermining.

 Placing and anchoring log erosion 

barriers similarly to straw wattles.

 Spreading available cut vegetation or 

slash on bare soils.

 Placing channel sediment retention or 

stabilization structures.

 Placing trash racks for debris above 

road drainage structures.

 Installing drainage structures, such as

waterbars or drainage dips, on fire lines, 

fire roads, and other cleared areas 

according to guidelines in Table J-6

(Waterbar spacing by gradient and 

erosion class).

 Repairing damaged road drainage 

facilities, such as flattened or ripped 

culvert ends, or burned out plastic pipes, 

or cleaning ditch lines of materials that 

impede natural flow.

 Blocking or decommissioning roads and 

trails.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 16, p. 296

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response 

Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 

and USDA Forest 

Service Manual 

2523 For the 

Emergency 

Stabilization of 

Federal and Tribal 

Trust Lands Version 

4.0 February 2006

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1370 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Post-Fire Road Repair

F 19

Implement emergency fire rehabilitation 

treatments to accomplish erosion control 

as quickly as possible and before the wet 

season.

Soil and water conservation practices may 

include, but are not restricted to:

 Reducing road system hydrologic 

conductivity though proper grading, 

culvert spacing, and installing drivable 

dips.

 Replacing culverts to increase peak flow 

capacity of stream crossing culverts to 

accommodate the 100-year design flood.

 Preventing culvert plugging.

 Correcting stream diversions.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 17, p. 297

Interagency Burned 

Area Emergency 

Response 

Guidebook; 

Interpretation of 

Department of the 

Interior 620 DM 3 

(USDI BLM 2006) 

and USDA Forest 

Service Manual 

2523 For the 

Emergency 

Stabilization of 

Federal and Tribal 

Trust Lands Version 

4.0 (USDA FS et al.

2006)

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Fuel/Retardant Transport

F 20

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum product 

and chemical substances would be 

transported to a project site, implement the 

following precautions:

1. Plan a safe route and transfer sites that 

could contain the transported volume.

2. Plan an active dispatch system that can 

relay the information to appropriate 

resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that can 

absorb and contain 55 gallons of 

petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification in 

the event of a spill. Have a radio 

equipped vehicle lead the chemical or 

fuel truck to the project site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list that 

includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, DEQ, and spill 

clean-up contractors.

6. Construct a water user contact list with 

address and phone numbers.

7. When operating within Source Water 

Watersheds, pre-estimate travel times 

through the watershed to predict 

downstream arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and carry 

sample containers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

F 18, p. 297

[40 CFR 112] - Oil Pollution Prevention. 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
1371 | P a g e

Table J-6. Water bar spacing by gradient and erosion class

Gradient

(Percent)

Water Bar Spacing* Per Erosion Class†

High

(Feet)

Moderate

(Feet)

Low

(Feet)

2–5% 200 300 400

6–10% 150 200 300

11–15% 100 150 200

16–20% 75 100 150

21–35% 50 75 100

36+% 50 50 50

* Spacing is determined by slope distance and is the maximum allowed for the grade.

† The erosion classes include the following rock types:

High: Granite, sandstone, andesite porphyry, glacial or alluvial deposits, soft matrix conglomerate, volcanic ash, and 

pyroclastics

Moderate: Basalt, andesite, quartzite, hard matrix conglomerate, and rhyolite

Low: Metasediments, metavolcanics, and hard shale

Surface Source Water for Drinking Water

Table J-7. Best management practices for surface source water for drinking water protection

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SW 01

Plan, locate, design, construct, operate, 

inspect, and maintain sanitary facilities to 

minimize water contamination.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 1, p. 299

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 02

Locate contractor camps outside DEQ 

sensitive zones in drinking water source 

areas for public water systems. If this is 

not possible, require self-contained 

sanitary facilities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 2, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 03

Require self-contained sanitary facilities 

in surface source water watersheds, when 

long-term camping (greater than 14 days) 

is involved with contract implementation.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 3, p. 299

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 04

Provide self-contained sanitary facilities 

when there is high recreational use 

(almost continuous occupancy) inside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 4, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)
1372 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SW 05

Locate pack and riding, facilities outside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 5, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 06

Do not allow surface occupancy within 

200 feet of a known domestic water 

source or within DEQ sensitive zones in 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 6, p. 299

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 07

Do not apply sewage sludge as a soil 

amendment within drinking water source 

areas for public water systems, known 

domestic source water watersheds, or 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 7, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 08

Avoid loading, or storing chemical, fuel, 

or fertilizer in DEQ sensitive zones within 

drinking water source areas for public 

water systems, known domestic source 

water watersheds, or Riparian Reserve 

inner zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 8, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 09

Conduct equipment maintenance outside 

DEQ sensitive zones within drinking 

water source areas for public water 

systems, known domestic source water 

watersheds, or Riparian Reserve inner 

zone.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 9, p. 300

ODEQ Drinking 

Water Protection 

Program

http://www.deq.stat

e.or.us/wq/dwp/swc

ountymap.htm

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 10 Use non-oil-based dust suppressants 

within surface source water watersheds.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 10, p. 300

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

SW 11

Use fire retardant and surfactants as a last 

resort in fire suppression activities within 

surface source water watersheds.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SW 11, p. 300

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)
1373 | P a g e

Recreation

Table J-8. Best management practices for recreation management

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

All Recreation Facilities

REC 01

Implement erosion control measures at 

recreation sites to stabilize exposed soils 

where water flows or sediment, may reach 

waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 1, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 02

Minimize development of recreation 

facilities that are not water-dependent 

(e.g., boat ramps and docks) in the 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 2, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Developed Recreation Sites

REC 03

Use self-contained sanitary facilities at all 

developed recreational facilities, unless a 

sewage system and drain field is approved 

by ODEQ.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 3, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

REC 04

When conducting recreation site 

maintenance, do not cut portions of logs 

or coarse woody debris that fall across the 

active stream channel. Keep adequate 

lengths of material on the banks to anchor 

it in place. If not possible to make the log 

stable, it may be removed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 5, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Water Dependent Facilities

REC 05

Construct boat ramps and approaches with 

hardened surfaces. Minimize riprap to a 4-

foot width to protect concrete ramps. 

Docks must not be wider than 6’, and not 

include any treated wood. 

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 6, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Trails

REC 06

Locate new OHV trails on stable locations 

(e.g., ridge tops, benches, and gentle-tomoderate side slopes). Minimize trail 

construction on steep slopes where runoff 

could channel to a waterbody.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 07

Design, construct, and maintain trail 

width, grades, curves, and switchbacks 

suitable to the terrain and designated use. 

Use and maintain surfacing materials 

suitable to the site and use, to withstand 

traffic and to minimize runoff and erosion.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 08

Suspend construction or maintenance of 

trails, where erosion and runoff into 

waterbodies would occur.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 11, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 09

Locate staging areas outside Riparian 

Reserve. Design or upgrade staging areas 

to prevent sediment/pollutant delivery to 

wetlands, floodplains, and waterbodies, 

(e.g., rocking or hardening and drainage 

through grading or shaping).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 12, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1374 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 10

Designate class of vehicle suitable for the 

trail location, width, trail surfaces, and 

waterbody crossings, to prevent erosion 

and potential sediment delivery.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 11

Designate season of use if the trail bed is 

prone to erosion, rutting, gullying, or 

compaction, due to high soil moisture, 

standing water or snowmelt.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 12

Use existing road crossings of streams and 

floodplains on low-volume roads and 

partially decommissioned roads that tie 

with the trail system, where safety 

permits.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 13

Minimize low-water stream crossings for 

constructed or existing trails. Cross 

streams on stable substrate (e.g., bedrock, 

cobble) in areas of low streambanks. 

Block alternate stream-crossing routes 

where OHV wheel slippage (acceleration/

braking) would tear down banks or deliver 

sediment.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 7, p. 301

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 14

Avoid public motorized vehicle use in 

ponds and wetlands, and navigating up or 

down streams and side-channels. Use 

suitable barriers where feasible.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 7, pp. 302–303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 15

Design improved stream crossings 

(culverts and bridges) for the 100-year 

flood event. Stream crossings with ESAlisted fish must meet ARBO II (NMFS 

2013 and USFWS 2013) fish passage 

design criteria (See Roads and Landings 

section for stream crossing BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 10, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 16

In OHV bridge structures, avoid 

chemically treated materials at water level 

contact points where leachate or solids 

may enter waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 15, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(10)

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

REC 17

Use a temporary flow diversion bypass to 

minimize downstream turbidity, when 

constructing in perennial stream crossings 

(See Roads and Landings section for 

Stream Crossing BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 16, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 18

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserve, do not cut the 

portion of logs or down woody material 

that extend into the active stream channel. 

Provide for adequate stabilization of the 

logs if not doing so would create a safety 

hazard.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 8, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 19

Harden trail approaches to stream 

crossings using materials such as 

geotextile fabric and rock aggregate.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 13, p. 302

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1375 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 20

Hydrologically disconnect trails from 

waterbodies to the extent practicable.

Install drainage features (e.g., drain dips 

and leadoff ditches), on approaches to 

stream crossings as needed to divert 

runoff and reinforce with rock for 

longevity.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 14, p. 302.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 21

Where trails intersect road ditches, 

provide erosion resistant crossings. Divert 

water from the trail to keep from reaching 

wetlands, floodplains, and waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 18, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 22

If trail width is too wide for the designated 

use (such as old roads converted to trails), 

consider tilling one side of the trail, 

covering with brush, and seeding or 

planting.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 19, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 23

Repair rills and gullies to keep sediment

from reaching wetlands, floodplains, and 

waterbodies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 20, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 24

Construct and repair water bars, drain 

dips, and leadoff ditches as needed. These 

features may need rock reinforcement to 

promote longevity. Self-maintaining drain 

dips or leadoff features are the preferred 

design.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 21, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 25

Monitor trail condition to identify surface 

maintenance and drainage needs to 

prevent or minimize sediment delivery to 

waterbodies.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 26

Close and rehabilitate unauthorized trails, 

where needed, to protect sensitive areas 

and water quality.

USDA FS 2012, pp. 

91–92

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Trails (Hiking)

REC 27

When constructing or maintaining trails 

within Riparian Reserve, do not cut any 

portion of logs or coarse woody debris 

that extend into the active stream channel. 

Use alternative passage options, such as 

earthen ramps, small notch steps, or slight 

trail realignments, to facilitate 

maintenance of intact logs. Cut and 

stabilize if necessary for safe passage and 

safety.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 23, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-

004(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Trail Closure

REC 28

Remove existing stream crossings or 

bridges (See Road Decommissioning 

BMPs).

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 24, p. 303

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (8)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 29

Position fill or waste material in a location 

that would avoid direct or indirect 

sediment discharge to streams or 

wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 25, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1376 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

REC 30

Plant restored stream banks with native 

vegetation, mulch, and then plant with 

water-tolerant species where appropriate.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 26, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

REC 31 Barricade and allow nearby vegetation to 

grow into closed trails.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 27, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Dispersed Recreation

REC 32

Site camps for permitted group overnight 

camping greater than 150 feet from 

surface water.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

REC 28, p. 304

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(13)

Range Management

Table J-9. Best management practices for livestock grazing

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

G 01

Fence water developments, including 

springs and seeps, unless other methods 

are available. Pipe overflow away from 

the developed source area.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 1, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 02

Do not locate salting areas within 0.25 

mile of permanent water sources or 

Riparian Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 2, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 03

Locate new permanent livestock handling 

or management facilities (corrals, pens, or 

holding pastures) outside Riparian 

Reserve or 200 feet from waterbodies and 

on level ground where drainage would not 

enter surface waters.

Make changes as necessary to existing 

facilities within Riparian Reserve to meet 

water quality standards and regulations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 3, p. 305

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1377 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

G 04

Apply specific livestock grazing strategies 

for riparian wetland areas, including 

timing, intensity, or exclusion for 

maintenance of proper functioning 

condition.

Use one or more of the following features:

 Include the waterbodies, floodplains, 

and wetlands within a separate pasture.

 Fence or herd livestock out of 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands 

for as long as necessary to allow 

vegetation to recover.

 Control the timing and intensity of 

grazing to keep livestock off stream 

banks when they are most vulnerable to 

damage and to coincide with the 

physiological needs of target plant 

species.

 Add more rest to the grazing cycle to 

increase plant vigor, allow stream banks 

to re-vegetate, or encourage more 

desirable plant species composition.

 Limit grazing intensity to a level that 

will maintain desired species 

composition and vigor.

 Permanently exclude livestock from 

those waterbodies, floodplains, and 

wetlands areas that are at high risk and 

have poor recovery potential, and when 

there is no practical way to protect them 

while grazing adjacent uplands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 4, p. 306

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

G 05

Recover degraded waterbodies through 

adjustments to forage utilization levels, 

improved livestock distribution, and 

management through fencing, vegetation 

treatments, water source developments, or 

changes in season of use or livestock

numbers.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

G 5, p. 306

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-04l-0004

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Bacteria OAR 340-041-0009

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Dissolved Oxygen OAR 340-041-0016

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1378 | P a g e

Minerals (Salable) Development

Table J-10. Best management practices for minerals (salable)

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Salable Minerals

M 01

Locate stockpile sites on stable ground 

where the material would not move into 

waterbodies, floodplains, and wetlands.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 18, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 02

Locate, design, and construct salable 

mineral sites to control runoff and prevent 

or minimize sediment delivery to streams.

Prevent overburden, solid wastes, 

drainage water, or petroleum products 

from entering wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

flood plains, and waters of the State.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 18, p. 309

OAR 629-625-0500 

1-5

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and 

Quarries

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 03

Locate, design, and maintain settling 

ponds to contain sediment discharges.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 1, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 04

When a quarry or rock pit is depleted or 

vacated, stabilize cutbanks, headwalls, and 

other surfaces to prevent surface erosion 

and landslides. Close roads, excavations, 

and crusher pads in accordance with 

Roads and Landings section. Remove all 

potential pollutants to prevent their entry 

into wetlands, Riparian Reserve, 

floodplains, and waters of the State.

OAR 629-625-0500

ODEQ 2005 NS - 6

OAR 629-625-0500-ODF, Rock Pits and 

Quarries

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

M 05

Use erosion-reduction practices, such as 

seeding, mulching, silt fences, and woody 

debris placement, to limit erosion and 

transport of sediment to streams from 

quarries. Provide drainage from stockpiles 

and mineral sites, dispersed over stable 

vegetated areas rather than directly into 

stream channels. Grade all material sites, 

where practicable to conform with the 

surrounding topography prior to closure. 

Utilized topsoil as a medium to for 

successful revegetation. Reseed and plant 

trees, where needed.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

M 22, p. 309

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1379 | P a g e

Spill Prevention and Abatement

Table J-11. Best management practices for spill prevention and abatement

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Operations Near Waterbodies

SP 01

Take precautions to prevent leaks or 

spills of petroleum products (e.g., fuel, 

motor oil, and hydraulic fluid) from 

entering the waters of the State.

[40 CFR 112]

OAR 629-620-

0100(2)

[40 CFR 112] – Oil Pollution Prevention 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and Other 

Petroleum Product Rules

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

SP 02

Take immediate action to stop and 

contain leaks or spills of chemicals and 

other petroleum products. Notify the 

Oregon Emergency Response System, 

through the District Hazard Materials 

specialist, of any spill that enters the 

waters of the State.

[40 CFR 112]

OAR 629-620-

0100(3), (4)

[40 CFR 112] – Oil Pollution Prevention 

Reportable quantity is a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR 629-620-0100-ODF, Chemical and Other 

Petroleum Product Rules

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
1380 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 03

Inspect and clean heavy equipment as 

necessary prior to moving on to the 

project site, in order to remove oil and 

grease, noxious weeds, and excessive 

soil.

Inspect hydraulic fluid and fuel lines on 

heavy-mechanized equipment for proper 

working condition.

Where possible, maintain and refuel 

heavy equipment a minimum of 150 feet 

away from streams and other 

waterbodies. 

Refuel small equipment (e.g. chainsaws 

and water pumps) at least 100 feet from 

waterbodies (or as far as possible from 

the waterbody where local site conditions 

do not allow a 100-foot setback) to 

prevent direct delivery of contaminants 

into a waterbody. Refuel small equipment 

from no more than 5-gallon containers. 

Use absorbent material or a containment 

system to prevent spills when re-fueling 

small equipment within the stream 

margins or near the edge of waterbodies.

In the event of a spill or release, take all 

reasonable and safe actions to contain the 

material. Specific actions are dependent 

on the nature of the material spilled.

Use spill containment booms or as 

required by ODEQ. Have access to 

booms and other absorbent containment 

materials.

Immediately remove waste or spilled 

hazardous materials (including but not 

limited to diesel, oil, hydraulic fluid) and 

contaminated soils near any stream or 

other waterbody, and dispose of it/them 

in accordance with the applicable 

regulatory standard. Notify Oregon 

Emergency Response System of any spill 

over the material reportable quantities, 

and any spill not totally cleaned up after 

24 hours.

Store equipment containing reportable 

quantities of toxic fluids outside of 

Riparian Reserve

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 1, p. 311

[40 CFR 112] – Oil Pollution Prevention

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
1381 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 04

If more than 42 gallons of fuel or 

combined quantity of petroleum product 

and chemical substances would be 

transported to a project site as project 

materials, implement the following 

precautions:

1. Plan a safe route and material transfer 

sites so that all spilled material will be 

contained easily at that designated 

location.

2. Plan an active dispatch system that can 

relay the information to appropriate 

resources.

3. Ensure a spill containment kit that can 

absorb and contain 55 gallons of 

petroleum product and chemical 

substances is readily available.

4. Provide for immediate notification to 

OERS in the event of a spill. Have a 

radio-equipped vehicle lead the 

chemical or fuel truck to the project 

site.

5. Assemble a spill notification list that 

includes the district hazardous 

materials coordinator, ODEQ, and 

spill clean-up contractors.

6. Construct a downstream water user 

contact list with addresses and phone 

numbers.

7. When operating within source water 

watersheds, pre-estimate water flow 

travel times through the watershed to 

predict downstream arrival times.

8. Be prepared to sample water and carry 

sample containers.

9. Be prepared to assist OSP and ODFW 

to assess wildlife impacts of any 

material spilled.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 2, p. 312

[40 CFR 112] – Oil Pollution Prevention

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12) and (13)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

Spill Abatement

SP 05

Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan (SPCC): All 

operators shall develop a modified SPCC 

plan prior to initiating project work if 

there is a potential risk of chemical or 

petroleum spills near waterbodies. The 

SPCC plan will include the appropriate 

containers and design of the material 

transfer locations. No interim fuel depot 

or storage location other than a manned 

transport vehicle would be used.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 3, p. 312

[40 CFR 112] – Oil Pollution Prevention 

Reportable quantity is forty-two U.S. Gallons 

not involving waterways, a visible sheen where 

waterways are involved.

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements

SP 06

Spill Containment Kit (SCK): All 

operators shall have a SCK as described 

in the SPCC plan on-site during any 

operation with potential for run-off to 

adjacent waterbodies. The SCK will be 

appropriate in size and type for the oil or 

hazardous material carried by the 

operator.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 4, p. 313

OAR-340-142-0030-DEQ, Oil and Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Requirements
1382 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

SP 07

Operators shall be responsible for the 

clean-up, removal, and proper disposal of 

contaminated materials from the site.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

SP 5, p. 313

OAR-340-102-DEQ, Standards Applicable to 

Generators of Hazardous Waste

OAR-340-122-DEQ, Hazardous Substance 

Remedial Action Rules

Restoration Activities

Table J-12. Best management practices for restoration activities

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

RST 01

Confine work in the stream channels to 

the ODFW in-water work period unless a 

waiver is obtained from permitting 

agencies.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 1, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 02

In stream channels that are sensitive to 

disturbance (e.g., meadow streams), do 

not drive heavy equipment in flowing 

channels and floodplains.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 2, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 03

In well-armored channels that are 

resistant to damage (e.g., bedrock, small 

boulder, and cobble-dominated), consider

conducting the majority of heavyequipment work from within the channel, 

during low streamflow, to minimize 

damage to sensitive riparian areas.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 3, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 04

Design access routes for individual work 

sites to reduce exposure of bare soil and 

extensive stream bank shaping.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 4, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 05

Limit the number and length of 

equipment access points through Riparian 

Reserve.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 5, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 06

Limit the amount of stream bank 

excavation to the minimum necessary to 

ensure stability of enhancement 

structures. Provide isolation from flowing 

water during excavation. Place excavated 

material above the flood-prone area and 

cover or place a berm to avoid its reentry 

into the stream during high-flow events.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 6, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Temperature OAR 340-041-0028

RST 07

Inspect all mechanized equipment daily 

for leaks and clean as necessary to ensure 

that toxic materials, such as fuel and 

hydraulic fluid, do not enter the stream.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 7, p. 314

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033
1383 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

RST 08

Locate equipment storage areas at least 

100 feet from any water feature, 

including machinery used in stream 

channels for more than one day.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 8, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 09

When using heavy equipment in or 

adjacent to stream channels during 

restoration activities, develop and 

implement an approved spill containment 

plan that includes having a spill 

containment kit on-site and at previously 

identified containment locations.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 9, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 10

Refuel equipment, including chainsaws 

and other hand power tools, at least 100

feet from waterbodies (or as far as 

possible from the waterbody where local 

site conditions do not allow a 100-foot 

setback) to prevent direct delivery of 

contaminants into a waterbody.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 10, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(12)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Toxic Substances OAR 340-041-0033

RST 11

Use waterbars, barricades, seeding, and 

mulching to stabilize bare soil areas 

along project access routes prior to the 

wet season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 11, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 12

Prior to the wet season, stabilize 

disturbed areas where soil will support 

seed growth, with the potential for 

sediment delivery to wetlands, and waters 

of the State. Apply native seed and 

certified weed-free mulch or erosion 

control matting in steep or highly erosive 

areas. If needed to promote a rapid 

ground cover and prevent aggressive 

invasive plants, use interim erosion 

control non-native sterile annuals before 

attempting to restore native seed or 

plants.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 12, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 13

When replacing culverts design 

placement location, crossing type, and 

installation depth to avoid excessive 

scour through the site, consider using 

larger culverts and embedding the culvert 

to 30 percent bedload. Use bridges on 

high-gradient stream channels.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 13, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 14 Rehabilitate headcuts and gullies. Use 

large wood in preference to rock weirs.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 14, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), (7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

RST 15

Implement measures to control turbidity. 

Measures may include installation of 

turbidity control structures (e.g., 

isolation, diversion, and silt curtains) 

immediately downstream of in-stream

restoration work areas. Remove these 

structures following completion of 

turbidity-generating activities.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I – Water, 

RST 15, p. 315

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1)

Biocriteria OAR 340-041-0011

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1384 | P a g e

Dry Forest-specific BMPs

Soils of concern in the dry forest area include those with a high potential for severe surface erosion, soil 

creep, periodic slumping (even when not overly saturated), and low nutrient potential. These soils 

weathered from granite, schist, and pyroclastic materials. The Timber Production Capability 

Classification (TPCC) and Handbook (5251-1, USDI BLM 1986) involves mapping, with discrete 

mapping units and interpretations of timbered lands. The classification uses geology, landform, 

topographic position, climate (especially precipitation), soil properties, and vegetation. Lands with the 

capacity to erode excessively or prone to movement are denoted with either a fragile code of FM (surface 

erosion potential) or FP (mass movement potential) (Table J-13).

Table J-13. Timber Production Capability Classification soil categories of concern

Category Description of Soil Categories

Surface 

Erosion 

FM

These sites have soil surface horizons that are highly erodible, easily detached and subject to 

bouncing or sliding downhill (dry ravel), even if partially vegetated. The soils overlay 

intrusive volcanic bedrock (e.g., granite, diorite, and schist). The Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) provides a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation soil loss 

tolerance factor, known as T factor, which ranges from a low of 1 (on shallow soils, 1–10”

depth), to 5 (on soils deeper than 60”). This factor describes the maximum rate of annual 

soil loss in tons/acre that can be lost and still permit crop productivity to sustain 

economically and indefinitely. Disturbances from harvesting or burning create increased dry 

raveling of soil, losses of soil nutrients, and burying of newly planted seedlings. 

Classification coding may be FMR for suitable lands or FMNW for non-suitable lands.

Mass 

Movement 

FP

These sites range from gentle to moderately steep slopes, 10–60 percent, where the rate of 

sliding is slow enough to permit forest management, but with some loss in wood quality in 

certain areas. Sites may have an impervious clay pan overlaying pyroclastic bedrock (e.g., 

volcanic tuffs, breccia, and are subject to movement). Tree roots providing strength and 

certain landforms act as resisting forces, while gravity and soil moisture may initiate nonuniform spatial and temporal rates of movement. Slow deep seated, slump or earth flow 

types of mass movements may occur, forming an undulating topography. Classification 

coding may be FPR for suitable lands or FPNW for non-suitable lands.
1385 | P a g e

Table J-14. Best management practices specific to the dry forest (refer to Table J-13 for category type)

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Roads and Landings: General Construction, Maintenance

Timber Harvest: Cable Yarding

DF 01

Use full log suspension whenever 

possible on TPCC soils identified as 

prone to surface erosion, category FM 

in Table J-13. Use one-end suspension

on these soils if full suspension is not 

practicable. Restrict yarding to the dry 

season, generally from June to end of 

September.

Suspend the leading end over TPCC 

soils identified as prone to mass 

movement, category FP in Table J-13. 

Restrict yarding to the dry season.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 1, p. 

317

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Timber Harvest: Ground-based

DF 02

Limit non-specialized ground-based 

yarding equipment to slopes less than 20

percent on TPCC soils identified as 

category FM or FP in Table J-13, 

where soils average less than or equal to 

20 percent clay in the top 6” of soil as 

determined by NRCS soil survey data. 

Otherwise, limit non-specialized 

ground-based yarding equipment to 

slopes less than 35 percent, on TPCC 

soils identified as category FM or FP in 

Table J-13, where soils average greater 

than 20 percent clay in the top 6”.

Avoid tilling on TPCC soils identified 

as category FM (when moisture is 

excessive) or FP in Table J-13, unless 

adequate ground cover is present to 

arrest potential erosion.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 2, p. 

317

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Fire and Fuels Management

DF 03

Avoid mechanical piling to limit severe 

surface disturbance and displacement on 

TPCC soils identified as category FM or 

FP in Table J-13

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 3, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

DF 04

Implement prescribed burning on FG 

and FM soils when fuel moisture 

contents result in ‘cool burns.’ Postburn surface soil characteristics may 

include litter that is consumed and duff 

that is deeply charred or consumed or 

organic matter that is partially charred 

to a depth >1.0 cm, but mineral soil is 

not visibly altered.

USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR42-vol. 4 2005 

Table 1.4 Part B

None
1386 | P a g e

BMP

Number Best Management Practices Source Water Quality Standards and Regulations

Wildfire: Suppression

DF 05

Limit the use of non-specialized 

ground-based fire line construction 

equipment and other major surfacedisturbing activities (for example, safety 

zones or helispots) to slopes equal to 20

percent or less on TPCC soils identified 

as category FM or FP in Table J-13.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 5, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036

Rights-of-Way

DF 06

Avoid facility construction on soils 

identified on TPCC soils identified as 

the FM category in Table J-13, unless 

water quality would be maintained.

Locate rights-of-ways to minimize 

surface disturbance on TPCC soils 

identified as category FM or FP in 

Table J-13.

USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix I –

Water, MFO 6, p. 

318

ODEQ–Water Pollution:

Antidegradation OAR 340-041-0004(1)

Statewide Narrative OAR 340-041-0007(1), 

(7)

Turbidity OAR 340-041-0036
1387 | P a g e

References

Gesford, A. L., and J. A. Anderson. 2006. Environmentally sensitive maintenance for dirt and gravel roads. Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation. 

http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/EnvironmentallySensitiveMaintenance_DirtGravelRoads.pdf.

Johansen, K., R. Copstead, and J. Moll. 1997. Relief culverts. Water/road interaction technology series. Research Report 9777

1812-SDTDC. USDA FS, San Dimas Technology and Development Program, Washington, D.C. 7 pp. 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road/.

ODEQ. 2015. Oregon Administrative rules. Water Pollution, Division 41. Water quality standards, beneficial uses, policies and 

criteria for Oregon. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_300/oar_340/340_041.html.

ODEQ and USDI BLM. 2011. Memorandum of understanding between United States Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, and State of Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality to meet State and Federal water quality rules and 

regulations. Agreement Number BLM-OR932-1013 and DEQ Agreement # 040-11/I, Subject Function Code 1786, 7240 

(P), April 2011. http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/igas/DEQBLMMOU20110401.pdf.

---. 2005. Erosion and sediment control manual. Prepared by: Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA. Project Number SW0106-

01.

ODFW. 2008. Oregon guidelines for timing of in-water work to protect fish and wildlife resources. 

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/inwater/Oregon_Guidelines_for_Timing_of_%20InWater_Work2008.pdf.

USACOE. 1972. Clean Water Act, Section 404. 

http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/materials/cwa_sec404doc.pdf.

USDA FS. 1998. U.S. Forest Service Manual 2500, Chap. 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, R-6 Supplement 

2520.98-1. 6 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/field/r6pnw/fsm/2500/2520_2_3.doc.

---. 2002. Management and techniques for riparian restorations: roads field guide. Vol. I and II. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR102 Vol. I and II. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 38 pp. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr102.html.

---. 2012. National best management practices for water quality management on National Forest system lands. Volume 1: 

National core BMP technical guide. FS-990a. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf.

USDA FS, USDI BIA, USDI BLM, USDI NPS, and USDI FWS. 2006. Interagency Burned Area Emergency Response 

Guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3 and USDA Forest Service Manual 2523. For the 

Emergency Stabilization of Federal and Tribal Trust Lands Version 4.0. 

http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/esr/Policy/es_handbook_2-7-06.pdf.

USDC NMFS. 2013. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Programmatic consultation conference and biological opinion and 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act essential fish habitat response for reinitiation of aquatic 

restoration activities in states of Oregon and Washington (ARBO II). NMFS consultation number NWR-2013-9664. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/medford/plans/files/nmfs-arboii.pdf.

USDI BLM. 1986. Timber production capability classification. Handbook 5251-1. Available at district offices.

---. 2006. Interagency Burned Area Rehabilitation Guidebook. Interpretation of Department of the Interior 620 DM 3 for the 

burned area rehabilitation of Federal and Tribal Trust Lands. Version 1.3. Washington, D.C. 36 pp.

http://www.fws.gov/fire/ifcc/Esr/Policy/BAR_Guidebook11-06.pdf.

---. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western Oregon 

Bureau of Land Management Districts. Vol. I–IV. Portland, OR. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/index.php.

---. 2010. Vegetation treatments using herbicides on BLM lands in Oregon. Record of Decision. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/vegtreatmentseis/files/Veg_Treatments_ROD_Oct2010.pdf.

---. 2011. BLM Road Design Handbook H9113-1. 

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.5566.File.dat/H

-9113-1.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. National management measures to control nonpoint source pollution from 

forestry. Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-841-B-05-001. http://www2.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-sourcepollution/national-management-measures-control-nonpoint-source.
1388 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1389 | P a g e

Appendix K – Lands and Realty

This appendix provides detailed data about lands and realty, found in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS and includes the following:

 Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria

 Land Withdrawals

 Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands

 Inventory of Communication Sites

Land Tenure Adjustment Criteria

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and other laws, 

Executive Orders, and Departmental and BLM policy, the BLM will consider the following factors in 

evaluating opportunities for disposal or acquisition of lands or interests in lands. The lists are not allinclusive, but represent the major factors that the BLM will consider.

General Land Tenure Adjustment Evaluation Factors

The BLM will use the following criteria to evaluate all land tenure adjustments:

 Improves manageability of specific areas

 Maintains or enhances important public resource values and uses

 Consolidates Federal mineral estate or reuniting split surface and mineral estates

 Facilitates development of energy and mineral potential

 Reduces difficulty or cost of public land administration

 Provides accessibility to Federal land for public recreation and other uses

 Amount of public investments in facilities or improvements and the potential for recovering 

those investments

 Suitability of land for management by another Federal agency

 Significance of decision in stabilizing or enhancing business, social, and economic 

conditions, or lifestyles

 Meets long-term public management goals as opposed to short term

 Facilitates National, State, and local BLM priorities

 Consistency with cooperative agreements and plans or policies of other agencies

 Facilitates implementation of other aspects of the approved resource management plans

Acquisition Criteria

The BLM will use the following criteria to identify parcels for acquisition:

 Facilitates access to public land and resources retained for long-term public use

 Secures Threatened or Endangered or Bureau Sensitive plant and animal species habitat

 Protects riparian areas and wetlands

 Contributes to biodiversity

 Protects high-quality scenery

 Enhances the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or public resource values

 Facilitates management practices, uses, scales of operation, or degrees of management 

intensity that are viable under economic program efficiency standards
1390 | P a g e

 Protects significant cultural resources and sites eligible for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places where non-Federal sites exist for the proposed use

Disposal Criteria

The BLM will use the following criteria to identify the disposal of parcels in Land Tenure Zone 2 as part 

of an exchange, or the disposal of parcels in Land Tenure Zone 3:

 Suitability for purposes including but not limited to community expansion or economic 

development, such as industrial, residential, or agricultural development

 Lands of limited public resource value

 Lands that are difficult for the BLM to manage and unsuitable for transfer to other Federal 

agencies or State and local governments

 Lands that would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land resource 

values where the public values to be acquired outweigh the values to be exchanged

O&C Land Exchange Criteria

An O&C land exchange is an exchange within the O&C area as delineated in Public Law 105-321. The 

BLM will consider the following forest management and related factors when evaluating the feasibility of 

an O&C land exchange:

 Land exchanges that maintain the existing balance between the various land use allocations 

will be considered favorably

 Land exchanges that enhance public resource values or improve land patterns and 

management capabilities of both non-Federal and BLM-administered lands within the 

planning area by consolidating ownership and reducing the potential for land use conflict

 Offered lands that are primarily suitable for agriculture, business, and home sites, or lands 

that would require extensive post-acquisition management will not be favorably considered. 

The O&C lands designated for timber production will generally not be exchanged for lands,

which will be managed solely for a single use, such as species protection.

 Generally, where cutting rights are reserved on existing and future timber stands by the 

proponent, the proposed exchange will not be considered favorably.

The exchange of O&C and CBWR lands specifically for lands located outside of the 18 O&C counties is 

prohibited by regulations in 43 CFR 2200. This restriction applies to timber and other interests in lands as 

well.

Land Withdrawals

Table K-1 through Table K-7 contains detailed information about existing and proposed land 

withdrawals.
1391 | P a g e

Table K-1. Withdrawal tables legend

Authority/Order Type: Segregation Effect:

DO Director Order A

Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws, 

the mining laws, and the Mineral Leasing Act

EO Executive Order B

Withdrawn from operation of the general land and 

mining laws

SO Secretarial Order C Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws

BO Bureau Order D

Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws; 

Open to mining subject to Public Law 359

PL Public Law E

Withdrawn from operation of the general land laws; 

Withdrawn from mining except metalliferous

PLO Public Land Order F

Withdrawn from operation of the general agricultural 

PSR Power Site Reserve and mining laws

PSC Power Site Classification Recommendation:

R&PP Recreation and Public Purpose C Continue

WPD Water Power Designation R Revoke

FPC Federal Power Commission

E Expire FO Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission Order

Notes:

Location description indicates sections within which withdrawn lands are located. Information on which portions of the cited 

sections are withdrawn is available within the District Office.

Table does not include lands that have been completely transferred out of Federal ownership subsequent to withdrawal or lands

within U.S. Forest Service National Forest boundaries.
1392 | P a g e

Note: Acres are based on the most available information, but may have discrepancies because of the general nature of some of the 

information.

Table K-2. Withdrawals in the Coos Bay District

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 50856 PLO 7215

T. 19 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 1 40.43 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 28 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 27 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 29 2.26 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F Revoke patented parcel

T. 30 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 12 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 32 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 4 71.75 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 33 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 31 155.16 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 6 40.7 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec.33 162.05 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 34 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 7.92 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 4 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 5 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 34 34 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 23 40 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 41 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 6 2.56 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

T. 41 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 7 0.32 Pacific Coastline, Highway 101 BLM F C

Total Acres for OR 50856: 757.15

ORE 

016183C PLO 3869

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 31 81.29 Smith River Falls Recreation Site BLM B C - Developed Sites

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 33 3.5 Vincent Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 2 78.86 Loon Lake Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 4 60 Park Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 18 20 Big Tree Recreation Site BLM B R

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 9 80 Bear Creek Recreation Site BLM B R

T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 12 120 Sixes River Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183C: 443.65

OR 23558 SO 

12/31/1930 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 1 51.51 Rec Wdl. No. 43 East Shore Recreation Site BLM B C - Developed Site

OR 

19291A PLO 3530 T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 17–20 590 Cherry Creek Natural Area BLM B

C - Protecting site, for research 

opportunities

OR 6398 PL 181

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 120 LaVerne County Park BLM/Coos Co. B C - Developed County Park

T. 27 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 35 160 Rock Prairie County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development

T. 28 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 87.72 Judge Hamilton County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 5 80 Middle Creek County Park BLM/Coos Co. B

C - Potential for County Park 

Development
1393 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 11 80 Frona County Park BLM/Coos Co. B C - Developed County Park

Total Acres for OR 6398: 527.72

OR 21318 SO 

6/12/1907

T. 40 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 

11, 14 320.75 Potential National Park BLM B

R - Not developed; No planned 

development; No public support 

for establishment of park or 

monument.

OR 19231 EO 

11/24/1903 T. 22 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 14 71.1 Umpqua Jetty Maintenance COE B

R - COE indicated a desire to 

relinquish

OR 21901 EO 

8/23/1895 T. 22 S., R. 13 W., Sec. 13 130 Umpqua River Light Station USCG B

R - USCG indicated a desire to 

relinquish

OR 4011 EO 

7/14/1884

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 2, 

3

5.1 Bar Watch Administrative Site USCG B C

OR 19227 EO 

7/14/1884 T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 2 2.43 Military Facility US Navy B C

OR 22094 EO 

6/14/1876 T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 4 21.58 Sub surface only/Cape Arago Lighthouse USCG R

ORE

012693 PLO 5490 All Public Domain lands 50,329 Multiple Use Management BLM

Surface 

closed to Ag 

laws

C

OR 54142 PLO 7436

T. 25 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 4–

8, 18, 19 

See total 

acres 

below

North Spit Rec Area and ACEC BLM Closed to the 

mining laws C

T. 25 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

12, 13, 23–26 North Spit Rec Area and ACEC BLM Closed to the mining laws C

Total Acres for OR 54142: 1,779.27

OR 24294 PL 95-450

T. 26 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 5, 

8, 17–19 15 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 27 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 19 8

Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 28 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

25, 26, 35 3.56 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 29 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 2 4

Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 31 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

24, 25, 34, 35 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 32 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10, 17, 21, 28-31 54 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 33 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 21, 22, 33 38 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 34 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C
1394 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 31 31.83 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 36 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

11, 15-17 32 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

30, 31 12 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 38 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 16 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 16, 17 30 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 4, 

16, 22, 26 38 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS A C

Total Acres for OR 24294:

Not 

available

OR 711 PLO 4395

T. 28 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 25

See total 

acres 

below

Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 31 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

24, 25, 34 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 31 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 35 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 32 S., R. 16 W., Secs. 

17, 21, 28–31 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 33 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

21, 22, 33 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 34 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 4 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 36 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

11 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 38 S., R. 15 W., Sec. 1 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 38 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

30, 31 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 39 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 16, 17 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 4, 

22 Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

Total Acres for OR 711: 222.56

OR 50874 PLO 7170 T. 29 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 

35, 36 70.9 Lost Lake BLM B C

OR 45401 PLO 6967 T. 30 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10, 11, 15, 21, 28, 32, 33 963.38 New River ACEC BLM B C

OR 51194 PLO 7170 T. 31 S., R. 15 W., Secs. 7, 

8

111.48 Floras Lake BLM B C

OR 51891 PLO 7246 T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 6 44.48 Edson Creek Recreation Site BLM B C
1395 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 24293 PL 91-504 T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 22 21 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS A C

OR 22376 EO 7035 T. 40 S., R. 14 W., Sec. 35 21 Oregon Islands National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS B C

OR 25306 PLO 6287 Unsurveyed islands rocks 

reefs Oregon National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

OR 11517 EO 

5/6/1935

Unsurveyed islands rocks 

reefs 100 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge Addition USFWS B C

OR 19130 SO of 

4/30/1921

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSC 1 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 6, 

8, 12, 14 165.26 Water Power Potential/PSC 1 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19130: Not 

available

OR 19140 SO of 

6/1/1926

T. 27 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 31 115.35 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 35 236.72 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 5, 6 169.26 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 1 320 Water Power Potential/PSC 147 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19140: 841.33

OR 19144 SO of 

7/19/1926

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 4*, 

7, 9, 17, 21 276.1 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7–9 109.44 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 13 80 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19144: 465.54

OR 19152 SO of 

2/15/1928 T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 183.93 Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 20365 EO of 

5/28/1912

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 26, 

28, 32, 34 245.22 Water Power Potential/PSR 273 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 20365 EO of 

5/28/1912

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2*, 

4* 320 Water Power Potential/PSR 273 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19101 EO of 

8/7/1917

T. 20 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 17, 

19, 21, 27, 33 186.57 Water Power Potential/PSR 629, BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 21, 

25, 27, 31, 33, 35 1,508.32 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

9, 11 616.26 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19101: 2,311.15

OR 19011 SO of 

7/13/1917

T. 20 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 21, 

25, 27, 31, 33, 35 1,362.74 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 20 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 17, 

19, 21, 27, 31, 33 1,586.55 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM R - unless viable for hydropower
1396 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 21 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

9, 11 1,062.95 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs.7, 

13, 15*, 17 282.52 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5, 

21 20.03 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Sec.19 47.45 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Secs.1, 

11*, 13, 35 37.38 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7*, 

17*, 19* 200.21 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23S 7 W., Secs. 5, 7, 9, 

15, 19*, 21, 23, 27, 31, 33 887.79 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19011: Not 

available

OR 19102 EO of 

6/29/1917 T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 24 3

Protect water power and reservoir 

potential/PSR 630 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower.

OR 19105 EO of 

7/24/1917

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 29.93 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5, 

21 20.03 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 22 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15*, 17 282.52 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

7, 9, 15, 19*, 21, 23, 27, 

31, 33

887.79 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 11 29.38 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19105: Not 

available

OR 19106 EO of 

7/17/1917

T. 22 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 239.95 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 7*, 

17*, 19* 200.21 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 1, 

13 211.51 Water Power Potential/PSR 634 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19106: 651.67

OR 19109 EO of 

7/17/1917 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 645, BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19012 SO of 

7/13/1917 T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/WPD 12 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26S., 9 W., Secs. 17*, 

19*, 29*, 31* Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 15 182.8 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower
1397 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 9, 17 120 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 3, 

13 280 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19113: Not 

available

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 

17*, 19*, 29*, 31* Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 15 187 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 9, 17 200 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 30 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 3, 

13 280 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not 

available

OR 19017 SO of 

1/12/1921

T. 27 S., R. 11 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

†

, 17, 19, 21†, 29, 31, 33† 2,418.76 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 27 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

11*, 13*, 23*, 25*, 27*, 35* 1,663.57 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 7 335.2 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 3, 

5, 9, 11, 15* 1,296.28 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 11 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5*, 7 883.12 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 28 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

1

†

, 3*, 11*, 13, 15*, 21* 1,516 Water Power Potential/WPD 17 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19017: 8,112.93

OR 19142 SO of 

12/4/1926

T. 22 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

15*, 21*, 22*, 26*, 27*, 34* Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 23 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 2* 76.86 Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 24 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 31* Water Power Potential/PSC 157 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19142: Not 

available

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 26 S., R. 9 W., Secs.10*, 

14* 640 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 32 S., R. 13 W., Secs. 

17, PB 37 387 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

T. 32 S., R. 14 W., Secs. 

11, 12 160 Water Power Potential/PSR 662 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

Total Acres for OR 19116: Not 

available

EO of 

12/12/1910

T. 25 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

29-33 400 Resource Protection/Coal Lands BLM Removal/Revocation
1398 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19180

USGS 

Order of 

7/15/1947

T. 26 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 8 80 Water Power Potential/PSC 382 BLM D R - unless viable for hydropower

ORE 

013683 PLO 4448 T. 29.5 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 32 4.3 Reclamation Project/Umpqua River COE B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1399 | P a g e

Table K-3. Withdrawals in the Eugene District

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 05555 BO of 

7/12/1957 T. 15 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 7 40 Air Navigation FAA A C

ORE 

013117 PLO 3610 T. 18 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Fall Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 19 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 6 Fall Creek Reservoir COE B C

Total Acres for ORE 013117: 81.2

OR 19234 PLO 497 T. 17 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

27, 28 5.27 Fern Ridge Reservoir COE A C

OR 19240 PLO 727 T. 19 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 34 1.37 Lookout Point Reservoir COE A C

OR 711 PLO 4395 T. 16 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 33 1 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

OR 25306 PLO 6287 T. 16 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 33 1 Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

ORE 

016183A PLO 3869

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 See total acres 

below

Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 21 Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 35

Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 15 Lake Creek, Whittaker Creek, Clay Creek, 

Haight Creek, Sharps Creek Recreation Sites BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183A: 440.12

ORE 

012093 PLO 5490

All public domain lands in 

and west of Range 8 East 

and all lands within the 

area, which become public 

domain lands in the future.

9,000.52 Reserved for multiple use management BLM

Surface 

closed to ag 

laws

E

OR 8754 PLO 5229 T. 15 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

29, 30, 31, 32 260 Shotgun Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 46473 PLO 6963 T. 18 S., R. 12 W., Secs. 

3, 15 257.6 Florence Sand Dunes BLM B C

OR 48744 PLO 7081 T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3, 

9, 10, 11 292.25 Eagle Rock Section of McKenzie River BLM B C

OR 19133 SO of 

6/7/1922

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

21, 25, 35

See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 41 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 5 PSC 41 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19133: 550.49

OR 19148 SO of 

5/23/1957

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 180 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31*, 33, 35

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSC 180 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15 PSC 180 BLM D C
1400 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 19148: 300.6

OR 19186 DO of 

7/25/1952

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 23, 

24, 27 276.64 Protect water power and reservoir development potential/PSC 426 BLM D C

OR 19040 EO of 

7/2/1910

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 

28*, 34*

See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 95 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 2* PSR 95 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 4 PSR 95 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19040: 152.28

OR 19059 EO of 

7/10/1910

T. 16 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 31* See total acres 

below

Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 285 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 4 Protect water power and reservoir 

development potential/PSR 285 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19059: 163.56

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 15 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 7 See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

1*, 3*, 17†

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

3*, 31, 33

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

17*, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 7, 

9, 29, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 19, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 11

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 659 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19113: 5,961.48

OR 19115 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 29, 

33*, 35*

See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3*, 

5*, 9*

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C
1401 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31*, 33, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

3*, 7*, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 5, 

15, 23

Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Protect water-power development potential/

PSR 661 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19115: 1,103.6

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917 T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 28 40 Protect water-power development potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

OR 19127 EO of 

2/19/1920

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

1*, 5, 9, 15†, 23, 27, 35 1,249.16 Protect water-power development potential/PSR 661 BLM D C

OR 19127 EO of 

2/19/1920

T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 1, 

7

PSR 730 BLM D C

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 15 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 7 See total acres 

below

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 29, 

33,* 35*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 16 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 19 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3,* 

5,* Sec. 9*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 17 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

1*, 3*

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

31, 33

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 18 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

17*, 21, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 7, 

9, 29, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1†, 

3

†

, 5, 9, 11*, 19, 21, 27, 

35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 19 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 31 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C
1402 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 20 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 9, 11

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

31†, 33, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

3*, 7, 31

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

1*, 5, 9, 15†, 23, 27, 35

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 22 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 5, 

15, 23

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 1, 

7

Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Protect water-power development potential/

WPD 14 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19014: 8,234.24

OR 19016 SO of 

12/24/1919 T. 23 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 1 80 Protect water power and reservoir development potential/WPD 16 BLM D C

OR 52939 PLO 7445

T. 20 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

30, 31, 32, 33, 34

See total acres 

below

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 20 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 25, 

36

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

19, 30, 31, 32

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 11, 13, 14, 24

Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 21 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 1 Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

T. 22 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 5 Row River Trail and associated recreation 

facilities BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 52939: 178.95

OR 50856 PLO 7215 T. 18 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 2 36.52 Pacific Coastline Highway 101 BLM B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1403 | P a g e

Table K-4. Withdrawals in the Klamath Falls Field Office

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 05433 BO of 

6/14/57

T. 40 S., R. 10 E., Sec. 9 80 Air Navigation/ANS 57 FAA A R

T. 40 S., R. 10 E., Sec. 10 80 Air Navigation/ANS 57 FAA A Partial R/C

Total Acres for ORE 05433: 160

OR 36244 BO of 

2/11/47 T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 21 51.12 Kingsley Field USAF B C

OR19001 EO 5907 T. 38 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 35 40 Public Water Reserve 146 BLM E C

OR 20219 EO of 

1/24/1914

T. 41 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 6 52.14 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 40 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 

19, 31 189.55 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 41 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 1 40 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

T. 40 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 24 160 Public Water Reserve 15 BLM E C

Total Acres for OR 20219: 441.69

OR 9041 EO 

4/17/1926

T. 40 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 11 80 Public Water Reserve 107 BLM E C

T. 41 S., R. 14.5 E., Sec. 1 40 Public Water Reserve 107 BLM E C

Total Acres for OR 9041: 120

ORE 

016183E PLO 3869 T. 39 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 2, 11 160 Gerber Reservoir Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869 T. 38 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 21 40 Surveyor Mountain Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869 T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 6 14.35 Topsy Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 

012799 PLO 3274 T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 21 10.04 Administrative Site USFWS B R

OR 20243 SO of 

7/9/1904

T. 39 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 5–

8, 16–22 3,425.82 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

T. 38 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

31, 32 160 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

Total Acres for OR 20243: 3,585.82

SO of 

7/27/1904

T. 38 S., R. 13 E., Sec. 35 120 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 13 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 11–14, 23, 26, 27, 33, 34 2,758.87 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR/BLM B R

Total Acres for SO of 7/27/1904: 2,878.87

OR 2870 PL 88-567

T. 34 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12, 13, 25, 26, 35, 36 2,636.09 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge andKlamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS B R

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 

PB 37, 38

3,800.24 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS B R

T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 36 500.10 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS

Closed to 

homestead 

entry

R
1404 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 2870: 6,936.43

OR 4669 PLO 1512 T. 37 S., R. 7.5 E., Secs. 9, 

10 6

Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, 

Addition USFWS C

OR 20587 EO 4851

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 

PB 37, 38

3,800.24 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge and

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project

USFWS/ 

BR B R

T. 36 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 11–14, PB 37–42 3,120 Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge andKlamath Basin Reclamation Project

USFWS/ 

BR B R

Total Acres for OR 20587: 6,926.24

OR 22625 EO 924

T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 23–

28, 31–36

See total acres 

below Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1–

16, 21–27, 34–36 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 6–

8, 17–21, 27–35 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 18 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 1–

6, 8–13 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

T. 41 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1–

5, 9–16 95.9 Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

Total Acres for OR 22625: Not available

OR 20246 SO of 

1/28/1905 T. 37 S., R. 8 E., Sec. 17 68.7 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project USFWS/ BR B R

OR 20249 SO of 

1/20/1910

T. 34 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12, 13, 25, 26, 35, 36

See total acres 

below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B R

T. 35 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

2, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35, 36, 

PB 37, 38

Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 36 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 11–14, PB 37–42 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20249: Not available

OR 20253 SO of 

6/25/1919

T. 41 S., R. 10 E., Secs. 

15, 16

See total acres 

below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–18 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 41 S., R. 8 E., Secs. 1, 

4, 9, 11–16 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 40 S., R. 8 E., Sec.25 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20253: Not available

OR 20244 SO of 

7/19/1904 T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 24 See total acres below Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C
1405 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–17 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20244: Not available

OR 20246 SO of 

1/28/1905

T. 41 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 3–

6, 8–10, 12, 14–17 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20254 SO of 

7/31/1919 T. 39 S., R. 11 E., Sec. 19 80 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20240 SO of 

6/20/1922

T. 41 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

19, 20 29.55 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20259 SO of 

2/25/1939

T. 39 S., R. 12 E., Secs. 

22, 26 120 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20261 SO of 

4/21/1940 T. 40 S., R. 14 E., Sec. 5 41.04 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B

R – Withdrawal 

relinquished, 

suitable for return 

to Public Domain

OR 20239 SO of 

2/21/1946

T. 41 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

15, 20–23 1,063.8 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20264 BO of 

2/11/1947

T. 39 S., R. 9 E., Secs. 20–

22, 25, 27, 28, 31–34 60.14 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 3 278.41 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for OR 20264: 338.55

OR 20263 SO of 

1/6/1944 T. 40 S., R. 9 E., Sec. 15 160 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BR B C

OR 20262 SO of 

6/18/1940 T. 39 S., R. 12 E., Sec. 28 40 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project BLM D C

SO of 

3/31/1939

T. 40 S., R. 14 E., Secs. 

5*, 7*, 17* 53.35 Klamath Basin Reclamation Project C

OR 19085 EO 

2/1/1917

T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 2, 

7, 10, 18 313.95 Water Power Potential/PSR 579 BLM D C

OR 44762

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Secs.1, 

12–14, 23, 26, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Klamath Wild and Scenic River Various C

T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec.6 Klamath Wild and Scenic River C

Total Acres for OR 44762: Not available

OR 19054 EO 

4/13/1912

T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 4, 

8, 10

See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Sec. 12, 

14, 26, 34 Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C

T. 41 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 13 Water Power Potential/PSR 258 BLM D C
1406 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 19054: 1,611.34

OR 18974

FPC Order 

of 

1/28/1954

T. 39 S., R. 7 E., Secs. 26–

29, 35, 36 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC C

T. 40 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 6 14.47 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

T. 40 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 1, 

12–14, 23, 26, 27, 34, 35 23.41 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

T. 41 S., R. 6 E., Secs. 3, 

5, 6, 10 J.C. Boyle Power Project/Power Project 2082 FERC B C

Total Acres for OR 18974: Not available

OR 19131 SO 

5/19/1921 T. 41 S., R. 5 E., Sec. 12 6.42 Protect Water, Power, and Reservoir Development Potential/PSC 2 BLM B C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1407 | P a g e

Table K-5. Withdrawals in the Medford District

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

ORE 

016674 PLO 5105

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 11, 

13, 14, 23, 24, 27, 35

See total acres 

below Lost Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 11, 

15, 19 Lost Creek Reservoir COE B R (716.88 acres)

Total Acres for ORE 016674: 2,483.48

ORE 

016753 PLO 6373

T. 32 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 33 See total acres 

below Elk Creek Reservoir COE B C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 5, 

9, 21, 29 Elk Creek Reservoir COE B C

Total Acres for ORE 016753: 840.59

OR 49 PLO 4132 T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 9 200 Sprague Orchard BLM B C

OR 10729 PLO 5481 T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 3 160 Sprague Orchard BLM B C

ORE 04135 PLO 1726

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B R (519.8 acres)

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs.9, 

10, 16 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

16–18, 22, 23, 26, 35, 36 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

32–35 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 31 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 23, 

24, 32 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 11, 

19 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1, 2 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

5, 6, 12, 13, 24, 25 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6, 

19, 30, 31 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

6, 9, 10, 24 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 11, 12 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11–13 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 13 Recreation Area BLM B C
1408 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 39 S., R. 2 W., Secs.19, 

23 Recreation Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 04135: 15,481.14

ORE 

012261 PLO 3165

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 33 See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 13, 25 Recreation Area BLM B C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 012261: 174.21

ORE 

016183D PLO 3869

T. 32 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 16 See total acres 

below Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 35 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 11 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 38 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 25 Recreation Area BLM B R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 21, 

22 Recreation Area BLM B R

Total Acres for ORE 016183D: 444.35

OR 19008 SO of 

1/19/1917

T. 38 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 25* See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 

31*, 33 Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3*, 

11*, 15* Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5*, 

9, 15, 21†, 27† Water Power Potential/WPD 3 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19008: 5,631.54

OR 19010 SO of 

4/27/1917

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 23, 

27, 32, 33†

See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1*, 

11*, 15, 17*, 19† Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7* Water Power Potential/WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 3†, 

15, 21*, 29* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 3†, 

11*, 13, 23*, 25†, 35 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec.7, 

33† Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

5, 9–11, 13, 25*, 35* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 19 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C
1409 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

5*, 9*, 13† Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 17 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 13 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 11 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 21 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

21*, 23* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 21†, 25†, 29* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11, 13, 17*, 21* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

1*, 13*, 15* Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

27, 35 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

5

†

, 9†, 17, 20*, 27*, 29 Water Power Potential WPD 10 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19010: 12,228.88

OR 19013 SO of 

4/27/1917

T. 32 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 23 See total acres 

below Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 15 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

32, 33 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 17–

19 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

17, 29 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 9, 

21, 29, 31 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 35 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 19 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 5, 

23 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 17, 

35 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R
1410 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 21, 27, 35 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7, 

17 Transmission Line/WPD 13 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19013: 127.27

OR 19018 SO of 

4/13/1942

T. 33 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 31 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 5 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

23, 25, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 18 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19018: 872.35

OR 19047 EO of 

12/1/1910

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 24, 

32, 31†

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 161 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 2, 

3, 10 Power Site Potential/PSR 161 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19047: 157.49

OR 19048 EO of 

12/19/1910

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 4, 

6, 10, 26

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 167 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

2*, 12 Power Site Potential/ PSR 167 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11, 12* Power Site Potential/PSR 167 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19048: 495.38

OR 19078 EO of 

3/28/1916

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

22, 24* 2.17 Power Site Potential/PSR 528 BLM C C

OR 19088 EO of 

1/19/1917

T. 38 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 25† See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 31, 

33 Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5†, 

9, 15, 21, 27 Power Site Potential/PSR 583 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19088: 1,799.03

OR 19089 EO of 

1/19/1917

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 3, 

11, 15 160 Power Site Potential/PSR 584 BLM C R

OR 19094 EO of 

4/30/1917

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 3†, 

11, 13, 23, 25, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 13 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM C C
1411 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 35 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 1, 

3, 5, 17 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLM

CC

T. 35 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 3, 13 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLMCC

T. 35 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSR 619 BLMCC

Total Acres for OR 19094: 3,360.34

OR 19096 EO of 

4/28/1917

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 

23

†

, 27

†

, 33

†

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 1, 

11*, 15*, 17*, 19

† Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLMCC

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 3

†

, 

15*, 21*, 29* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 5†

, 9, 11, 13

†

, 25*, 35* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 35 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 19 Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLMCC

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

5*, 9* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 11* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLMCC

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 21 Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLMCC

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

21*, 23* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

19*, 21*, 25, 29* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

11

†

, 13, 17*, 21* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

1*, 13*, 15* Power Site Potential/PSR 621 BLM

CC

Total Acres for OR 19096: 5,379.4

OR 19139 SO of 

5/8/1926

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

3, 9, 10, 12–14

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

16–18, 23, 26, 36 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

32, 34, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

31

†

, 32

† Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

14*, 23 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 3* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLMCC

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 2 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLMCC
1412 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

6, 12, 13, 24, 25, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

6, 18, 19†, 30, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 15, 

23 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 33 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1, 2 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5–

7

Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 2* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 18 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 37 S., R. 6 W., Secs.13, 

15†, 23, 24 Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

T. 37 S., R. 5 W., Secs.17, 

19* Power Site Potential/PSC 143 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19139: 22,948.95

OR 19143 SO of 

12/10/1926

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 5 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 158 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 15†Power Site Potential/PSC 158 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19143: 71.8

OR 19154 SO of 

2/27/1929

T. 38 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 32 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 26, 

35 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 11, 

19, 20 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 

5***, 15 Power Site Potential/PSC 218 BLM C R

Total Acres for OR 19154: 1,482.21

OR 19173 SO of 

4/11/1942

T. 33 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 31 See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 5 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

T. 34 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

23, 25, 26, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 330 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19173: 1,151.73

OR 19174 SO of 

4/27/1943

T. 33 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 

29, 33, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Secs. 13, 

17, 18, 23, 27, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM C C
1413 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 16, 

17, 19 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM

CC

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Secs. 9, 

15, 23, 27, 29, 31 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 3, 

11, 15, 23 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLM

CC

T. 35 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 7 Power Site Potential/PSC 340 BLMCC

Total Acres for OR 19174: 5,207.45

OR 19291 PLO 3530 T. 39 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 5, 6210.36 Brewer Spruce RNA BLMBC

ORE 03644 B.O. of 1

-

24-1956

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 10 See total acres 

below Rogue River Basin Project BOR

BC

T. 34 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 20 Rogue River Basin Project BORBC

T. 34 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 24 Rogue River Basin Project BORBC

T. 34 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 32 Rogue River Basin Project BORBC

T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 6 Rogue River Basin Project BORBC

Total Acres for ORE 03644: 875.93

ORE 

011495 PLO 4289 T. 40 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1

†

1,132.39 Rogue River Basin Project BORCC

ORE 

017844 PLO 4037 T. 39 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 6 162.5 Rogue River Basin Project BOR

BC

OR 20519 S.O. of 2

-

20-1943

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 32 See total acres 

below Medford/SV Project BOR

BR

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 2 Medford/SV Project BORBR

Total acres for OR 20519: 84.64

OR 20572 B.O. of 8

-

18-1950

T. 35 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

34, 35 80 Air 

Navigation Site FAAAC

ORE 03801 PLO 1189 T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 2 395.5 Recreation Area USFSBR

OR 19110 EO of 

7/23/1917

T. 32 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 23 See total acres 

below Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM

CC

T. 33 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 15 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLMCC

T. 33 S., R. 1 E., Sec. 13 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLMCC

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 9, 

17–19 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM

CC

T. 34 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 

17, 29 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM

CC

T. 34 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLMCC

T. 35 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 9, 

21, 27, 29, 31 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM

CC

T. 36 S., R. 5 W., Secs. 5, 

23 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM

CC
1414 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 36 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 21 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 17, 

35 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 7, 

17, 21, 27, 35 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7, 17 Transmission Line/PSR 649 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19110: Not available

OR 37299 FO of 

1/19/1983

T. 31 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

27, 28, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Water Power Project/PP-7161 FERC C C

T. 32 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Project/PP-7161 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 37299: Not available

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9

†

, 10, 11, 13

See total acres 

below Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs.17, 

21, 23, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

33†, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not available

OR 19125 EO of 

12/27/1919

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9

†

, 10, 11, 13

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 

17, 21, 23, 35 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

33†, 35 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1, 

3, 5 Power Site Potential/PSR 728 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 19125: Not available

OR 4337 PL 90-542

T. 33 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

9–14

See total acres 

below Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 8, 

15–18, 21–23, 26, 27, 35, 

36

Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

31–36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 31 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C
1415 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 34 S., R. 9 W., Secs. 1, 

2

Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 1–

3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 24, 25, 36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 34 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6, 

18, 19, 30, 31 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 1 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3–

11, 14, 15, 23–26, 35, 36 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 1, 

2, 11–14, 24 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

18, 19 Rogue Wild and Scenic River BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 4337: Not available

OR 57512 FO of 

6/6/2002

T. 36 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

19, 20, 29–31 Not available Water Power Project/PP-12205 FERC B R

OR 19098 EO of 

5/7/1917

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1* See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

T. 35 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 6†, 

10 Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

T. 36 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 12 Power Site Potential/PSR 623 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19098: Not available

OR 49212 PLO 7136

T. 34 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 See total acres 

below Galice Creek Recreation Area BLM B E

T. 35 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 2, 

3

Galice Creek Recreation Area BLM B E

Total Acres for OR 49212: 290

ORE 

012261 PLO 3259 T. 36 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 11 79.73 Protection of R&PP/Recreation Area BLM B C

OR 49218 PLO 7103

T. 37 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 36 See total acres 

below

Protection of Scenic, Fisheries, Wildlife, and 

Recreation Values BLM B C

T. 37 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 31 Limestone Caves and Crook Creek BLM B C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 11 Fisheries Area BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 49218: 758.46

OR 19138 SO of 

1/7/1926

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 9, 

26*, 27, 28, 34, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5†, 

15, 27†, 29, 33, 34†, 35 Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

T. 40 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 5†, 

9

Power Site Potential/PSC 123 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19138: Not available
1416 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19093 EO of 

4/28/1917

T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

27, 35

See total acres 

below Power Site Potential/PSR 618 BLM C C

T. 39 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 3, 

4*, 5, 9†, 17†, 21†, 27*, 

29*

Power Site Potential/PSR 618 BLM C C

Total Acres for OR 19093: Not available

OR 19092 EO of 

4/28/1917 T. 38 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 28 27.90 Power Site Potential/PSR 617 BLM C C

OR 56726 FO of 

5/21/2001

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 34, 

35

See total acres 

below Water Power Project/PP-12022 FERC C R

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 2 Water Power Project/PP-12022 FERC C R

Total Acres for OR 56726: Not available

OR 18974

FPC Orders 

OF 

4/22/1959, 

2/25/1975

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 28, 

35

See total acres 

below Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 40 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 6, 

17 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

T. 41 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 6–

9, 12, 17 Transmission Line/PP-2082 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 18974: Not available

Act of 

12/30/1982

T. 40 S., R. 2 E., Secs. 31, 

32

See total acres 

below BLM Wilderness Study Area BLM C

T. 41 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 5, 6 BLM Wilderness Study Area BLM C

Total Acres for Act of 12/30/1982: Not available

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1417 | P a g e

Table K-6. Withdrawals in the Roseburg District

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19101 EO of 

8/7/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 27†, 33*, 35 600 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9

392.59 Water Power Potential/PSR 629 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19101: 992.59

OR 19011 SO of 

7/13/1959

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 27†, 33*, 35 600 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 21 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9

392.59 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM C

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 31 47.45 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9*, 15, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13*, 15*, 17, 21*, 23, 

29*, 33

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

5*, 7†, 9, 15, 17, 21†, 23, 

27

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15, 17, 23 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

9*, 11, 17* Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

25†, 29*, 31, 33†, 35 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

15, 21, 23, 25†, 27 Water Power Potential/WPD 11 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19011: 992.59

OR 19105 EO of 

7/24/1917

T. 22 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

19, 31 47.45 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

9*, 15, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 3, 

11, 13*, 15*, 17, 21*, 23, 

29*, 33

Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5*, 

7

†

, 9, 15, 17, 21†, 23, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C
1418 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 

5*, 7 Water Power Potential/PSR 633 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19105: Not available

OR 19057 EO of 

6/4/1912

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

21, 32 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

20*, 28 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

6

†

, 7* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 9* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 18* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 8 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 28 Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 25* Water Power Potential/PSR 280 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19057: Not available

OR 19341 PLO 754 T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

20, 21 28.28 Timber Preservation BLM A C

ORE 

016183B PLO 3869

T. 21 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 1 80 Gunter Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 24 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 13 23.7 Tyee Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 23 20 Scaredman Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 24 40 Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 25 20 Scaredman Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 30 40 Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 15 160 Rock Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 25 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 320 Mill Pond Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 14 160 Susan Creek Falls BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 9 6.44 Lone Rock BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 16 178.53 Wolf Creek Trail BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 23 80 Cavitt Creek Forest BLM B C

T. 31 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 20 Island Creek Day-Use Area BLM B C

Total Acres for ORE 016183B: Not available

OR 1102 EO of 

6/29/1917 T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 6 Water Power Potential/PSR 630 BLM D C

OR 3660A PLO 4537 T. 25 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 9, 

10, 15 91.88 Umpqua Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 19144 SO of 

1/20/1970

T. 25 S., R. 8 W., Sec.12 20.8 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 30* Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 5 W., Sec. 26 Water Power Potential/PSC 162 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19144: Not available
1419 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19153 SO of 

6/29/1928

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 

17* Water Power Potential/PSC 202 BLM D C

OR 44740 PL 100-

557

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

8, 13–18, 20–24 1,620 North Umpqua Wild and Scenic River BLM Various C

OR 18874

FPC 

Orders of 

12/28/1948 

and 

5/18/1953

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 35 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 

1927 BLM B C

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13–15, 17, 21, 29–31 110.11 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 1927 FERC B C

Total Acres for OR 18874: Not available

OR 19103 EO of 

7/10/1917

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 7, 

13, 15, 17, 23 397.3 Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

9*, 11, 17* Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

T. 26 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 7 Water Power Potential/PSR 631 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19103: Not available

OR 19184 SO of 

5/29/1951

T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

14, 22, 24 300 Water Power Potential/PSC 416, BLM D C

OR 19016 SO of 

10/24/1919 T. 26 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 21 33.78 Water Power Potential/WPD 16 BLM D C

OR 18874

FPC Order 

of 

3/30/1945

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 1, 

35 12.17 100 foot wide electric transmission line/PP 1927 FERC B

OR 5263 PLO 4848

T. 26 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 1 80 Swiftwater Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 1 80 Emile Creek Recreation Site BLM B

T. 27 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 8 80 Little River Wayside BLM B

Total Acres for OR 5263: 585.95

ORE 

013683 PLO 4448

T. 29 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

17, 21 60.22 Umpqua River Reclamation Project BR B C

T. 30 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 5, 

6

50.15 Umpqua River Reclamation Project BR B C

Total Acres for ORE 013683: 110.37

OR 19113 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 29 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

25†, 29*, 31, 33†, 35 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Secs. 

15, 21, 23, 25†, 27 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/PSR 659 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19113: Not available
1420 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 19014 SO of 

12/12/1917

T. 20 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 29 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 35 40 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 3 Water Power Potential/WPD 14 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19014: Not available

OR 19152 SO of 

2/15/1928

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Secs. 

23, 29, 31 Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 

15* Water Power Potential/PSC 198 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19152: Not available

OR 19171 SO of 

1/6/1940

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 12 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 3 W., Secs. 

19, 29 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 30 S., R. 4 W., Sec. 29 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

T. 31 S., R. 3 W., Sec. 3 83.61 Water Power Potential/PSC 315 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19171: Not available

OR 53486 PLO 7413

T. 31 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 4 Iron Mountain Gold Panning Area BLM B C

T. 30 S., R. 2 W., Sec. 23 Pickett Bridge Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 30 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 5 Olalla-Thompson Creek Day Use Area BLM B C

T. 31 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 1 Island Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 53486: 143.32

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1421 | P a g e

Table K-7. Withdrawals in the Salem District

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 23947 PL 96-199 T. 10 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 

30 100 Yaquina Head BLM, USCG A C

OR 8920 PLO 5372 T. 8 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 33 80 Little Sink RNA BLM B C

OR 37275 PL 98-328

T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 12–

14;

See total acres 

below Table Rock Wilderness BLM A C

T. 7 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 7–

12, 15–22 Table Rock Wilderness BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 37275: 5,500

ORE 05555 BO of 

7/12/1957 T. 15 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 7 110.9 Air Navigation/ANS-58-1, Prairie Mtn. FAA B C

ORE 03060 PLO 989 T. 3 S., R. 5 E., Secs. 26–

28 600 Fish Hatchery and Eagle Creek USFWS B C

ORE 015487 PLO 3609 T. 4 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 13 320 Walter Horning Seed Orchard BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 32 35 Alder Glenn Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

25, 26 40 Alsea Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 7 80 Canyon Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 3 80 Dogwood Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 9 120 Elkhorn Valley Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 9 S., R. 2 E., Sec. 25 160 Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 N., R. 3 W., Sec. 21 20 Little Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 7 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 4, 

9

Mill Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 14 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 13 40 Missouri Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 3 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 11 160 North Fork Eagle Creek Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 4 N., R. 3 W., Sec. 7 30 Scaponia Recreation Site BLM B C

ORE 016183 PLO 3869 T. 11 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 19 80 Yellowbottom Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 6363 PLO 5136 T. 12 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 28 40 Mary’s Peak Administrative Site USFS B C

OR 50856 PLO 7215

T 3 S., R. 10 W., Sec. 30 See total acres 

below Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 4 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

19, 29 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 5 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 5, 

6, 20 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 8 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 3 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 9 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 4 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T .13 S., R. 11 W., Sec. 

28 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

T 14 S., R. 12 W., Sec. 35 Pacific Coast Highway BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 50856: 1,007.2
1422 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 18842

FPC Order 

of 

11/17/1924

T. 2 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 1 24 Electric Power Generator/Sandy River -

Marmot Dam Bull Run Project/PP 477 FERC C C

T. 2 S., R. 5 E., Secs. 1, 

15 24 Electric Power Generator/Sandy River -Marmot Dam Bull Run Project/PP 477 FERC C C

Total Acres for OR 18842: 48

OR 19146 SO of 

2/26/1927

T. 7 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 1, 

5, 11–13, 15, 22–24

Potential Power Development/Molalla River 

PSC 170 BLM D R

OR 19147 SO of 

2/26/1927 T. 8 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 35 957 Potential Power Development/Siletz River/PSC 171 BLM D R

OR 19166 SO of 

1/3/1938

T. 5 N., R. 6 W., Sec. 6 10 Potential Power Development/Nehalem 

River/PSC 304 BLM D R

T. 5 N., R. 7 W., Sec. 10 40 Potential Power Development/Nehalem 

River/PSC 304 BLM D R

Total Acres for OR 19166: 50

OR 19183 DO of 

11/9/1950

T. 14 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

15, 19, 21, 29 240 Potential Power Development/Alsea River/PSC 413 BLM D R

T. 15 S., R. 8 W., Sec. 7 76 Potential Power Development/Alsea 

River/PSC 413 BLM D R

T. 15 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 1 40 Potential Power Development/Alsea 

River/PSC 413 BLM D R

Total Acres for OR 19183: 356

OR 19038 EO of 

7/2/1910

T. 3 N., R. 8 W., Secs. 

10, 18 61 Potential Power Development/Nehalem River/PSR 89 BLM D R

OR 19074 EO of 

10/23/1914 T. 12 S., R. 1 W., Sec. 34 11 Potential Power Development/Santiam River/PSR 458 BLM D R

OR 19113, 

OR 19014

EO of 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/12/1917

Various 6,149

Potential Power Development/Alsea, 

Nehalem, Scappoose and Trask Rivers/PSR 

659, WPD 14

BLM D R

OR 19115, 

OR 19014

EO of 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/12/1917

Various 10,370 Potential Power Development/Clackamas 

River/PSR 661, WPD 14 BLM D R

OR 19118 EO of 

12/12/1917, Various 1,143

Potential Power Development/Eagle Creek, 

So. Yamhill, Molalla and N. Santiam Rivers/

PSR 664

BLM D R

OR 19127, 

OR 19014, 

OR 19016

EO 

2/19/1920, 

SO 

12/12/1917, 

SO of 

12/24/1919

Various 1,900

Potential Power Development/Clackamas, 

Nestucca, Sandy, Santiam Rivers/

PSR 730, WPD 14 and WPD 16

BLM D R
1423 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

OR 1572 PLO 4305 T. 14 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 25 132.5 Alsea Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

OR 3660 PLO 4537

T. 2 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 31 280 Wildwood Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 8 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 31 160 Salmon Falls Recreation Site BLM B C

T. 14 S., R. 9 W., Sec. 13 10 Missouri Bend Recreation Site BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 3660: 450

OR 19116 EO of 

12/12/1917

T. 1 S., R. 6 W., Sec. 28 80 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 3 S., R. 6 W., Secs. 8, 

18 188 Protect Water Power and Reservoir Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 1 S., R. 7 W., Sec. 26 160 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 3 S., R. 7 W., Secs. 

24, 26, 28, 32 1,003 Protect Water Power and Reservoir Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

T. 1 S., R. 8 W., Secs. 

21, 22, 28, 29, 30

Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSR 662 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19116: Not available

OR 19187 DO of 

1/21/1958

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

10, 17, 19, 20, 27, 30

See total acres 

below

Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSC 442 BLM D C

T. 12 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 19 Protect Water Power and Reservoir 

Potential/PSC 442 BLM D C

Total Acres for OR 19187: Not available

OR 44742 PL 100-557

T. 11 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

23–26, 35, 36

See total acres 

below Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 9, 10 Quartzville Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 44742: Not available

OR 59658 PLO 7685

T. 11 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 

25, 26, 35

See total acres 

below Quartzville Creek BLM B C

T. 12 S., R. 3 E., Secs. 2, 

3, 9, 10 Quartzville Creek BLM B C

Total Acres for OR 59658: Not available

OR 44744 PL 100-557 T. 03 S., R. 7 E., Sec. 1 Not available Salmon Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

OR 59546 PL 104-208

T. 3 S., R. 10 W., Secs. 

6, 7, 18, 19, 30, 

See total acres 

below Oregon Islands Wilderness Additions BLM A C

T. 5 N., R. 11 W., Sec. 1 Oregon Islands Wilderness Additions BLM A C

Total Acres for OR 59546: 95

OR 44746 PL 100-557 T. 1 S., R. 4 E., Sec. 1 Not available Sandy Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

OR 53424 PL 104-333

T. 9 S., R. 3 E., Sec. 1 See total acres 

below Elkhorn Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C

T. 9 S., R. 4 E., Secs. 5, 

6, 7 Elkhorn Creek Wild and Scenic River BLM B C
1424 | P a g e

Serial 

Number

Order 

Number Legal Description Acres Purpose Name Managing Agency

Segregation 

Effect Recommendation

Total Acres for OR 53424: Not available

OR 11517 PLO 6287 Various Not available Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge USFWS B C

ORE 11235 PLO 2952 T. 12 S., R. 3 E. 860 Green Peter Reservoir COE C C

* Open to entry subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act

† Open to entry in part subject to Section 24 of the Federal Power Act
1425 | P a g e

Land Tenure Zone 3 Lands

Table K-8 through Table K-13 contains Zone 3 lands that are available for disposal.

Table K-8. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Coos Bay District

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

19 S. 12 W. 1 Lots 1 and 2 40.48 PD

20 S. 09 W. 33 Lot 7 3.98 OC

20 S. 10 W. 31 Por. lot 10 5.98 PD 20 S. 11 W. 36 Por. lot 9

21 S. 11 W. 31 Lot 18 37.22 PD

21 S. 11 W. 32 Lots 16 and 23 59.01 PD

22 S. 08 W. 15 Lots 9 and 10 25.30 OC

22 S. 08 W. 21 Lots 7 and 14 2.42 OC

22 S. 13 W. 14 Lots 1 and 2 71.10 PD

25 S. 11 W. 30 Lot 5 39.92 PD

25 S. 13 W. 7 Lots 6, 8, 13 – 15 92.78 PD

25 S. 13 W. 18 Lot 7, E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 56.15 PD

26 S. 08 W. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

26 S. 11 W. 8 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

26 S. 12 W. 9 Por. SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 4 ACQ

26 S. 14 W. 3 Por. Lots 1 and 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 62.18 PD

26 S. 14 W. 28 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

28 S. 12 W. 19 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 CBWR

30 S. 12 W. 5 Lot 6 1.80 OC

30 S. 12 W. 6 Lots 3 and 4 1.14 PD

30 S. 13 W. 21 N1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD

32 S. 14 W. 7 N1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 5 PD

32 S. 15 W. 4

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

W1/2SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, Lots 1 – 4

71.75 PD

39 S. 12 W. 8 W1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 PD

Grand Total 840.21 -

Table K-9. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Eugene District

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

14S. 1E. 19 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD

14S. 1E. 26 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

14S. 1E. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

14 S. 2 E. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 3 E. 19 Lot 1 37.02 PD

15 S. 2 W. 25 Por. SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 16.19 OC

16 S. 5 W. 33 Lots 4, 7, and 8, and un-numbered lot 5.66 OC

16 S. 6 W. 7 Lot 6 3.76 OC

16 S. 2 E. 27 S1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

16 S. 2 1⁄2 E. 1 All 32.81 PD

17 S. 1 W. 19 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

17 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 3, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 125.58 OC

17 S. 3 W. 15 Lot 6 0.85 OC
1426 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

17 S. 6 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

17 S. 11 W. 19 Lot 1 44.82 PD

18 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 8 0.84 OC

18 S. 1 W. 26 Lot 7 1.68 PD

18 S. 2 W. 1 Lots 1 - 4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 270.41 OC

18 S. 4 W. 33 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 4 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 5 W. 15 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 5 W. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC

18 S. 7 W. 11 Por. NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 3 OC

18 S. 9 W. 7 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

18 S. 10 W. 11 Lot 9 6.24 PD

18 S. 11 W. 18 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

18 S. 12 W. 15 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

19 S. 3 W. 29 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

19 S. 3 W. 35 Lot 3 2.79 OC

19 S. 4 W. 29 Por. NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 0.36 OC

19 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 81.33 OC

19 S. 5 W. 1 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

20 S. 4 W. 6 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 PD

20 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

21 S. 2 W. 7 Lot 1 41.37 OC

21 S. 1 W. 31 Lot 13 1.42 OC

21 S. 4 W. 1 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

22 S. 1 W. 5 Por. lot 18 2.20 OC

22 S. 3 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 91.46 OC

Grand Total 1,850.02 -

Table K-10. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Klamath Falls Field Office

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

37 S. 14 E. 10 W1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 PD

38 S. 8 E. 31 Lot 4 10.3 PD

38 S. 11 E. 17 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 PD

38 S. 11 E. 32 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD

39 S. 8 E. 6 Lot 8 27.2 PD

39 S. 8 E. 7 Lot 5 16.9 PD

39 S. 11 E. 2 Lot 1 40.24 PD

39 S. 12 E. 28 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 8 E. 17 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 8 E. 33 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 9 E. 23 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 11 E. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 160 PD

40 S. 11 E. 10 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 280 PD

40 S. 11 E. 14 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

N1⁄2SW1⁄4 240 PD

40 S. 12 E. 10 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 PD

40 S. 12 E. 14 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 200 PD
1427 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4

40 S. 12 E. 15 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 PD

40 S. 12 E. 21 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

40 S. 12 E. 22 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 PD

40 S. 13 E. 35 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

41 S. 7 E. 13 Lot 4, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 64.69 PD

41 S. 11 E. 8 Lot 6 7.12 PD

Grand Total 2,006.45 -

Table K-11. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Medford District

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

33 S. 2 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 2 E. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 6 W. 22 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

34 S. 6 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 OC

34 S. 6 W. 35 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

34 S. 8 W. 26 Lot 3 24.23 PD

35 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 5 W. 31 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 281.12 OC

35 S. 5 W. 32 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD

35 S. 6 W. 11 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 OC

35 S. 6 W. 14 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

35 S. 6 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC

35 S. 6 W. 19 NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4 239.94 OC

35 S. 6 W. 21 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

35 S. 6 W. 30 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 PD

35 S. 6 W. 31 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 403.96 OC

35 S. 6 W. 33 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 240 OC

35 S. 6 W. 5 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4 280 OC

35 S. 6 W. 7

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 198.71 OC

36 S. 1 E. 6 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

36 S. 2 E. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 PD

36 S. 3 W. 21 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 3 W. 33 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 3 W. 33 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD

36 S. 3 W. 35 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 4 W. 25 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 60 OC

36 S. 4 W. 35 Lot 5, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 112.4 OC

36 S. 5 W. 29 S1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

36 S. 5 W. 4 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 159.26 PD

36 S. 5 W. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

36 S. 5 W. 9 W1⁄2E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2, E1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 340 OC

36 S. 6 W. 1

Lots 2 – 4, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 440.2 OC
1428 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

36 S. 6 W. 11 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 6 W. 17 N1⁄2N1⁄2 160 OC

36 S. 6 W. 3 SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SE1⁄4 240 OC

36 S. 6 W. 30 NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 37.78 PD

36 S. 6 W. 31 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 37.47 OC

36 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

36 S. 6 W. 4 W1⁄2W1⁄2 161.06 PD

36 S. 6 W. 5 E1⁄2SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, W1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC

36 S. 6 W. 8 W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

36 S. 6 W. 9 N1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 200 OC

37 S. 1 E. 15 SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

37 S. 3 W. 1 Lot 8 13.82 PD

37 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 2 4.28 PD

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 7 39.69 PD/OC

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 8 30.72 PD/OC

37 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 9 4.78 PD

37 S. 5 W. 18 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.4 PD

37 S. 5 W. 5 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 118.87 OC

37 S. 5 W. 7 W1⁄2SW1⁄4 90.15 OC

37 S. 6 W. 11 N1⁄2NW1⁄4 80 OC

37 S. 6 W. 13 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4 120 OC

37 S. 6 W. 15 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

37 S. 6 W. 24 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

37 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

37 S. 6 W. 8 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

37 S. 6 W. 9

NE1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 400 OC

38 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 1 E. 5 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 1, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 147.04 OC

38 S. 2 E. 34 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 80 PD

38 S. 2 W. 10 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

38 S. 2 W. 28 Lot 1 5 PD

38 S. 4 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

38 S. 4 W. 25 Lot 7 9.26 PD

39 S. 1 W. 1 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40.23 OC

39 S. 2 W. 18 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 10 PD

40 S. 8 W. 1 Lots 7 and 8 11.53 OC

40 S. 8 W. 5 Lots 6 and 7 21.21 OC

Grand Total 7,143.11 -

Table K-12. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Roseburg District

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

24 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 5 28 OC

24 S. 6 W. 27 W1⁄2, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 360 OC

25 S. 6 W. 3 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 122 OC

25 S. 6 W. 33 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC
1429 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

26 S. 2 W. 17 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 (part North of 

Highway 138) 0.3 OC

26 S. 4 W. 10 Lot 1 7 PD

26 S. 4 W. 17 Lots 9 and 10 12 OC

26 S. 6 W. 17 Lot 2, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 126 OC

26 S. 6 W. 3 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

27 S. 4 W. 7 Lot 2 4 OC

28 S. 4 W. 29 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

28 S. 5 W. 28 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

28 S. 5 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC

30 S. 2 W. 34 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

30 S. 4 W. 1 Lot 9 4 OC

30 S. 6 W. 18 Lots 1 and 2 39 PD

Grand Total 1,022.3 -

Table K-13. Land Tenure Zone 3 lands in the Salem District

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

3 N. 1 W. 9 Lot 8 1.24 Ot

3 N. 8 W. 10 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 N. 8 W. 11 Lot 2 0.01 PD

5 N. 6 W. 6 Lot 9 2.12 PD

5 N. 7 W. 10 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

7 N. 4 W. 6 Lot 7 0.03 PD

1 S. 3 W. 7 Lot 1 0.18 OC

1 S. 3 W. 8 Lot 1 0.05 PD

2 S. 2 E. 4 Lot 2 0.04 PD

2 S. 2 E. 9 Lot 7 0.11 Ot

2 S. 3 E. 23 Lots 8 and 12 6.25 OC

2 S. 3 E. 25 Lots 7 and 8 1.69 OC

2 S. 3 W. 13 N1⁄2SW1⁄4 80 OC

2 S. 3 W. 23 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

2 S. 4 W. 31 Lot 1 1.30 OC

3 S. 2 E. 7 Lot 1 0.87 OC

3 S. 4 W. 33 Lot 4 0.11 OC

3 S. 9 W. 20 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 9 W. 28 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 9 W. 33 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

3 S. 10 W. 30 Lot 15 0.45 PD

4 S. 1 E. 21 Lot 1 0.49 OC

4 S. 2 E. 11 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 200 OC

4 S. 2 E. 15 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

4 S. 2 E. 33 Lot 1 0.1 OC

4 S. 3 E. 9 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 80 OC

4 S. 3 E. 19 Un-numbered lot in SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 47.31 OC

4 S. 3 E. 21 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4 200 OC

4 S. 3 E. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4 80 OC
1430 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

4 S. 3 E. 31 S1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 OC

4 S. 1 W. 22 Un-numbered lot 0.5 PD

4 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 1 0.25 PD

4 S. 3 W. 34 Lots 1 and 2 4.4 PD

4 S. 10 W. 28 Lot 3 0.53 PD

5 S. 3 W. 4 Lot 1 1.16 PD

5 S. 5 W. 13 Lot 3 0.05 OC

5 S. 5 W. 31 Lot 1 3.57 OC

5 S. 5 W. 34 Lot 1 0.93 PD

5 S. 5 W. 35 Lot 1 8 OC

6 S. 3 W. 2 Lot 2 0.2 PD

6 S. 3 W. 5 Lot 1 2 OC

6 S. 1 E. 13 E1⁄2NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 120 OC

6 S. 1 E. 25 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4 80 OC

6 S. 9 W. 32 W1⁄2SE1⁄4 80 PD

6 S. 9 W. 34 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

6 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

7 S. 1 E. 1 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

7 S. 3 W. 29 Lot 3 5.42 OC

7 S. 6 W. 34 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 OC

8 S. 1 E. 3 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4 200 OC

8 S. 1 E. 27 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 OC

8 S. 1 E. 35 Lots 1 and 2, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2 400.22 OC

8 S. 4 W. 24 M&B 1.54 Ot

8 S. 4 W. 25 M&B 8 Ot

8 S. 10 W. 20 W1⁄2NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 20 PD

8 S. 11 W. 3 Lot 8 4.73 PD

9 S. 1 W. 21 Lot 7, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 84.21 OC

9 S. 3 W. 21 Lot 3 0.08 Ot

9 S. 3 W. 24 Un-numbered lot 1.4 PD

9 S. 3 W. 32 Lot 2 4.6 PD

9 S. 4 W. 9 Lot 5 1.16 OC

9 S. 4 W. 14 Lot 9 0.17 PD

9 S. 9 W. 19 Por. lot 29 10 PD

9 S. 9 W. 33 Lot 17 20 PD

9 S. 9 W. 34 W1⁄2NW1⁄4SW1⁄4 20 PD

9 S. 10 W. 26 SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

9 S. 10 W. 36 Por. Lots 5 and 6 10 PD

9 S. 11 W. 1 Lot 6 1.46 PD

9 S. 11 W. 4 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

10 S. 2 W. 8 Lot 1 6.13 PD

10 S. 3 W. 24 Lot 6 0.9 PD

10 S. 4 W. 11 Lot 5 1.52 OC

10 S. 5 W. 19 Lots 1 – 4, NE1⁄4, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4 480 OC

10 S. 5 W. 23 Lot 4 0.79 OC

10 S. 6 W. 22 Lots 2 and 3 15.7 PD

10 S. 7 W. 18 SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4 160 PD

10 S. 10 W. 2 Lot 20 20 PD
1431 | P a g e

Township Range Section Subdivision Acres Status

11 S. 8 W. 6 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

11 S. 9 W. 31 Lot 2 43.25 PD

11 S. 10 W. 12 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, NW1⁄4SW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 160 PD

11 S. 10 W. 14 Lot 1 2.87 PD

11 S. 10 W. 23 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

11 S. 10 W. 24 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

11 S. 10 W. 25 Lot 1 37.22 PD

11 S. 10 W. 35 SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 4 E. 30 SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 4 E. 31 Lot 1, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 84.81 PD

12 S. 2 W. 13 Lot 6 7.04 Ot

12 S. 6 W. 35 Lot 3 0.2 Ot

12 S. 8 W. 6 Lot 7 40.18 PD

12 S. 8 W. 7 Lots 1 and 2 79.04 PD

12 S. 9 W. 29 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 9 W. 32 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 9 W. 34 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 9 W. 35 NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, S1⁄2SW1⁄4 120 PD

12 S. 10 W. 6 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 10 W. 14 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

12 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 3 and 4 76.16 PD

12 S. 11 W. 17 Lot 5 38.84 PD

13 S. 3 E. 9 NE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 2 E. 24 N1⁄2NE1⁄4, SE1⁄4NE 1⁄4 120 PD

13 S. 2 W. 21 NW1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 OC

13 S. 4 W. 30 Lot 5 8.49 PD

13 S. 5 W. 29 Lot 1 0.84 OC

13 S. 9 W. 10 E1⁄2NE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 120 PD

13 S. 9 W. 13 NW1⁄4NW1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 11 W. 3 SW1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

13 S. 11 W. 28 Lot 9 7.6 PD

13 S. 11 W. 33 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 5 W. 25 Lot 1 0.26 OC

14 S. 11 W. 3 Lots 1, 2, and 25 111.5 PD

14 S. 11 W. 4 Lots 29 and 30 84.3 PD

14 S. 11 W. 5 Lot 10 40.62 PD

14 S. 11 W. 6 Lot 16 40 PD

14 S. 11 W. 10 Lots 1, 11–13, and 17 210.21 PD

14 S. 11 W. 15 NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 40 PD

14 S. 12 W. 35 SE1⁄4NE1⁄4 40 PD

15 S. 5 W. 6 Lot 5 1.46 PD

Grand Total 5,596.86 -

Inventory of Communication Sites

Table K-14 through Table K-19 contains information on existing communication sites. Appendix B

contains management direction related to management of communication sites.
1432 | P a g e

Table K-14. Communication sites in the Coos Bay District

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Roman Nose 19 S. 9 W. 23 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4

John’s Peak 23 S. 9 W. 27 SW1⁄4

Blue Ridge 26 S. 12 W. 35 SW1⁄4

Signal Tree 29 S. 9 W. 33 SW1⁄4

Anderson Mountain 29 S. 11 W. 21 SW1⁄4

Sugar Loaf 29 S. 12 W. 23 NE1⁄4

Bennett Butte 30 S. 13 W. 20 NW1⁄4

Edson Butte 31 S. 14 W. 23 NW1⁄4

Grizzly Mountain 37 S. 14 W. 4 SE1⁄4

Bosley Butte 39 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4

Palmer Butte 40 S. 13 W. 10 SE1⁄4

Black Mound 40 S. 13 W. 20 SW1⁄4

Table K-15. Communication sites in the Eugene District

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Horse Rock 15 S. 2 W. 1 NW1⁄4

Mt. Tom 15 S. 2 W. 31 SW1⁄4

Buck Mountain 16 S. 2 W. 7 NW1⁄4

South McGowan 16 S. 2 W. 31 NW1⁄4

Amy Road 16 S. 7 W. 1 NW1⁄4 and SW1⁄4

Elk Mountain 16 S. 8 W. 26 NE1⁄4

Windy Peak 16 S. 8 W. 27 SW1⁄4

Black Canyon 17 S. 2 W. 7 SW1⁄4

Camp Creek Ridge 17 S. 2 W. 15 NE1⁄4

Badger Mountain 17 S. 7 W. 35 NE1⁄4

Vaughn Hill 18 S. 6 W. 5 SE1⁄4 and NE1⁄4

Brickerville 18 S. 10 W. 3 NW1⁄4

High Point 19 S. 6 W. 23 NW1⁄4

Eagle’s Rest 20 S. 1 W. 12 NE1⁄4

Cougar Mountain 20 S. 3 W. 1 NE1⁄4

Hawley Butte 21 S. 1 W. 29 NE1⁄4

Hobart Butte 22 S. 3 W. 1 NW1⁄4

Laurel Butte 22 S. 3 W. 23 SE1⁄4

Huckleberry Mountain 24 S. 1 W. 6 SW1⁄4
1433 | P a g e

Table K-16. Communication sites in the Klamath Falls Field Office

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Yaniax 37 S. 12 E. 26 SW1⁄4

Harpold 39 S. 11 E. 19 SE1⁄4 and SW1⁄4

Hamaker 40 S. 7 E. 26 NW1⁄4

Stukel 40 S. 10 E. 10 SW1⁄4

15 NW1⁄4

Buck Butte 40 S. 12 E. 20 NW1⁄4

Brady Butte 41 S. 14 1⁄2 E. 14 NW1⁄4

Table K-17. Communication sites in the Medford District

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Cedar Springs 32 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4

Ninemile Mountain 32 S. 9 W. 13 SW1⁄4

Buck Rock 33 S. 1 W. 15 NW1⁄4

King Mountain 33 S. 5 W. 24 NE1⁄4

Peavine Lookout 34 S. 8 W. 21 NE1⁄4

Flounce Rock 33 S. 2 E. 5 SE1⁄4

Mt. Isabelle 37 S. 3 W. 31 SW1⁄4

Mt. Sexton 34 S. 6 W. 24 SW1⁄4

Elk Mountain 35 S. 5 W. 11 SE1⁄4

Manzanita/Round Top 37 S. 6 W. 31 SE1⁄4

Anderson Butte 38 S. 2 W. 34 NE1⁄4

Nugget Butte 36 S. 3 W. 9 SE1⁄4

Tin Pan Peak 36 S. 4 W. 23 SW1⁄4

Squires Peak 38 S. 3 W. 34 SE1⁄4

Woodrat 38 S. 3 W. 36 NW1⁄4

Gilbert Peak 35 S. 5 W. 33 NW1⁄4

Fielder Mountain 36 S. 4 W. 7 SE1⁄4

Beacon Hill 36 S. 5 W. 9 SE1⁄4

Mt. Bluie 37 S. 5 W. 3 SE1⁄4

Table Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 8 NW1⁄4

Chestnut Mountain 39 S. 3 E. 35 NW1⁄4

Mt. Baldy 36 S. 5 W. 27 NW1⁄4

Tallowbox 39 S. 4 W. 11 NW1⁄4

Rock Creek 39 S. 5 W. 21 NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4

Little Grayback Lockout 39 S. 7 W. 2 SE1⁄4

Soda Mountain 40 S. 3 E. 28 NW1⁄4

Table K-18. Communication sites in the Roseburg District

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Yellow Butte 23 S. 6 W. 27 NW1⁄4

Lane Mountain 27 S. 4 W. 25 NE1⁄4

Kenyon Mountain 30 S. 9 W. 3 NW1⁄4

Canyon Mountain 31 S. 5 W. 3 SW1⁄4
1434 | P a g e

Table K-19. Communication sites in the Salem District

Site Name Township Range Section Quarter Section

Lookout Point 1 S. 5 E. 13 SE1⁄4

Blind Cabin Ridge 1 S. 5 W. 31 NE1⁄4

Dixie Mountain 2 N. 2 W. 27 NE1⁄4

Brightwood 2 S. 6 E. 14 NW1⁄4

Trask Mountain 2 S. 6 W. 29 NW1⁄4

High Heaven 3 S. 5 W. 33 SE1⁄4

Bald Mountain 3 S. 6 W. 29 SW1⁄4

Goat Mountain 5 S. 4 E. 14 SW1⁄4

Prospect Hill 8 S. 4 W. 24 SE1⁄4

Mt. Horeb 9 S. 4 E. 17 NE1⁄4

Snow Peak 11 S. 2 E. 5 NW1⁄4

Yellowstone Mountain 11 S. 3 E. 32 NW1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. East 15 S. 7 W. 4 SE1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4

Prairie Mtn. West 15 S. 7 W. 7 SW1⁄4
1435 | P a g e

Appendix L – Livestock Grazing

This appendix summarizes the information for allotments in the Klamath Falls Field Office and the 

Medford District. Table L-1 and Table L-2 contain detailed information about these livestock grazing 

allotments including acres derived from the BLM allotment and pasture boundary (GRA) theme. See 

Appendix B for all allotments the BLM would make unavailable to livestock grazing.
1436 | P a g e

Table L-1. Available Klamath Falls Field Office grazing allotments

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Chase 

Mountain 00101 9,283 195 - 5/15-8/13 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 1,681, 

Horses 100

Critical deer winter range habitat 

occurs within the allotment. 

Allotment contains a portion of the 

HMA.

Edge 

Creek 00102 5,975 207 - 5/1-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

DeferredRotation

Range Improvement Potential, 

common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing, 

portion proposed for closure.

Buck 

Mountain*

00103 7,416 204 - 5/15-9/1 I 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 1,643 None

Buck Lake 00104 12,019 280 -

6/15-

10/15 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 2,129

Range Improvement Potential, 

common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing.

Johnson 

Prairie 00105 119 12 - 5/1-10/1 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly None

Dixie* 00107 4,439 320 100 5/1-8/15 I 2002

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly

Deer 928, 

Elk 100, 

Horses 50

Range Improvement Potential, 

exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing. Allotment contains portion 

of the HMA. Continue monitoring 

grazing and make adjustments to 

improve rangeland health.

Dry Lake 00140 101 10 - 5/1-6/30 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 10 None

Chicken 

Hills 00141 3,520 80 - 5/15-9/15 C 2001

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 931 None

Long Lake 00142 367 18 - 6/16-9/30 C 2000 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly None
1437 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Grubb 

Springs 00147 3,564 130 - 5/1-9/30 C 2000

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 650 None

Adams 00800 40 6 - 4/15-7/15 C 2005

Not Meeting 

Standards, 

Grazing is a 

factor

Yearly

Continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Haught 00801 401 27 - 5/1-7/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 7 None

Stock 

Drive 00802 40 2 - 5/1-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

J Spring 00803 241 7 - 5/1-6/30 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 6 Antelope 2 None

Bar CL 00804 481 20 22 5/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

SE 80 00805 80 8 - 5/1-10/31 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 1 None

Two Mile 00806 659 56 - 5/1-9/30 C 2006

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 16 

Elk 16 None

Barnwell 00807 1,635 75 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 80 Range Improvement Potential

Lee 00808 40 10 - 6/1-8/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

Brown 00809 81 30 - 6/1-8/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 1 None

Brenda 00810 120 18 - 5/16-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 24 Elk 24 None

Cheyne 00811 809 51 - 5/1-6/15 C 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 40 None

StukelCoffin 00812 730 55 - 5/1-7/1 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14, Elk 5 None

Cunningham 00814 839 108 - 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 14 None

StukelDehlinger 

C.

00815 1,684 240 - 4/15-8/8 I 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 31, Elk 11 None
1438 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

StukelDehlinger 

H.

00816 388 30 - 5/10-8/10 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8 None

Drew 00817 766 72 - 5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 34, Elk 14 None

Duncan 00818 202 15 -5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 4 None

Dupont 00819 78 7

-

4/15-6/1 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

North 

Horsefly 00821 1,287 68 -

5/1-6/15 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 18 None

StukelO’Neill 00822 3,405 210 -

5/1-7/15 I 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 59, Elk 20

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

North 

Horsefly 00823 569 60 -

6/16-8/1 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 17 None

Jeld-Wen 00824 313 36 -6/1-7/15 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 7 None

Naylox 00825 757 76 -5/1-6/30 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14 None

Haskins 00826 567 80 -5/1-7/15 C 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 11 None

StukelHigh 00827 348 17 -

5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 5 None

Stukel-Hill 00828 975 60 -5/1-6/15 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 18, Elk 7 None

Horton 00829 758 26 -4/21-6/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 36 Range Improvement Potential

Hungry 

Hollow 00830 281 40/H -

6/1-8/30 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 5 Proposed for conversion from horse to livestock

Warlow 00831 560 50 -5/1-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8, Elk 3

None

Jesperson 00832 1,559 158 -5/1-7/1 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 30, Elk 30 None

Johnson 00833 25 6

-- 5/1-6/30 CNot 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

Kellison 00834 352 19

-

5/1-6/13 C 2004

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is 

not a factor.

Yearly Deer 6 None
1439 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Ketcham 00835 281 20 -5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 16 Range Improvement Potential

Harpold 

Chaining 00836 851 96

-

5/1-5/30 C 2007

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 101

Range Improvement Potential; 

continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

BryantHorton 00837 1,211 130 -

6/1-7/9 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 24, Elk 8 None

Windy 

Ridge 00838 602 52 -

5/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 11 Range Improvement Potential

BryantLoveness 00839 3,307 490 -

5/1-6/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 161 Elk 21 Range Improvement Potential

BryantLyon 00840 569 38 -

5/1-9/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 11 None

Marshall 00841 351 14 -4/21-5/30 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 17 None

Short Lake 00842 428 40

-

5/1-6/30 C 2005

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 42

Range Improvement Potential; 

continue monitoring grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

McAuliffe 00843 87 10 -4/16-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 1 None

Paddock 00844 399 31 -5/1-6/30 M 2003 Meeting All 

Standards

DeferredRotationDeer 8, 

Antelope 3 None

Klamath 

Hills 00845 198 55 -

4/1-5/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

OK 00846 1,290 105 35 5/1-6/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 24 Range Improvement Potential

Swede 

Cabin 00847 2,018 108 -

5/1-6/15 I 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 36 Range Improvement Potential

Pope 00848 446 48 -5/1-7/31 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 19 None

Rajnus 

Bros. 00849 239 16 -

5/1-6/17 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 10 None

Wilkinson 00850 398 18 -5/1-6/5 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 6 None

Harpold 

Ridge 00851 1,049 108 -

4/21-6/30 M 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 49 None

Rodgers 00852 2,449 235 -5/1-7/1 I 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 48, Elk 17

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing
1440 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

7C 00853 646 104 -5/1-6/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 13 None

Jump 00854 200 20 -5/1-5/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 4 None

BryantSmith 00855 1,217 109 -

5/15-8/31 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 22, Elk 7 None

BryantStastny 00856 444 70 -

5/10-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 8, Elk 3

None

BryantTaylor 00857 765 74 -

4/15-9/30 C 2007 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 14, Elk 4 None

Swan Lake 

Rim 00858 6,524 300 -

5/1-6/30 M 2006 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotationDeer 121, 

Elk 116 Common allotment

Cunard 00859 468 60/H -5/1-7/31 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation Deer 7 Proposed for conversion from 

horse to livestock

McCartie 00860 556 83 -5/1-5/30 C 2004 Meeting All

Standards

RestRotation Deer 25 None

Yainax 

Butte 00861 2,920 120 -

7/1-9/30 M 2005 Meeting All 

Standards

DeferredRotation Deer 119 Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Klamath 

Forest 

Estates

00862 2,743 47

-

5/1-5/31 M 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 47 None

Wirth 00863 1,361 100 - 4/15-

10/15 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 25 None

Rajnus & 

Son 00864 1,460 110

-

5/1-6/30 C 2007

Not Meeting 

Standards 

Grazing is 

not a factor

Yearly Deer 28 None

Mills 

Creek 00865 283 40 -

5/1-6/14 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly Deer 5 Range Improvement Potential

Bear 

Valley 00876 5,054 415

-

7/1-8/9 I 2000/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

DeferredRotation

Deer 94, 

Antelope 

34

Common allotment, exclosures or 

other areas closed to grazing

Bumpheads 00877 9,385 420 265 4/21-6/30 I 2003

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

DeferredRotation

Deer 173, 

Antelope 

63

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Campbell 00878 1,371 47/H 13 5/1-10/26 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly

Deer 28, 

Antelope 

10

Proposed for conversion from 

horse to livestock
1441 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

DeVaul 00879 378 12 15 5/1-8/30 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 5, Antelope 2 None

Goodlow 00881 349 32 52 5/1-8/31 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 6, Antelope 2 None

Horsefly 00882 26,906 2,656 2,075

4/15-6/30, 

10/1-

11/15

I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation/

High 

IntensityShort 

Duration

Deer 495, 

Elk 30, 

Antelope 

181

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment

Horton 00883 1,005 58 211 4/21-5/20 C 2002 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 41, Antelope 6 None

Pankey 

Basin 00884 309 43 38 5/15-8/31 C 2003

Not Meeting 

Standards; 

Grazing is a 

factor.

Yearly Deer 5, 

Antelope 2

Range Improvement Potential, 

exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Dry Prairie 00885 8,026 642 358 5/1-9/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation

Deer 149, 

Antelope 

55

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment, 

proposed range improvement

Horse 

Camp Rim 00886 8,822 445 281 5/1-7/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards

RestRotation

Deer 172, 

Antelope 

63

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Pitchlog 00887 9,376 434 796 5/10-6/30 I 1999/2003 Meeting All 

Standards

RestRotation/

High 

IntensityShort 

Duration

Deer 174, 

Elk 37, 

Antelope 

64

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing

Rock 

Creek 00888 2,522 216 639 5/1-5/31 I 2003 Meeting All Standards

RestRotation

Deer 130, 

Antelope 

19

None

Timber 

Hill 00889 2,542 270 134 6/21-7/31 I 1999/2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly

Deer 55, 

Antelope

20

None

Willow 

Valley 00890 19,925 1,225 506 4/15-6/30 I 2000/2003

Not Meeting 

Standards, 

Grazing is a 

factor

RestRotation

Deer 960, 

Antelope 

141

Exclosures or other areas closed to 

grazing, common allotment.
1442 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use

Selective 

Management 

Category‡

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Finding§

Grazing 

System

Wildlife 

AUM’s Other Information

Williams 00892 1,854 75

-

5/1-5/31 M 2004 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly

Deer 34, 

Antelope 

12

None

Fields 00893 26 6

-

4/21-5/20 C 2005 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 4, Antelope 1 None

Voight 00894 112 8

-

5/1-6/15 C 2003 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 2 None

Harpold 

Canyon 00895 1,085 76 -

5/1-9/30 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 20 None

McFall 00896 577 60 -5/1-6/30 C 2006 Meeting All 

Standards Yearly Deer 11 Common allotment

Bly 

Mountain 01800 120 9

-

6/1-8/31 C

Not 

Completed

Not 

Completed Yearly None

* All or a portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument

† Active Use is livestock AUMs, unless specified as H for domestic horse use.

‡ Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management 

actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed 

custodially to protect resource conditions and values.

§ In allotments where grazing was a factor to nonattainment of a RHA standard, within one year of the assessment, a change to livestock grazing was implemented to eliminate 

livestock grazing as a contributing factor.
1443 | P a g e

Table L-2. Available Medford District grazing allotments

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

Heppsie 

Mountain 00126 4,105 294 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2007 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly

Combined with South Heppsie 

Mountain Allotment (10125, 800 

acres). Continue to collect 

utilization data to establish 

combined stocking level.

Lost Creek 10001 9,962 382 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2001 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Common Allotment

Flat Creek 10002 12,066 328 -

Sp, Su, 

F

C 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Longbranch 10004 324 22 - Sp C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly Portion Proposed for Closure

Meadows 10007 1,563 92 - Sp, Su I 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

NeilTarbell 10008 518 56 - Sp, Su C 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

North Sams

Valley 10009 120 8 - Su C 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Lick Creek 10015 201 15 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Brownsboro

Park 10016 382 68 - Sp, Su I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Kanutchan 

Fields 10017 2,427 177 - Sp, Su I 2002 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Sugarloaf 10019 1,570 15 - Sp, Su C 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Section 9 10021 404 25 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Section 7 10022 374 11 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Bull Run 10023 40 5 - Sp, Su C 2011 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Big Butte 10024 21,802 1,663 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor

DeferredRotation Common Allotment

Reese Creek 10027 40 7 - Sp, Su C 1999 Meeting All Standards Yearly Common Allotment

Derby Road

Sawmill 10029 524 45 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Summit 

Prairie 10031 30,579 1,165 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2000 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor

DeferredRotation Common Allotment

Vestal 

Butte 10035 2,243 120 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting all Standards Yearly None

Bear 

Mountain 10037 1,006 81 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Crowfoot 10038 7,400 365 - Sp, Su I 2015 Meeting All Standards Yearly None
1444 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

Crowfoot 

Creek 10039 516 70 - Sp, Su C 2008 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Cobleigh 

Road 10040 89 14 - Sp, Su C 2003 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Moser 

Mountain 10041 40 3 - Sp C 2011 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Devon 

South 10043 412 33 - Sp, Su C 2008 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Salt Creek 10044 463 85 - Sp, Su I 2002 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

Cove 

Creek 10112 1,290 88 - Sp, Su I 2011 Not Meeting Standards,Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Buckpoint 10114 3,845 150 - Su C 2008 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Permit bought-out/retired February2015.

Howard 

Prairie 10116 24 61 - F, W M 2012 Not Meeting Standards,Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Grizzly 10119 5,153 378 225 Sp, Su, 

F

I 1999 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly Common Allotment, Continue to monitor to set stocking level.

Lake Creek 

Spring 10121 4,250 447 - Sp, Su I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Lake Creek 

Summer 10122 4,442 550 - Su, F I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Deer CreekReno Lease 10124 4,062 314 -Sp, Su, 

F

C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Hunger Flat 10129 1,089 220 Not 

Completed Not Completed Yearly Currently Vacant Allotment

Antelope 

Road 10132 403 19 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Brownsboro 10133 80 8 - Sp, Su C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Yankee 

Reservoir 10134 121 15 - Sp C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health.

Canal 10136 442 58 - Sp C 2003 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is a factor Yearly

Continue to monitor grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Cove 

Ranch 10143 80 20 -

Sp, Su, 

F

C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None
1445 | P a g e

Allotment 

Name

Allotment 

Number

BLM 

Acres

Active Use

(AUMs)†

Suspended 

(AUMs)

Seasonof-Use‡

Selective 

Management 

Category§

Rangeland 

Health 

Assessment 

Completed

Rangeland Health 

Assessment Findingǀǀ

Grazing 

System Other Information

North Cove 

Creek 10148 284 20 - Su, F C 2009 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Deadwood* 20106 7,967 788 - Su I 2008 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is a factor Yearly Common Allotment

Poole Hill 20113 1,731 50 - F C 2007 Not Meeting Standards, 

Grazing is not a factor Yearly None

Conde 

Creek 20117 5,491 592 -

Sp, Su, 

F

I 2009 Not Meeting Standards, 

grazing is a factor Yearly

Common Allotment, continue to 

monitor livestock grazing and 

make adjustments to improve 

rangeland health

Lower Big 

Applegate 20206 11,909 258 - Sp, Su I 2012 Not Meeting Standards, Grazing is not a factor. Yearly

Continue to monitor livestock 

grazing and make adjustments to 

improve rangeland health

Foots Creek 20219 115 12 - Sp, Su C 2009 Meeting All Standards Yearly None

* A portion of the allotment is located within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument.

† Active Use is livestock AUMs.

‡ Season of use categories for Medford W= winter (Nov–Jan), Sp=spring (Feb–Apr), Su=summer (May–Aug), F=fall (Sept–Oct)

§ Selective Management Categories: Improve (I)-managed to resolve a high level of resource conflicts and concerns and receive the highest priority for funding and management 

actions; Maintain (M)-managed to maintain satisfactory resource conditions and will be actively managed to ensure that resource values do not decline; Custodial (C)-managed 

custodially to protect resource conditions and values.

ǀǀ In allotments where grazing was a factor to nonattainment of a RHA standard, within one year of the assessment, a change to livestock grazing was implemented to eliminate 

livestock grazing as a contributing factor.
1446 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank
1447 | P a g e

Appendix M – Energy and Minerals

This appendix contains the following:

 Trends in salable mineral developments

 Trends in locatable mineral developments and regulation for locatable mineral exploration and 

development activity

 Reasonably foreseeable leasable fluid mineral developments and proposed stipulations on 

leasable fluid mineral exploration and development activity

 Rankings of prospective mineral occurrence or development of special areas recommended for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry

Trends in Salable Mineral Developments

Table M-1 shows the estimated number of new quarries that would be developed or the existing sites that 

would require expansion for development per district over a 10-year period. Based on past BLM data, the 

BLM assumed 0.5 acres would be disturbed for each new site or expansion of an existing site. In this 

context, expansion means development beyond the existing quarry footprint. As Table M-1 shows, the 

BLM estimates that 37 quarry developments or expansions would utilize 18.5 acres in the next 10 years.

Table M-1. Salable mineral development 10-year scenario for new or expanded quarry development

Quarries Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals

Number of quarries 7 4 2 9 6 9 37

Acres 3.5 2 1 4.5 3 4.5 18.5

Note: The BLM assumes 0.5 acres per quarry.

Trends in Locatable Mineral Development and Regulation

Table M-2 and Table M-3 show the estimated number of new or renewed Notices and new Plans of 

Operation that the BLM forecasts will be filed over the next ten years. This number does not include 

Notices or Plans of Operation for suction dredging. The BLM used past data to estimate the number of 

proposals and the acres per operation. This data showed that the average Notices is about 0.25 of an acre 

and the average Plan of Operation is about 3 acres. Based on the number of past submittals of mining 

proposals, the BLM estimates that 86 Notices and 24 Plans of Operation will be submitted over a 10-year 

period (Table M-2). These Notices would cover a total of 21 acres, with the majority in the Medford 

District. Approximately 24 Plans of Operation would cover 72 acres, also with the majority in the 

Medford District (Table M-3). New and renewed Notices or new Plans of Operation would utilize 93 

acres over the next 10 years in the decision area.

Table M-2. Locatable mineral development 10-year scenario Notices

Notices Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals

Number of new and 

renewed Notices 4 4 - 70 4 4 86

Acres 1 1 - 17 1 1 21
1448 | P a g e

Table M-3. Locatable mineral development 10-year scenario Plans of Operation

Plans Coos Bay Eugene Klamath Falls Medford Roseburg Salem Totals

Number of Plans of 

Operation 1 1 - 20 1 1 24

Acres 3 3 - 60 3 3 72

Mining is regulated by the Surface Management Regulations (43 CFR 3809) and Use and Occupancy 

under the Mining Laws (43 CFR 3715). It is the responsibility of the mining claimant/operator to prevent 

“unnecessary or undue degradation” (as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 and 43 CFR 3809.415), to perform all 

necessary reclamation work, and to comply with relevant Federal and State regulations.

The BLM considers operations ordinarily resulting in negligible disturbance as defined in 43 CFR 3809.5 

to be casual use, and the BLM does not require the operator to provide the BLM with notification. 

Operators of all mining activities exceeding casual use must file a Notice or Plan of Operation.

Reasonably Foreseeable Leasable Mineral Developments and 

Proposed Restrictions

The Reasonably Foreseeable Mineral and Energy Developments from the 2008 FEIS (USDI BLM 2008, 

Appendix Q, pp. 564, 568–622) are incorporated here by reference.

The BLM has completed a review in 2015 of the fluid mineral reasonably foreseeable development 

scenarios (RFDs) for the 2008 FEIS. The intent of the review was to determine if the RFDs could be 

included into this EIS by reference. The review focused on whether the circumstances or research 

completed in the RFDs had substantially altered since 2008.

Discussions with Dr. Allan Niem (personal communication, 2013), the author or co-author of the 

predominantly referenced materials in this EIS, indicate that the geologic settings and interpreted 

petroleum plays and systems have not altered substantially. Dr. Niem’s current work is focusing on 

detailing his original research. No substantial publications have been issued since 2008 that would alter 

the RFDs interpretations. There are no concerns in incorporating by reference the fluid mineral resource 

portion of the RFDs from the 2008 FEIS.

Potential reasonably foreseeable development scenarios of the Coos Basin Coalbed Natural Gas (CBNG) 

Play, as described in the 2008 FEIS, were dependent upon industry interest and development, as well as 

natural gas prices, occurring in 2008. Between 2008 and the present, the gas prices have dropped more 

than three-fold, the original company involved with the Coos Basin development has gone into 

receivership through bankruptcy, and the current holder of the Coos Basin developments another 

company. The new holder has retained property interests, but intends to abandon permanently all but five 

wells, which are located in the shallow gases. The remaining five wells will be kept in long-term 

suspension (Bob Houston, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, personal 

communication-multiple events, 2014 and 2015). Therefore, based on this more current information, the 

projected development of CBNG would have less disturbance than was projected in 2008.

However, a change in the development scenario of CBNG for this EIS is not warranted. Analysis of the 

projected infrastructure was completed, with resulting stipulations. Analysis does not guarantee 

development; any development less than the analysis do not create an exceedance of impact. A great 

many unknowns may occur within the life of this EIS and future RMP. Neither the geologic setting nor 

the mineral potential for CBNG has altered since 2008. The current operator is maintaining resource 
1449 | P a g e

extraction capabilities for future development. That development could occur under many highly feasible 

circumstances. The first is the potential development of a natural gas export facility in Coos Bay. Such 

systems would increase the market value of the Coos Basin CBNG and provide an immediate connection 

to market. Secondly, the domestic value of natural gas could increase. During the research of 2008, 

natural gas prices ranged up to $15.00/MMcf at wellhead. It has since reached lows below $3.00/MMcf. 

These market fluctuations illustrate that increases in the price of CBNG could make development of the

Coos Basin viable. Based on this reasoning, the development scenarios within the 2008 FEIS is still valid

and is incorporated here by reference.

Proposed Stipulations on Leasable Fluid Mineral Exploration 

and Development Activity

Apply the following special stipulations for all forms of leasable fluid minerals, including geothermal, on 

specifically designated tracts of land as identified below.

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Eligible Wild and Scenic River segments

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within all eligible Wild and Scenic River segments.

Objective: To protect eligible Wild and Scenic River segments.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

eligible Wild and Scenic River segment boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire leasehold no 

longer contains eligible Wild and Scenic River segments.

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within District-Designated Reserve – Lands 

Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics.

Objective: To protect District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics

lands.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics

boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire leasehold no 

longer contains District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for Their Wilderness Characteristics

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Land Use Authorizations

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) and 

FLPMA leases.

Objective: To protect uses on existing R&PP and FLPMA leases.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.
1450 | P a g e

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the land 

use authorization boundaries are modified.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if all land use authorizations within 

the leasehold have been terminated, canceled, or relinquished.

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Recreation Management Areas

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within Recreation Management Areas.

Objective: To protect developed recreation areas.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

Recreation Management Area boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire leasehold no 

longer contains Recreation Management Areas.

No Surface Occupancy

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Special Areas

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC).

Objective: To protect important historic, cultural, scenic values, natural resources, natural systems or 

processes, threatened and endangered plant species, and/or natural hazard areas of the ACEC.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

ACEC boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire leasehold no 

longer contains designated ACECs.

No Surface Occupancy

Resource: Progeny test sites

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited within progeny test sites.

Objective: To protect progeny test sites.

Exception: None.

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

progeny test site boundaries are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that the entire leasehold no 

longer contains progeny test sites.

No Surface Occupancy

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I

Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use are prohibited in VRM Class I areas.

Objective: To preserve the existing character of the landscape.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated.
1451 | P a g e

Modification: The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if the 

boundaries of the VRM Class I area are changed.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if all VRM Class I areas within the 

leasehold are reduced to a lower VRM class. Areas reduced to VRM Class II will be subject to the 

Controlled Surface Use stipulation for visual resources, and areas reduced to VRM Class III will be 

subject to standard lease stipulations.

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Soils

Stipulation: Prior to disturbance of any suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent, an 

engineering/reclamation plan must be approved by the Authorized Officer. This plan must demonstrate 

how the following will be accomplished:

 Restoration of site productivity

 Adequate control of surface runoff

 Protection of off-site areas from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, piping, and mass 

wasting

In addition, water quality and quantity will be in conformance with State and Federal water quality laws, 

surface-disturbing activities will not be conducted during extended wet periods, and construction will not 

be allowed when soils are frozen.

Objective: To maintain soil productivity, provide necessary protection to prevent excessive soil erosion 

on steep slopes, and to avoid areas subject to slope failure, mass wasting, piping, or having excessive 

reclamation problems.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the operator 

submits a plan, which demonstrates that the impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if it is 

determined that portions of the area do not include suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it is determined that the entire 

leasehold does not include any suspected unstable slopes or slopes over 60 percent.

Controlled Surface Use

A 30-day public notice period will be required prior to modification or waiver of this stipulation.

Resource: Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II.

Stipulation: All surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class 

II areas may require special design features including altering the location and painting and camouflage to 

blend with the natural surroundings to meet the visual quality objectives for the area.

Objective: To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

Exception: None.

Modification: None.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived, if the Authorized Officer determines that there are no longer any 

VRM Class II areas in the leasehold.

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Riparian Reserve

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through Riparian Reserve 

within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways.

Objective: To protect riparian vegetation and reduce sedimentation.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer, if the operator 

submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.
1452 | P a g e

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if it is 

determined that portions of the area do not include Riparian Reserve.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer, if it is determined that the entire 

leasehold no longer includes Riparian Reserve.

Controlled Surface Use

Resource: Late-Successional Reserve

Stipulation: Unless otherwise authorized, drill site construction and access through Late-Successional 

Reserve within this leasehold will be limited to established roadways.

Objective: To protect vegetation and to retain and/or restore structurally-complex forest characteristics.

Exception: An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the Authorized Officer if the operator 

submits a plan, which demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

Modification: The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the Authorized Officer, if it is 

determined that portions of the area do not include Late-Successional Reserve.

Waiver: This stipulation may be waived by the Authorized Officer if it is determined that the entire 

leasehold does not include Late-Successional Reserve.

Ranking of the Prospective Mineral Occurrence and/or 

Development of Each Special Area Recommended for 

Withdrawal from Locatable Mineral Entry

Table M-4 through Table M-7 list the estimated prospective mineral occurrence or development ranking 

of each eligible Wild and Scenic River segment, District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their 

Wilderness Characteristics, ACEC, and RMA that the BLM would recommend for withdrawal from 

locatable mineral entry. Recommendations vary by alternative and the Proposed RMP. Some proposals 

have multiple polygons, in which case, each polygon was analyzed separately. As a result, some sites 

have multiple rankings. Chapter 3 contains information on which areas the BLM would recommend for 

withdrawal from mineral entry by alternative and the Proposed RMP and how the BLM determined these 

rankings.

Table M-4. Ranking of District-Designated Reserve – Lands Managed for their Wilderness 

Characteristics lands that the BLM would recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry

District-Designated Reserve –

Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics Ranking

Berry Creek Low

Bull of the Woods-Opal Creek Add - Evans Mountain High

Bull of the Woods-Opal Creek Add - Nasty Rock High

Burton-Ninemile High

Clackamas Wilderness Add - Memaloose Creek Low

Clackamas Wilderness Add - South Fork Clackamas #1 Low

Clackamas Wilderness Add - South Fork Clackamas #2 Low

Dakubetede High

Round Top Mountain High

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Boulder Creek Low

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Eagle River Low

Salmon Huckleberry Add - Salmon River Low
1453 | P a g e

District-Designated Reserve –

Lands Managed for their Wilderness Characteristics Ranking

Table Rock Wilderness Add Low

Wasson Creek Low

Wellington Mountain High

Whiskey Creek High

Wild Rogue High

Wild Rogue Additions High

Table M-5. Ranking of eligible Wild and Scenic River segments that the BLM would recommend for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segment Ranking

Alsea River Low

Antelope Creek Medium

Applegate River High

Big Butte Creek (including South Fork Big Butte) Medium

Cheney Creek Medium

Clackamas River Low

Cow Creek High

Drift Creek Low

Drift Creek Segment A and B Low

Elk Valley Creek High

Fall Creek - Eugene Low

Fall Creek - Salem Low/Low

Kilches River Low

Lake Creek Low

Left Fork Foots Creek High

Little Applegate River High

Little Luckiamute River Medium

Little North Santiam River High

Lobster Creek Low

Lobster Creek Segment B Low

McKenzie River Low

Middle Santiam River Low

Nehalem River Low

Nelson Creek Low

Nestucca River Segment B Low

North Fork Clackamas River Low

North Fork Gate Creek Low

North Fork Siletz River Low

North Fork Trask River Low

North Santiam Medium

Quines Creek High
1454 | P a g e

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segment Ranking

Riffle Creek High

Rogue River High

Sam’s Creek High

Sandy River Segments A and B Low

Siletz River Low

Sixes River High

South Fork Coos River Low

South Fork Coquille River High

South Fork Gate Creek Low

South Fork Little Butte Creek Low

South Fork Trask River Low

South Umpqua River High

South Yamhill River Medium

Table Rock Fork Molalla River Medium

Trask River Low

Tualatin River Low

Umpqua River Medium

West Fork Illinois River High

Willamette River Low

Wilson River Low

Yaquina River Low

Table M-6. Ranking of Areas of Environmental Concern that the BLM would recommend for withdrawal 

from locatable mineral entry

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Ranking

Baker Cypress Low

Bear Gulch High

Beatty Creek High

Beaver Creek Low

Bobby Creek Low

Brewer Spruce Medium/High

Brownson Ridge Low

Bumpheads Low

Bushnell-Irwin Rocks Low

Callahan Meadows Medium

Camas Swale Low

Cherry Creek Low

China Wall Low

Cobleigh Road Low

Cottage Grove Old Growth Low

Coburg Hills Low

Cougar Mountain Yew Grove Low
1455 | P a g e

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Ranking

Crabtree Complex Medium

Dakubetede Medium/High

Deer Creek Medium

Dorena Lake Low

Dorena Prairie Low

East Fork Whiskey Creek High

Eight Dollar Mountain Medium/High

Elk Creek Low

Esmond Lake Low

Euphoria Ridge Low

Ferguson Creek low

Forest Peak Low

Fox Hollow Low

French Flat Medium

Garoutte Prairie Low

Grandmother’s Grove Low

Grass Mountain Low

Grassy Mountain Low

Grayback Glades Medium

Green Springs Mt Scenic Low

Heceta Sand Dunes Medium

High Peak - Moon Creek Low

Hole-In-The-Rock Low

Holton Creek Medium

Horse Rock Ridge Low

Hoxie Creek Low

Hult Marsh Low

Hunter Creek Bog High

Iron Creek High

Jordan Creek Low

King Mountain Rock Garden High

Lake Creek Falls Low

Little North Fork Wilson River Medium

Little Sink Low

Lorane Ponderosa Pine Low

Lost Lake Low

Lost Prairie Low/Low

Lower Scappoose Eagle Low/Medium

Low Elevation Headwaters of the McKenzie River Low

Mary’s Peak Low/Medium

McCully Mountain Low

McGowan Meadow Low
1456 | P a g e

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Ranking

Middle Santiam Terrace Low

Mill Creek Ridge Low

Mohawk Low

Molalla Meadows Low

Moon Prairie Low

Myrtle Island Low

Nails Creek Low

Nestucca River Low

New River Medium/High

North Bank Low

North Fork Chetco Medium

North Fork Coquille River Low

North Fork Hunter Creek Low/High

North Fork Silver Creek High

North Myrtle Creek Medium

North Santiam Low

North Spit Medium

North Spit Addition Medium

Oak Basin Prairies Low

Oak Basin Prairies Low

Old Baldy Low

Pickett Creek Medium

Pipe Fork Medium

Poverty Flat Low

Red Pond Low

Reeves Creek Medium

Rickreall Ridge Low

Rocky Peak Medium

Roman Nose Low

Rough and Ready Medium/High

Round Top Butte Low

Saddle Bag Mountain Medium

Sandy River Low

Silt Creek Low

Snow Peak Medium

Soosap Meadows Low

Spencer Creek Low

Steel Creek Low

Sterling Mine Ditch High

Surveyor Low

Table Rocks Low/Medium

Tater Hill High
1457 | P a g e

Area of Critical Environmental Concern Ranking

The Butte Low

Tin Cup Low

Tioga Creek Low

Tunnel Creek Low

Upper Elk Meadows Low

Upper Klamath River Low/Medium

Upper Klamath River Addition Low

Upper Rock Creek Low

Upper Willamette Valley Margin Low/Medium

Valley of the Giants Low

Waldo-Takilma High

Walker Flat Low

Wassen Creek Low

Waterloo Low

West Fork Illinois River Medium/High

White Rock Fen Low

Wilhoit Springs Medium

Willamette Valley Prairie Oak and Pine Area Low

Williams Lake Low

Woodcock Bog Medium

Yainax Butte Low

Yaquina Head Low

Yellowstone Creek High

Table M-7. Ranking of Special Recreational Management Areas that the BLM would recommend for 

withdrawal from locatable mineral entry

Recreation Management Area Ranking

Alder Glen Campground Low

Alsea Falls - Zone A Low

Alsea Falls - Zone B Low

Armstrong Gulch Trailhead Medium

Aquila Vista Low

Barlow Creek Trail and Trailhead Low

Bastendorff Beach Low

Bear Gulch Trailhead Medium

Bolt Mountain Trail Medium

Burma Pond Campground High

Canyon Creek Low

Carpenter Bypass Mountain Bike Trail Low

Carpenter Bypass Staging Area Low

Cascade View OHV Complex Low

Cathedral Hills Medium
1458 | P a g e

Recreation Management Area Ranking

Cathedral Hills Trails Medium

Cavitt Creek Falls Recreation Site Low

Cedar Grove Low

Clay Creek Recreation Site Low

Clay Creek Trail Low

Coos Head Low

Cow Creek Backcountry Byway Kiosk Low

Cow Creek Recreational Gold Panning Area Low

Crooked Creek OHV Staging Site Low

Culp Creek Expansion Site Low

Culp Creek Trailhead Low

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area Low

Deer Creek Education/Interpretive Area Medium

Dogwood Medium

Dorena Dam Trail Access Site Low

Dovre Low

Eagleview Group Campground Low

Eagles Rest Hiking/Biking Trail Low

Edson Creek Campground Low

Eight Dollar Mountain High

Eight Dollar Mountain Interpretive Site High

Elderberry Flat Campground Medium

Elk Bend Low

Elkhorn Creek WSR Medium

Elkhorn Valley Campground Medium

Emerald Trail Low

E-Mile Day-Use Area Low

Esmond lake Trailhead and Trail Low

Fan Creek Low

Fawn Creek Campground Low

Fishermen’s Bend Recreation Site Low

Flores Lake Medium

Gerber Recreation Area Low

Gold Nugget Waysides High

Grizzly Peak Medium

Grizzly Peak Trail Medium

Hill Creek Trail Low

Hill Creek Wayside Low

Hinsdale Garden Low

Hogback Mountain Medium

Hult Equestrian Staging Area Low

Hult Reservoir Non-motorized Trail Low
1459 | P a g e

Recreation Management Area Ranking

Hult Reservoir Recreation Area Low

Hunter Creek Trail System High

Hyatt Lake Campground Low

Island Creek Day-use Area Medium

Ivors Wayside Low

Jacksonville Woodlands Trails High

Kenney Meadows Recreation Site High

King Mountain Trail High

Klamath River Campground Low

Klamath River WSR Low/Medium

Lake Selmac Medium

Lodgepole Low

Lone Rock Drift Boat Launch Low

Loon Lake Recreation Area Low

Lost Creek Trails Low

Lower Lake Creek Falls Low

Marmot Recreation Site Low

Martin Rapids Overlook Low

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area Trail Low

McGowan Creek Environmental Education Area Low

McKenzie River Campground Low

McKercher Park (R&PP Lease) Low

Mill Creek Low

Mill Creek Recreation Site Low

Miller Creek Camp Low

Millpond/Lone Pine Recreation Site Low

Missouri Bend Low

Mosby Creek Trailhead Low

Mount Bolivar Trailhead High

Mountain of the Rogue High

Nestucca River Low

North Bank - Comstock Day Use Area Low

North Bank Habitat Management Area Low

North Bank- Western Trailhead Low

North Bowl Campground Low

North Fork Eagle Creek Campground Low

North Fork Santiam County Park Low

North Spit Beach and Ponds Unit Medium

North Spit Boat Ramp Low

North Umpqua Trail - Swiftwater Low/Medium

North Umpqua Trail - Tioga Low

North Umpqua Wild Scenic River Corridor Low/Medium
1460 | P a g e

Recreation Management Area Ranking

Northwest Hills Medium

Old Miners Meadow Medium

Osprey Boat Ramp Medium

Oxbow Regional Park Low

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) 1 and 2 Low

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) Corridor Low

Park Creek Campground Low

Potholes Camp Low

Provolt Seed Orchard High

Quartz Creek High

Rennie Boat Landing Low

Rock Creek Recreation Site Low

Rocky Peak Trail Medium

Rogue Wild and Scenic River Medium/High

Rough and Ready Trail Medium

Roundtop Mountain Medium

Row River Trail Low/Medium

Row River Trail Expansion Low/Medium

Sandy Ridge Trail System Low

Sandy Ridge Trailhead Low

Sawmill Trail Low

Scaponia Park Low

Scaredman Recreation Site Low

Sharps Creek Recreation Site Medium

Shotgun Creek Recreation Site Low

Shotgun Non-Motorized Trail System Low

Shotgun OHV Trail System Low

Silver Creek Boat and McKenzie River Watchable 

Wildlife Site Low

Silver Falls State Park Low

Siuslaw Bend Campground Low

Sixes River Campground Medium

Skull Creek Campground Medium

Smith Creek Low

Smith River Falls Campground Low

Spring Island River Access Low

Stan H Spring Low

Sterling Mine Ditch Trail High

Stick Beach Medium

Storm Ranch Medium

Surveyor Campground Low

Swiftwater Day-use Area Medium
1461 | P a g e

Recreation Management Area Ranking

Table Mountain Snow Play Area Low

Table Rocks Low/Medium

Taylor landing Recreation Site Low

Three Bears - Hardy Creek Low

Topsy Recreation Site Low

Tucker Flat Campground High

Tyee Recreation Area Low

Tyrrell Seed Orchard Interpretive Trail Low

Upper Lake Creek ERMA Low

Vincent Creek Campground Low

Whiskey Creek Overlook Medium

Whitewater Day-Use Area Low

Whitewater Day-Use Area Low

Whittaker Creek Recreation Area Low

Whittaker Creek Trail Low

Wild Rogue Canyon Low/Medium/High

Wildcat Creek Trail System Low

Wildwood Recreation Site Low

Wilhoit Springs Medium

Willamalane Non-Motorized Trails Low

Willamette River Greenway (R&PP Lease) Low

Willow Valley Reservoir Boat Ramp Low

Wolf Creek Environmental Education Site and Trail Low

Wolf Creek Falls Trail Low

Woodrat Mtn Gliding Sites High

Yaquina Head ONA Low

Yellowbottom Medium
1462 | P a g e

References 

USDI BLM. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revision of the Resource Management Plans of the Western 

Oregon Bureau of Land Management Districts. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/final_eis/. 
1463 | Page

Appendix N – Rare Plants and Fungi 

Figure N-1. Special Status Species ‘hot spots’ within the decision area 
1464 | P a g e

Table N-1. Existing conservation strategy and agreements for Bureau Special Status plant species

BLM 

District

Other Agencies 

Involved Species Date Title Summary of BLM Management Actions

Coos Bay

U.S. Forest Service 

(Siuslaw National 

Forest), Oregon 

Parks and Recreation 

Department

Pink sandverbena 2006

Conservation Strategy for Pink 

sandverbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. 

breviflora)

Reduce competition from non-native plants; 

Monitor populations; Augment existing 

populations; Restore habitat and reintroduce the 

species into suitable habitat

Eugene, 

Medford, 

Roseburg

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service 

(Rogue RiverSiskiyou National 

Forest)

Wayside aster 2006 Interagency Conservation Agreement 

for Eucephalus vialis (Wayside aster) 

Survey potential habitat; Monitor populations; 

Improve habitat conditions; Research effects of 

fire, grazing, and changes in canopy cover

Medford U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Cook’s lomatium 2003

Conservation Agreement for Cook’s 

lomatium (Lomatium cookii) in the 

Illinois Valley

Reduce shrub and conifer cover; Survey potential 

habitat; Monitor populations; Maintain and install 

fences and gates to reduce human impacts

Medford

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service 

(Klamath National 

Forest), California 

Department of 

Forestry and Fire 

Protection

Siskiyou mariposa 

lily 2012

Conservation Agreement between the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management for Calochortus 

persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily)

Monitor populations; Control non-native plants; 

Prevent impacts from recreation and public 

motorized vehicle use; Augment populations

Medford U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Gentner’s fritillary 2015

Conservation Agreement for 

Gentner’s fritillary (Fritillaria 

gentneri) in Southwestern Oregon

Designate a minimum of eight Fritillary 

Management Areas (FMAs) within recovery 

units; Survey, assess, and monitor each FMA; 

Manage FMAs to minimize threats, maintain 

habitat, encourage natural population recruitment, 

and meet population size and stability criteria

Medford, 

Coos Bay

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service 

(Rogue RiverSiskiyou National 

Forest, Six Rivers 

National Forest)

Largeflower 

rushlily,

Purple rushlily,

Mendocino gentian,

Grants Pass 

willowherb,

Bog white violet

2006

Conservation Agreement for 

Hastingsia bracteosa, H. 

atropurpurea, Gentiana setigera, 

Epilobium oreganum, and Viola 

primulifolia ssp. occidentalis and 

serpentine Darlingtonia wetlands and 

fens from Southwestern Oregon and 

Northwestern California

Manage all Darlingtonia wetlands to protect their 

biological values and function; Manage all 

Darlingtonia wetlands that support Hastingsia 

bracteosa, H. atropurpurea, Gentiana setigera,

Epilobium oreganum, and Viola primulifolia ssp. 

occidentalis to maintain and enhance these 

species; Survey potential habitat for these 

species; Monitor populations and habitat
1465 | P a g e

BLM 

District

Other Agencies 

Involved Species Date Title Summary of BLM Management Actions

Roseburg

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service 

(Umpqua National 

Forest)

Kincaid’s lupine 2006

Programmatic Conservation 

Agreement for Kincaid’s Lupine 

(Lupinus sulphureus spp. kincaidii) in 

Douglas County

Conserve and actively manage populations and 

habitat; Identify suitable habitat for development 

of new populations; Augment existing 

populations as necessary; Monitor all populations

Roseburg U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Crinite mariposa lily 2004

Conservation Agreement for 

Calochortus coxii (Crinite mariposa 

lily)

Restore meadow habitat through invasive plant 

control, prescribed fire, reducing shrub and 

conifer cover, and planting native species; 

Monitor populations

Roseburg

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 

U.S. Forest Service 

(Umpqua National 

Forest)

Umpqua mariposa 

lily 1996

Conservation Agreement for 

Calochortus umpquaensis (Umpqua 

Mariposa Lily)

Install gates and fences to protect populations 

from livestock and vehicles; Maintain meadow 

habitat through prescribed fire and tree thinning; 

Inventory potential habitat; Monitor populations

Table N-2. BLM sensitive plants and fungi within the planning area (BLM Oregon/Washington State Director’s Sensitive Species List, July 2015)

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

FU Albatrellus avellaneus Fungus CF

Endemic to coastal lowlands from Northern California to Canada; occurs principally in 

coastal Sitka spruce, western hemlock and in Pacific silver fir old-growth forest, at 

elevations of 112–1,260 feet.

FU Bridgeoporus 

nobilissimus Fungus CF

Ranges from the Olympic Mountains and the western Cascade Range. Fruiting bodies 

occur on large, dying and dead noble fir and Pacific silver fir in late-successional oldgrowth forests and on remnant stumps and snags in young and mature second-growth 

forests in the Pacific silver fir and western hemlock zones in western Washington and 

Oregon (Cowden 2002, Redberg et al. 2003).

FU Bryoglossum gracile Fungus CF

Known from Scandinavia and North America. Grows on moist living mosses on soil and 

rocks in alpine and arctic environments. In the Pacific Northwest, known from the 

Willamette National Forest.

FU Chamonixia caespitosa Fungus CF

Known from Europe, Asia, and North America. In the Pacific Northwest, it is found with 

hemlock species and Pacific silver fir at high elevation and western hemlock, Douglasfir, and Sitka spruce in coastal forests.

FU Choiromyces venosus Fungus CF

Known from Europe and both North American coasts; however, it is known from only 

three sites in North America. The one Oregon population occurs in the western hemlock 

wetlands association at 1,677 feet elevation.
1466 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

FU Cortinarius barlowensis Fungus CF

Widely distributed in the western Cascades of both Oregon and Washington and the 

coast of Washington. In Oregon and Washington, principally in montane Pacific silver 

fir and coastal western hemlock series at elevations of 25–4,729 feet.

FU Cortinarius pavelekii Fungus CF Endemic to coastal forests in the Pacific Northwest under mature Sitka spruce and

lodgepole pine from sea level (17 ft.) to around 588 ft.in Oregon.

FU Cystangium idahoensis Fungus CF

Known from only two locations in Oregon and one location in Idaho. Found in wetland 

areas within Pacific silver fir, and western hemlock plant association from 2,738 to 

3,455 feet in elevation.

FU Dermocybe 

humboldtensis Fungus CF

Known from Humboldt County, California, to Douglas County, Oregon. Occurs in white 

fir - grand fir vegetation zones at elevations of 1,337–1,781 feet. Associated species 

include Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine within Klamath and Oregon Coast Range 

provinces.

FU Gastroboletus vividus Fungus CF

Known from the Sierra Nevada in California to the Washington Cascades. Found in 

mountain hemlock (67%), Douglas-fir (17%) and white fir - grand fir (17%) vegetation 

zones at elevations of 4,266–6,747 feet.

FU Gastrolactarius 

camphoratus Fungus CF

Known from approximately 20 sites in Oregon. Occurs principally in soil and litter in 

western hemlock, tanoak, live oak, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, Pacific madrone, California 

black oak, Port-Orford-cedar and Sitka spruce series at elevations of 3–3,385 feet.

FU Gymnomyces fragrans Fungus CF

Known from California, Idaho, and Oregon in the Pacific silver fir, mountain hemlock 

and Shasta red fir plant associations. Populations range from 4,803 to 6,853 feet in 

elevation.

FU Helvella crassitunicata Fungus CF Known from the Pacific Northwest and occurs primarily in mountain hemlock and 

Pacific silver fir vegetation zones at elevations of 1,533–9,673 feet.

FU Mythicomyces corneipes Fungus CF,

RI

Known from the Pacific Northwest, Canada, England, and Scandinavia primarily in 

western hemlock and Pacific silver fir vegetation zones at elevations of 969–6,081 feet.

FU Phaeocollybia 

californica Fungus CF

Endemic to the Pacific Northwest from western central Oregon, south to extreme 

northern California. In coastal to inland lowlands associated with the roots of Pacific 

silver fir, Sitka spruce, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock within an elevation range of 

206–3,855 feet.

FU Phaeocollybia gregaria Fungus CF

Endemic to Oregon and Northern California, in coastal rainforests. Associated with the 

roots of western hemlock, Sitka spruce and Douglas-fir in coastal rainforests at 486–

3,628 feet elevation.

FU Phaeocollybia 

oregonensis Fungus CF Known from western Oregon to British Columbia Soil in association with roots of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and Pacific silver fir; 721–3,916 feet elevation.

FU Pseudorhizina 

californica Fungus CF Known from Oregon and Washington primarily in Pacific silver fir, white fir - grand fir, and mountain hemlock vegetation zones at elevations of 668–6,515 feet.
1467 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

FU Ramaria amyloidea Fungus CF

Endemic to western Oregon and Washington and northwest California. Occurs in 

mountain hemlock, Pacific silver fir, western hemlock, and white fir - grand fir 

vegetation zones at elevations of 1,592–5,729 feet

FU Ramaria rubella forma 

blanda Fungus CF Known from the Pacific Northwest and Tennessee. Associated with western hemlock rainforest from 442 to 1,813 feet elevation

FU Rhizopogon alexsmithii Fungus CF Endemic to the Pacific Northwest. Known from mountain hemlock, Pacific silver fir, 

and western hemlock vegetation zones at elevations of 2,852–5,805 feet

FU Rhizopogon 

chamaleontinus Fungus CF Known from the Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province within Douglas-fir/tanoak series/incense-cedar forests at approximately 1,050 feet elevation

FU Rhizopogon 

ellipsosporus Fungus CF

Known in Oregon in the Klamath Mountains Physiographic Province and in California 

in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In Oregon, it is found primarily within Douglas-fir, 

western red cedar, and white fir - grand fir associations from 1,040–4,116 feet elevation.

FU Rhizopogon exiguus Fungus CF Known from Oregon and Washington within Douglas-fir, white fir/grand fir, western red 

cedar, and western hemlock associations at 54–3,844 feet elevation.

FU Rhizopogon inquinatus Fungus CF Known in western Oregon and Idaho within mountain hemlock and western hemlock 

associations from 1,490–4,507 feet elevation

FU Stagnicola perplexa Fungus CF Known from the boreal forests of North America and Europe. Associated with Pacific 

silver fir and more moist forest, but has also been documented in shrub-steppe habitat.

BR Anastrophyllum 

minutum Liverwort CF Circumboreal on peaty soil at relatively high elevation (>5,500 ft.), ledges of northfacing cliffs of peaks and ridges

BR Andreaea schofieldiana Moss CF,

RK

Endemic to the Pacific Northwest from southwestern British Columbia to Siskiyou and 

Del Norte Counties, California. Forming mats on dry and exposed to moist, shaded 

igneous rocks, montane to subalpine within Pacific silver fir, subalpine fir, noble fir, 

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and mountain hemlock associations.

BR Anthelia julacea Liverwort SW

Widespread around the northern hemisphere in boreal and montane regions, reaching its 

southern limit in western North America in Oregon. Grows on peaty soil, in Oregon 

associated with low ericaceous shrubs.

BR Blepharostoma 

arachnoideum Liverwort CF Known from the Pacific Northwest in moist habitats within old-growth forests, where it most often grows on rotten logs.

BR Bruchia flexuosa Moss MG

Occurs in North America and Europe. In the Pacific Northwest, it is restricted to low 

elevation prairie and mud flats around reservoirs in the interior valleys west of the 

Cascade Range.

BR Bryoerythrophyllum 

columbianum Moss SC

Occurs in British Columbia, California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Bolivia. In the 

Pacific Northwest, Bryoerythrophyllum columbianum is a component of biological soil 

crusts in arid shrub-steppe and grassland habitat.
1468 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

BR Bryum calobryoides Moss RI,

RK

Endemic to western North America. Occurs on both acid and basic rocks and soil in 

shaded to exposed boulder fields, montane to alpine meadows, cliffs, and outcrops from 

3000 to 7,000 ft. elevation.

BR Calypogeia sphagnicola Liverwort SW,

SE

Circumboreal and bipolar. Occurs in poor fens containing sphagnum, acidic fen habitats, 

and in a fen on ultramafic soils.

BR Campylopus schmidii Moss CF, RI, 

SW, MZ

Known from coastal Oregon (Lane County) and northern California (Del Norte and 

Mendocino Counties), Mexico, Hawaii, Asia, Africa, Australia. Occurs on nutrient-poor 

sandy substrates near coast.

BR Cephaloziella spinigera Liverwort SW Occurs in bogs and fens around the northern hemisphere in boreal and montane regions. 

In western North America reaching the southern edge of its range in northern California.

BR Cryptomitrium tenerum Liverwort

CF,

RK,

RI

Known from southwestern Oregon and California, west of the Cascade Range and Sierra 

Nevada, Mexico, South America, and India. Occurs on bare, usually shaded and humid 

soil on hillsides, rock outcrops, and streambanks.

BR Encalypta brevicollis Moss RK Known from the Pacific Northwest, Canada, Greenland, and Europe. Occurs on soil in 

shaded crevices and overhanging rock outcrops.

BR Encalypta brevipes Moss RK

Interruptedly circumboreal. In the Pacific Northwest known from Alberta, British 

Columbia, Washington, and Oregon on soil in shaded crevices in igneous rocks, along 

ridge tops subject to frequent fog penetration.

BR Entosthodon 

fascicularis Moss

RI, MG, 

OHW, SC, 

RK

Known from British Columbia, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, 

Europe, and North Africa. Occurs on seasonally wet, exposed soil in seeps or along 

intermittent streams below 3,000 ft.

BR Ephemerum 

crassinervium Moss SW

Known from Oregon, eastern North America, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand. 

Occurs on damp disturbed soil, often in old fields, paths, river banks or spots of open 

bare ground.

BR Ephemerum serratum Moss SW,

ME

Known from North America, Brazil, Sardinia, China, South Africa, and New Zealand. 

Occurs on damp disturbed soil, often in old fields, pastures, and along the edges of 

ponds.

BR Fissidens fontanus Moss RI

Known from North America, Mexico, West Indies, Central America, Europe, and 

Africa. It is an aquatic species attached to rocks, logs, sticks in stagnant or slow-moving 

water or in areas where the water level fluctuates.

BR Gymnomitrion 

concinnatum Liverwort CF,RK

Circumboreal and bipolar, in both eastern and western North America. Occurs on peaty 

soil of cliffs and rock outcrops.

BR Haplomitrium hookeri Liverwort CF

Occurs in both northern and southern hemispheres. In western North American reaches 

its southern limit in Oregon. Grows on soil in full sun, intermixed with other liverworts 

and hornworts.

BR Harpanthus flotovianus Liverwort SW

Widespread around the northern hemisphere in boreal and montane regions. In western 

North America reaching the southern edge of its range in Oregon. Occurs in bogs and 

fens.
1469 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

BR Herbertus aduncus ssp. 

aduncus Liverwort CF,RK

Endemic to Pacific coastal area of North America. This species is found only on cliffs in 

Oregon.

BR Limbella fryei Moss

CF,

RI,

MZ

Endemic to the Pacific Northwest and known only from two sites in coastal Oregon 

(Lane and Curry Counties). On wet rotten wood, leaf litter and lower trunks of tall 

shrubs, in dense coastal shrub swamps below 200 ft.

BR Lophozia gillmanii Liverwort SW,

RK

Widespread around the northern hemisphere in boreal and montane regions, in western 

North America south to Tulare County, California. Occurs on peaty soil, usually 

associated with cliffs or ledges. It requires lime or alkaline soil.

BR Lophozia laxa Liverwort MZ,

SW

Interruptedly circumboreal, in North America as far south as Oregon, Michigan, and 

New Jersey. Occurs in well-developed hummocks of Sphagnum in fens and bogs along 

coast and in Cascades, 0–5,000 ft. elevation.

BR Marsupella emarginata 

var. aquatica Liverwort RI

Known from North America, northern Europe, Great Britain, and Greenland. Restricted 

to streams with relatively fast moving water and rocky bottoms in subalpine, montane 

situations.

BR Metzgeria violacea Liverwort CF,

MZ

Known from northwestern and southeastern North America, Europe, and Asia. Occurs 

on tree trunks and shrubs in coastal rainforest at 0–1,000 ft. elevation.

BR Orthodontium pellucens Moss CF,

MZ

Known from southeastern and western United States, Central and South America, 

Caribbean, and the Hawaiian Islands. Occurs on stumps, rotten logs, bark of living 

redwood trees, confined to redwood groves near the ocean.

BR Phymatoceros 

phymatodes Liverwort SW

Known from the central coast and Sierra Nevada of California to Curry and Douglas 

Counties, Oregon. Occurs on bare, mineral soil which remains moist until late spring or 

summer, from near sea level to 650 m.

BR Polytrichum strictum Moss SW

Circumboreal and bipolar. In the Pacific Northwest, known from British Columbia, 

Alberta, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and California. Grows on organic soils, 

particularly on top of Sphagnum hummocks, in coastal and montane bogs and fens.

BR Porella bolanderi Liverwort

CF,

RK,

OHW

Endemic to western North America and known only from California, Oregon, and Utah. 

Occurs on variety of rock types and trunks of oak, California bay laurel, and big leaf 

maple, 500–3,000 ft. elevation.

BR Preissia quadrata Liverwort RK

Circumboreal in temperate to boreal regions. In western North America extending south 

to California. Occurs on soil with little organic material, typically on ledges on cliffs or 

in crevices in rocky areas.

BR Pseudocalliergon 

trifarium Moss SW

Circumboreal but rare throughout much of its range. In the Pacific Northwest, known 

from British Columbia, Alberta, Montana, and Oregon. Occurs in medium to rich 

montane fens where it grows submerged to emergent in pools or on saturated ground, 

usually in full sunlight. Elevations range from 5,000 to 6,000 feet.
1470 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

BR Racomitrium depressum Moss

CF,

RI,

OHW

Known only from the Sierra Mountains of California and Nevada, and the southern 

Cascade and Klamath mountains of southwestern Oregon and northwestern California. It 

forms mats on rocks in perennial or intermittent streams, and in the spray zone of 

waterfalls at 400–11,000 feet elevation. Habitats are subject to scour at high water.

BR Rivulariella gemmipara Liverwort RI Known from Alaska, Oregon, California, and Utah. Grows attached to rocks in 

moderately fast moving water.

BR Scapania obscura Liverwort RI

Scattered in northern Europe, Alps and the Nordic countries, and possibly in eastern 

Russia, North America from Greenland and Baffin Island to the Pacific Northwest. On 

peaty soil close to streams below cold water springs and in snow melt seepage channels. 

It may be submerged much of the year.

BR Schistidium 

cinclidodonteum Moss RK,RI

Known from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Europe. Occurs on 

wet or dry rocks or on soil in crevices of rocks and boulders, often along intermittent 

streams, at elevations of 5,000–11,000 feet.

BR Tetraphis geniculata Moss CF Known from northern California to Alaska. Grows on rotten stumps and logs in shaded, 

humid locations (USDA FS and USDI BLM 2005).

BR Tortula mucronifolia Moss CF,

RK

Known throughout the Northern Hemisphere, Turkey, Africa, and New Zealand. Occurs 

on soil, tree roots, and sheltered ledges and crevices of rock outcrops, 5,000–7,000 ft. 

elevation.

BR Trematodon asanoi Moss RI Known from British Columbia, California, Oregon, Newfoundland, and Japan. on moist 

bare soil along the edges of trails, streams and ponds in the subalpine zone.

LI Bryoria subcana Lichen CF

Known from coastal western North America between south-central Alaska and central 

California and from Great Britain. Found on bark and wood of conifers in Sitka spruce, 

western hemlock, wet Douglas-fir, wet noble fir (Abies procera), and mixed hardwoodconiferous forests.

LI Cladidium bolanderi Lichen

RK,

OHW,

SE

Known from along the immediate coast of Alaska, Oregon, and California. On a variety 

of rock types on coastal bluffs and coastal grasslands from sea level to 1,000 ft. 

elevation.

LI Hypotrachyna riparia Lichen CF,

RI

Endemic to Oregon. Currently known from the foothills of the central western Cascade 

Range. On deciduous shrubs and trees in riparian forests below about 2,000 feet 

elevation, in foothills of the western Cascade Range, Oregon.

LI Leioderma sorediatum Lichen CF

Known mainly from the South Pacific, New Zealand, Australia, Sri Lanka, and mainland 

India, with disjunct populations on the Pacific coasts of North and South America. In 

Oregon, it is found in semi-open coastal thickets, and deflation plains and ericaceous 

shrub thickets of shore pine on stabilized dunes and deflation plains.

LI Leptogium cyanescens Lichen CF,

OHW

Found worldwide in both temperate and tropical regions. In the Pacific Northwest, 

known from Alaska to Oregon, but rare throughout the region. Occurs on shaded twigs 

of deciduous trees and shrubs in humid habitats, rarely in exposed situations. The two 

Oregon sites are on the immediate coast at elevations of 15–30 feet.
1471 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

LI Lobaria linita Lichen CF

Occurs sporadically in the European Alps, Norway, Siberia, eastern Asia, and North 

America. It is strongly associated with old-growth and climax forests, prefers the lower 

boles of conifers, especially Pacific silver fir, but in drier habitats or at higher elevations 

it may also grow on moss-covered boulders or rock outcrops in cool, shaded, humid 

microsites.

LI Microcalicium 

arenarium Lichen CF

Found in the Pacific Northwest from Alaska south to California, Scandinavia, Europe, 

Asia, eastern North America, Australasia, and southern South America. Occurs on freeliving green algae or leprose lichens growing in drier microhabitats such as bark, wood, 

root, and rock faces that are sheltered from precipitation.

LI Niebla cephalota Lichen CF

Endemic to western North America, ranging from Baja California, north to Washington 

along the immediate coast. In the Pacific Northwest, it is found on exposed Sitka spruce, 

Hooker’s willow, Monterey cypress and shore pine in open forests, forest edges, and 

scrublands along windswept coastal headlands, sand dunes, stabilized deflation plains, 

and marshy swales of the immediate coast.

LI Pannaria rubiginella Lichen CF Pacific Northwest from British Columbia to California and Chile. On bark and wood in 

cool, moist habitats along the Pacific coast. 

LI Pannaria rubiginosa Lichen CF Known from the Americas and western Europe. Grows on wood and bark of trees and 

shrubs within a few kilometers of ocean at or near sea-level.

LI Pilophorus nigricaulis Lichen CF

Occurs in Japan and on the west coast of North America, from Alaska south to Oregon, 

west of the Cascade crest. Grows on rock substrates primarily in non-forest communities 

from 130 to 4,700 ft. elevation.

LI Ramalina pollinaria Lichen

CF,

MZ,

RI

Known in the Pacific Northwest from Alaska south to California and east to the Rocky 

Mountains, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, eastern North America, Scandinavia, Europe, 

and Israel. In the Pacific Northwest, it occurs on bark and wood of various trees and 

shrubs, shaded rocks at low elevation.

LI Stereocaulon 

spathuliferum Lichen CF Circumboreal. In the Pacific Northwest from Alaska south to Oregon, in and west of the Cascade Range. Grows on basalt blocks of talus slopes, 3,000–5,000 ft. elevation.

LI Teloschistes flavicans Lichen CF,

MZ

Known from mostly tropical and subtropical areas. In the Pacific Northwest it occurs in 

Oregon and California on exposed headlands and dunes of the immediate coast.

LI Texosporium sanctijacobi Lichen SC,

MG

Endemic to western North America and known from only a few extremely small, 

localized and widely scattered populations in south-central Washington, central Oregon, 

southern Idaho, and central and southern California. It occurs on soil in arid to semi-arid 

shrub-steppe, grassland or savannah communities up to 3,281 ft.

LI Tholurna dissimilis Lichen CF

Known from western Canada, Washington and Oregon and Scandinavia. In the Pacific 

Northwest, grows on krummholz or flag-form subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce on 

windswept ridges in the upper montane and subalpine zones up to timberline.

LI Usnea nidulans Lichen CF Known from the Pacific Northwest and South America. Grows on conifers and 

deciduous trees exclusively in hypermaritime forests on the immediate coast and in the 
1472 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

Coast Ranges.

VA Abronia umbellata ssp.

breviflora Pink sandverbena MZ On sandy beaches and foredunes within the Coast Range from California to British Columbia

VA Adiantum jordanii California maiden-hair CF On seasonally moist, shaded, rocky banks, cliffs, canyons, and ravines in the Coast 

Range and Klamath Mountains in Oregon and California

VA Agoseris elata Tall agoseris MG, 

OHW, CF

Meadows, shrubby slopes and open woodlands, 1,600–3,200 ft. elevation; East Cascade 

Range and West Cascade Range and Crest

VA Agrostis howellii Howell’s bentgrass RK,

CF

Shady woodlands at base of cliffs; West Cascade Range and Crest and Willamette 

Valley

VA Allium peninsulare Peninsular onion CH Dry slopes, flats, < 1,100 m; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range and Crest, and 

California

VA Arabis koehleri var.

koehleri Koehler’s rockcress RK Dry, rocky cliffs, 225–280 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Arabis modesta Rogue canyon rockcress RK,

RI

Known from Oregon in Jackson and Josephine Counties and from California. Grows on 

moist shaded banks, slopes, rocky canyon walls, talus, and basaltic cliffs, 150–500 m.

VA Arctostaphylos 

hispidula Gasquet manzanita SE, SC, CF Rocky serpentine soils or sandstone, open shrub and forests, not fire tolerant; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, and California

VA Arnica viscosa Shasta arnica RK Scree, talus gullies, and slopes w/ seasonal water runoff, 1,750–2,500 m; West Cascade 

Range and Crest, and California

VA Artemisia pycnocephala Coastal sagewort MZ, RK Rocky or sandy soils, coastal strand; Coast Range, and California

VA Asplenium 

septentrionale Grass-fern RK Cliffs of various substrates, 700–2,900 m; West Cascade Range and Crest, and California

VA Astragalus californicus California milk-vetch MG Dry, open areas in scrub, woodland, valleys and canyons, 1,000–2,700 ft.; Klamath 

Mountains, and California

VA Astragalus gambelianus Gambel milk-vetch MG, SC Open, grassy areas, scrub, 50–900 m; Klamath Mountains, and California

VA Astragalus peckii Peck’s milk-vetch RK,

MG

Very dry sites, on loose sandy soil or pumice, 900–1,100 m; Blue Mountains and East 

Cascade Range

VA Bensoniella oregana Bensonia CF, RI, 

SW

Wet meadows, bogs and streams in deep soils under conifer forests; Coast Range, 

Klamath Mountains, and California

VA Botrychium montanum Mountain grape-fern CF,

RI

Shady coniferous forest, edges of bogs, cedar swamps, 1,000–2,000 m; Blue Mountains, 

East Cascade Range, West Cascade Range and Crest; California, Montana, Washington, 

and British Columbia

VA Botrychium pumicola Pumice grape-fern RK,

CF

Fine pumice gravel on open slopes, dense lodgepole pine stands, 1,900–2,500 m; East 

Cascade Range, West Cascade Range and Crest; California

VA Brodiaea terrestris Dwarf brodiaea MZ, MG Grassland, open woodlands, 0–1,500 m; Coast Range; California

VA Calamagrostis breweri Brewer’s reedgrass RI Moist subalpine and alpine meadows, lake margins, streambanks, 1,300–3,800 m; West 

Cascade Range and Crest; California
1473 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Callitriche marginata Winged water-starwort RI In water or on wet ground; Columbia Basin, Klamath Mountains; British Columbia, and 

California

VA Calochortus coxii Crinite mariposa-lily SE, MG serpentine open grassy slopes or woods, 200–1,000 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Calochortus greenei Greene’s mariposa-lily SC,

MG

Shrubby hillsides, open woodlands, dry soils and slopes, 700-1,100 m; East Cascade 

Range, Klamath Mountains; California

VA Calochortus howellii Howell’s mariposa-lily SE Dry, rock serpentine soils, 300–500 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Calochortus 

monophyllus

One-leaved mariposalilyRK,

MG

Wooded slopes, clay-loam soils, 400–1,200 m; East Cascade Range, West Cascade 

Range and Crest; California

VA Calochortus persistens Siskiyou mariposa-lily SE, RK Rocky openings within montane shrub plant community; Klamath Mountains; 1310-

1829 m.

VA Calochortus 

umpquaensis Umpqua mariposa-lily SE,MG

Grassland-forest ecotones on serpentine soils, 300–500m; Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range and Crest

VA Camassia howellii Howell’s camas

SE, OHW, 

MG Serpentine open, seasonally wet slopes; Klamath Mountains

VA Cardamine pattersonii Saddle mountain 

bittercress

RI,

MG

Moss mats over bare rocks, moist cliffs and other rocky slopes, grassy balds, and wet, 

mossy-gravelly creek banks, 840–960 m; Coast Range

VA Carex brevicaulis Short stemmed sedge MZ,

RI

Dry, open, sandy or rocky slopes, cliffs, and dunes, 0–90 m; Coast Range; Washington, 

California

VA Carex capitata Capitate sedge RI,

SW

Wet places, meadows, slopes, 1,900–3,900 m; Northern Basin and Range, East Cascade 

Range, West Cascade Range and Crest; Idaho, Nevada, Washington

VA Carex comosa Bristly sedge RI,

SW

Swamps and wet thickets, stream, pond, and lakeshores, 0–700 m; East Cascade Range, 

Klamath Mountains, Willamette Valley; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Carex diandra Lesser panicled sedge RI Swampy, marshy, or boggy areas, 0–2,800 m; East Cascade Range, West Cascade Range 

and Crest; California, Nevada, Washington

VA Carex klamathensis A sedge RI Boreal fens, calcareous floating mats, 0–1,100m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Carex lasiocarpa var.

americana Slender sedge RI Bogs, calcareous fens, sedge meadows, and shallow marshes; Blue Mountains, East Cascade Range, West Cascade Range and Crest; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Carex livida Pale sedge RI Boreal fens, calcareous floating mats, 0–1,100m; Coast Range, West Cascade Range and 

Crest; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Carex macrocephala Bighead sedge CD coastal sand dunes; Coast Range; Washington, Alaska, British Columbia

VA Carex macrochaeta Large-awn sedge RI in spray zone of waterfalls or on seepy, N-facing cliffs; Coast Range, West Cascade 

Range; Washington

VA Carex nervina Sierra nerved sedge MG Subalpine meadows, 1,200–3,000 m; Klamath Mountains; California, Nevada

VA Carex retrorsa Retrorse sedge SW,

RI

Swamps, wet thickets, often along streams, marshes, sedge meadows, 0–1,900 m; Blue 

Mountains, Columbia Basin, West Cascade Range and Crest, Willamette Valley; Idaho, 

Washington
1474 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Castilleja chlorotica Green-tinged paintbrush CF In loose sandy soils, often in ponderosa pine woods, 1,400–2,500 m; Blue Mountains, 

East Cascade Range

VA Cheilanthes covillei Coville’s lip-fern RK Rocky slopes, cliffs, and ledges, 100–2,500 m; West Cascade Range and Crest; 

California, Nevada

VA Cheilanthes intertexta Coastal lipfern RK Rocky slopes and ledges, 500–2,800 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Chlorogalum 

angustifolium Narrow-leaved amole MG,OHW Heavy soils of grassland or woodland, 0–500 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Chloropyron maritimum 

ssp. palustre Point reyes bird’s beak RI Coastal salt marshes, inland alkaline flats; Oregon and California

VA Cicendia 

quadrangularis Timwort

RI, OHW, 

SW, MG, 

RK

Crevices, bases of rocks, coastal wetlands, vernal pools, moist valley grassland and oak 

woodland, 0–2,700 m; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, Willamette Valley; California

VA Collomia mazama Mt. Mazama collomia CF, RI, 

MG

Alpine meadows and slopes and dry rocky places in black hemlock, fir, or lodgepole 

forest, 900–1,850 m; West Cascade Range and Crest

VA Coptis trifolia Three-leaf goldthread CF,

RI

Wet to mesic, coniferous and mixed forests, bogs, willow scrub, and tundra, 0–1,500 m; 

West Cascade Range and Crest; British Columbia

VA Corydalis aquaegelidae Cold-water corydalis RI,

CF Perennial streams, seep, and springs; West Cascade Range; Washington

VA Cryptantha leiocarpa Seaside cryptantha MZ Sandy soils, dunes, <200 m; Coast Range; California

VA Cryptantha milo-bakeri Milo baker’s cryptantha RK Rocky or gravelly soils, generally coniferous forest; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Cryptogramma stelleri Steller’s rockbrake RK Sheltered calcareous cliff crevices and rock ledges, typically in coniferous forest, 0–

3,000 m; Blue Mountains; Nevada, Washington

VA Cyperus acuminatus Short-pointed cyperus RI,

SW

Wet, often sandy shores, and damp, disturbed soils, 0–1,500 m; Klamath Mountains, 

Willamette Valley; California, Washington

VA Cypripedium 

fasciculatum Clustered lady’s-slipper CF Coniferous forest, often late-successional; Blue Mountains, East Cascade Range, West Cascade Range and Crest; California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming

VA Delphinium nudicaule Red larkspur RK,

OHW

Wooded, rocky slopes, moist talus, cliff faces, 0–2,600 m; Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Delphinium nuttallii Nutall’s larkspur RI,

MG

Rock outcrops, rocky meadows, 20–300 m; East Cascade Range, West Cascade Range 

and Crest, Willamette Valley; Washington, British Columbia

VA Dicentra pauciflora Few-flowered 

bleedingheart

RK,

CF

Openings in coniferous forests, in volcanic and granitic soils, 1,200–2,700 m; Klamath 

Range; California

VA Diplacus bolanderi Bolander’s 

monkeyflower

RK, SC, 

OHW

Burns, openings in chaparral, foothill woodland, yellow pine forest, <6500 ft.; Klamath 

Mountains; California

VA Diplacus congdonii Congdon’s 

monkeyflower RK Disturbed areas or seepage, gen. granitic soils, 120–1,100 m; Klamath Mountains; California
1475 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Diplacus tricolor Three-colored monkeyflower

RI,

SW

Vernally wet depressions, streambanks, <600 m; Northern Basin and Range, East 

Cascade Range, Willamette Valley; California

VA Dodecatheon 

austrofrigidum Frigid shootingstar RI Steep basalt slopes along rivers, 30–915 m; Coast Range; Washington

VA Draba howellii Howell’s whitlow-grass RK Rock crevices, 2,000–3,000 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Epilobium oreganum Oregon willow-herb SW,

RI Ultramafics, bogs, small streams, ditches, 500–1,600 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Ericameria arborescens Golden fleece CF, OHW, 

SC

Woodland, open forest, chaparral, esp. after fire, <1,200 m; Coast Range, Klamath 

Mountains; California, Nevada

VA Erigeron cervinus Siskiyou daisy SE, MG, 

RK

Open, rocky slopes, meadows, pine to fir woods, 900–1,900 m; Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Erigeron howellii Howell’s daisy RK,

MG

Moist, often rocky places w/in mixed coniferous forest with Columbia River Gorge; 

West Cascade Range; Washington

VA Eriogonum lobbii Lobb’s buckwheat

RK,

MG,

SC

Gravelly to rocky or talus slopes, mixed grassland, shrub, and sagebrush communities, 

montane, subalpine, or alpine conifer woodlands; Klamath Mountains; California, 

Nevada

VA Eriogonum umbellatum 

var. glaberrimum Green buckwheat MG Sand or gravel, 1,600–2,300 m; East Cascade Range; California

VA Eriophorum 

chamissonis Russet cotton-grass RI Peat, bogs, marshes, muskegs, 0–3,000 m; Coast Range; British Columbia

VA Erodium macrophyllum Large-leaved filaree MG,

SC

Known from southern Oregon and California. Grows in open sites, grassland and scrub, 

<1200 m.

VA Erythranthe inflatula Disappearing 

monkeyflower

SW,

RI

Moist gravelly, rocky areas, stream edges, in sagebrush-juniper zones; Blue Mountains, 

Northern Basin and Range, Columbia Basin, East Cascade Range; California, Idaho

VA Erythronium elegans Coast range fawn-lily MG, CF, 

SC, RK Meadows and open coniferous forest, 800–1,000 m; Coast Range

VA Erythronium howellii Howell’s adder’stongue

CF, SE, 

SC, MG

Serpentine influence, meadows, open woodlands, mixed conifer; Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Eschscholzia caespitosa Gold poppy RK, MG, 

SC Open chaparral, rocky slopes, 0–1,500 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Eucephalus gormanii Gorman’s aster RK, CF Open rocky slopes and exposed cliffs, 1,200–1,900 m; West Cascade Range and Crest

VA Eucephalus vialis Wayside aster CF, MG, 

OHW

Dry open oak or coniferous woods, gen. harsher clay soils, 200–500 m; Klamath 

Mountains, West Cascade Range and Crest, Willamette Valley; California

VA Frasera umpquaensis Umpqua swertia CF

Coniferous forests dominated by true firs; in damp, shaded sites under forest canopy, 

forest edges, occasionally in the open, 3,000–6,100 (6,500) feet; Klamath Mountains, 

West Cascade Range and Crest; California
1476 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Fritillaria 

camschatcensis Black lily MG,RI

Moist areas from near tidal flats to mountain meadows, 0–1,000 m; Coast Range, West 

Cascade Range; Washington

VA Gentiana newberryi var.

newberryi Newberry’s gentian SW,MG

sites under forest canopy, forest edges, occasionally in the open; East Cascade Range, 

West Cascade Range and Crest; California

VA Gentiana plurisetosa Elegant gentian SW Coniferous forest, meadows, mesic, 1,230–1,938 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Gentiana setigera Waldo gentian SW, SE, 

MG Serpentine bogs and wet meadows; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Gilia millefoliata Seaside gilia MZ Stabilized coastal dunes, < 10 m; Coast Range; California

VA Hackelia bella Beautiful stickseed MG Streambanks, roadsides, forest opening, 900–2,000 m; Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range and Crest; California 

VA Hastingsia bracteosa 

var. atropurpurea

Purple-flowered rushlilySW,

SE

Ultramafic riverbeds that have year-round water in rooting horizon and wet, open, sunny 

bogs, 500–700 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Hastingsia bracteosa 

var. bracteosa

Large-flowered rushlilySW,

SE

Bogs, moist open meadows, seeps and wetlands often overlying serpentine or peridotite 

rock formations, < 240 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Heliotropium 

curassavicum Salt heliotrope SW Moist to dry saline soils, < 2,100 m; Blue Mountains, Northern Basin and Range, Columbia Basin, East Cascades Range, Willamette Valley; California, Nevada

VA Hesperocyparis bakeri Baker’s cypress

CF,

SE

Mixed evergreen forests, often serpentine; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range 

and Crest; California

VA Hieracium horridum Shaggy hawkweed RK Boulders, gravels, meadows, pine forests, 1,500–3,700 m; Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range and Crest; California

VA Horkelia congesta ssp.

congesta

Shaggy horkelia MG,

OHW

Grassland and oak savannah remnants, grassy balds; Klamath Mountains, Willamette 

Valley

VA Horkelia tridentata ssp.

tridentata Three-toothed horkelia MG, OHW, CF Dry, open coniferous forest, 300–2,500 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Hydrocotyle verticillata Whorled marshpennywort

MZ,

RI

Along edges of coastal and inland lakes, swampy ground, wetlands, < 100 m; Coast 

Range, Willamette Valley; California

VA Iliamna latibracteata California globemallow

CF,

RI

Moist ground and stream sides in conifer forests, 500–2,000 m; Coast Range, Klamath 

Mountains, West Cascade Range and Crest; California

VA Iris tenax var. gormanii Gorman’s iris MG Dry soils in fields and open woods; Willamette Valley

VA Kalmiopsis fragrans Fragrant kalmiopsis RK,

CF

Mixed coniferous forest, commonly on or closely adjacent to talus slopes, boulder piles, 

or pillars of silicified tuff, 450–1,350 m; West Cascade Range and Crest

VA Keckiella lemmonii Bush beardtongue CF, OHW, 

SC

Rocky slopes, coniferous and mixed forests, chaparral, 200–1,900 m; Klamath 

Mountains; California, Nevada

VA Lathyrus holochlorus Thin-leaved peavine OHW, CF, 

MG Open forests and thickets, margins of woods, roadsides; Willamette Valley

VA Lewisia columbiana 

var. columbiana Columbia lewisia RK Rocky slopes and crevices, 500–2,300 m; West Cascade Range and Crest; Washington
1477 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Lewisia leeana Lee’s lewisia RK, CF Sandy, rocky places, pine forests, 1,300–3,300 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Limnanthes alba ssp. 

gracilis Slender meadow-foam SW Wet, open, serpentine valley bottomlands, meadows, intermittent creeks; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range

VA Limnanthes floccosa 

ssp. bellingeriana

Bellinger’s meadowfoam

SW,

SC,

OHW

Edges of vernal pools or seasonally wet, rocky, open meadows and grassy openings in 

oak/pine/buckbrush chaparral; East Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains, West Cascade 

Range and Crest; East Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range and 

Crest; California

VA Limnanthes pumila ssp. 

pumila Dwarf meadow-foam SW Edges of vernal pools and wet meadows; Klamath Mountains

VA Limonium californicum Western marshrosemary

SW,

RI Coastal strand, salt marshes, beaches, alkaline flats, 0–50 m; Oregon and California

VA Lomatium engelmannii Englemann’s desertparsley SE Gravelly serpentine slopes w/in conifer forests, usu. Jeffrey pine, 1,150–2,300 m; 

Klamath Mountains; California

VA Lotus stipularis Stipuled trefoil CF, RI,

SC

Open pine forests, streambeds, chaparral, mixed conifer forest, chaparral, 0–4,000 ft.; 

Klamath Mountains; California

VA Lupinus tracyi Tracy’s lupine CF Dry, open montane forest, 1,500–2,000 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Lycopodiella inundata Bog club-moss

SW,

RI

Peat bogs, lakeshores, marshes, 0–2,000 m; Coast Range, East and West Cascade Range; 

California, Idaho, Montana

VA Lycopodium 

complanatum Ground cedar CF Moist coniferous forest; Blue Mountains, West Cascade Range; Idaho, Washington

VA Meconella oregana White fairypoppy OHW, 

MG, SW

Open ground, moist sandy, gravelly areas, 0–300 m; East and West Cascade Range, 

Klamath Mountains; Washington, British Columbia

VA Navarretia 

willamettensis Willamette navarretia SW Willamette Valley of western Oregon; grows in vernal pools and similar habitat

VA Nemacladus capillaris Slender nemacladus RK Dry slopes, burned areas in chaparral, yellow pine forest, 2,000–4,500 ft.; Klamath 

Mountains, West Cascade Range; California

VA Ophioglossum pusillum Adder’s-tongue MZ, RI, 

SW

Marsh edges, low pastures, 1,100–2,000 m; Blue Mountains, Coast Range, West 

Cascade Range; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Pellaea andromedifolia Coffee fern RK, SE, 

OHW, SC

Rocky outcrops or dry areas, 30–1,800 m; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, Willamette 

Valley; California

VA Pellaea mucronata ssp. 

californica

California bird’s-foot 

cliff-brake RK California and southern Oregon; grows on cliffs and rocky slopes, 1800–3000 m.

VA Penstemon glaucinus Blue-leaved penstemon CF, RK Open understory of lodgepole or white-bark pine, occ. Ponderosa; East Cascade Range

VA Perideridia 

erythrorhiza Red-rooted yampah MG, OHW, SW

Moist meadows, poor drained soils, open woodlands and pine forests, < 1,525 m; East 

Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range

VA Phacelia argentea Silvery phacelia MZ Coastal sand dunes and sandy bluffs; Coast Range; California
1478 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Phacelia leonis Siskiyou phacelia CF,

SE

Moist to wet meadows, gravelly serpentine soils, openings in conifer forests, 1200–1900 

m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Pilularia americana American pillwort SW Vernal pools, mud flats, lake margins, 50–600 m; Blue Mountains, Northern Basin and 

Range, East Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains; California

VA Plagiobothrys austiniae Austin’s plagiobothrys SW Vernal pools, wet sites, < 500 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Plagiobothrys figuratus 

ssp. corallicarpus Coral seeded allocarya SW,RI

Wet meadows, riparian areas, intermittent streams, valley floor; Klamath Mountains, 

West Cascade Range

VA Plagiobothrys greenei Greene’s popcorn 

flower

SW,

RI Wet sites, grassland to woodland; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range; California

VA Poa rhizomata Timber bluegrass CF,

MG

Shady, moist slopes in forest, rich, loose soils, <100 m; Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range; California

VA Pogogyne floribunda Profuse-flowereed mesa 

mint SW Vernal pools and edges of seasonal ponds and intermittent flooded drainages, <1,500 m; Northern Basin and Range, East Cascade Range; California, Idaho

VA Polystichum 

californicum California sword-fern RI,RK

Woods, streambanks to rocky open slopes w/ moisture, < 800 m; Coast Range, Klamath 

Mountains, West Cascade Range, Willamette Valley; California, Washington

VA Potamogeton 

diversifolius Rafinesque’s pondweed RI Shallow water, ditches, ponds, lakes, < 2,500 m; Northern Basin and Range, East Cascade Range; California, Idaho, Nevada, Washington

VA Prosartes parvifolia Siskiyou fairy bells CF

Northern California and southern Oregon in the Siskiyou Mountains; grows in shaded 

forest understories and forest edges as well as on adjacent exposed roadside slopes and 

at logged and burned sites, 600–1,525 m.

VA Pyrola dentata Toothleaf pyrola

CF,

OHW,

SE,

RK 

Northwestern California to southwest British Columbia, Baja California; mixed conifer 

forest, mixed conifer and oak woodland, pine woodland, forested serpentine and 

volcanic areas, hillsides of decomposed granite or loose, coarse sand or gravel near 

rocky outcrops; 55–2,900 m.

VA Pyrrocoma racemosa 

var. racemosa

Racemose pyrrocoma SW,

MZ Coastal valleys and marshes, 0–300 m; Willamette Valley; California

VA Rafinesquia californica California chicory CH,

OHW

open sites in scrub, woodland; often common after fire; 100–1,500 m; Klamath 

Mountains; California, Nevada

VA Ranunculus 

austrooreganus

Southern Oregon 

buttercup

OHW,

MG

Open oak savannahs and grasslands and along margins of rocky vernal pools; Klamath 

Mountains, West Cascade Range

VA Rhamnus ilicifolia Redberry SC Chaparral, montane forests, < 2,000m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Rhynchospora alba White beakrush RI Acid, sphagnous, boggy, open sites, 0–2,000 m; Coast Range, West Cascade Range; 

California, Idaho, Washington

VA Ribes divaricatum var.

pubiflorum Straggly gooseberry CF Coastal bluffs, forest edges, < 650 m; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range; California

VA Romanzoffia thompsonii Thompson’s 

mistmaiden

MG, SW, 

RK, RI

Moist rocky areas, wet cliffs, 750–6,000 ft.; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range, Willamette Valley
1479 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Rorippa columbiae Columbia cress RI,

SW

Meadows, playas, river margins; Blue Mountains, Northern Basin and Range, Columbia 

Basin, East and West Cascade Range, Willamette Valley; California, Washington

VA Rotala ramosior Lowland toothcup RI,

SW

Wet places, lake and pond margins, streams, < 1900 m; Northern Basin and Range, East 

Cascade Range, Willamette Valley; California, Washington

VA Saxifragopsis 

fragarioides Joint-leaved saxifrage RK Rock crevices, 1,500–3,000 m; Klamath Mountains; California, Washington

VA Scheuchzeria palustris 

ssp. americana Scheuchzeria RI,SW

Bogs, lake margins, Cascades, 1,400–2,000m; East Cascade Range, West Cascade 

Range; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Schoenoplectus 

subterminalis Water clubrush RI,SW

Submerged to emergent in water, 10–2,200 m; Coast Range, East Cascade Range, 

Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Scirpus pendulus Drooping bulrush RI,

SW

Marshes, wet meadows, 0–600 m; East Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains, West 

Cascade Range, Willamette Valley; California

VA Sedum moranii Rogue River stonecrop RK, SE Open, dry serpentine outcrops and cliffs, 180–830 m; Klamath Mountains

VA Sericocarpus rigidus White-topped aster MG Open grassland in lowlands of Willamette Valley-Puget Trough, 100–550 ft.; Willamette 

Valley; Washington, British Columbia

VA Sidalcea hendersonii Henderson’s sidalcea RI Tidally influenced areas; Coast Range, Marine; Washington, British Columbia

VA Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. 

petraea

Hickman’s 

checkerbloom

MG, RK, 

SC Where fresh water from lakes or streams; Klamath Mountains

VA Sidalcea malviflora ssp.

patula Coast checker bloom MZ,MG

Open coniferous forest, coastal prairie, and coastal bluff scrub. Below 2,300 ft.; Coast 

Range, Klamath Mountains; California

VA Silene hookeri ssp.

bolanderi Bolander’s catchfly SE,OHW

Serpentine, rocky slopes, northern oak woodlands to yellow pine forests, < 5,000 ft.; 

Klamath Mountains; California

VA Sisyrinchium hitchcockii Hitchcock’s blue-eyed 

grass

MG Grassy areas, openings in woods, WV and Umpqua V, 200–1,000 m; Klamath 

Mountains, Willamette Valley; California

VA Sisyrinchium 

sarmentosum

Pale blue-eyed grass MG,

SW

Wet meadows in forest openings, primarily Pacific Silver and Grand Fir zones, 490–

1,200 m; West Cascade Range; Washington

VA Solanum parishii Parish’s horse-nettle CF, OHW, 

SC

Dry chaparral, oak/pine woodland, pine forest, < 2,000 m; Klamath Valley, West 

Cascade Range; California

VA Sophora leachiana Western sophora OHW,

CF

Open, disturbed sites (often in clearcuts) w/in mixed conifer/oak, often serpentine; 

Klamath Mountains

VA Streptanthus 

glandulosus Common jewel flower

SW, CF, 

OHW, 

MG, SC

Dry, open grasslands, chaparral, open conifer/oak woodland, sometimes on serpentine, 

15–1,300 m; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Streptanthus howellii Howell’s streptanthus SE,

OHW

Rocky serpentine in open conifer/hardwood forest, 600–1,500 m; Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Streptopus 

streptopoides Kruhsea CF Dense, damp coniferous forests, 0–1,600 m; West Cascade Range; British Columbia
1480 | P a g e

Taxon 

Group* Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Group† Habitat‡

VA Sullivantia oregana Oregon sullivantia RK Moist cliffs, esp. near waterfalls, 250–1,600 ft.; West Cascade Range, Willamette 

Valley; Washington

VA Tetrapteron 

graciliflorum

Slender-flowered 

evening-primrose

MG, SC, 

OHW Open or shrubby slopes, grassland, oak; Klamath Mountains; California

VA Trillium kurabayashii Siskiyou trillium CF, RI, 

SC, OHW

Moist conifer/hardwood forest, predominantly deciduous flat woods along streams, 20–

500 m; Coast Range, Klamath Mountains; California

VA Utricularia gibba Humped bladderwort SW,

RI

Shallow water, mud, 10–2,300 m; Coast Range, West Cascade Range, Willamette 

Valley; California, Idaho, Washington

VA Utricularia minor Lesser bladderwort SW,

RI

Shallow acidic waters, 800–2,900 m; Blue Mountains, North Basin and Range, Coast 

Range, East Cascade Range, Klamath Mountains, West Cascade Range; California, 

Idaho, Nevada, Washington

VA Utricularia ochroleuca Northern bladderwort RI Shallow acidic waters, 1,300–2,400 m; West Cascade Range; California, Washington, 

British Columbia

VA Viola primulifolia ssp.

occidentalis Western bog violet SE,SW

Serpentine bogs, fens, swamps, or marshes, below 800 m; Klamath Mountains; 

California

VA Wolffia borealis Dotted water-meal RI,

SW

Freshwater wetlands, ponds, sloughs, < 1,000m; West Cascade Range, Willamette 

Valley; Washington

VA Wolffia columbiana Columbia water-meal RI,

SW

Freshwater wetlands, ponds, sloughs, < 200 m; Klamath Mountains, West Cascade 

Range, Willamette Valley; California

VA Zigadenus fontanus Small-flowered death 

camas

MG, SW, 

SE

Vernally moist or marshy areas, often on serpentine, < 500 m; Klamath Mountains; 

California 

* Taxon Groups:

BR = Bryophyte

FU = Fungi

LI = Lichen

VA = Vascular Plant

† Habitat Groups:

CF = Conifer/Mixed Evergreen Forest

MG = Meadows/Grassland

MZ = Maritime Zone

OHW = Oak/Hardwood Woodlands

RI = Riparian and Aquatic

RK = Rocky Areas Outcrops/Scree

SC = Shrub Community

SE = Serpentine Areas

SW = Seasonal Wetland Fens/Vernal Pools

‡ Habitat Descriptions from: Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program Species Fact Sheets and Conservation Planning Documents 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/planning-documents/species-guides.shtml.
1481 | P a g e

Table N-3. Survey and Manage species in the No Action alternative Taxon* December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

FU B STR S Acanthophysium farlowii Fungus

FU B SEN S Albatrellus avellaneus Fungus

FU B STR D Albatrellus caeruleoporus Fungus

FU B X D Albatrellus ellisii Fungus

FU B SEN S Alpova alexsmithii Fungus Rhizopogon alexsmithii

FU B D Alpova olivaceotinctus Fungus

FU B D Arcangeliella camphorata Fungus

FU B S Arcangeliella crassa Fungus

FU B S Arcangeliella lactarioides Fungus

FU B D Asterophora lycoperdoides Fungus

FU B S Asterophora parasitica Fungus

FU B S Baeospora myriadophylla Fungus

FU B STR D Balsamia nigrens Fungus Balsamia nigrans

FU B D Boletus haematinus Fungus

FU B D Boletus pulcherrimus Fungus

FU A SEN D Bridgeoporus nobilissimus Fungus

FU B S Catathelasma ventricosa Fungus Catathelasma 

ventricosum

FU D D Chalciporus piperatus Fungus

FU B SEN D Chamonixia caespitosa Fungus

FU B STR D Choiromyces alveolatus Fungus

FU B SEN D Choiromyces venosus Fungus

FU B S Chroogomphus loculatus Fungus

FU B S Chrysomphalina grossula Fungus

FU B X D Clavariadelphus ligula Fungus

FU B D Clavariadelphus occidentalis Fungus

FU B X D Clavariadelphus sachalinensis Fungus

FU B STR D Clavariadelphus subfastigiatus Fungus

FU B D Clavariadelphus truncatus Fungus

FU B STR S Clavulina castanopes var. lignicola Fungus

FU B D Clitocybe senilis Fungus

FU B STR S Clitocybe subditopoda Fungus

FU F S Collybia bakerensis Fungus

FU B D Collybia racemosa Fungus

FU B S Cordyceps ophioglossoides Fungus

FU B SEN S Cortinarius barlowensis Fungus

FU B S Cortinarius boulderensis Fungus

FU B STR D Cortinarius cyanites Fungus

FU B STR D Cortinarius depauperatus Fungus

FU B STR D Cortinarius magnivelatus Fungus

FU B D Cortinarius olympianus Fungus

FU B S Cortinarius speciosissimus Fungus

FU B X S Cortinarius tabularis Fungus

FU B S Cortinarius umidicola Fungus

FU B S Cortinarius valgus Fungus
1482 | P a g e Taxon* December 2003 Category† Species with Uncertain Outcomes

from 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status§Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List

#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

FUBS Cortinarius variipes Fungus

FUBD Cortinarius verrucisporus Fungus

FUBS Cortinarius wiebeae Fungus

FUBXD Cudonia monticola Fungus

FUBD Cyphellostereum laeve Fungus

FUB SEND Dermocybe humboldtensis Fungus

FUB STRS Destuntzia fusca Fungus

FUB STRS Destuntzia rubra Fungus

FUBS Dichostereum boreale Fungus

FUBS Elaphomyces anthracinus Fungus

FUB STRD Elaphomyces subviscidus Fungus

FUBS Endogone acrogena Fungus

FUB STRD Endogone oregonensis Fungus

FUBS Entoloma nitidum Fungus

FUBS Fayodia bisphaerigera Fungus

FUB STRS Fevansia aurantiaca Fungus

FUBD Galerina cerina Fungus

FUED Galerina heterocystis Fungus

FUES Galerina sphagnicola Fungus

FUB STRS Gastroboletus imbellus Fungus

FUB STRS Gastroboletus ruber Fungus

FUBD Gastroboletus subalpinus Fungus

FUBD Gastroboletus turbinatus Fungus

FUB SENS Gastroboletus vividus Fungus

FUEXN Gastrosuillus amaranthii Fungus

FUBS Gastrosuillus umbrinus Fungus

FUB STRS Gautieria magnicellaris Fungus

FUB STRS Gautieria otthii Fungus

FUBD Gelatinodiscus flavidus Fungus

FUBS Glomus radiatum Fungus

FUBD Gomphus bonarii Fungus

FUFD Gomphus clavatus Fungus

FUEXD Gomphus kauffmanii Fungus

FUBS Gymnomyces abietis Fungus

FUB STRD Gymnomyces nondistincta Fungus

FUBX SEND Gyromitra californica Fungus Pseudorhizina 

californica

FUBS Hebeloma olympianum Fungus

FUB SENS Helvella crassitunicata Fungus

FUBS Helvella elastica Fungus

FUB STRS Hydnotrya inordinata Fungus

FUBS Hydnotrya subnix Fungus

FUB STRD Hydropus marginellus Fungus

FUBD Hygrophorus caeruleus Fungus

FUBS Hygrophorus karstenii Fungus

FUBS Hygrophorus vernalis Fungus
1483 | P a g e

Taxon*December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

FU B D Hypomyces luteovirens Fungus

FU B D Leucogaster citrinus Fungus

FU B S Leucogaster microsporus Fungus

FU B STR S Macowanites chlorinosmus Fungus

FU B S Macowanites lymanensis Fungus

FU B S Macowanites mollis Fungus

FU B S Marasmius applanatipes Fungus

FU B S Martellia fragrans Fungus

FU B SEN S Martellia idahoensis Fungus Cystangium idahoensis

FU B STR S Mycena hudsoniana Fungus

FU D D Mycena overholtsii Fungus

FU B STR S Mycena quinaultensis Fungus Mycena quiniaultensis

FU B STR D Mycena tenax Fungus

FU B SEN S Mythicomyces corneipes Fungus

FU B S Neolentinus adhaerens Fungus

FU B S Neolentinus kauffmanii Fungus

FU B D

Nivatogastrium nubigenum, In entire 

range except Oregon Eastern Cascades 

and California Cascades Physiographic 

Provinces

Fungus

FU B S Octaviania cyanescens Fungus

FU B STR S Octaviania macrospora Fungus

FU B S Octavianina papyracea Fungus Zelleromyces papyracea

FU D D Otidea leporina Fungus

FU B STR D Otidea smithii Fungus

FU D D Phaeocollybia attenuata Fungus

FU B X SEN D Phaeocollybia californica Fungus

FU B X STR D Phaeocollybia dissiliens Fungus

FU D X D Phaeocollybia fallax Fungus

FU B SEN D Phaeocollybia gregaria Fungus

FU D D Phaeocollybia kauffmanii Fungus

FU F D Phaeocollybia olivacea, in Oregon Fungus

FU B SEN D Phaeocollybia oregonensis Fungus

FU B X D Phaeocollybia piceae Fungus

FU B X STR D Phaeocollybia pseudofestiva Fungus

FU B X D Phaeocollybia scatesiae Fungus

FU B X D Phaeocollybia sipei Fungus

FU B X D Phaeocollybia spadicea Fungus

FU B D Phellodon atratus Fungus

FU B STR D Pholiota albivelata Fungus Stropharia albivelata

FU B STR S Podostroma alutaceum Fungus

FU B X D Polyozellus multiplex Fungus

FU B STR S Pseudaleuria quinaultiana Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria abietina Fungus

FU B X SEN D Ramaria amyloidea Fungus

FU B X D Ramaria araiospora Fungus
1484 | P a g e Taxon* December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

FU B X D Ramaria aurantiisiccescens Fungus

FU B STR S Ramaria botrytis var. aurantiiramosa Fungus

FU B D Ramaria celerivirescens Fungus

FU B S Ramaria claviramulata Fungus

FU B X N Ramaria concolor f. marrii Fungus

FU B S Ramaria concolor f. tsugina Fungus

FU B STR D

Ramaria conjunctipes var. 

sparsiramosa Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria coulterae Fungus

FU B X D Ramaria cyaneigranosa Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria gelatiniaurantia Fungus

FU B STR S Ramaria gracilis Fungus

FU B D Ramaria hilaris var. olympiana Fungus

FU B X STR D Ramaria largentii Fungus

FU B S Ramaria lorithamnus Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria maculatipes Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria rainierensis Fungus

FU B SEN D Ramaria rubella var. blanda Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria rubribrunnescens Fungus

FU B X D Ramaria rubrievanescens Fungus

FU D D Ramaria rubripermanens, in Oregon Fungus

FU B S Ramaria spinulosa var. diminutiva Fungus

FU B X D Ramaria stuntzii Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria suecica Fungus

FU B STR D Ramaria thiersii Fungus

FU B S Ramaria verlotensis Fungus

FU B STR D Rhizopogon abietis Fungus

FU B STR S Rhizopogon atroviolaceus Fungus

FU B STR S Rhizopogon brunneiniger Fungus

FU B SEN S Rhizopogon chamaleontinus Fungus

FU B SEN D Rhizopogon ellipsosporus Fungus

FU B D Rhizopogon evadens var. subalpinus Fungus

FU B SEN D Rhizopogon exiguus Fungus

FU B STR D Rhizopogon flavofibrillosus Fungus

FU B SEN S Rhizopogon inquinatus Fungus

FU D D Rhizopogon truncatus Fungus

FU B S Rhodocybe speciosa Fungus

FU B STR D Rickenella swartzii Fungus

FU B S Russula mustelina Fungus

FU B X STR D Sarcodon fuscoindicus Fungus

FU B S Sedecula pulvinata Fungus

FU B X D Sowerbyella rhenana Fungus

FU D X D Sparassis crispa Fungus

FU B D Spathularia flavida Fungus

FU B SEN S Stagnicola perplexa Fungus

FU B S Thaxterogaster pavelekii Fungus
1485 | P a g e

Taxon*December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

FU D D Tremiscus helvelloides Fungus

FU B S Tricholoma venenatum Fungus

FU B STR S Tricholomopsis fulvescens Fungus

FU B STR D Tuber asa Fungus

FU B STR S Tuber pacificum Fungus

LI D D Tylopilus porphyrosporus Fungus

LI A D Bryoria pseudocapillaris Lichen

LI A S Bryoria spiralifera Lichen

LI B SEN D Bryoria subcana Lichen

LI E STR S Buellia oidalea Lichen

LI B X D Calicium abietinum Lichen

LI E X STR S Calicium adspersum Lichen

LI E D Cetrelia cetrarioides Lichen

LI B D Chaenotheca chrysocephala Lichen

LI B D Chaenotheca ferruginea Lichen

LI E D Chaenotheca subroscida Lichen

LI E D Chaenothecopsis pusilla Lichen

LI F X D

Collema nigrescens, In Washington 

and Oregon, except in Oregon Klamath 

Physiographic Province

Lichen

LI A D

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum, In 

Oregon outside of Coos, Curry, 

Douglas, Josephine, & Jackson 

Counties; Washington

Lichen

LI E D Dermatocarpon luridum Lichen Dermatocarpon 

meiophyllizum

LI E D Fuscopannaria saubinetii Lichen

LI E X STR S Heterodermia sitchensis Lichen

LI C D Hypogymnia duplicata Lichen

LI E X S Hypogymnia vittata Lichen

LI E D Hypotrachyna revoluta Lichen

LI E X STR S Leptogium burnetiae var. hirsutum Lichen Leptogium burnetiae

LI A SEN S Leptogium cyanescens Lichen

LI E D Leptogium rivale Lichen

LI E D Leptogium teretiusculum Lichen

LI A SEN D

Lobaria linita var. tenuoir, In 

Washington Western Cascades (south 

of Snoqualmie Pass), Western 

Lowlands, and Eastern Cascades 

Physiographic Provinces; Oregon

Lichen

LI B X SEN D Microcalicium arenarium Lichen
1486 | P a g e Taxon* December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

LI E D

Nephroma bellum, In Oregon Klamath, 

Willamette Valley, and Eastern 

Cascades Physiographic Provinces; 

Washington Western Cascades 

(outside Gifford Pinchot NF), Eastern 

Cascades, and Olympic Peninsula 

Physiographic Provinces

Lichen

LI E X S Nephroma isidiosum Lichen

LI C X D Nephroma occultum Lichen

LI A SEN D Niebla cephalota Lichen

LI E SEN D Pannaria rubiginosa Lichen

LI E D Peltigera pacifica Lichen

LI E D

Platismatia lacunosa, all except 

Oregon Coast Range Physiographic 

Province

Lichen

LI A D Pseudocyphellaria perpetua Lichen

LI A X D Pseudocyphellaria rainierensis Lichen

LI E X D Stenocybe clavata Lichen

LI A SEN D Teloschistes flavicans Lichen

LI B X SEN S

Tholurna dissimilis, south of the 

Columbia River Lichen

LI E D Usnea hesperina Lichen

LI A D

Usnea longissima, In Curry, Josephine, 

and Jackson Counties, Oregon; In

California

Lichen

BR F D

Usnea longissima, In Oregon, except 

in Curry, Josephine, and Jackson 

Counties; In Washington

Lichen

BR E X D Brotherella roellii Moss

BR B D Diplophyllum plicatum Liverwort

BR E X SEN S Herbertus aduncus Liverwort

BR B STR S Iwatsukiella leucotricha Moss

BR B X SEN D Kurzia makinoana Liverwort

BR B X SEN S Marsupella emarginata var. aquatica Liverwort

BR B S Orthodontium gracile Moss

BR E D Racomitrium aquaticum Moss Codriophorus ryszardii

BR B S Rhizomnium nudum, In Oregon Moss

BR A D Schistostega pennata Moss

BR A SEN S Tetraphis geniculata Moss

BR B X D Tritomaria exsectiformis Liverwort

VA B X D Tritomaria quinquedentata Liverwort

VA A D

Botrychium minganense, In Oregon 

and California Gray moonwort

VA A SEN S Botrychium montanum Mountain grapefern

VA A S Coptis asplenifolia Spleenwortleaved goldthread Coptis aspleniifolia
1487 | P a g e

Taxon*December 2003 Category

†

Species with Uncertain Outcomesfrom 2004 FEIS to Remove S&M‡Alt. 22015 ISSSSP Status

§

Occurrence Within Decision Areaǀǀ

Name

and

Geographic Area

on

December 2003 List#

Common Name 

(common names 

provided for 

vascular plants 

only)

Current Name

(if different from

name on 2003 list)

VA A SEN S Coptis trifolia Three-leaf 

goldthread

VA A SEN D Corydalis aquae-gelidae Cold-water 

corydalis

VA C SEN D

Cypripedium fasciculatum, In 

Washington outside Eastern Cascades 

Physiographic Province; Oregon; 

California

Clustered lady’s 

slipper

VA C D

Cypripedium montanum, Entire range 

except Washington Eastern Cascades 

Physiographic Province

Mountain lady’s 

slipper

VA A SEN D Eucephalus vialis Wayside aster

VA A S

Galium kamtschaticum, In Washington 

Western Cascades (south of 

Snoqualmie Pass), Olympic Peninsula, 

and Eastern Cascades Physiographic 

Provinces; Oregon Western Cascades 

Physiographic Provinces

Boreal bedstraw

VA C S Platanthera orbiculata var. orbiculata Large roundleaf 

orchid

* Taxon: FU = Fungus; LI = Lichen; BR = Bryophyte; VA = Vascular Plant

† Survey and Manage Categories:

Category A = Manage all known sites; pre-disturbance surveys practical, strategic surveys

Category B = Manage all known sites; pre-disturbance surveys not practical and not applicable; strategic surveys

Category C = Manage high-priority sites; pre-disturbance surveys practical; strategic surveys

Category D = Manage high-priority sites; pre-disturbance surveys not practical or not necessary; strategic surveys

Category E = Manage all known sites; pre-disturbance survey not applicable; strategic surveys

Category F = known site management and pre-disturbance surveys not applicable; strategic surveys

‡ Species found to have uncertain outcomes in the Final Supplement to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guideline, June 2007. See Table 3&4-17 

Species Outcomes.

§ Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Program Lists: SEN = Sensitive; STR = Strategic

ǀǀ Occurrence: D = Documented to occur on BLM land; S = Suspected to occur on BLM land; N = No habitat available on BLM 

land

# Species name as shown on the 2003 Survey and Manage species list
1488 | P a g e

Page intentionally left blank